2017-05-09 45 1 3 Senate 0 1

Tuesday, 9 May 2017

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 12:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 12:31 The PRESIDENT e5v Does any senator wish to have the question put? There being none, we shall proceed. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 1 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION South Australia 1 Senators Sworn 1 12:39 Senator GICHUHI 270552 South Australia Mr President, I seek leave to make a statement relating to my party affiliations. Leave granted. Senator GICHUHI 270552 Mr President, I advise the Senate that I am taking my place in the chamber as an Independent senator. BILLS 2 BILLS Biosecurity Amendment (Ballast Water and Other Measures) Bill 2017 2

Biosecurity Amendment (Ballast Water and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Second Reading 2 12:40 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania Labor supports the Biosecurity Amendment (Ballast Water and Other Measures) Bill 2017 to ensure that Australia is fully legislatively compliant with the ballast water convention when it comes into force internationally on 8 September 2017. Each year, around 200 million tonnes of ships' ballast water is discharged in Australian ports from 13,000 ship visits from some 600 overseas ports. Australia is particularly vulnerable to biosecurity incursions, as many cargo ships arrive here without cargo, meaning that they require large quantities of ballast water to stabilise the vessel. Labor understands the importance of our biosecurity systems and that a strong biosecurity regime will contribute to our economy. Australia's reputation as a clean, green and safe producer of food is due to our strong biosecurity systems. In 2008, Labor commissioned an independent review of Australia's quarantine and biosecurity arrangements. One biosecurity: a working partnership, the report of what was also known as the Beale review, found that Australia's biosecurity system operated well but could be improved. The Beale review proposed significant reforms to strengthen the system by revising legislation; targeting resources to the areas of greatest return from a risk management perspective; sharing responsibility between government, businesses and the community; and improving transparency, timeliness and operations across the continuum. It also recommended that the Commonwealth should extend its legislative reach to cover the field with respect to international and domestic ballast water regulation. In 2012, Labor introduced a new biosecurity bill to replace the century-old Quarantine Act to ensure that Australia was able to deal with new biosecurity threats. It included legislative changes with respect to the management of international and domestic ballast water. Sadly, the bill lapsed at the dissolution of the 43rd Parliament. When the current government re-introduced the Biosecurity Bill in the 44th Parliament, it excluded the requirement to ensure that Australia was fully legislatively compliant with the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, or the ballast water convention. The government's reasoning was that, until the ballast water convention comes into force on 8 September 2017, a more flexible transitional scheme should be in place to allow vessels to meet the requirements of the proposed biosecurity legislation through ballast water exchange without making it mandatory for all vessels to have a ballast water treatment system. This gave businesses the flexibility to choose their most cost-effective option to meet the requirements. However, the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources stated in his speech on this bill that, in addition to the risks posed by recent outbreaks of zika virus, there is also the potential that 'invasive and harmful aquatic organisms, such as white spot in prawns, can be transported in ballast water'. On the basis of the agriculture minister's reasoning, the current government's decision that it was better to give businesses more flexibility to choose their own most cost-effective option in meeting requirements of the ballast water convention may have caused the prawn industry irreparable damage. The Department of Agriculture is investigating the current outbreak of white spot disease in prawns that has destroyed the prawn industry in the Logan River area, and the Senate inquiry will further investigate the biosecurity failings. The government has also come to the opposition with some eleventh-hour amendments to the bill. The minister's office has provided clarification regarding this amendment, and Labor accepts that it is a small drafting error that removes any doubt about the intent of a provision that exempts Australian and foreign vessels from committing an offence of discharge of ballast water in Australian waters if certain conditions are fulfilled, mainly that the discharge is part of an acceptable ballast water exchange and there is an approved discharge to the ballast water reception facility. Schedule 2 of the bill relates to additional vector management powers that are needed under the Biosecurity Act to ensure Australia is not left vulnerable to significant human health risks. The need for these powers is demonstrated by raising global detections of mosquito-borne zika virus. The bill seeks to reduce the likelihood of incursions of vectors that could pose a human health concern and provides powers to manage potential incursions when they are detected. The Department of Health has worked with state and territory counterparts and communicable disease experts to ensure the amendments address contemporary public health concerns posed by exotic mosquitoes. These amendments will be supported by nationally consistent arrangements to support collaboration across different levels of government. When ballast water is taken up, as I have mentioned, the marine organisms can be picked up with it and then released when the ballast is discharged, and, because of this, ballast water is recognised as a major source of the spread of marine pests around the world, including pests such as bacteria, small invertebrates, eggs, cysts and larvae of various species. It has been estimated that 10,000 different species are moved around the world in ballast water tanks each day. Introduced marine pests can cause serious environmental and economic damage—for example, an invasion in Australia of the Northern Pacific seastar was introduced to my home state of Tasmania through ballast water from Japan in the 1980s and to Victoria through ballast water in the 1990s. It has reduced shellfish production in Tasmania and has damaged marine ecosystems in both locations. I want to take a few moments of the Senate's time to read an article from Dr Louise Goggin. Dr Goggin began her career as a marine biologist, and I quote from an article that she has written about the seastar: From my window in Hobart, I look out over the Derwent River. It's a fantastic view across the slate-grey sea. But below the tranquil surface of the Derwent, there is a battle raging between the locals and some aggressive new arrivals - northern Pacific seastars. The first of these seastars probably arrived as stowaways on ships from Japan about 20 years ago. They thrived in the cool Tasmanian waters and bred so furiously that there are now almost 30 million of them in the estuary. The seastars could not have made the trip unaided because currents do not carry them this way. They were brought here in ships. The young seastars, swimming near the surface, were probably sucked up with tonnes of water, used as ballast to stabilise empty vessels. A single vessel can take 70,000 tonnes of ballast water - enough to fill 32 Olympic swimming pools and carry millions of young seastars. The seastars would not have been alone - each day, around 3000 marine organisms are transported around the globe in the ballast water of ocean-going vessels. These invaders, along with the ballast water, are dumped at their destination to make way for precious cargo. In 1993, 121 million tonnes of ballast water were dumped into Australian ports - equal to one quarter the volume of water in Sydney Harbour. That's a lot of stowaways. Many of them will not survive the voyage, but those that do can settle in their new homes and, if conditions are right (as they were for the northern Pacific seastars), form plagues. The northern Pacific seastars flourished because they left behind their natural predators, parasites and competitors. And they aren't fussy eaters. The Labor Party will be supporting this bill that we have before us today, and we do so to ensure that Australia is fully compliant with the ballast water convention, which, as I have said, comes into force on 8 September this year. We also do so because the Labor Party supports strengthening ballast water management. The definition of ballast water management is that it provides that ballast water management has the same meaning as it does in the ballast water convention, which currently provides: … mechanical, physical, chemical, and biological processes, either singularly or in combination, to remove, render harmless, or avoid the uptake or discharge of Harmful Aquatic Organisms and Pathogens within Ballast Water and Sediments. As I have said, each year around 200 million tonnes of ballast water is discharged into Australian ports by over 13,000 ship visits from over 600 overseas ports. Australia is particularly vulnerable to biosecurity incursions, and I have outlined some of those. The story about the sea star and what has happened in Tasmania is of particular concern, and also, of course, there is what happened in Victoria. Labor support this bill because we understand the importance of our biosecurity system and that strong biosecurity will contribute to our economy. Australia's reputation as a clean, green and safe producer of food is because of our strong biosecurity systems. However, we always have to be vigilant, and Labor will always support legislation that provides for a strong biosecurity system. I mentioned the Beale report, which was commissioned by a former Labor government. The Beale report recommended that the Commonwealth should extend its legislative reach to cover the field with respect to international and domestic ballast water regulation. We are very pleased to be able to support this bill. We ask that the Senate consider the bill and support it, as the Labor Party is doing here today. 12:53 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Food quality in particular and our biosecurity in general are extremely important to the people of Australia and the people of Queensland. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to make some comments in support of the Biosecurity Amendment (Ballast Water and Other Measures) Bill 2017, but also to raise a significant issue that we have learnt about. Our rural sector is under pressure, so we need this biosecurity bill to provide some security for the rural sector in particular and for Australians in general. Our serious concerns refer to item 6, to change section 9 of the Biosecurity Act, which changes the definition of 'ballast water convention'. The proposed amendment adds the words 'as enforced from time to time' to the convention definition. I must say that alarm bells rang for us in One Nation when we read that amendment as we have a fundamental distrust for United Nations conventions and agencies. The idea of supporting a bill that prospectively binds Australia to future amendments to a United Nations convention is enough to give us serious doubts. Honourable senators will not be surprised to learn that we immediately sought advice from Minister Joyce's office about the provision. The advice we received is that section 9 means what it says, namely that if the ballast water convention is amended in the future then that amended convention is the one to which the Biosecurity Act will refer. Of course, any amendment to the convention must, however, be ratified by Australia before it becomes binding on our country, and this is the reassurance I have received from Minister Joyce's office. No changes will be made to the convention without the proposals being agreed to by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, following a detailed inquiry and analysis of the implications of the changes. I am further advised by the minister's office that no changes to the ballast water convention will be made without Australia's approval, and those changes will then be incorporated into Australian law by legislation passed by this parliament. The legislation currently before the Senate, and which One Nation senators are intending to support, cannot be altered by the United Nations without the approval of the Australian parliament. Our senators will not tolerate giving the United Nations a blank cheque on any matter, especially one as important as seawater ballast, nor will it cede sovereignty of our country to the United Nations. On this basis alone, One Nation senators will support section 9 of the bill. As I said, we had serious concerns about the automatic amendment provision in item 6, section 9, but we have been reassured by the minister that it will still need to be passed through and ratified by this parliament independently. We are particularly concerned about the United Nations. I have said in the past, on repeated occasions, that we need to exit from the United Nations. We are concerned because the United Nations has become a trojan horse for destroying national sovereignty around the world. One Nation senators were in unity when we toured the Murray-Darling Basin last week. We learned a lot and we saw the impact of United Nations regulations being pushed through the Murray-Darling Basin, driving the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, along with the grubby interstate politics that is pushing that plan. We will be having much more to say about the Murray-Darling Basin in coming weeks, once we complete our research. We know that farmers in particular are under threat from having their property rights seized and removed. We know that they are under pressure from overregulation and energy prices, as is small business in our country. We also know that farmers are facing pressure from banks. Yet we have apparently signed more than 7,000 treaties! And we know that the United Nations' Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, or the 'Agenda 21' as it is known, which was signed by Paul Keating's government in 1992, is undermining the sovereignty of this country. We support the government in its bill to improve biosecurity. This is needed to protect the key competitive advantage we have in the rural sector—the quality of our rural products. But we make it clear that we do not accept any ceding of our country's sovereignty to any foreign body. It would be ironic indeed, would it not, if we protected the biosecurity and then failed to protect the security of the people of Australia. So, with our qualification on item 6, section 9, we will be supporting this bill. 12:59 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The Biosecurity Amendment (Ballast Water and Other Measures) Bill 2017 amends the Biosecurity Act 2015 to further strengthen Australia's biosecurity system and grant further powers to manage biosecurity risk. This bill is consistent with the Australian government's commitment to ensure biosecurity risks are fully managed and biosecurity systems remain effective to changing biosecurity and human health risks. Protecting our enviable pest and disease status is an ongoing challenge. Biosecurity risks are changing significantly and growing in complexity. In 2014, the CSIRO identified megatrends expected to impact biosecurity in the future, such as growth in global food demand and markets, and increased movement of goods, vessels and people around the world. The government is responding to this challenge. Agricultural industries are a large contributor to the Australian economy and it is essential to protect them and our export markets by keeping them free of pests and diseases. We cannot afford not to. Commonwealth funding for biosecurity has increased since 2012-13. The total expenditure this financial year for biosecurity is $749 million. This is an increase of $145.5 million, or 24 per cent, since 2012-13. The total investment in biosecurity to date, since 2013-14, is $2.72 billion. This includes funding of up to $200 million under the ag white paper, specifically for the purpose of improving biosecurity. This investment is being used to strengthen biosecurity surveillance, increase scientific capability, improve information systems and analytical capacity, and build community-based engagement. The bill also builds on the Biosecurity Act 2015, which this government delivered. It focuses on measures in relation to ballast water management for ships and provides additional powers to control exotic vectors carrying harmful human diseases. The ballast water measures will provide additional protection for coastal environments from the risk of marine pest incursion by legislating for the use of more-effective ballast water treatment technologies. These additional powers are needed under the Biosecurity Act to ensure that Australia is not left vulnerable to significant human health risks. The bill seeks to reduce the likelihood of incursions of vectors that could pose human health concerns and provides powers to manage potential incursions when they are detected. The need for these powers is clearly demonstrated by the rising global detections of the mosquito-borne zika virus. The bill will also position Australia to ratify the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments by introducing a nationally consistent approach to ballast water, in line with the requirements of the convention. We do not lose any powers of control by the ratification. In fact, we gain international consistency in the management of ballast water. The convention was first signed by the Howard government, in 2005. It is an important global initiative involving over 50 countries, representing over 53 per cent of the world's merchant fleet shipping tonnage. Australia was a driving force and played a leading role in the development of the convention, and it is important that we ratify it ahead of its entry into force on 8 September this year to uphold our positive international reputation for biosecurity management. It is worth noting that the convention also makes special provision for the Great Barrier Reef. Ballast water is now recognised as a major source of the spread of exotic marine pests around the world. Each year, around 200 million tonnes of ships' ballast water is discharged into Australian ports by 18,000 ships visiting from some 600 overseas ports. Australia is particularly vulnerable as many cargo ships arrive here without cargo and, therefore, with a large quantity of ballast water which needs to be discharged when filling ships with our exports to the global marketplace. If the organisms that arrive are surviving the transport and discharge process, they may become established in the environment and populations may flourish. The Northern Pacific sea star, for example, is a major pest introduced into Australia by ballast water. While Australia has had, since 2001, ballast water management requirements to prevent new marine pests arriving in Australia, domestic movements are not subject to ballast water regulation, excepting for vessels arriving in Victoria from other domestic ports around Australia. This bill will enable a comprehensive set of domestic ballast water management arrangements to be put in place to lower the risk of marine pests being spread through ballast water between parts of our pristine coastline. Ships will be required to have ballast water management plans while in Australian waters and to discharge ballast water in accordance with the convention. This will reduce the risk of invasive marine pests entering Australian waters, as well as between Australian ports. Additionally, it will protect Australia's vulnerable fisheries industries and environment by reducing the risk of potential invasion and of harmful aquatic organisms being introduced into Australia's marine ecosystem. The bill will further strengthen our strong biosecurity system. With expanding international and maritime trade it is in Australia's interest to implement more-uniform and stringent requirements to manage the risk of vessels introducing marine pests into Australian waters. It is also in Australia's interest to continue to reduce the likelihood of incursions of vectors, such as mosquitoes, that could pose human health concerns, and to provide powers to manage potential incursions when they are detected. These amendments mean there is much less risk of viruses, including viruses such as zika, carried by vectors such as mosquitoes being established. They also mean our unique marine life will be better protected. Finally, can I reinforce—and reaffirm to Senator Roberts—that the rules around making any changes to the convention will be subject to the usual treaty-making procedures and parliamentary scrutiny. Can I thank the opposition and the crossbench for their support of this bill and commend the bill to the house. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 5 13:05 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 195565 As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 13:05 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016 5

Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016

Second Reading 5 13:06 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Previously I had almost finished my speech indicating that we would not be supporting the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016. However, in subsequent discussions between our party leader, Senator Hanson, and the minister, we have learned more details and have been reassured in relation to some of our concerns, so we will now be supporting this bill. I still stand by the comments that I made last time that this is, in effect, window-dressing. It has been successful in some part. But we need to get to the basics of employment, which is comprehensively fixing the taxation system, reducing overregulation, removing overregulation and reducing energy prices. These are crippling employment in this country, especially in regional Australia, and indeed along the coastal fringes of Australia, right up and down our coast. So we must get back to basics. However, we will support this bill and look forward to the government going much, much further on employment, especially in regional and coastal areas of Queensland, by getting back to basics—taxation, energy prices and overregulation. 13:07 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania What a surprise to come back on the first day of parliament to see that One Nation have sold out again and are backing a piece of government legislation! But I rise to speak in opposition to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016. I want to say at the outset that I believe that this legislation to establish the Youth Jobs PaTH program is poorly constructed and will put young Australian jobseekers at risk of exploitation. Youth unemployment is a huge problem. In my home state of Tasmania we have amongst the highest rates of youth unemployment in the country. In some parts of Tasmania the unemployment rate amongst 15- to 24-year-olds is as high as 27 per cent. Twenty-seven per cent of our young people are unemployed. We have a youth unemployment crisis, and we should be striving to do anything that we can to give young people opportunities to find work. Unfortunately, the government's PaTH program that we are debating here today will only serve to fail our young people. The government's PaTH program will put young jobseekers at risk and is fundamentally flawed in its approach to addressing youth unemployment. Our nation is desperate for solutions to unemployment. I talk all the time to young Tasmanians who are worried about their future. This bill does nothing to alleviate their concerns. It does absolutely nothing to create any sustainable solutions to the huge problem we have with unemployment amongst young Australians. What we have before us is a really poor attempt at resolving the issue of youth unemployment. It will not create additional jobs for young Australians and it does not provide a path to good, well-paying, secure jobs. We need programs that genuinely help our young people to find work. We should be investing in early childhood education, university, TAFE and genuine experiences that come from traineeships and apprenticeships. But this legislation that is before us does not provide sufficient safeguards for young people, who are amongst the most vulnerable workers in today's labour market. This is lazy policy from the government. We need a solution that goes beyond the Liberals' mantra of 'jobs and growth'. I will briefly outline the intention of this bill. This bill is designed in part to support the introduction of the Turnbull government's Prepare-Trial-Hire Program, otherwise known as PaTH. Jobseekers in this program will be placed in an internship for between four and six weeks, where they will work between 15 and 25 hours a week and will receive payments of $200 per fortnight on top of their current income support payment. If you do the maths, this means that an intern who works 25 hours per week but receives only their Newstart payment plus an extra payment of $200 will earn just $14.50 an hour. That is $3.20 less than the minimum wage. This means that young people participating in this program will be paid less than the minimum wage. In addition to this, businesses will be paid $1,000 to take on an intern and then receive a wage subsidy of between $6,500 and $10,000 if they hire them at the conclusion of their internship. But there is nothing in the legislation to stop employers from using this program's free labour instead of their existing workforce, and there is nothing in this legislation to stop employers from churning through interns to receive the $1,000 government payment. The bill will also amend the Social Security Act to allow young people to suspend their payments if they are employed. They can then restart them without reapplying if they lose their job through no fault of their own within 26 weeks. The government claims that the measures in this bill are non-controversial, but the reality is that this legislation has been rushed and would exploit young jobseekers and undermine workforce standards. This bill is simply a way of exploiting young Australians. We on this side have serious concerns about whether this program represents a fair deal for Australia's young unemployed. We are concerned that this will be simply another failed coalition policy, like the Work for the Dole program, where they push young unemployed people into programs that do nothing to assist them in real, meaningful employment. The sad truth is that Australia's youth are counting the cost of the Turnbull government's failure to develop a real jobs plan for the nation. Instead of fighting for what matters to young Australians, like fair pay, jobs and education, they have spent the majority of their term fighting themselves. Their bickering and infighting is a constant reminder of their inability to provide stable, united leadership for the people of Australia. They are so busy fighting themselves that they have achieved absolutely nothing. They are hopelessly failing our youth and they have achieved nothing—nothing to allay the fears of long-term unemployment for our young Australians. This government promised to fix the budget and to create jobs and growth, but it has done nothing and left young Australians high and dry. We know now that the Prime Minister is bereft of ideas when it comes to jobs or the economy, and the words 'jobs and growth' have no meaning for those on the opposite side. Here we are on budget day, and the Turnbull government's big and only pitch remains a $50 billion tax cut for the big end of town, for big business. The Turnbull government's shonky record on youth unemployment gives us every reason to fear the exploitation of our young people through this legislation. Despite promising jobs and growth, the coalition has failed to deliver. Unemployment currently sits at 5.9 per cent, which is the highest it has been for more than 12 months. The rate of unemployment in Australia today is higher than in the United States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. The Liberals have also failed on their promise to tackle youth unemployment. Youth unemployment has climbed to 13.3 per cent. We have more than 300,000 unemployed young people between the ages of 15 and 24—including 4,500 young Tasmanians—as of March. As I said before, the unemployment rate amongst our young people in Tasmania is just too high. Youth unemployment remains stubbornly high, particularly in rural and remote parts of Australia, like my home state of Tasmania, where, as I said, we have over 4,500 young people who are unemployed. These high rates of youth unemployment put the future of our young people and our economy at risk. But, instead of tackling the real issue of youth unemployment, the government has come up with a hastily cobbled together scheme that offers no solutions to the problem. This government is so out of touch that it wants to put vulnerable young Australians in a situation where they could be, and many of them most likely will be, exploited. We should be creating pathways to good, well-paid and secure jobs for young jobseekers by investing in early childhood education, as I said before; in university; and in TAFE. These are all things this government has attacked since we were last here in this place. The Liberal government just does not get it. They just do not get it. They are so out of touch and so far removed from everyday Australians. A good example of this was the Liberal state government's decision to axe pathway planners from Tasmanian state schools in 2014. There are already so few resources in our schools, and then they decide to take away pathway planners, who help our kids map out their futures. This is further evidence that the Liberals just do not get the issue. They are out of touch and they have no real policy direction. I tell you that our children deserve better from the Liberal government than unrelenting cuts to education. We need programs that genuinely help our young people find work. You would think that the government would have tried to get this legislation right. But we know that, while they talk the talk about jobs, their record on creating jobs is dismal. If this legislation were passed in its present form, it would see a flawed program come into effect. Labor want to do everything that we can to improve the job skills of young people, but this program falls short and does not deliver. Labor have also said on many occasions that we would be happy to work with the government on a whole raft of issues, none more important than creating opportunities and a bright future for young Australians. Labor also has a number of other concerns about this legislation. There is very little detail available about how the PaTH program will actually operate in practice. The government have given no specifics about how young jobseekers will acquire the skills they need for the jobs of the future. They have not been able to explain what jobseekers will do while doing the internship phase of the program. They cannot even tell us what their definition of an 'intern' is. There is also no detail on how this program will lead, or could lead, to full-time work. Now, they are pretty important fundamentals; they really are. This lacklustre bill also raises some serious concerns about inadequate protection against exploitation. I have a couple of questions. What safeguards are in place to ensure that the PaTH program is not used to replace existing jobs with cheaper labour? What safeguards are in place to prevent young Australians from being forced into working for below the minimum wage? What safeguards are in place to make sure that employers are not making interns work outside standard hours without paying penalty rates? We already know what those on the other side think of penalty rates: they are not supportive of anyone receiving penalty rates. What protection is in place to prevent interns from being unfairly dismissed? We do not know the answers to these questions because the government has not given us any reassurances or any idea about how this program will actually be implemented. The government have the power to fix the issues I have raised, but they have refused to do so. They have obviously come to the table with One Nation and got their support, but they have not addressed these fundamentally critically important issues that I have asked questions about. They have neglected to fix these issues because they are a government that are constantly trying to undercut rights and conditions for workers—it is in their DNA—through their attacks on penalty rates, their anti-union ABCC agenda and their unfair Public Service bargaining framework. It is in their DNA. It is what they believe in. We on this side believe in protecting workers. We certainly believe in ensuring that young Australians have the best opportunities to have ongoing full employment and good prospects for the future. But the government are hell-bent on undermining a fair go. They have gone after the penalty rates of over 40,000 Tasmanians, many of whom are students. They have cut from TAFEs, apprenticeships, early education, schools and higher education. Now they want to put in place this poor substitute for proper training. Like with most things, this government just does not get it. This place has proven time and again that it does not support this policy, and yet the government still will not drop it. Maybe they feel like they have a chance now with One Nation, which is always siding with the government. In conclusion, in its current form this bill is very poorly constructed. There are so many holes in the program that we really cannot take seriously that this government will know how to fix the problems. We have already highlighted many of them. There were the questions I asked this morning. They have not been answered. We have tried negotiating with the government to fix these flaws, as I said earlier. We have tried on numerous occasions. But they will not listen. It is clear we have a youth unemployment crisis in Australia. Our young jobseekers need real support and real solutions. Job opportunities for young people should not be created through a system that exposes young workers to exploitation, unfair conditions and unfair wages. We would be failing young jobseekers if we were to wave this legislation through the Senate without demanding a better deal for them. Our young people deserve real support to find and keep a good job, not exploitative programs that lead them on a path to nowhere. The government's PaTH plan is a bandaid designed to cover up their poor record in generating jobs and fixing unemployment. This is the government's latest attempt to undermine workers' potential. Our young people deserve better, and Labor remains opposed to this bill as it stands. 13:23 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia For the benefit of subsequent speakers, I will be quite brief, so they may want to prepare themselves in the chamber. To be blunt, I remain unconvinced about the merits of this bill, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016. Minister Cash has been doing her utmost to persuade me of its merits, and I am undecided as to whether to support it or not. My initial reaction when this program was announced was that it would be open to rorting and scams, just as we have seen well-intentioned measures put forward by successive governments being gamed. I need only look at the VET FEE-HELP scheme that was implemented and resulted in the enrichment of a bunch of shonks. I look at the childcare packages that have been passed in recent years and the phantom childcare centres which have enriched individuals. I have spoken about that before. These are very genuine concerns. It does not dissipate or diminish the good intentions of the government; it is just that successive governments have demonstrated they are not very good at managing programs to ensure that they are not ripped off. It is a laudable aim though, of course, to want to get unemployed people, particularly young unemployed people, on the path to a constructive career and get them job ready. Part of that lies in the education system, which has failed young people. Our standards in education, our rankings internationally, are going down. It seems that, the more money we tip in, the less impact we actually have. If you are serious about getting young people into jobs and off welfare, perhaps it might start with actually drug testing some of them. We have vacancies in regional South Australia where 30 or 40 young people will apparently apply for the job and then, when they are told that a drug test will need to be passed, that number diminishes to somewhere around eight. Then, when the drug test is actually implemented, only about two of the 40 get through. That is an outrageous circumstance, and the fact that people think it is okay to use illicit substances and collect welfare money is quite extraordinary. So I remain unconvinced because I do think this program is open to misuse. I would welcome in your summing up speech, Minister Cash, any further information you can provide for me. I understand that the program has already commenced and that this substantive part of the bill is about allowing those who lose their job placement through no fault of their own to recommence where they left off—so, if they have been unemployed for two years, they still have Work for the Dole obligations and things. It is laudable and worthy, no question, but I come back to: why does the government have to pick up the tab for all of this stuff? If a business receive a $1,000 sign-on bonus for taking a young trainee and then after a period of time decide they cannot work with them, or for whatever reason the trainee does not do the right thing, what happens to the money? Why can't the business pay for the trainee's re-entry to the welfare system? These are general questions, Minister, that I would welcome an answer to. I do compliment you, notwithstanding your frustration with me, for the persuasive case you make, but you will understand, given the potential for abuse in so many government programs and the demonstrated ability of people to rort them, that I remain to be convinced that this program is somehow going to be different. They are the four most dangerous words in investing and in politics: 'This time is different.' I look forward to your final attempt to convince me that it really will be. 13:28 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales The bill before us, the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016, underpins a new government policy. It is a policy of encouraging businesses to employ young people at the minimum wage of $17.70 an hour by giving businesses a subsidy so that their overall outlay is only $7.60 an hour. I support the intention of the bill but I oppose the policy. I recognise the concern for youth jobs but I am not persuaded that this is an appropriate response. It is wrong in principle and a waste of taxpayers' money. Businesses should simply be allowed to offer jobs to people at $7.60 an hour. After all, the dole delivers $7 an hour for doing nothing. The government's policy, and this bill, is a response to the fact that no job exists at $17.70 an hour, but a job does exist at $7.60 an hour. It is a clear admission that the minimum wage destroys jobs. The logical solution is to abolish it, not subsidise it. Abolish the minimum wage and you create jobs and growth. Abolish the minimum wage and you save thousands of Australians from soul-destroying unemployment. Abolish the minimum wage and you save each taxpayer hundreds of dollars a year. I oppose this bill and the logic it represents. 13:29 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to speak very briefly in relation to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016. The Greens have circulated a second reading amendment in my name and I foreshadow that I will be asking for that amendment to be put before the second reading vote. The Australian Greens are concerned about the very real implications of this piece of legislation for the welfare of young people caught up in such a scheme and of course on jobs in the industries where these interns will be engaged. Firstly, we are concerned that this is effectively engaging young people as interns in jobs where they do not have proper safeguards on conditions and where they are going to be at high risk of exploitation. Some have gone so far as to say that this is asking people to enter into slave type environments and working conditions. There are no effective safeguards to make sure that young people are protected under this scheme. We all know that youth unemployment is an increasing issue right across this country, and nowhere is it more dire than in my home state of South Australia, where youth unemployment is rising every quarter. Rather than dealing with the creation of jobs for young people, rather than trying to get more young people into apprenticeships or helping them into effective and real training programs, what we see is this pathetic attempt by the government to say that they have done something on this issue while delivering nothing at all. What it is really going to do is create a situation where young people will be exploited. They are not necessarily going to be trained. There are no credentials around the types of skills that they will get out of these internships, and there is no guarantee that employers will not just use the churn of these interns to displace other legitimate workers. The fact is, if there is a job that needs to be done, get a young person through the door and give them a job. Pay them properly, with the conditions that would be afforded to any other worker and ensure that you create a real job. Fake jobs are no better than fake news in this country. All we are getting from this government is fake news, fake jobs and fake schemes—spending a bucketload of money for nothing. It is ineffective and it is irresponsible. Of course, one of the key issues is how much young people in these internships will be paid for the work that they do—$7.60 an hour. Are you kidding me? This is the government's pathetic attempt to say that they have come up with a plan to help young people and young workers across the country. It is pathetic. I would like to know if the minister is prepared to work for $7.60 an hour. Would she prefer to see young members of her family work for that kind of pay? Of course not. How is a young person meant to cover the cost of living when they are getting paid a pathetic $7.60 an hour? There are no safeguards in this legislation and there is no real pathway to employment or training under this program. It is just smoke and mirrors. It is timely to be discussing this piece of legislation today, because of course this came up through the government's last budget. It is budget day today and we know that the budget that is going to be handed down tonight by the Treasurer is going to be a kick in the guts for young people right across this country. It is going to be young Australians who suffer from tonight's budget, undoubtedly. They are making it harder and harder for young people to get a university education. They are going to force young people to pay back their debt before they have even started earning a decent wage. Young people who are earning $42,000 before tax are going to have to start paying back their university loans. This is going to push an entire new generation of young people into poverty. Educated young people, people who went out of their way to get skilled and educated to try to contribute to society, are going to be kicked in the guts by this government. The government do not give two hoots about young people, making it harder for them to go to university and harder for them to get an education, doing nothing to deal with the issues in relation to proper apprenticeships in this country and, of course, absolutely zilch to help young people with one of the biggest costs of living, which is housing and accommodation. Where is the government's backbone to take on the real issues in relation to housing in this country, and that is the tax rorts through capital gains and negative gearing? Unless the government tackle those things, young people in this country are going to continue to not be able to afford their own home or put a roof over their heads. Rents in this country are out of control. All you need to do is talk to any young person about how they are struggling to pay their rent, week in and week out. Reports have been released that say that some people—in fact, the majority of people—are paying more and more as a percentage of their overall income on rent. We have a problem. If you are paying 50 per cent of your income on your accommodation, it is very hard to cover the rest of your cost of living. We have pushed young people in this country into poverty. The PaTH scheme does nothing but make that worse. It makes young people slaves of the system. That is what the PaTH legislation will do. It is disappointing that this is all the government could come up with. We will wait for the next onslaught of attack and ridicule of young people right across this country when the Treasurer, Scott Morrison, hands down his budget tonight—a kick in the guts for young people, a kick in the guts for the unemployed and nothing to crack down on the massive living cost rises in relation to accommodation and housing. This government do not have the ticker to take on the real crisis when it comes to housing costs and the rising cost of living, particularly for young people. They can do plenty of things for their mates in the corporate world—tax cuts over here, tax cuts over there, tax cuts for the wealthy, but absolutely zilch will be in this budget for young people. The Turnbull government do not like young Australians. It is as clear as day. They do not give two hoots about them. It started in last year's budget with this piece of legislation and it is only going to continue tonight when we hear the dribble from the Treasurer at 7.30. I foreshadow the amendment and I look forward to it being voted on. 13:37 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory In February, the youth unemployment rate in Australia was more than double the national unemployment average. Nearly 300,000 young people across our nation are unemployed, and people turning to the government for a solution should know that PaTH is a path to nowhere. Young people are some of the most vulnerable in a workplace. Young people experience a greater number of job losses and higher unemployment rates than adults. In the Northern Territory, the unemployment rate is eight per cent. If this legislation passes, PaTH will be the young person's equivalent of CDP. It will leave young people at risk of being exploited without any hope of secure employment. We have seen the government's record on CDP. CDP is a difficult program across our regions in Australia. It is a program that requires greater scrutiny, which is what the Senate will be doing. One of the incredible flaws of CDP is that it keeps people in poverty and it keeps them disadvantaged. If what is being proposed here in the Senate is equivalent to the CDP, there can be no doubt that this is not good news for young Australians. It does not create jobs; it creates a pool of free labour. For every unemployed youth in the Northern Territory, there are two other people competing for that job. We all know that, because of inexperience and lack of skills, young people are vulnerable in the job market. This government should be looking for solutions to youth unemployment. Instead, the government have slapped together a scheme that is no solution to the growing problem. This is poorly constructed legislation that the government maintain is designed to give work experience to young jobseekers with the view of leading them to secure employment. That is the idea. However, this is not going to be the reality. In fact, this legislation leaves young people exposed to exploitation from dishonest employers and this legislation will leave young people with no workers' compensation, no superannuation, no award wages and certainly no option of union protection. I ask the Senate: is this where our country is headed? Is this the value that we display to our young Australians, telling them, 'You have no future; however, you can work in the present without any concept of what your future is going to look like'? There will be no support, no compensation, no superannuation and no award wages. Employers are set to make the money here. The sign-up incentive is $1,000, which is provided to employers, will do nothing more than create a pool of vulnerable, disposable, cheap workers who will not be offered long-term employment. No jobs will be created through this program, not one. There is a very serious risk that PaTH will displace people who would otherwise be employed to fill genuine vacancies. PaTH will take in 30,000 young Australians, classify them as interns and place them in businesses around the country, in an already weakened labour market. Young people trying to get into entry-level employment will be competing with the people in the PaTH program, operating as cut-price labour for government subsidised employers. Young jobseekers who take up these internships will work between 15 and 25 hours a week for between four and 12 weeks. For this they will receive payments of—wait for it—$200 per fortnight; not a week, a fortnight. Who can live on that? On top of their income support payments, even when paid at the maximum rate, the payment is substantially less than the national minimum adult wage of $17.29. The ACTU made a submission to the Senate inquiry and said, 'The Youth Jobs PaTH program is a poorly considered and ineffective response to the significant issue of youth unemployment in Australia.' Well, it is just another example of an out-of-touch government that has continually failed to engage with young people who are hungry for jobs. 13:43 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to wrap up the debate in relation to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Youth Jobs Path: Prepare, Trial, Hire) Bill 2016. As a courtesy, I thank all senators for their contribution to the debate, even if much of what has been said is completely, totally and utterly wrong. I will take the opportunity to address a number of the statements that have been made. The core of this program, the youth employment package, is the $763 million Youth Jobs PaTH. It is a program that gives our youth the ability and the skills that they need to undertake a job. It will prepare our young people by providing them with employability skills training to help them understand the behaviours expected by employers in the workplace and provide tailored, industry-specific training that will prepare our youth going into jobs. In terms of the trial part, these are voluntary internships. You put your hand up if you would like to undertake one. They will be between four and 12 weeks and they respond to feedback from youth, who have been telling us, 'We would love to get a job, but we do not have the skills employers need.' Guess what? With this program the government is going to give these youth who want to get a foot in the door and get a job the ability to get the skills that they need. Senator Hanson-Young, in her contribution to the debate, said: 'If it's all about getting these kids a job, why do they need the training? Why can't they just get a job?' Senator Hanson-Young completely, totally and utterly misses the point of this program. These are young people who, without the skills training, are not going to get a foot in the door. That is what the first element of the program will do: it will give them the training so that they are able to put their hand up and undertake the intern part of the program. At the end of the program employers will now be able to access the new youth bonus wage subsidy to support the ongoing employment of this young person. I find very interesting the comments that have been made about the use of interns. I need to highlight the absolute hypocrisy from those opposite in not supporting this legislation given that the PaTH program has commenced. I am very delighted to say that the program commenced officially on 1 April. The youth bonus wage subsidy commenced on 1 January, but the actual program is up and running, and young people are already participating in the program. Those on the other side talk about internships and how terrible they are. Let us have a look at the dozen or more Labor MPs who themselves have utilised interns and in particular focus on the current Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten. His office took on an Australian National University student named Ben through the high-profile Australian National Internships Program. Those on the other side are very happy to support internship programs when they are utilising them—and they understand the benefits that those programs will give—but apparently employers who have a job at the end of the internship are not allowed to utilise such a program. The internship program that Ben undertook through the office of the current Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, is promoted on the ANU's website. It quotes Ben as saying that he personally contributed to several policies that were announced in Mr Shorten's budget reply, which at the time fewer than 10 people knew about. Other Labor MPs who have used interns or volunteers include: the workplace relations spokesperson, Brendan O'Connor; assistant workplace relations spokeswoman, Lisa Chesters; employment services spokesperson, Ed Husic; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Tanya Plibersek; and Senator Dastyari, who is here in the chamber. Senator Dastyari, I think you would agree with the benefits of the internship program. Unfortunately, given the use of interns by those on the other side, I think it is, quite frankly, rank hypocrisy when they stand here and say that they will not share those benefits with others. In relation to what this bill does, this government makes no apologies that the best form of welfare that any government can provide to someone is a job. We know that when many young people are entering the labour market for the first time they do not have the skills and the experience employers look for. This obviously can make it much harder for them to get a start. If they cannot get a foot in the door, it will ultimately mean that they will be susceptible to long-term unemployment and welfare dependency. The government is committed to supporting young people to acquire the skills that they need in order to make that really important move from welfare into work. The Prepare-Trial-Hire Program maximises the opportunities and the chances for jobseekers under the age of 25 in getting a job. As I have already stated, the first stage is all about preparing them. Employability skills training will help young jobseekers learn the skills expected by employers so that they are more competitive when applying for a job. The trial stage is a voluntary internship of between four and 12 weeks to give the young jobseeker a chance to show what they can do in a real workplace with a financial incentive to participate, and that is of course the $200 incentive payment over the fortnight. Then, in the hire stage, employers are now able to access the new youth bonus wage subsidy of up to $10,000 to support the business in employing this person. What the bill does, though, is actually quite simple. It is designed to help young jobseekers by making sure that the young people undertaking the PaTH internships receive the full benefit of participation. Youth Jobs PaTH internship incentive payments to participants will not be considered as income for social security and veterans entitlement purposes. This means that participants will receive the full amount of the incentive payments on top of what they will continue to get, which is their existing social security payment or veterans entitlement. If the bill does not go through, those on the other side will be costing these young people up to $48 per fortnight. The amendments also aim to ensure that eligible young people in particular circumstances will be able to have their social security payments restored without having to make a new claim. So, if they were to lose the job with an eligible employer, through no fault of their own, when in the hire stage, then within 26 weeks of ceasing to receive income support they could be reconnected to government services and income support. So, the bill ensures that young people, in the event that through no fault of their own they lose their job, are able to quickly and easily return to employment services and have their income support payments restored. That is all the bill does. As I said, the Youth Jobs PaTH Program is already up and running. It commenced on 1 April. I will just respond to the amendments that have been moved in the chamber. The government will be supporting the amendments to the bill proposed by Senator Griff and, we understand, also supported by One Nation, which would involve a review of the Youth Jobs PaTH Program being conducted and a report tabled in each house of parliament two years after the bill has received royal assent. The government accepts this change as it will complement the planned evaluation strategy and ensure that the outcomes of the program are made freely available. The government will not be supporting the second-reading amendment that I understand has been moved by Senator Cameron. The government is confident that the design of the program addresses each of the concerns raised, and in fact a number of the concerns have been raised by the government's response to the committee report in relation to this bill. But just very briefly, for the benefit of the chamber, PaTH internships will not displace paid workers, and this also goes obviously to what Senator Bernardi raised during his contribution to the debate. Placements are time limited and are specifically designed to prevent host businesses from terminating or reducing the hours of existing employees. Before starting an internship, employment service providers must be satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of employment, and the host business itself must agree and certify that they are not displacing workers upon signing the internship agreement. If they are not prepared to do that and they do not sign the internship agreement, then no internship can take place. Participants in the internship program are not employees; they are undertaking a supervised work experience placement. And the incentive payment is not a wage; it is a payment on top of the welfare payment that the jobseeker already receives and will continue to receive. As with any government program, the participant's safety is obviously of utmost importance. Providers will undertake risk assessments prior to the placement to ensure the safety of participants, and participants will be covered under state and territory workplace health and safety laws. As with other work experience programs, and certainly whilst Labor was in government—the work experience programs that continue to run when Labor was in government—participants will be covered by the insurance policy of the Department of Employment or, for disability employment service participants, the Department of Social Services. As I have already stated, and just to respond to some of what Senator Bernardi has raised, in relation to the displacement of workers the program is specifically designed to ensure that this does not occur. Before commencing a PaTH internship, as I have stated, providers must be satisfied that there is a reasonable prospect of employment for the jobseeker with the host business. That is, where the host business has a current vacancy available, will likely have a vacancy following the internship or has a regular pattern of recruitment. Host businesses will need to certify in the PaTH internship agreement that the PaTH intern will not displace existing employees or reduce their hours of work. If they are not prepared to do that, they will not be able to enter into an intern agreement. In terms of the internship placements themselves, they are time limited, with a duration of between four and 12 weeks for an average of between 15 and 25 hours per week. They are specifically designed, as I have stated, to prevent host businesses from terminating or reducing the number of hours worked by employees that are being employed in the business. The PaTH program is up and running, and we are very proud of it. It is a significant investment in getting those youth who are on welfare and who are looking down the barrel of a lifetime on welfare an opportunity to get off welfare and to get the skills that they need so that they can avail themselves of the job. In terms of what this bill does, there are two very discrete things. If the bill does not pass, despite those opposite standing up and saying that they actually believe that the youth deserve all of this money, et cetera, they will be responsible for PaTH interns losing up to $48 a fortnight in incentive payments and, also, if they do lose their job through no fault of their own, then having to reconnect with the system and go through an entire process. We say that is unfair. The youth deserve the full $200, but they also deserve, in the event that they are disconnected or they lose their job, to be reconnected to the welfare system. In conclusion, passage of this bill will ensure that young people are afforded every opportunity to become fully engaged and job ready to maximise their chances of finding work as quickly as possible. I commend the bill to the chamber. The PRESIDENT e5v The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Cameron, on sheet 8050, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [14:02]
(The President—Senator Parry)

 34 AYES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Dastyari, S Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lambie, J Lines, S Ludlam, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Urquhart, AE (teller) Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 36 NOES Abetz, E Back, CJ Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Burston, B Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ (teller) Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID McGrath, J McKenzie, B Nash, F O'Sullivan, B Parry, S Paterson, J Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Sinodinos, A Smith, D Williams, JR Xenophon, N 3 PAIRS Marshall, GM Payne, MA Sterle, G Cormann, M Wong, P Brandis, G

Question negatived.

 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:10 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland I inform the Senate that Senator Cormann, the Minister for Finance, will be absent from question time today due to budget arrangements. During Senator Cormann’s absence, I will represent the Minister for Finance, the Treasurer, the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services and the Minister for Small Business. Senator Payne, the Minister for Defence, will also be absent from question time this week on ministerial business. During Senator Payne's absence, I will represent the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Defence Industry, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Minister for Defence Personnel and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 14 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Schools 14 14:06 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. Modelling reveals that as a result of the education package announced by the minister last Tuesday, fees for some Catholic schools could jump as much as $5,000, with parents at 78 New South Wales Catholic schools facing fee increases of more than $1,000 per child per year. What modelling has the government undertaken to determine the impact of its so-called Gonski 2.0 on school fees? Will the minister assure Australian parents that they will not pay more as a result of his reforms? 14:07 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Farrell for his question about the Turnbull government's new $18.6 billion worth of additional investment into Australian schools. I thank Senator Farrell for his question and the opportunity to talk about our commitment to ensure that school funding across Australia is delivered on a fair and consistent basis free of special deals, free of differential treatment, but on the basis of need, just as David Gonski recommended. Senator Farrell has asked some specific questions in relation to New South Wales schools in the Catholic system. I am pleased to inform Senator Farrell that the New South Wales Catholic school system will receive on average per student growth over the next four years of 3.8 per cent—3.8 per cent per student growth. This is well above any measure of inflation that exists today, well above wages growth today and is real, strong growth into the future. That means there should be no need for fee increases but absolute opportunity for additional investment in those schools as there will be in schools right across Australia in terms of investment into additional resources to help students who need it. This will target assistance to those students who need it most, give the best support to students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, give more support to students with disability, give additional assistance to students in small, rural, regional and remote areas, ensure that there is extra assistance going where it is required to those who need it most in a manner that guarantees— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Order on my left! I cannot hear the minister, let along Senator Farrell, who asked the question. Senator Kim Carr AW5 It is great to be back, isn't it? Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Absolutely, Senator Carr. Of course, the disorder from those opposite is because they do not like hearing about the fact that the Turnbull government is doing what they did not have the courage to do. They never had the courage to make sure that they actually had a consistent school-funding model—they had to do a bunch of different deals across the country. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Farrell, a supplementary question. 14:10 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia The executive director of Sydney Catholic Schools, Dan White, says of the package: It would push a greater number of children into state schools and they are struggling to accommodate them as it is. Is Mr White correct? 14:10 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia No, Mr White is not correct. As I indicated, across the New South Wales Catholic school system, our model will deliver 3.8 per cent growth per student. It will also, though—if you want to talk about the government school system, Senator Farrell—deliver 4.9 per cent growth per student. Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Senator Collins interjects with the question of how long. I am pleased to tell Senator Collins that, over the decade, the projection in the Catholic schools system in New South Wales is growth of 3.6 per cent per student— Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 No, 3.8 per cent for all states. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X It is 3.6 per cent per student, Senator Collins, specific to New South Wales, and, for the government sector in New South Wales over the decade, it is growth of 4.8 per cent per student. This is strong growth across every schooling sector—Catholic, independent and government—above inflation, above wages, enabling real additional investment to support Australian students who need it. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question. 14:11 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Catholic Education has been calling on the government to consult with them for the last 12 months. The National Catholic Education Commission's Acting Executive Director, Danielle Cronin, said: It's a very poor process when a government announces a new 10-year school funding proposal without consulting the second largest provider of school education in the country. Minister, why did you fail to consult Catholic Education? 14:12 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I have had numerous meetings with the National Catholic Education Commission and discussions with other representatives. My office has had numerous discussions with individuals. My department has undertaken a national roadshow and had discussions with different sectors and different individuals. On 3 April, for example, I worked through, with Ms Cronin and others, each of the issues in the submission they made to us and talked about those different factors. So there has absolutely been consultation, and consultation has been ongoing over recent weeks and recent days. We continue to have discussions to talk about the implications of this package and, importantly, to make sure they understand that, across their systems, there will be strong growth in funding that enables them to continue to invest in providing the choice to parents to choose a Catholic school education and resources and support for their students to get the best for the future. Schools 15 14:13 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Simon Birmingham. Will the minister outline how the Turnbull government's Quality Schools package delivers fairer, needs based funding to students and long-term funding certainty for parents and schools? 14:13 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator McKenzie for her question and her deep and long-term interest in relation to school education, the quality of school education and, of course, addressing inconsistencies in relation to school funding. Indeed, we have such inconsistencies that we are seeking to address them. Our government inherited 27 different school funding models, different deals that were based on a whole range of legacy arrangements, and what we are seeking to do is, as David Gonski recommended, clean up that mess and ensure there is a consistent approach to the application of need right across Australia. Those opposite seem to want to put special interests first. The Turnbull government are putting fairness first. We want to ensure that, wherever students are, they are treated on an equal basis—that across states they are treated equally by the Commonwealth government and across schooling sectors they are treated equally by the Commonwealth government. This is about ensuring equality of treatment, as informed, recommended and now supported and endorsed by Mr Gonski himself. We are underpinning this with a record level of investment that in 2017 sees $17.5 billion from the Commonwealth supporting Australian school students. By 2027 that grows to some $30.6 billion of investment. But, most importantly, we not only want to gear and ensure that investment is distributed fairly, equitably and according to need, but we are determined to ensure it is used in ways that are informed by best practice to improve the quality of school education. That is the work that Mr Gonski will undertake for us—to ensure every single additional dollar of the billions we are investing in Australian schools is used to deliver quality school outcomes right around Australia. We are committed to long-term legislative certainty through our reforms to Australian schools so they can plan with confidence for the future and, in planning with confidence, invest in resources they need. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator McKenzie, a supplementary question. 14:15 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Will the minister update the Senate on the support the government has received for the school funding package? 14:15 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I am very pleased that the Turnbull government's response has seen endorsements from a range of different entities. The Australian Primary Principals Association has welcomed our acceptance of the fundamental recommendations of the 2011 Gonski report. To quote from them: Common funding arrangements across the country will see greater transparency and give principals confidence that what they receive in school funding is fair and equitable. The Australian Council of State School Organisations has said: The move to reduce the twenty-seven funding agreements into a single model, with no special deals, may finally bring truly needs based funding to all sectors. Then there is the Grattan Institute, the Mitchell Institute and principals. Take, for example, the principal of the Nazareth Catholic College in South Australia, who said: I think this is a fabulous deal for South Australia … Every school in South Australia will benefit from this, every single one … There is widespread support from principals, parents, stakeholders, experts. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator McKenzie, your final supplementary question. 14:16 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria How will the government ensure that increased funding for schools results in improved student performance? 14:17 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia We are delighted that Mr David Gonski has agreed to undertake a review into excellence in Australian schools. Mr Gonski said: … I'm very pleased to hear that the Turnbull Government has accepted the fundamental recommendations of our 2011 report … And indeed we have, in acting in relation to fixing and addressing issues on school funding. But now we are delighted that Mr Gonski has agreed to be tasked with the job of working with school leaders and experts across Australia to ensure that the billions of additional dollars that are being invested build upon the quality school reforms that our government has already applied. We are already improving teacher training across Australia. We are already investing in ensuring support for the delivery of phonics education across Australia, and David Gonski will use his skills, his credibility, working right across the country with education experts, to ensure that, by the end of the year, there is a quality package of further reforms that states, territories and other stakeholders embrace to deliver the best outcomes for Australian school students. Schools 16 14:18 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory My question is also to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. In relation to the education package announced a week ago, Assistant Minister Seselja last night told a public meeting of Catholic parents that, in discussions with Minister Birmingham, he had 'put that case to him very strongly that the package would have some pretty significant negative consequences'. Is Assistant Minister Seselja correct? 14:18 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Gallagher for her question. In relation to the ACT, I trust that, as a former Chief Minister of the ACT, Senator Gallagher would welcome, firstly, the decision of the Turnbull government to treat all states and territories fairly and equitably in reaching the same 20 per cent share of the schooling resource standard based on the Gonski level of need. That will see support for additional funding into the ACT government sector estimated at 5.9 per cent per student over the next four years. This is very strong growth in support for the ACT government sector that Senator Gallagher used to, of course, be the Chief Minister overseeing. I trust that she endorses that, welcomes that—and, of course, what we see there— The PRESIDENT e5v Pause the clock. A point of order, Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU My point of order is relevance. Whilst I am very happy for my colleague's previous career to be extolled in the way that the minister is doing, he was asked only one question. He was asked, in relation to Senator Seselja's quote that the package would have 'some pretty negative consequences', whether or not his colleague sitting behind him is correct. That is the only question. Have the guts to answer it. The PRESIDENT e5v Minister, I will remind you of the question. Minister, you have a minute and 13 seconds. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X As I was pointing out, in relation specifically to the ACT, to which Senator Gallagher's question pertained, we see strong growth in additional resourcing going into ACT schools. Because of legacy arrangements that were put in place, there has been a different approach in relation to systemic school calculations in the ACT. That different approach has seen SES scores averaged not on the basis of schools in the ACT or the ACT population but on the basis of the national Australian population. So that creates a different change when we are treating everybody equitably in the ACT compared to the circumstances elsewhere. Senator Seselja has absolutely made strong representations on behalf of his constituents, as I would expect him to do, and we are talking constructively through those issues as they relate to the ACT. But it should not be ignored by Senator Gallagher or by anybody else that the reality— The PRESIDENT e5v Pause the clock. Senator Cameron, a point of order? Senator Cameron AI6 Again, it is on relevance. You did draw the minister's attention to the question and the question is clear: does the minister agree with the comments that were made by Senator Seselja? He has not gone to that issue. The PRESIDENT e5v After the first point of order was raised by Senator Wong, the minister did move directly to the point in relation to Senator Seselja's comments and the minister was answering the question. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X As I was saying, it should not be ignored by Senator Gallagher or anybody else that there is strong funding growth across the ACT into education, that we will make sure we work with each of the systems involved. But I would trust the former Chief Minister in particular would welcome the additional investment into the ACT government schools. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Gallagher, a supplementary question? 14:21 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The Australian reports that Assistant Minister Seselja hit out at the unequal treatment for Catholic schools in the ACT and vowed to fight for 'the best deal possible'. When did the minister first become aware that his ministerial colleague was campaigning against the government's policy? 14:22 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia There are not unequal arrangements. In fact, the whole point of what the Turnbull government has proposed is an equal level of treatment for non-government schools across every sector, across every system and across every state and territory of Australia. That is the proposal we are putting in place that will ensure that over 10 years every non-government school transitions to an equal 80 per cent share of the schooling resource standard, informed and developed as a result of the Gonski report, and receives an equal level of treatment under that arrangement. I am aware of the impacts in relation to the ACT. As I said, Senator Seselja has had discussions with me and we will continue to have those discussions, as I am with the ACT Catholic Education representatives, about the particular impact here. But, again, none of that should overshadow the strong growth in the ACT and the very strong growth across every single schooling sector in every single state in what we are delivering for the future. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Gallagher, a final supplementary question? 14:23 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Only days ago, Minister Birmingham told The Australian that there would be no changes to the policy and said, 'We don't want a special deal for anybody.' Will the minister give the ACT a better deal—yes or no? 14:23 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia We want to deliver a fair deal for every state and territory that is applied consistently. We are not into doing different deals for different states or different deals for different sectors; we are into ensuring that it is fair and equitable everywhere. It is only those sitting opposite who thought it was a good idea to run around the country before the 2013 election stitching up 27 different deals and different agreements that treated different states differently, that treated different sectors differently and that increased inequity across the education system. This government want to ensure fairness, equity and needs based funding and that it is genuinely delivered and targeted towards real reforms in Australia schools—real reforms that can improve a declining level of school performance over the years. It is critical to us to make sure that billions of extra dollars are invested where they will make the most difference. That is why we are having a needs based funding formula that is consistent. That is why we are undertaking the hard yards to identify the reforms that are required. (Time expired) Budget 18 14:24 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Brandis, representing the Prime Minister. Every generation strives to hand down better living conditions to the generation that follows—until now, that is. We know from the torrent of budget leaks that young people are going to be screwed over again by this government. Uni students will have to spend a lifetime in debt, they will pay for your appalling inaction on dangerous global warning, they are bearing the brunt of cuts to weekend pay and they are being locked out of ever owning their own home. Minister, can you tell me how it is fair that your generation—a generation that benefited from free education, affordable housing, strong wage growth and a safe climate—is now telling the generations that follow that they cannot enjoy the same quality of life? 14:25 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator Di Natale, it is the obligation of every generation to ensure that the next generation has better life chances than they did, and that is what this government have done. Senator Di Natale, you refer in particular to the higher education sector. One thing that any government, whether it be a coalition or a Labor government, must ensure that it does is maintain Australia's reputation for higher education. As you probably know, Senator Di Natale, at the moment, six Australian universities are ranked in the top 100 universities in the world. What that indicates is the strength of the Australian university sector. What we are doing is investing in that sector and making sure that beneficiaries of that sector make a fair contribution to it. Senator Di Natale, contrary to what you have said in your question, we are asking students to make a modest increase in the contribution that they make to the education which they enjoy—the world-class education which they enjoy—while still, by the way, Senator Di Natale, subsidising their education by a factor of more than half from the income of taxpayers, who do not have the benefit that they do. You talk about social justice, as you often do, Senator Di Natale. I think it is just that the people who are the beneficiaries of a world-class tertiary education should make a substantial contribution to it. What the government has proposed, and what my friend Senator Simon Birmingham announced last week, is that we will be asking students next year to increase their contribution— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question? 14:27 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Look, Minister, I get that young people are an easy target and they do not have briefcases full of cash to make political donations. Minister, when will you ensure— Senator O'Sullivan 247871 Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Standing order 73 relates to the body of a question and it talks about not making statements, arguments and inferences. That is exactly what we have had in question No. 1 and now the supplementary. The PRESIDENT e5v It has been the practice of Presiding Officers in my time here that questions have contained preamble which does give some context to questions. Senator Di Natale was in order. Senator DI NATALE 53369 Thank you, Mr President. I understand that young people are an easy target and they do not have briefcases full of cash to make donations. So I ask you, Minister: when will you ensure that property investors and the mining industry pay their fair share, or is the $5 million that resource companies and the $17½ million that the property and finance industry have donated to the coalition over the last five years money well spent? The PRESIDENT e5v Before I call the Attorney-General: I adjudicate as to what time is allocated to the asking and answering of questions. Senator Di Natale was interrupted during the asking of his question and the clock was not reset to reflect that. So Senator Di Natale was in order. 14:29 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Thank you, Senator Di Natale. I am at a little bit of a loss to see what the supplementary question had to do with the primary question, and I am amazed to hear that coming from you of all people, given that you lead a party which was the beneficiary of the largest single corporate donation in Australian political history—from Wotif. But, nevertheless, I will leave that alone. You say that this government is attacking young people, and you are absolutely wrong. What we are doing is ensuring that all generations of Australians, including the young generation of today, have access to a world-class university system, and that has to be paid for. And it has to be paid for from taxpayers' money, from a contribution from the students who are the beneficiaries or, as in the system introduced initially, by the way, by the Hawke Labor government, by a combination of both. What we will do is ask students to pay a contribution of less than half— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question? 14:30 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria The former Treasurer and, indeed, the Prime Minister have laid out their plans for young people, which, in their words, amount to (a) getting a better-paying job and (b) getting your parents to shell out for a home. Minister, why do you hate young people so much? 14:31 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator Di Natale, you really are a lot smarter than to ask a silly question like that. Among the things we owe young people is the opportunity to have access to a world-class university education, and that is what we are doing by ensuring that that world-class university system is funded. It will ensure that students who go through university are more than 50 per cent subsidised by taxpayers, who do not get the benefit that those students get of a world-class university system. Nevertheless, it will ask students to make a substantial contribution to the education of which they are the beneficiaries and which will improve their life chances above those of the people who subsidise them. We are asking them, via the HECS system, to make a contribution at a preferential interest rate which does not have to be repaid until they are well and truly in a position to do so. (Time expired) Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v On my right! Senator O'Sullivan! Order! If senators wish to have this discussion outside the chamber, please leave the chamber. We are in question time. Automotive Industry 19 14:32 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia My question is to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Senator Sinodinos. Can the minister explain what the Turnbull government is doing to support the transition of Australia's auto-manufacturing sector? 14:32 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales Today is the beginning of National Manufacturing Week, so I am delighted to speak about the ongoing commitment of the Turnbull government to the automotive sector. Manufacturing in Australia is transforming, and its long-term health depends on developing new and innovative ways of moving into high-value, high-skilled advanced manufacturing. Yesterday I announced that the Turnbull government has committed an extra $100 million in new money to drive innovation in Australia's manufacturing sector to create jobs, grow businesses, improve productivity and be globally competitive. The fund includes $47.5 million for a new advanced manufacturing growth fund which will help industry adjust to the wind-down of car manufacturing. It will help businesses establish and expand high-value manufacturing in South Australia and Victoria. We are investing in the automotive industry's future in this country while providing the diversification of businesses to drive high-value, innovative advanced manufacturing practices in this country. That is why this fund will also provide $20 million under the CRC projects initiative to support larger-scale advanced manufacturing research projects of up to $3 million in funding over three years. There will be $10 million to establish innovation labs—these would be in South Australia and Victoria—to provide test centre facilities and business capability development for the industry. Tariffs will be reduced—this is worth $13.5 million—on imported prototypes and components used by motor vehicle design and engineering services that operate in a global network. There will be $4 million for the ongoing work of our Advanced Manufacturing Growth Centre to support small-scale and pilot research projects assisting small firms and early-stage researchers to quickly move to large-scale research and commercialisation, and $5 million will be invested in student research at universities and technology institutions to continue the flow of highly trained engineers to the automotive design and engineering sector. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question. 14:34 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Can the minister update the Senate on how the Advanced Manufacturing Fund is building on the government's strong commitment to the auto sector? 14:35 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales The new $100 million Advanced Manufacturing Fund is just the latest in a series of funds and programs rolled out by this government to support the automotive sector. It expands on the $155 million growth fund to support employees, businesses and regions most affected by the closure of manufacturing in Australia. The car companies will continue with an import sales model and with more focus on high-end research and design, the $29.5 million Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund and the $24.5 million Melbourne North Innovation and Investment Fund that support innovative job-creation projects that strengthen and diversify these regions, and the $473 million Entrepreneurs Program, which continues to provide tailored advice and support to businesses not only in this sector but across the country. The government also supports industry through the growth centres, the R&D tax incentive and other initiatives, and of course the Automotive Transformation Scheme will continue until 2020. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question. 14:36 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Could the minister outline how the Turnbull government is supporting advanced manufacturing across Australia? 14:36 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales It is true to say that we are not just focused on South Australia and Victoria. We have other programs that look at advanced manufacturing across the country. Our $250 million Industry Growth Centres Initiative is building capability and stronger industry systems, helping Australia transition into smart, high-value and export focused industries. Important, in that regard, is the Advanced Manufacturing Growth Centre, which focuses on leading cultural change in advanced manufacturing. But all sectors—food and agri, oil, gas and energy, mining equipment, technology and services, medical technologies and pharmaceuticals—will rely on developments in advanced manufacturing for their own growth. This is on top of the government's $195 billion investment in our nation's future defence and its commitment to harnessing innovation in the defence sector. The Centre for Defence Industry Capability, in my portfolio, has been funded to $230 million to 2025-26 as a demonstration of that commitment. (Time expired) Schools 20 14:37 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister in the Senate, Senator Brandis. In response to the education package announced by the Prime Minister and Minister Birmingham a week ago, Assistant Minister Seselja last night told Catholic parents the package would have pretty significant negative consequences for the ACT. He said he shared parents' significant concern about the government's policy. He advised he had put that case very strongly to Minister Birmingham and was prepared to publicly disassociate himself from the minister's policy and repudiated the treatment of Catholic schools. Has the Prime Minister spoken to Assistant Minister Seselja about his conduct? 14:38 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator Sterle, I see you are relying on some press reports of remarks attributed to Senator Seselja. I do not know and I am not in a position to tell you what conversation Senator Seselja and the Prime Minister may or may not have had, but I can tell you this, Senator Sterle: you should have been listening to my friend Senator Birmingham when he answered questions from your side of the chamber, because the school-funding package that Senator Birmingham announced last week as part of the 2017-18 budget will increase school funding over the next decade by $18.6 billion. As Mr David Gonski himself has said, in the words that Senator Birmingham quoted, it will return to the principles of needs-based funding that he embraced and espoused in his 2011 review but which the former Labor government never implemented but left the system in a complete mess with no fewer than 27 different funding deals. The package that Senator Birmingham announced last week will treat all students fairly. It is based entirely on the principle— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Order, on my left! Senator Gallagher, on a point of order? Senator Gallagher ING My point of order goes to relevance. The senator has taken one minute 30 to get to this point, but he has not got to the question, which was: has the Prime Minister spoken to the assistant minister about his conduct? That is the question that is before the senator. The PRESIDENT e5v The minister did answer that directly by saying he is not aware of any conversations he may or may not have had with Senator Birmingham, so the minister was relevant. Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Senator Sterle, what is the problem the Labor Party has with the idea that all Australian students should be treated fairly? Why does the Labor Party have a problem with the principle that you used to espouse, though never gave effect to, that school funding should be needs based? Why do you have a problem, as you appear to have, with the principle that school funding should be transparent? And why do you have a problem, as you appear to have, with the principle that there should be consistency of treatment across the country? (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Sterle, a supplementary question? 14:41 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I would like to refer to the Cabinet handbook, which states: …ministers cannot dissociate themselves from, or repudiate the decisions of their Cabinet colleagues unless they resign… Has Assistant Minister Seselja advised the Prime Minister of his intention to resign, and, if not, will the Prime Minister sack him? 14:41 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator Sterle, as I said in answer to your primary question, I am not aware of what conversations may have occurred between the Prime Minister and one of my colleagues, but I am aware of the great virtues of the school funding package that was announced by Senator Birmingham last week. You refer, in your primary question, Senator Sterle, to the Catholic system—the Catholic system of which I myself am a product, I might say, and that I care about a great deal. The increase in funding of schools across the Catholic system nationally will be 3.6 per cent. How, Senator Sterle, you can possibly say that an— The PRESIDENT e5v A point of order, Senator Cameron? Senator Cameron AI6 My point of order is on relevance. The question went clearly to this: has Assistant Minister Seselja advised the Prime Minister of his intention to resign; if not, will the Prime Minister sack him? You should draw the minister's attention to the question. The PRESIDENT e5v Similar to my response to Senator Gallagher's point of order, the minister did say that he is unaware of conversations that may have taken place between Assistant Minister Seselja and the Prime Minister, so he has certainly answered that part of the question. Senator BRANDIS 008W7 So, Senator Sterle, the Catholic system will be one of the beneficiaries of the funding announcement made by Senator Birmingham last week, with an average increase of 3.6 per cent funding of Catholic schools over the next four years. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Sterle, a final supplementary question? 14:43 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Given this is not the first time Assistant Minister Seselja has breached cabinet solidarity and criticised his own government's policies, isn't the Prime Minister's failure to sack his dissident minister another example of the Prime Minister's weakness and of the control exerted over him by the right of his party? 14:43 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator Sterle, it is a shame. At the end of every question you ask, you always come back to trying to make—never successfully, I am sorry to say—a cheap political point. We are not interested in the insiders games. We are not interested in the political gossip. We are not interested in someone who has obviously watched way too many episodes of The West Wing in his life. What we are interested in is policy outcomes. If, for one moment, you and your Labor colleagues could interest yourselves in a policy, these are the features of a policy—a policy based upon the principle of need, a policy based upon the principle of equality, a policy based upon the principle of consistency of treatment. So, it does not matter where you go to school, right across Australia, by the end of this program, over a 10-year period, there will be precise equality of treatment— (Time expired) Media Ownership 21 14:44 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield. Can the minister update the Senate on the government's plans for comprehensive media reform. 14:45 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Thank you, Senator Smith. On Saturday I was very pleased to announce the Turnbull government's comprehensive and holistic media reform package. It aims very deliberately to support the viability and the longevity of Australian media. I am sure I speak on behalf of every colleague in this place when I say that we might not always like what those in the media might write, print, broadcast, stream or post about any of us here, but we all recognise the important role that the Australian media plays in underpinning our democracy. This is a package which is unabashedly pro Australian media. It is pro journalism, it is for Australian stories and it is for Australian voices. Notably, the package has the unanimous support of the Australian media industry—we are talking channels Nine, Seven, Ten, WIN, Prime, Southern Cross Austereo, Fairfax, News Limited, Foxtel, Commercial Radio Australia, Free TV Australia and ASTRA. I think those who have worked in this area know that getting that degree of unanimity is something that is very rare indeed in this industry, and I commend those in the sector who have looked beyond their own legitimate organisational interests to the broader interests of the media sector. As colleagues would be aware, we are going to abolish broadcast licence fees, which are from a bygone era, and put in their place a more modest spectrum charge. The good news is that this provides the opportunity for a community dividend in the form of further restrictions on gambling advertising across all platforms, which we will be aiming to have in place by March next year. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Smith, a supplementary question. 14:47 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia Can the minister inform the Senate as to how these reforms have been received by stakeholders and the industry? 14:47 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria In one word, I can say that they have been received well. Let me cite a few instances: Seven West Media chairman Kerry Stokes AC said: I endorse the complete legislation package proposed by the government … I am pleased that the Turnbull government is backing the Australian media industry through these reforms. Foxtel CEO Peter Tonagh said: 'We welcome the fact that the government has announced a comprehensive package of reforms of media regulation. Foxtel calls on the opposition and crossbench senators to support the package in full.' Free TV chair Harold Mitchell said: This package is crucial for Australian jobs and our ability to continue creating local programming that is watched by millions of Australians every day. Network Ten CEO Paul Anderson said of the 75 per cent audience reach rule—given that time is running out, let me summarise what he said by indicating that he said it should go. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Smith, a final supplementary question. 14:48 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia Noting, as you have, the unanimous support of the industry, can you advise the Senate of any alternative views? 14:48 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria If I can continue on from what Mr Anderson indicated in his remarks, he also said that the two-out-of-three rule should go, which leads me to: what are the alternatives? There is not a great deal in the way of alternative policy in this area. What there is is some reflexive, negative approaches to what the government is putting forward—and I am talking, of course, about the Australian Labor Party who, when we put the 75 per cent and two-out-of-three rule legislation to the parliament, referred it off to Senate committee for many months. We then had the election and introduced it again, and they then again referred it off to Senate committee for many months, saying it was piecemeal. What we are putting forward here is a very broad package, and guess what Labor are saying now? They are saying that what we are putting forward as a government is just housekeeping. What we were putting forward before, apparently, was piecemeal, and this—which is comprehensive—they are now saying is housekeeping. I think it is time to put aside the arguments of the past and support Australian media. (Time expired) Veterans 22 14:49 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Does the government's proposal extending the gold card to atomic veterans cover their children, given the genetic disorders these children have developed as a result of their parents' exposure to radiation? 14:49 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Let me see if I have a brief on that. Might I take that question on notice and come back to you. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Lambie, a supplementary question. 14:50 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Why is the government now, after 60 years, granting the gold card to these atomic victims, given there are only an estimated 51 atomic veteran survivors? 14:50 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland The reason we are doing so is we think it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to do, and I can tell you that, as a new measure in this budget, the government will be allocating $133 million for survivors who were exposed to radiation from nuclear tests in South Australia and Western Australia. Senator Lambie, you may say that previous governments of both political persuasions could have extended this benefit sooner, and it is a fair point you make. But the point is that this government is doing so this year. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Lambie, a final supplementary question. 14:51 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania The government failed to support my bill extending the gold card to all veterans who served in war and warlike conditions and is granting the gold card 60 years later to atomic veterans. Is this because the government is using the methods of delay and deny, and waiting for veterans to die, to assist in its budget repair? 14:51 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland No, not at all. That is absolutely wrong, and I reject that entirely. Might I say, in rejecting what you have put to me, that I nevertheless acknowledge and thank you for your contribution to this debate and what you have had to say about this issue. The reason the government is announcing this measure this year is that it believes it is the right thing to do. If it is the case that governments of both political persuasions, coalition and Labor, should have extended these benefits to survivors sooner, as I said in answer to your earlier question, that may be a fair point. But the important thing is that it has been recognised by this government and it is this government that is doing so now. Senator Lambie interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v You have no further questions, Senator Lambie. You can take it up privately with the Attorney-General. Education 23 14:52 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Within days of the Prime Minister and Minister Birmingham announcing the so-called Gonski 2.0 package, Deputy Prime Minister Joyce indicated there would be tweaking, and the Assistant Minister to the Treasurer, Mr Sukkar, suggested the government would have to modify its plans to ensure schools were satisfied. What changes does the government intend to make to save its unravelling education package, announced only a short week ago? 14:52 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator Kitching, honestly! Senator Birmingham announced last week the most fundamental reform of school funding in Australia that we have seen in this nation for many decades. It is a comprehensive package. It restores what your government failed ever to comply with, and that is the principles of the 2011 Gonski report, as Mr David Gonski himself said last week and as Senator Birmingham quoted him in his answer to an earlier question. Senator Kitching, as I said to your colleague Senator Sterle, what is the Labor Party's problem with the principle of equity in funding? The PRESIDENT e5v Order! Pause the clock. Senator Wong, a point of order. Senator Wong 00AOU The point is on direct relevance. One question: what changes does the government intend to make to save its unravelling education package announced only week ago? We have inconsistent quotes from members of the cabinet as to whether or not the package is up for changes. I invite the Leader of the Government in the Senate to be very clear about what the government's position actually is. The PRESIDENT e5v I will remind the Attorney-General of the question. Senator BRANDIS 008W7 I am sorry, Mr President, I thought I had dealt with that in my opening words. But the package, as announced by Senator Birmingham, is the package. It is a complete and comprehensive package, and we are not proposing to make changes to the package. The package is a complete and self-sufficient package, and it has the support of every member of the government. I said a moment ago that this package has been endorsed by Mr Gonski, and I was, by interjection, contradicted by your colleague Senator Jacinta Collins. Let me read you what Mr Gonski had to say at his media conference last week: … I'm very pleased to hear that the Turnbull Government has accepted the fundamental recommendations of our 2011 report— Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting— Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Wait for it, Senator Collins— and particularly regarding a needs-based situation. … I'm very pleased that there is substantial additional money, even over indexation and in the foreseeable future. Now, Senator Collins, I know you people in the Labor Party find this very—(Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Kitching, a supplementary question? 14:55 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria On Sunday, Treasurer Morison said that there would be no changes to the package announced by the Prime Minister and Minister Birmingham last Tuesday. Who is right? Is it the Treasurer or the Deputy Prime Minister and Assistant Treasurer? 14:55 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland They are both right because they are not saying anything different. Senator Kitching, I know people in the Australian Labor Party find it very hard to swallow, but the fact is that you commissioned Mr David Gonski, a most highly respected Australian, to conduct a review. You traded upon his name and reputation, and in his name and reputation you then ushered forth a series of policies that bore little or no resemblance to the principles of his report. You left a hodgepodge of 27 inconsistent special funding deals. I cannot tell you how pleased and relieved Mr Gonski was, as he was last week, when he was able to stand shoulder to shoulder with a Prime Minister and an education minister who respected the integrity and the principles of his report. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Kitching, a final supplementary question? 14:56 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria Given that government ministers are divided as to whether or not the Gonski 2.0 package should be modified, will the Prime Minister accept the advice of former Prime Minister Abbott, who has predicted that the package could be dumped altogether? 14:57 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator Kitching, I am not going to be a commentator on what Mr Abbott may have to say from time to time. He is perfectly entitled to his view. Senator Kitching, the fact is that, when Senator Birmingham made the announcement he made last week, that was a historic day in the history of Australian education, because, as a result of that announcement, the principles that Mr Gonski espoused have been reclaimed. I know you find it difficult to deal with, but they have been reclaimed by the Turnbull government and by a much better education minister than any education minister the Labor Party, during the Gillard and Rudd governments, ever put into the portfolio. And, as a result, there will be needs-based funding. Senator Kitching 247512 A point of order, Mr President: standing order 193(3). The PRESIDENT e5v Would you like me to pause and read the standing order, or can you assist me, Senator Kitching? You need to provide me with a bit of clarity about what your point of order is. Senator Kitching 247512 Standing order 193(3) refers to imputations. Senator Brandis is imputing that former Labor education ministers were not good, when, in fact, Mr President, Senator Brandis continues to ignore the very facts. Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Order on my right! Senator Kitching, you can continue. Senator Kitching 247512 I would just point out, Mr President, that Senator Brandis has once again used, and continues to use, this debate to lie. He knows very well what has happened in his own party— The PRESIDENT e5v Order! Senator Kitching, you will need to withdraw that remark in relation to Senator Brandis. I invite you to withdraw that remark about Senator Brandis. Senator KITCHING 247512 I will withdraw. The PRESIDENT e5v Thank you. And, in relation to your point of order under 193(3), Senator Brandis did not extend the remarks about former Labor ministers in any way, shape or form that drew my attention to it being more harsh than other comments that are made from senators across this chamber from time to time. Senator Brandis is in order. I thank you for your point of order, Senator Kitching, but Senator Brandis is in order. Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Senator Kitching, there is no imputation, there is no implication, there is no innuendo; there is a flat-out statement of fact. Senator Simon Birmingham is a much better minister for education than any Labor minister for education in living— (Time expired) Mining Industry 24 15:00 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan. I note that, over the past five weeks, many of my constituents in Central Queensland have raised with me the importance of maintaining a strong resources sector. So I ask if the minister could update the Senate on the status of the resources sector. 15:01 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I thank Senator O'Sullivan for his question. He is absolutely right about how important our resources sector is, not just for Central Queensland but for our entire nation, and it is good for our nation that our resources sector is in rude health at the moment. It is on track this financial year to produce a record result in terms of exports at $215 billion, thanks to prices being up, and it is 35 per cent higher than the comparable period last year. Included in that result is our sometimes maligned coal sector, which is our second biggest export for our nation—we should always remember that—and it is contributing $55 billion to that result. Indeed, our thermal coal exports themselves are headed for a record year of $37 billion, and this is particularly great news for the 44,000 Australians who rely on the coal sector for their jobs and the 200,000 Australians who rely on their jobs in the mining sector and resources sector more generally. That amounts to, in the coal sector alone, $5.7 billion in wages and salaries every year to Australians, thanks to that industry and thanks to those exports. But we sometimes take it too much for granted. It has only been really in the last half a century that the mining sector has contributed so strongly to our nation's growth, and that has, not coincidentally, coincided with the development of Asia and the increasing demand for our resources in our region. We now have the opportunity, particularly with India growing very fast, to meet their demand for resources as well, and we have huge opportunities in opening up areas of our country like the Galilee Basin to more coal exports than we have seen in the past, to more jobs and to more exporting income than we have seen. If we open up the Galilee Basin, more than 15,000 direct jobs in mining can be created from six different coalmines in the sector. Just keep in mind that our current coal industry employs 44,000 Australians, so it is an enormous increase in the wealth and opportunity that is created from our coal sector. It is an enormous opportunity for our country, and it is one that we, as a government, are committed to taking. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator O'Sullivan, a supplementary question. 15:03 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland Can the minister outline how all of Australia stands to benefit from a strong resources sector? 15:03 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland When our resources sector did develop over those 50 years, it also spurred the creation and establishment of related manufacturing industries, in steel-making and in aluminium smelting. We have all the resources and minerals to do these things. That is why it is so important to continue to have a strong resources sector, to help those value-adding opportunities and the thousands of Australians who work in those industries as well. I very much welcome the fact that Adani, the company behind the Carmichael coalmine in Central Queensland, have chosen to use Australian steel in their project and have chosen to help sustain the more than 2,000 South Australians who are employed at the Whyalla steelworks. This is how our resources sector spreads its opportunities right around our nation: a coalmine in Central Queensland can help sustain thousands of jobs in South Australia in our steel-making industry. I want to see Australia continue to make steel and continue to have a strong steel-making sector. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator O'Sullivan, a final supplementary question. 15:04 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland This'll be a good 'un! Is the minister aware of any challenges currently facing the sector? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Minister, you have the call. 15:04 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland It does face challenges, but I want to start by talking about the support our mining sector receives, and the opening up of the Galilee is supported by the Queensland Labor government and supported by eight regional councils and their mayors, representing more than 500,000 North Queenslanders. It is supported by trade unions. Ben Swan from the Australian Workers' Union says: Our full support and full weight is behind this development if it means regional jobs are created. It is supported by Peter Lamps, the Australian Workers' Union secretary in South Australia as well, because of those jobs in South Australia. The only question mark for me is: where does the Australian Labor Party, here in Canberra, stand on the development of our resources sector? Do they support steelmaking jobs in Whyalla? Do they support more jobs in North Queensland in our resources sector? That is the challenge facing the project right now. We are waiting for an answer, but there are still just question marks from the other side. Education 25 15:05 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. I refer to the Turnbull government's higher education reforms, which will see the HECS repayments threshold slashed to $42,000, fees increased by 7.5 per cent and public funding to universities cut by $2.8 billion. Why is the Turnbull government targeting graduates earning two-thirds of the median Australian wage while at the same time giving a $50 billion tax cut to big business and the big four banks? 15:06 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Carr for his question. Let me step Senator Carr through some of the reforms, and indeed I will happily deal with the company tax cuts as well for Senator Carr. First is the sustainability of Australia's student loan scheme, which is the envy of the world in terms of the access it provides for students to attend university without facing any up-front fees at all. But our student loan scheme currently has $52 billion worth of debt against it, and on current estimates around one-quarter of that is estimated to not be repaid. So the Turnbull government is taking action to make sure that we preserve that student loan scheme for the future to guarantee that future generations of Australian students will be able to go to university without the threat of up-front fees. And, yes, we are proposing a reduction in the threshold at which repayments commence. But at the same time we are introducing a new lower rate of repayment, which, at one per cent, means that around $8 per week will be asked of graduates to begin repaying their student debt into the future—$8 per week for graduates, who still have an employment advantage over other Australians and who have an income advantage over other Australians—all of it done to preserve one of the world's most generous student loan schemes. Do you know what the repayment threshold across the ditch in New Zealand is? It is $19,000. We are proposing $42,000 in Australia. This is ensuring fundamental fairness, equity and access. Senator Carr contrasts that with the government's enterprise tax reform plans, which were about making Australia a more competitive country in which to invest. What is the most important thing to a university graduate when they finish university? It is getting a job. University graduates need to know that there will be a strong economy with growing industry that is investing in Australia and creating jobs for graduates, and that is exactly what these reforms seek to guarantee. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Carr, a supplementary question? 15:08 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria After the government has spent around $4.5 million on 27 reviews, inquiries and talkfests on higher education, the chief executive of the Group of Eight, Ms Vicki Thomson, says: This package does not provide a long-term vision for the future which will sustain this success or Australia's standing. Is Ms Thomson correct? 15:08 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia (—) (): This is a reform package that can provide certainty to students in the future that they will continue to be able to access university places without a cap on those places and without the threat of any up-front fees being in place. It took off the table any notion of fee deregulation and it provides absolute certainty on the types of fees. It guarantees that students will continue to have the majority of their fees—54 per cent, in fact—paid for by the taxpayer and of course a generous taxpayer-subsidised student loan is available for those students. It expands opportunities for universities to offer one- and two-year associate degree and diploma courses with strong industry links. It expands the opportunities for Australian universities to engage with industry and business by offering work placement opportunities and work-integrated learning as well as payments to incentivise and encourage them to do so. This is a reform proposal that has a clear vision for Australian universities that maintains access, enhances access and enhances opportunities and links to work in industry. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Carr, a final supplementary question? 15:09 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria The vice-chancellor of Monash University, Professor Margaret Gardner, says, 'You cannot continue to cut a sector and expect it to be of world quality.' How much more does the minister think he can cut this sector without risking the $22 billion it contributes each year as the nation's third-largest service sector export? 15:10 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia We are going to continue to support record levels of investment and assistance to Australian universities and to the higher education sector. Ours is a government that proudly delivered the National Innovation and Science Agenda, which delivered a decade of certainty in funding for collaborative research infrastructure across Australia, that is providing better systems to drive greater collaboration between our universities and researchers. We have overseen record growth in terms of student numbers and, as a result, the delivery of an environment that is seeing the third-largest export sector in Australia—that being higher education, and education generally, and the learning opportunities that we are providing to students right around the world. Through these reforms, we are providing financial sustainability and certainty to universities, so that they will continue to have uncapped places; to students, so that they can continue to have a guarantee of no up-front fees; and to taxpayers, so that the system will be financially sustainable into the future. Senator BRANDIS 008W7 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 27 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Education 27 15:11 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) and the Minister for Education and Training (Senator Birmingham) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to education funding. I note in particular that the Minister for Education and Training gave no information on government fee modelling, or the modelling of the fee impact on schools, because their education deal is a dog of a deal. You cannot succeed in a conniving manner forever. Eventually, the truth catches up with you. Former Prime Minister Howard learnt this, although it took years, in the 'children overboard' affair. Mr Turnbull should have learnt this lesson when he lost his leadership last time over the Godwin Grech saga, but now we have him and his education minister conniving their way through the Gonski education reforms. Mr Turnbull says he is not joining the Orange Lodge, but his and his education minister's attack on Catholic parish schools is an abuse of process and understanding. Senator Brandis should be ashamed of himself for allowing this through cabinet. He just does not get the Catholic education mission and is prepared to spin untruths to hide his real agenda, contrary to the Gonski recommendations. I thought I would spend some time this week with the 'book of Gonski'. Mr Turnbull and Senator Birmingham claim that they have had a conversion on Gonski. Let's remind everyone what the real Gonski is. They should be ashamed of what they have done—this contrivance that they have delivered—and I will spend time this week debunking all of those myths. Let's have a quick recap of history. Mr Abbott, just before he became Prime Minister, said the difference between him and Labor on Gonski was wafer-thin. Then he came into government and he stopped the whole reform process. This is all history we know, so it is no surprise that Mr Gonski is relieved that we have moved back to needs-based funding. I would be relieved too. Sure, the visual images of David Gonski last week gave the government some credence. But Mr Gonski, let us be clear here, simply agreed to conduct a review into how the Commonwealth government's funds should be used. That is all he agreed to. To his credit, David has always been very careful not to enter the school funding wars. But the government sought to co-opt him into their conniving. Mr Gonski's good name and reputation have been tarnished by this process. Senator Brandis interjecting— Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 There is no question, Senator Brandis, that there is an enormous calibre gap between Mr David Gonski and this minister for education. Fortunately we have the record. It is in this report—what Mr Gonski recommended—and, quite contrary to what this government is claiming, Mr Gonski never recommended that the Commonwealth should apply a one-size-fits-all formula—never, ever did he recommend that. That is because unlike the education minister, Mr Gonski has a clear grasp of the complexity of school education funding. Senator Brandis 008W7 That is why he endorsed the policy. Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 No, Senator Brandis, he did not endorse your policy. He said, 'I'm relieved essentially that you've adopted an SRS needs based approach.' But let's have a look. Senator Brandis 008W7 You have probably never met him. Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 I have met him many times, Senator Brandis. In fact, he has commended the work I did in philanthropy, if you must know, and in fact I had responsibility for delivering one of his recommendations, which he was very pleased about. But let us go back to what he did say. The complaint that Catholic Education has is that in his recommendation 20 and his recommendation 21, he said, 'Needs based funding should be rolled out in a particular way' and it has been shifted by this government— (Time expired) 15:17 Senator BACK J7Q Western Australia One thing that Minister Birmingham could not do is undo the rotten $17 billion of waste of the Gillard memorial halls. But I tell you what he did do. He got rid of the 27 dirty little deals that Ms Gillard did with various education authorities around Australia. Madam Deputy President, our home state of Western Australia, as usual, was done over the worst by the then Labor government. I will tell you why it was. Where Senator Birmingham will be moving to 80 per cent funding for the Catholic system in WA at the moment, under what were the changes from Ms Gillard it is 67 per cent. It moves up to 80. Which state group did worst under the dirty little Gillard deals? It was Western Australia. Isn't it absolutely amazing. The other instrumentality that did the worst under the 27 dirty deals was the Northern Territory. Do you know one of the common links between WA and the Northern Territory at that time? Senator Smith can remember. They were Liberal governments. What is Minister Birmingham doing? He is moving to a fair figure across Australia. Senator Collins and others have jumped up and down and talked about the Catholic schools' catholicity. I remind you, Madam Deputy President, I was a member of Catholic Education Western Australia for nine years from the 1980s to the nineties, which allows me to answer the allegations of Senator Farrell. Only late last week, as Senator Smith would expect, I engaged with the head of Catholic Education Western Australia in a very, very robust and useful discussion. Where do you think that sent me? It sent me straight on to Minister Birmingham. Through that dialogue on Friday night, when the rest of you were probably having a beer and a chardonnay, Senator Birmingham, Mr Tim McDonald and I were conversing on the best way forward in terms of consultation and negotiation. That led on Saturday of this very last week to further communication between Senator Birmingham, the CEO for Catholic Education in WA and my good self. As we know—those who are interested and those who want to stop throwing nonsense at Minister Birmingham would know—in fact the negotiating team from national Catholic Education were meeting with Minister Birmingham only yesterday afternoon. So that is the level of consultation we have. Is everybody happy? No, they are not. Why might they not be happy? Let me go back to the 27 dirty little deals. Some of the states, some of the independent and possibly even some of the Catholic systems appeared to be adversely advantaged or disadvantaged. Minister Birmingham is proposing to achieve within 10 years a situation in which all Catholic and independent school funding will be at 80 per cent and all states' funding through the Commonwealth will be at 20 per cent. You may well ask: who then funds the balance of the states' education? Under the Constitution of Australia, it is the states themselves that do that funding. But let me go back to the 80 per cent for a moment. The Catholics and the independents move up not to 100 per cent but to 90 per cent, principally through fees. It is the case that children in Australia are taught at 90 per cent efficiency by the Catholic and independent schools. In other words, it is 10 per cent cheaper, because they run their schools so much more efficiently. In the few moments available to me I will go to another excellent component of Minister Birmingham's work on consultation with the sectors. The independent and Catholic schools, through capital funding over the next 10 years, will receive $300 million of extra capital funding for new school-related buildings. There will be $50 million as a catch-up, because the last government did nothing about relativities between 2009 and when they lost government in 2013. Then there will be an added $250 million for new capital for new schools, for extension and expansion of schools. Yes, it is a fact that, under our Catholic system, co-responsibility—in the case of WA across the state—is one of the finest principles. Whilst the minister is looking at a per student weighting, he has assured me that the overall funding will return to the sector so that co-responsibility funding can continue under his regime. I congratulate him. 15:22 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania In question time today there was a simple question asked of the Minister for Education and Training, and that was: what fee modelling has been done? He failed to answer that. He waffled on about roadshows, sideshows and whatever show he was putting on. The minister also alleged that he had 'all this consultation'. He had all this consultation in the last few days, by the sounds of it. Even the good senator leaving the chamber now, Senator Back, was just talking about consultation in the last few days. Apparently this is a policy that was put together over many, many months. But, now, when educators and parents are coming out and saying, 'This is not good enough,' suddenly there is consultation. So what do we have here? We have Mr Turnbull's education policy, which amounts to $22 billion in cuts to the original Gonski education funding proposed by Labor— Senator Brandis 008W7 No, it does not. Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Yes, it does; $22 billion in cuts to the original Gonski education funding proposed by Labor and previously agreed to, as alluded to by my colleague Senator Collins, by the Liberal Party. What we see here under this new policy is more recycling and a poor imitation of Labor's policy initiatives. It is immediately apparent that this government has no long-term vision or credible policies of its own. We know that, after this $22 billion of cuts, it is likely that no public school will reach its fair funding level. It has taken only a few days for the Liberals' new school funding policy to fall to pieces. Today, Senator Back talked about people throwing nonsense about. Let us look at who he says is throwing nonsense about. It is clear that, prior to announcing what is effectively a watered-down version of Labor's original Gonski initiative, Mr Turnbull did not consult with his own party. The Liberal Party are in revolt over this issue. They do not want you to know, but that is exactly what is happening. It is a complete shambles, and a shambles brought on by the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. He has brought this on. He has done no real consultation at all, and that was shown even in Senator Back's contribution, talking about consultation over the last few days. While Mr Turnbull was out of the country, the Acting Prime Minister, Mr Joyce—he is apparently one of the people that Senator Back was talking about as people throwing nonsense about—was already flagging changes when he stated on 4 May that there could be 'tweaking'. He said, 'We never completely close our minds.' The Assistant Treasurer, Michael Sukkar, was quoted in TheDailyTelegraph on 5 May: Victorian Liberal frontbencher and Assistant Treasurer Michael Sukkar suggested the government would have to modify its plans to ensure schools were satisfied. Mr Abbott and Liberal MPs are threatening a party room revolt and suggest Mr Turnbull might dump the new policy. Again on 5 May, TheSydney Morning Herald stated: Tony Abbott has predicted Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull could dump— his newly announced— … education funding reform. It then quoted Mr Abbott as saying: This will, I'm sure, be heavily discussed in our party room on Tuesday … Marginal seat Liberals were also quoted in The Australian on 4 May as saying: … the education funding package was "absolutely outrageous" and declared more voters would "abandon" the party, as they urged Mr Turnbull and the Education Minister to reconsider the changes. These are some of the quotes that Senator Back in his contribution talked about as nonsense. Members of the Liberal Party, members of their own caucus, are not happy. They have also said: … if "this is not fixed and soon", there would be a partyroom showdown … "I have no idea what they are thinking … I can't believe it," … Even the Liberal education minister— (Time expired) 15:27 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia It is worth reminding people that today is the eve of the federal budget. Indeed, it is the first parliamentary sitting day since an extended recess—when senators were not on holiday; they were working in their constituencies. So the Labor opposition in the Senate had various options today when it came to question time. It could have attempted to present an alternative economic plan for the country, but it did not. It could have tried to undermine the government's very, very successful response to the energy crisis, but it could not and it did not. It could have tried to undermine the government's historic media reforms that were announced just days ago, but it did not; it could not. Instead, we have had a very lacklustre campaign to try and undermine the government's historic, much-needed reforms to Australia's education system. If you want to listen to people who are informed on this debate, then you cannot go past my Western Australian colleague Senator Chris Back, who, in his very wise and tempered contribution, talked about his firsthand experience having been on the Western Australian Catholic Education commission for a long period of time. It is unfortunate that Hansard does not capture screeching and loud voices, because what we have heard thus far in this take-note debate is screeching, is loud voices—but I am sorry to inform senators on the other side that loud voices, screeching voices, do not make weak arguments stronger. Let us get to the substance of the issue. There are two particular points that, in the limited time available to me, I would like to highlight. The first is whether or not the previous Labor government did in good faith reflect David Gonski's education reform aspirations, and the answer to that is no. Secondly, I would like to reflect on a part of the world that I know quite well, the federal electorate of Cowan—indeed, Madam Deputy President might know it well—in Perth's northern suburbs, and just detail for people what are the real dollar advantages to be achieved on the ground in local schools in a pretty tough part of Western Australia, I might add. When I go through those schools, some of them are Catholic schools, and they absolutely benefit. I will speak briefly, if I may, to the accusation that this government is not living up to the David Gonski ambitions when it comes to education reform. I want to turn briefly to an article that Glenn Savage has written in The Conversation. Those of you who know Glenn Savage will know that he is from the Melbourne Graduate School of Education, based at the University of Melbourne. What does Glenn Savage have to say? He says: The new reform is good policy for two main reasons. First, it seeks, in principle at least, to correct some of the compromises and corruptions— his words— that marred the original Gonski reforms, leading to many different deals being done across the nation and to a highly inconsistent application of the SRS. He goes on to say: Second, states will only get funding if they agree to use the money for reforms proven "to support better outcomes for students". This will broaden the focus from simply debating how much schools get, to the equally important question of what schools do with the cash. Glenn Savage goes on to respond, specifically, to the issues around what the true aspirations and ambitions of David Gonski's education reforms are for our country. Glenn says: The original Gonski review was designed to introduce a fairer, more transparent and needs-based federal funding model. If such a model had actually been produced, over-funded non-government schools would have lost some money. But this never happened. Instead, early in the review process, the Labor government promised that "no school would lose a dollar" as a result of the reforms. Instead of a "needs-based" model, Labor delivered a model that injected significantly more money into schooling, but also protected the vested interests of Catholic and independent schools. There is simply no denying this fact. As original Gonski review panellist member Ken Boston recently put it, "the Gonski Report was filleted and the flesh thrown away", leaving a deeply unfair set of arrangements. The Gonski report was filleted and the flesh thrown away, leaving a deeply unfair set of arrangements. That is why this government has taken upon itself to embark upon not just a historic reform but a historic reform that delivers fairness, transparency, equity and a needs based approach to public education. (Time expired) Education 30 15:32 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria Today I asked a question of the Attorney about the new Gonski 2.0. Like most of the government's policies, there is nothing original and everything is tired. What a tired and weary government it is. When the Prime Minister and education minister announce one thing and the Deputy Prime Minister and Assistant Treasurer say another, Australian parents, teachers and principals are rightly concerned. There is a little bit of circus in this. Who would not want to sit back with popcorn and watch the coalition party room, with all of its multiple divisions once again renting the air? What we are seeing is something that may become known as 'government by Turnbull'—that is, secrecy and no consultation. Then comes a shock announcement driven by bureaucracy; waved through by dud, visionless ministers; signed off by a callous, clueless, incompetently led cabinet; and then a backlash from those in the real world. In this case, it is from Catholic school teachers, principals, parents and students. What follows the backlash? The backflip. Given the cruelty and callousness of these cuts, given the grave concern that this attack on Catholic education is causing in the real world—a world that one cannot see from a $50 million Sydney harbourside mansion—and given the inevitability of backlash-backflip cycles in this bungling mess of a government, why not just get the agony and misery over and done with? The Scripture tells us that, where there is no vision, the people perish. If you do not stand for anything you will fall for everything. Imagine the once great Liberal Party of Menzies sticking the knife into Catholic schools. Lest I tell those opposite their own history—a history for which they seem to have scant regard—in the early 1960s Menzies extended funding to Catholic schools. At the same time, a young John Howard used his leadership of the Young Liberals to support the pro-state aid, as it was termed, for Catholic schools policy of the federal Liberals. When he became Prime Minister he still believed in this policy. Imagine having a Prime Minister who believes in a policy for more than a media news cycle! Indeed, Mr Howard said at that time that it was a matter of justice that Catholic schools be supported. There has been some discussion around the funding models. I want to point out the government's own Quality Schools, Quality Outcomes document. It is readily available on the department of education's website, but it obviously is not a very easy document for those opposite to find. That report from May last year—a whole year ago, a very long time for this government—says: All schools need to have certainty in their funding arrangements to ensure effective planning and support for students. In fact, the government seem to have done a complete 180 from their position on school funding last year. The report says: For the 2018 to 2020 school years, recurrent school funding will be indexed by an education specific indexation rate of 3.56 per cent, with an allowance for changes in enrolments. This measure reflects more accurately the growth in education costs by focusing on factors specifically related to the education sector. Consequently, as a result of using this index, the Australian Government will provide an additional $1.2 billion over four years from 2017-18. What a long time ago May 2016 was for this government. The government are trying to sell this policy by saying that the $2 billion they have quoted is an increase from the previous figure of $1.2 billion, but the reality is that the Gonski 2.0 policy will reduce funding by $22 billion over 10 years compared to Labor's policy. After those 10 years, 85 per cent of schools will still be short of the resource standard. As the Quality Schools, Quality Outcomes report makes clear, this time last year the government had committed to fixed indexation. They made out that it was the best thing since sliced bread, but the substance of this policy only commits to fixed indexation at a rate of 3.56 per cent until 2021. After that there will be a shift to floating indexation. I will not go too far into the details of the policy, as it is available in the Quality Schools, Quality Outcomes document. (Time expired) Question agreed to. Budget 31 15:37 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Di Natale today relating to the 2017-18 Budget. I want to begin by saying that it is the responsibility of all of us—that is, parents, local communities and, indeed, government—to make sure that we hand down better living conditions to the generations who follow us. It is our responsibility to ensure that our children have a better quality of life than we enjoyed. That is in essence what it means to progress as a community and as a society. What we do know about this budget is that it will reverse that notion of progress. It will do that by waging a war on, and effectively screwing over, young people. We know young people will be hit hard by this budget. We know that because there has been a torrent of budget leaks that demonstrate this government's priorities when it comes to young people. We know that uni students will be saddled with more debt and the threshold for the repayment of the debt will be lowered, effectively proposing an increased tax on some of the most vulnerable, lowest paid people in our community. We know that those young people are being locked out of an increasingly unaffordable housing market, fuelled by the presence of property speculators and investors, who are attracted to property through tax concessions like negative gearing and capital gains tax. We know that young people are now in an environment where wage growth has slowed and weekend pay rates have been cut. We also know that it is young people who will need to clean up the mess that this government are making of our planet. Their stubborn inaction when it comes to tackling dangerous global warming is a legacy they will hand down to future generations. It is important to remember who is making these decisions. These decisions are from a generation of people who benefited from a society that understood that education, health care, affordable housing, employment and having a safe climate were all priorities that needed to be met. The decision to wage war on young people, the decision to do over young people, is being made by a generation of politicians who went to university when it was free and who could get health care without having to stump up for private health insurance. It is being made by a generation of people who could work hard for a few years in an average job and be able to afford a deposit on a home and be able to pay it off in a relatively short period of time. It is being made by a generation who benefited from strong wage growth, yet what we see now is wage stagnation. And it is being made by a generation who thought that this planet's capabilities were endless and polluted it to a time when the rent is due, and the rent will need to be paid by young people. The government talked a lot about intergenerational theft. It talked about intergenerational theft in the sense of a budget deficit being forced to be paid back by the generations that follow. What it does not talk about is the intergenerational theft that is involved in slugging young people with high student fees, unaffordable housing and dangerous global warming. The PM's plan is to basically get parents to shell out for a home and for people to get a better-paying job, but we know that is no plan at all. We know that we need to start recognising that we have a responsibility to the generations that follow, and that is why the Greens are prepared to take the action that is required to deliver a safe climate. The Greens are prepared to take the action that is required to ensure we take the heat out of the housing market and make housing more affordable and, if you are getting an education, we recognise that comes as a benefit to all of us and we are not going to lumber you with debt for the rest of your life. Question agreed to. NOTICES 31 NOTICES Presentation 31 Withdrawal 37 15:42 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales Pursuant to notice given on 29 March 2017, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for 19 June 2017 proposing the disallowance of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment (Health Measures No. 2) Regulation 2016. Presentation 37 15:43 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings: Parliamentary Business Resources Bill 2017 Parliamentary Business Resources (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017. Also, I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for these bills to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows— STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR INTRODUCTION AND PASSAGE IN THE 2017 WINTER SITTINGS PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS RESOURCES BILL 2017 PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS RESOURCES (CONSEQUENTIAL AND TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2017 Purpose of the Bill To establish new primary legislation governing parliamentarians' business expenses (referred to currently as "entitlements" or "benefits") and repeal the Parliamentary Entitlements Act 1990 (PE Act), Parliamentary Entitlements Regulations 1997 (PE Regulations) and all legislative instruments authorised by the PE Act and PE Regulations Reasons for Urgency The Parliamentary Business Resources Bill 2017 (PBR Bill) needs to be passed by 22 June 2017 to enable new or revised work expenses to commence at the beginning of the 2017–18 financial year. The commencement of the PBR Bill is tied to the passage of the Parliamentary Business Resources (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2017. Therefore, passage must be secured for both bills if either is to commence at the beginning of the 2017–18 financial year. (Circulated by authority of the Minister for Finance) BUSINESS 37 BUSINESS Rearrangement 37 15:44 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That general business order of the day No. 42, Competition and Consumer Legislation Amendment (Small Business Access to Justice) Bill 2017, be considered on Thursday, 11 May 2017 under consideration of private senators' bills. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 37 15:44 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Payne from 9 May 2017 to 11 May 2017 on account of ministerial business. Question agreed to. 15:45 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Marshall for today 9 May 2017; and (b) Senator Pratt for 11 May 2017 for personal reasons. Question agreed to. NOTICES 38 NOTICES Postponement 38 15:45 The PRESIDENT e5v Does any senator wish the question to be put on any of those notifications? There being none, we will proceed. COMMITTEES 38 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 38 15:46 The PRESIDENT e5v Does any senator wish the question to be put on any of those notifications? There being none, we will proceed. COMMITTEES 38 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications References Committee 38 Reference 38 15:46 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 23 November 2017: The current and future impacts of climate change on housing, buildings and infrastructure, accounting for the full range of projected climate scenarios, having regard to matters, including: (a) recent and projected changes in sea level rises, and storm surge intensity; (b) recent and projected changes in temperature and precipitation; (c) recent and projected changes in extreme weather, including heatwaves, bushfires, floods, and cyclones; (d) recent and projected changes in natural coastal defence systems including coral reefs, kelp and mangrove forests; (e) the impact of these changes on the vulnerability of infrastructure in coastal areas; (f) the impact of these changes on water supply and sewage treatment systems; (g) the impact of these changes on transportation, including railways, roads and airports; (h) the impact of these changes on energy infrastructure, including generators and transmission and distribution lines; (i) the impact of these changes on health, education and social services infrastructure, including hospitals, schools and aged care; (j) the impact of these changes on private and public housing; (k) the impact of these changes on public recreation and tourism facilities; (l) the impact on financing and insurance arrangements for housing, buildings and infrastructure; (m) the adequacy of current state and Commonwealth policies to assess, plan and implement adaptation plans and improved resilience of infrastructure; and (n) any other related matters. 15:46 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT e5v Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 Australia has developed a significant national resilience and adaptation capability and is well positioned to meet the challenge of climate change. In December 2015, the Australian government released the National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy. The strategy sets out how Australia is managing climate risks for the benefit of the community, economy and environment. For example, we are providing guidance relating to transport infrastructure through the Australian Transport Assessment and Planning Guidelines. These guidelines cover public road and rail transport and include appropriate guidance on climate change adaptation for transport planning and project appraisals. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 39 MOTIONS Senator Georgiou: First Speech 39 15:47 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to amend government business notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Fifield by omitting '10 May 2017' and substituting '14 June 2017'. The full text of the revised motion has been circulated in the chamber. Leave granted. Senator McGRATH 217241 I move the motion as amended: That consideration of the business before the Senate on Wednesday, 14 June 2017, be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable Senator Georgiou to make his first speech without any question before the chair. Question agreed to. Congress of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nurses and Midwives 39 15:48 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Before asking that the motion be taken as formal, I wish to inform the chamber that Senator Kakoschke-Moore will also be a sponsor of the motion. I ask that general business notice of motion No. 300 standing in our names for today relating to the Congress of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island Nurses and Midwives be taken as a formal motion. The PRESIDENT e5v Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? There being none, I call Senator Siewert. Senator SIEWERT e5z I move: That the Senate— (a)   notes that Congress of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Nurses and Midwives (CATSINaM): (i)   is the national peak body that represents, advocates and supports Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nurses and midwives at a national level, (ii)   represents the largest Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health workforce, and (iii)   undertakes extensive activity to build the capacity of non-Aboriginal health professionals to provide culturally-safe work and health service environments for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander staff and service users across the nursing and midwifery profession; and (b)   calls on the Government to embed cultural safety in health practitioner legislation and fund CATSINaM beyond 30 June 2018. Question agreed to. World Parkinson's Day 40 15:49 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 303, standing in the names of Senators Brown and Williams, as follows: paragraph (a)(i) omit 'is', substitute 'was'. Leave granted. Senator URQUHART 231199 At the request of Senators Brown and Williams, I move the motion as amended: That the Senate— (a)   notes that:    (i)   11 April 2017 was World Parkinson’s Day,    (ii)   2017 marks 200 years since the disease was recognised by Dr James Parkinson in his publication, An Essay on the Shaking Palsy,    (iii)   conservative estimates indicate there are well over 70,000 people living with Parkinson’s in Australia, making it the most common major movement disorder,    (iv)   an estimated 700,000 people are directly impacted because they either have Parkinson’s, provide care to someone or have a family member or close friend with Parkinson’s, and    (v)   in 2014, the total cost to the Australian economy from Parkinson’s was $9.9 billion; and    (b)   acknowledges that:    (i)   World Parkinson’s Day brings the community together as part of a global campaign,    (ii)   Australians with Parkinson’s should have access to specialist care, medications and therapies,    (iii)   investment in research is critical to finding better treatments, and ultimately a cure, for Parkinson’s disease,    (iv)   a skilled workforce is vital to ensuring a timely diagnosis and better care and support for people living with Parkinson’s,    (v)   there is a significant financial burden faced by people with the disease and their families, and    (vi)   the economic burden of Parkinson’s is set to rise, as the number of people with Parkinson’s is set to increase by 4% per year. Question agreed to. Military Unmanned Aerial Vehicles 40 15:50 Senator LUDLAM I07 Western Australia I move: That the Senate— (a)   is deeply concerned that the Australian Defence Force (ADF) is reportedly planning to purchase weaponised drones; (b)   notes that: (i)   the Obama Administration is estimated to have killed at least 7 000 people with these lethal unpiloted aircraft during its term of government, (ii)   the Bureau of Investigative Journalists estimates that up to 1 168 civilians have been killed in United States (US) drone strikes in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia alone, (iii)   due to the lack of transparency surrounding the US’s lethal drone program, and the practice of categorising unidentified people killed in strikes as enemies even if they were not the intended target, it is impossible to tally the exact number of civilian deaths, and (iv)   weaponised drone strikes exacerbate the very threat that the ADF is seeking to confront; and (c)   calls on the Australian Government not to purchase weaponised drones, and instead direct funding to strengthening Australia’s diplomatic network and increasing Australia’s aid budget from its current record low. 15:51 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT e5v Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The 2016 Defence White Paper detailed the government's plans to introduce armed medium-altitude unmanned aircraft in the early 2020s. These aircraft will provide enhanced intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance support to a range of missions, including counterterrorism missions overseas, while augmenting our surveillance capability for search and rescue, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. It is important to note that all unmanned aerial systems currently operated and being considered by Australia are remotely piloted. As such, there is always a human within the system. All unmanned aerial systems are required to meet stringent airworthiness requirements and follow strict operational guidelines to ensure the protection of other aviators and civilians on the ground. The coalition government has overseen the largest single expansion of our overseas diplomatic presence in 40 years. At 2016-17, Australia will deliver around $3.8 billion in development assistance, making Australia the 13th largest donor in the OECD. The PRESIDENT e5v The question is that the motion moved by Senator Ludlam be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:56]
(The President—Senator Parry)

 9 AYES Di Natale, R Hanson-Young, SC Ludlam, S McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 49 NOES Abetz, E Back, CJ Bernardi, C Brown, CL Burston, B Bushby, DC Cameron, DN Cash, MC Chisholm, A Dastyari, S Dodson, P Duniam, J Farrell, D Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S Ketter, CR Lambie, J Leyonhjelm, DE Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M McGrath, J McKenzie, B Moore, CM Nash, F O'Neill, DM O'Sullivan, B Parry, S Paterson, J Polley, H Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Roberts, M Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Sinodinos, A Smith, D Urquhart, AE (teller) Williams, JR Xenophon, N 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 16:00 The PRESIDENT e5v Order! The result of the division is nine—despite lobbying from the Greens, who wanted it to be 9.5!—for the ayes and 49 for the noes. That concludes discovery of formal business. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 41 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Mining Industry: Adani 41 16:00 The PRESIDENT e5v I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 this morning, Senators Gallagher and Siewert each submitted a letter in accordance with standing order No. 75, proposing a matter of public importance. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot, and, as a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Siewert: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The Turnbull government's enthusiasm to waste $1 billion propping up Labor's Adani mine shows they're working for billionaires, not for the future of everyday Australians. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The PRESIDENT e5v The proposal is supported, and I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate and, with the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. I call Senator Waters. 16:01 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Thank you very much, Mr President. It is good to be back—and that breastfeeding was perfectly timed; she has just finished, thank you very much. I rise to speak today about what a complete waste of money and a foolish idea spending $1 billion of public money on the largest coalmine in the southern hemisphere would be. The Adani mine is the best and the most appalling example of the way in which the big parties are working for the big end of town and not actually for communities or, for that matter, for the planet. Australians know that our political system is broken and that our economic system is rigged against everyday people. The same system that lets greedy bankers rip off everyday people, with the full protection of politicians, is the same system that is going to let—over our dead bodies—Adani take unlimited groundwater from Queensland when about 90 per cent of the state is in drought. This is the same system that lets property developers steamroll local residents with insider deals, and it is the same system that wants to hand a billion dollars of taxpayer money—your money—to a multinational mining company. And this is the system that allows political donations to buy influence and to buy policy results, which is exactly why we see the dominance of gambling, alcohol, tobacco, property developers and, of course, the mining sector. They tend to get their way, and the community is utterly forgotten. Adani, the banks, insurance companies and the big end of town have got their well-paid lobbyists and they have got their well-connected former politicians. We know about the revolving door between MPs in this place, or their staffers, and the resources sector; it goes back and forth, and it is a very cosy relationship which borders on corruption. All we have got is people power. But, thankfully, I think that is going to be enough. When ordinary people stand up, we can win, and the growth of the community movement in the last few months, with a new coalition of environment groups launching the Stop Adani campaign, has really generated some interest in this issue, and people now know what a foolish and ridiculous spend $1 billion of taxpayers' money would be on a polluting coalmine that will further endanger the Reef, which has just faced back-to-back bleaching episodes. Never before in the Reef's history has so much of it bleached, and never before has it happened two years running. Yet this government, with the full support of Labor in Queensland, are happy to bend over backwards to fast-track approvals, and now want to give $1 billion to this project. You could not design a more ridiculous situation. It is clear that, for the donors, it is payday; they have made their donations, and now they are getting the results that they want. Unfortunately, no-one has done as much to grease the wheels for this coalmine proposal as Queensland Labor. They have given a water licence, with unlimited and free groundwater, for the life of the mine. Nobody else gets that sort of special treatment. Farmers and other water users are asked to be very careful with their water use. They have multiple levels of bureaucratic process to go through. They have to tighten their belts in a drought situation; the mining industry do not. They get free and unlimited groundwater. The Queensland government also want to offer Adani a royalty holiday. They have been very cagey about this. They will not actually tell us how long the royalty holiday is going to be for. Nobody else gets a holiday on their royalties, but they have, once again, picked up a Campbell Newman idea that the first mover in the Galilee Basin would get a freebie and not even have to pay for the pleasure of ripping coal out of this planet's core and burning it, worsening climate change. Again, you could not think of a worse deal. To silence the community, the Queensland Labor government have also created a special legal loophole for Adani in relation to their water licence. The community can no longer have a say on whether they think that is a good use of our precious water and, hence, they cannot go to court even if the decision made is a poor one either on the merits or on the process. They have approved the mine at every level, they have lobbied for federal taxpayer funding to come out of this Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, the NAIF, despite going to the election saying that they would both save the reef and not spend taxpayer dollars on this project, and they have gone to India recently to beg the head of Adani to build the mine. What is less well known than all of those appalling facts is that the Queensland government has the power to veto the billion dollars that Mr Malcolm Turnbull and this government want to give to Adani. Queensland Labor could block that $1 billion loan to Adani, and they could announce that today, if they so wished. Before the election, Labor said that they would not give any money to Adani's coal railway to nowhere, and now they have been actively facilitating that loan. As a Queenslander and as someone who cares deeply about the reef and about a safe future for the generations to come, I think that Queensland Labor needs to veto that NAIF money. If, indeed, the Liberal government is going to insist on giving free taxpayer money to this overseas company with a billionaire at its helm to trash the reef, then Queensland Labor needs to stand up and say, 'We will not accept that money.' They have that power under the NAIF Act and they need to use it. Of course, federal Labor could also weigh in on this issue, and should do so. They have been quite prevaricating. One minute they are saying they love the coal industry; the next they are saying, 'Oh, but it's got to stand on its own two feet, but we might think about giving them taxpayer money.' They are all over the shop on this one. We know that the Liberals have thrown their lot in with the coal industry. That is beyond question. We know Labor often do that also, but they need to come clean on what their actual position is, and Mr Bill Shorten needs to announce that if his lot were to form government he would require a review of the environmental approvals for this company, because what has come to light in the last few months is their appalling environmental track record. Our environmental laws need reform, but they do at least require that sort of thing to be considered, and when the track record is so appalling and when new information has come to light now, since the approvals have been issued, there is the ability to reconsider those approvals. So, in short, Labor need to come out and say that they would reconsider those approvals and they would look at the dodgy environmental history of this company. That would send a very strong message and could help to kill this mine. We know that regional Queensland is crying out for jobs. We know that it is crying out for jobs that will last, that are not subject to a boom-and-bust cycle, that are not killing workers with black lung, which is resurgent in Queensland. We thought we had killed that off decades ago, but black lung is back and it is here, in a Queensland coalmine, coming to you. We need jobs in those areas, but we need jobs that do not kill the workers and do not kill the reef. It is not that hard to think about positive, this-century options for job generation, but Labor are blinded by the money coming from the coal sector, and the donors continue to get their way. Other, lesser heard voices in this debate have been the voices of the local Indigenous people. The Wangan and Jagalingou mob, whom I meet with regularly, and their lead spokesperson, Adrian Burragubba, who is a deeply honourable man, have been opposing this mine from the outset. There have been all sorts of dodgy tactics, which have meant that the group has been infiltrated, there have been attempts at bribery of the process, and people who are not even from country have been ferried in to stack the process. What is really clear is that the legitimate traditional owners of that area do not want this mine. They do not want their groundwater ruined. They do not want their sacred spaces trashed and dug up and turned into an open-cut coalmine. No means no, yet this government is completely deaf to them, such that we now have a bill to ram through a reduction in native title rights just so the Adani mine can get up. What an absolute farce—and what a real abrogation and an insult, once again, to our first nations. There is a lot of talk about job creation, and we love job creation. We also love the 70,000 jobs on the reef. They are at risk from a continued bleaching episode, driven by climate change, which will be made worse by this coalmine were it ever to proceed. So it is a bit rich of Minister Canavan and others on that side to be trumpeting the potential for jobs from this proposal when the company itself has massively backtracked and said: 'Oh, actually, we weren't telling the truth when we first told you it was going to be 10,000; it's going to be more like 1,464. Soz about the arithmetic error.' Yet we hear nothing from that side about the 70,000 reef jobs that are at risk from climate change, which will be turbocharged by this mine. So do not buy the lies from that side or from the company, who distance themselves from their original projections anyway. If we think about jobs, there are some recent proposals for solar thermal plants for Queensland—in fact, up to six, by a company that has a demonstrated positive environmental track record offshore—that could generate 20,000 jobs in clean renewable generation in Queensland. That is the sort of job creation we want to see. Those jobs will last. They will help us keep the lights on. They will not trash the reef. And they will not kill their workers with a disease that we thought was eradicated decades ago. That is the sort of positive planning that needs to be done, rather than the dog whistling to One Nation with this propping up of last-century so-called technology in an effort to pander to people who are desperate for jobs. They do not want promises of fake jobs; they want real jobs, and they deserve that. We know that our reef cannot withstand another bleaching event. And, as Terry Hughes has said, it is a choice between the reef and new coal. The decision is pretty clear to the Australian Greens. It is now over to the government and to Labor to cast their lot. (Time expired) 16:11 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland For those who might be listening to this debate on the Adani mine, one can understand why the Greens political party is on the downwards slide. Unfortunately perhaps for democracy, nobody takes any notice of them anymore, and the previous speech exemplifies just why: it was full of inaccuracies and deliberate misstatements of the facts. For example—just to pick up a couple, and time does not allow me to show the lie of everything that was just said in that speech—the suggestion that the local Indigenous people have been bribed to support the mine is just not true. If Senator Waters had attended the hearing in Brisbane of the inquiry into the native title amendment, she would have heard from the local Indigenous people there that they had a number of meetings and that the local Indigenous people support this proposal. And she would have heard the same from Indigenous groups right around. Senator Waters also said that the Commonwealth was going to be handing out free money to Adani to trash the reef. Well, there is no free money. In case Senator Waters is not aware—and I am sure she is, but that does not stop her deliberately misstating the facts—the North Australia Infrastructure Facility is a loan based facility. It is a loan from that particular organisation which has to be repaid by the recipient. And it is not the government, Senator Waters. NAIF is a completely independent group, a company set up under its own legislation. It makes the decisions. It is not subject to federal government direction or, in most cases, veto. The Greens continue to misstate the facts. Any speech by the Greens now will always include—you can bet your bottom dollar, whatever they are talking about—that it is going to destroy the reef. Again I say that Australia emits less than 1.2 per cent of carbon emissions in the world. If it is carbon emissions that are causing climate change and if climate change is affecting the reef, then nothing we do in Australia is going to have any impact upon that, Senator Waters. And I keep challenging you and your colleagues to tell me how that is going to be the case, but never do you respond to that, because it is an argument that you cannot respond to. So I disregard entirely anything the Greens might say on these issues. I take no notice of them, and most Australians no longer take any notice of the Greens political party at all. I am entering into this debate because I am fascinated, I am curious and I cannot wait to hear what Senator Chisholm is going to say on behalf of the federal Labor Party in relation to this MPI discussion. It is not often that I agree with state Labor. It is not often that I will praise the Labor Premier of Queensland. But on one point, I must say, the Queensland state Labor Party and the Queensland state Labor government have done the right thing on this particular issue. They are supporting Adani because they, like me, appreciate that this means 10,000 jobs for people in Central Queensland and North Queensland, where I live, work and see the despair of huge unemployment. This project, which is a first-class and state-of-the-art facility, will provide enormous numbers of jobs during construction—something like 8½ thousand. There will also be 3,900 permanent direct jobs in these coalmines. It is not just Adani, of course. Once the common-user railway line is built it will be used by other mines in that area. So it is not going to one particular producer. It will be used by everyone. This provides real jobs. I know that Queensland state Labor are interested in this. But I would be fascinated to hear, Senator Chisholm, what you are going to tell us about the federal Labor position. It seems to vacillate every day. We still do not know what Mr Shorten and Mr Dreyfus are going to do about this native title amendment. The Queensland Labor government totally support the government's amendment to the native title legislation to deal with that unusual and unexpected court decision that changed the whole process. As part of it, it could have meant that all of the coalmines in the Galilee Basin, plus the existing mines at Weipa and the ongoing work of the aluminium industry in Gladstone, would have been shut down completely. But so far we have the Labor Party vacillating on whether they are for it or against it. When my committee dealt with this, it appeared that the Labor Party were totally supportive. One of the Labor senators wanted to make some further inquiries, but we generally got the— Senator Chisholm 39801 Which one? Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 It was Senator Dodson who was there. You were not, unfortunately. That was a pity, because it was very important for Queensland. Senator Dodson wanted to check something. Since then, Mr Shorten—or Mr Dreyfus, apparently; he seems to control Mr Shorten—seems to be putting different things in the way of that particular resolution of an issue which means real jobs for Queensland. I will be delighted and fascinated to hear what the Labor senator is going to say in relation to federal Labor's position. We on this side believe in jobs. We understand the enormous importance of these projects to employment in my state of Queensland in particular. Senators will know that in Townsville at the present time there is 10.9 per cent unemployment. In Mackay, there is 6.8 per cent unemployment. In Rockhampton it is 7.2. Even the AWU—not a union that I have a great regard for usually—understands the importance of this and is supporting the Queensland Labor government in its bid to get these projects underway. There have been over 300 very strict environmental conditions on this proposal. It is one that will be carefully monitored by both the Queensland and Commonwealth governments. Those conditions and the oversight of both governments will ensure that there is no damage to the local ecology or to the environment of that part of Queensland, or to the Great Barrier Reef or anywhere else. Those conditions are very strict, but Adani has accepted them. This work will bring electricity and a slightly increased standard of living to millions of people in India that the Greens will always talk about at the appropriate time in this chamber—helping disadvantaged people in Third World countries. But when there is an opportunity to do something tangible to help those people, to give them the electricity that the Greens take for granted every day—they can go and flick a switch and enjoy the benefits of electricity—they do not seem to want that to happen to people living in India who do not have the benefit of those facilities. I will listen intently to what the next speaker will say about federal Labor's position. I hope it will be a rousing endorsement of the Queensland Labor government's position on this, which of course reflects the position of the Liberal National Party of Queensland and the federal coalition in relation to this much-needed project that will help those poorer people in India and will provide real and permanent jobs in a part of Queensland that is currently suffering substantially from unemployment, caused principally by the mining turndown in other parts of North Queensland. The matter of public importance that we are debating today refers to $1 billion. I am not quite sure where that is coming from or what is being wasted. As I say, any money that might come from the NAIF—and that is a matter for the NAIF board to determine, not the federal government—will be a loan that will have to be repaid at some time in the future. So the proposition put before us today that we are debating is completely nonsensical. It is put up by the Greens political party, who—I am pleased to say—most Australians now take no regard of. 16:21 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It is always a pleasure to follow Senator Macdonald. We well know that Winton in Western Queensland is the home of a dinosaur museum, but there are other dinosaur exhibits in regional Queensland—particularly in Townsville, where Senator Macdonald is from. It is pleasing to follow him after his endorsement of Premier Palaszczuk, a very good friend of mine. He neglected to mention the great work of the Mayor of Townsville, Jenny Hill—also a good friend of mine—who is out there fighting for this project; of Mayor Strelow in Rockhampton, whom I spoke to last week about this project; and of local regional mayors, who are talking up the importance of this project because they know that it means so much to them for local jobs. What was interesting in Senator Macdonald's speech was that he talked about the high rate of unemployment in a lot of these regional towns. Since we last sat, I have visited Townsville, Bowen, Mackay and Gladstone. I have spoken to a lot of people on the ground there who are suffering from the economic downturn. The saddest thing about it is that the federal government have done nothing about it. They talk about NAIF—they talk about its importance—but it has spent zero dollars. It has not contributed one thing or created one job, other than that of the CEO, whom they appointed from down south. The only money it has spent is on a CEO and its executive structure. It has not actually spent one cent on a project in northern Australia. Whilst the government can talk a big game on it, NAIF has not done one thing to create a job apart from some fat-cat salaries. We saw the government 12 months ago going around regional Queensland, promising money for jobs packages. Here we are, hours before the federal budget this year, and they have still not spent one cent on those job packages—including in the Bowen Basin, which, as Senator Macdonald said, has a high level of unemployment, along with Townsville. I know, particularly through the travels I have done over the last month, that there are really strong concerns from locals about their economic future and what opportunities are before them. That is something that the Labor Party has been very strong on and will be addressing between now and the election campaign, to ensure locals have those strong job opportunities. It is really sad to hear from the Greens—and what a sad political movement they have become. Once a principles based organisation, now they have basically become a left-wing version of shock jocks. After sabotaging the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in 2009—a national scheme Labor had produced that would have brought down carbon emissions that the Greens were responsible for knocking off—we see them going around the country, project by project, trying to knock off these resources projects. They give no thought to local economies and how important these projects are for local jobs. If you spend any time in these communities, you get an understanding from locals of how important it is that they have opportunities for themselves, and, particularly, from those people who have kids who are about to finish high school, the feedback I get is: what is their economic future in regional Queensland? Labor has been very clear on its position in regard to the Adani coalmine: it has to stack up commercially and financially, and it has to meet the stringent government approvals that are set in place. That has been the absolutely clear message from Bill Shorten over a period of time now, and it is supported by the federal Labor Party. I was with Bill in regional Queensland over the last month, and he has been very strong in his language around this so that people understand where he is coming from. But all we see from the Greens is pandering to the inner city with no consideration of what is good for regional Queensland. This project is important for regional Queensland because of the unemployment that we see in these towns. Townsville has gone into double figures for unemployment, and across regional Queensland we see a higher level of unemployment compared with the south-east corner. And this is whilst the federal government has been sitting on its hands in regard to the local infrastructure. As I mentioned, NAIF, the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, has not spent one cent on job-creating projects in regional Queensland, despite all the talk we hear from Senator Canavan and others in this chamber. It is really sad to see that, even when the federal government do spend money—like on the Mackay Ring Road, which is a very important local project to that economy, with about $500 million to $600 million being spent on it—local contractors miss out. It really is not good enough that, even when they are coming in and spending money, not enough of that money is going to local contractors so that local communities can benefit. Instead, contractors are coming from down south, scooping up the money, doing the work and then taking it with them. The federal government need to do much better to ensure that, when they do spend money on local projects, it is local contractors who are getting the work so that the local community can benefit. Then there is the sad case of the jobs packages, which Senator Nash went around spruiking over the election campaign that went for two months. Yet here we are, a year later, with not one cent having been spent and not one job having been created. It really is not good enough for this government to talk a big game on this but fail to deliver. It is clear from the way that Senator Waters talked about this, and from what you hear other Greens say about this issue, that they have not spent time in regional communities in Queensland. If they had, they would understand the importance of this project for these communities. As I mentioned, I did a jobs forum in Cairns and I spent time in Townsville. I went with the shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, to Bowen, where we had a strong response from locals there. I did a northern Australia jobs forum with the shadow minister for northern Australia, Jason Clare, in Mackay; and I also did a jobs forum with Matt Thistlethwaite, the shadow Assistant Treasurer, in Gladstone, over the last month. These have been really important opportunities for me to listen to locals, to get feedback from them and to use that to influence Labor policy as we get closer to the election. We understand the importance of fighting for local jobs and of creating opportunities for locals to get employment not only now but into the future—and, particularly, where the TAFE and training system fits in with that so that people can see a future for themselves where they grew up, in their local communities and, often, where their families have spent time as well. It is really important, and Labor understand the importance of these local projects to regional communities. They will be at the forefront of our policymaking before the next election. In terms of the NAIF, there are concerns about its governance. This is something that Wayne Swan, the member for Lilley, has raised in the other chamber. He has written to the Auditor-General asking his office to investigate potential risks in the fund, saying: I am concerned the real risk of maladministration may lead to significant losses to the Commonwealth in the future and the misallocation of resources due to political pressure and poor governance, resulting in funds failing to be allocated to more worthy purposes. So this government cannot have it both ways. On one hand, they are saying that the NAIF is independent and will make decisions itself. On the other hand, the minister is pushing his preferred projects, such as the Adani rail line and his other pet project, the coal-fired power station. And he is trying to do this with minimal scrutiny. There is one issue they have not addressed. To be eligible for financial support Adani must demonstrate the assistance would be, from the investment mandate of NAIF, 'necessary to enable the project to proceed or to proceed much earlier than it would otherwise'. In December last year, a NAIF spokesperson said: This is something that governments of all political persuasions have done in the past and I assume will do in the future, it doesn't necessarily mean it's make or break for the project. This has been said on multiple occasions. They are also on the record as saying that government funding is not necessary for this project to happen. The government have not adequately dealt with this. They are trying to use NAIF to fund this rail line, but Adani have been on the record, on multiple occasions, saying this is not necessary. The government definitely have questions to answer around how that will transpire. Given their track record, I expect more loans schemes with no concrete funding, more back-of-the-envelope accountability and more platitudes about the regions but a failure to deliver. Federal Labor has been clear. The government needs to meet the tough legislation that is set up. It needs to stack up financially. This is an important project for regional Queensland. 16:31 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I rise to speak to the Greens' fatuous MPI. Our Greens colleagues would have us discuss a statement which, in fact, is a fallacy of many questions, variously asserting that investing in infrastructure somehow benefits billionaires at the expense of the future of 'everyday Australians'. How wrong can they get? As the party of smug government-employed Canberra bureaucrats and middle-class elites, the Greens would have no idea—nor would they care for the future—of everyday Australians. In fact, all this Greens MPI really reflects is the Greens' neurotic and irrational hostility to coalmining and coal based power generation, regardless of the impact of this on the standard of living of everyday Australians, as often their screechings contradict the evidence and the facts. The real truth is that the last 170 years has seen billions of people lifted out of poverty and removed from the vagaries of nature's weather, extremes of drought, flood and famine. We have enjoyed vastly lengthened life spans, greatly increased comfort, safety, ease and security. And this has occurred hand in hand with a miracle of hydrocarbon fuels, coal, gas and oil that, until recent Greens-led government interventions, saw ever-falling real prices. Unlike the Greens, informed senators would be aware that the Carmichael coalmine, to be built by the Adani group in the north of the Galilee Basin in Central Queensland, represents a $16.5 billion investment in our state. Expected to produce 2.3 billion tonnes of coal over a projected 60-year lifespan, this wonderful project will generate thousands of jobs and many hundreds of millions of dollars of export earnings for our nation—jobs needed because Queensland's Labor government has killed our state through excessive energy prices, needless tax and over-regulation and the theft of property rights that are decimating regions. As the first of a number of mines expected to be built in the Galilee Basin, the infrastructure to be built for the Carmichael mine will greatly facilitate the development of subsequent mines, which, in turn, will generate yet more jobs and yet more earnings for Australia. This is the reason that the northern Australia infrastructure fund plans to lend the $1 billion to which this MPI refers. This will not only facilitate the development of the Carmichael mine but also assist the development of numerous other subsequent mines by other companies and open up regional Queensland. For the Greens to claim that a NAIF loan to build vital infrastructure somehow means that the government is 'working for billionaires' is simply logically incoherent. It is the Greens who feathered the nests of billionaires—American billionaires like George Soros—who drove down the share price of coal companies by calling for action on climate, contradicting the empirical evidence. Those billionaires drove down the share price of coal companies and then swooped to buy those same companies, expecting massive profits as coal in future fulfils huge forecast increases in usage in China, Japan, Germany, Italy, Russia, India and on and on. Also note that I said 'lend', because, contrary to the Greens' claim in their MPI, no-one is giving Adani anything. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility was set up precisely to lend money to assist in the development of railways, port and airport facilities, roads, water and communications facilities and on and on—specifically to assist the development of northern Australia. The NAIF loan and the Carmichael mine will open up the Galilee Basin to the world, creating untold thousands of jobs and a treasure trove of government revenue and export earnings. Much of the coal mined in this region will go to India to power Prime Minister Modi's amazing industrial revolution. In addition to fuelling power generation that will help to transform much of India and provide the lighting, heating and cooling that we take for granted, this coal will also directly provide many with fuel for domestic cooking. Instead of facing the severe adverse health effects of burning animal dung or scarce wood, millions will benefit from being able to burn clean coal. Of course, as this ridiculous Greens MPI demonstrates, the Greens could not care less about creating jobs or generating export earnings here in Australia, much less about lifting much of India out of the Third World. Oh, no, the Greens could not give a damn about any of that; they are anti-human. Subject to our scheduled discussions on underground water, we support the Adani project and the opening up of our state of Queensland. 16:36 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland It is always a pleasure, might I say, to speak on an MPI on a subject put up by the Greens. It makes it very simple. Very little research is required, because the response you can give to their contribution is the same very time. This anti-development party, anti-employment party, is a party will go to extreme lengths to prevent the development of economies in regional and rural Australia in particular, where resources and, in this case, the Adani mine will be developed. Of course, the Greens were supported by the metro-based Labor senators from the state of Queensland. Every one of the colleagues on the other side have an office in Queen Street—nobody has an office in regional Queensland—and they want to do things that will impact on the economies of communities that are thousands of kilometres away from where they are, places they rarely visit. Let us have a look at the impacts of the policies of the Labor Party and the Greens in their efforts to date. They have been particularly successful. We have lost 14,000 jobs in Central Queensland in the coal industry, not directly from coal employees but from businesses and others who are there whose whole welfare in life exists around the development of the coal industry. I look to places like Emerald. If only my Labor colleagues were present, though I have one of our Queensland Greens senators here. Emerald is a small community that is west of Rockhampton. If you are ever inclined, you should go up the Cap Highway until you get to Rockhampton and then turn left—there are no other deviations—and you will find yourself in the centre of the township of Emerald. It is a fine place. I used to own a property not far from there—a farm that we had. I bet you London to a brick that you will never go to Emerald. But, if you do, I bet that you wear a false moustache, because you will not want the good people of Emerald to recognise you—with 600 vacant houses in the community and unemployment rates nearly double that which you enjoy out the window of your office and where you live. Communities like Emerald have gone into depression because of the efforts of the Greens and the Australian Labor Party to prevent the development of industries in regional Queensland. It is a remarkable thing for a party like the Labor Party, who live on the back of union support, to be anti-union with respect to the development of these 14,000 jobs that are on the table in Central Queensland. It defies logic. Slowly but surely, and sadly for them, the coalition are becoming the party of the workers, particularly as you get into the resource industry. They are looking to us now. They are looking to us to nourish their lives. They still put money into your coffers and the coffers of the Australian Labor Party, but that is slowly changing. In my home state a couple of private unions have performed. People are voting with their feet; they are moving across. I think the nurses union is getting 80 or 90 new memberships a day in my home state. I invite you—and I am happy to put it onto my tab; our offices can liaise—and I invite all the senators from the Labor Party and any senators from the Greens, particularly the Queensland senator, to join me. We will have a good couple of days. We will kick back and we will have the odd stubbie in Blackwater, Emerald and Alpha, and places. These economies are depressed and they will remain depressed until we stimulate them with the proper development of this Adani mine resource. We have 400 kilometres of rail line to be built that they are suggesting that somehow the government is doing for this company without any form of return. The cost-benefit analysis has been done. The stimulus that it will give to Central Queensland and all the way through to the port at Bowen will be enormous. It will have a flow-on effect that will last for decades. Generations of people will have job opportunities up there as a result of this investment. For Senator Chisholm to cast aspersions on the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan, and somehow suggest that his support and the processes involved in trying to get this project up have happened in the shadows and that no-one is following the script is complete and absolute nonsense. We know that units of the Greens party in Australia have taken these people to court. These Newcastle based environmental activist groups funded by corporate money from the United States have been taken to court. Every single facet of this project has been thoroughly and transparently examined not only in the court system but in the public. I can tell you the jury has come in—the jury of Mackay and the jury of Townsville, where unemployment is almost at 10 per cent when the national figure is 5.9 per cent. These are depressed economies that want this project to happen. If you think about it, there is not a business or a service in Central Queensland, all the way from Townsville down to Gladstone, that does not have a real interest in this. This is a massive part of our home state. I remind you that no senators other than our party, the coalition government, have senators in these areas. We have Senator Macdonald in Townsville. We have Senator Canavan in Rockhampton. That was done deliberately so that we could spread our representatives across the state so that we could get on top of what our communities want in terms of development and progress for their economies. It really is insulting to hear Senator Chisholm and our friends in the Greens come into this place and endeavour to influence decisions that will impact on the hundreds of thousands of people and families in this massive area of my home state without one thought for their welfare. Senator Roberts raised a good point. There are those in this place who are absolute bleeding hearts. They would like to see us develop tofu farms and injured animal hospitals all the way through Central Queensland rather than invest in something that will provide a job. They put a lot of time and effort into saving the blue-winged parrot and a possum that I cannot pronounce, yet there is not one regard for the hundreds of millions of people in India who are endeavouring to pull themselves out of poverty. Senator Waters 192970 So why did you cut the foreign aid budget? Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 I know it does not affect you. You can look out of your office and look out of your house down on your mown lawn, but you do not have any regard for these people because you do not understand these economies. Our government tried to give some tax relief. Mind you, those opposite lost sight of the fact that this is the money and the business. They own it and all we wanted to do was to take a bit less. They think it is some sort of tax break that we are gifting them out of the Australian purse. That is not what is happening. We just wanted to take a bit less. We know what they do with it. I say to those opposite—and I have said this in here before and no-one has ever protested or corrected me—none of you have ever employed anybody. You have never put your hand in your own pocket and pulled out your own money to pay wages or to promote the development of any industry or any business anywhere in my home state—not one of you. When you put your hand in your pocket you have got someone else's money. I tell you now that you are ignorant to what it takes to drive regional economies. We have had a lot of depression in my home state. We have had a battle because the mob over here decided to knock out the live cattle trade. That absolutely devastated thousands of business enterprises in the middle of a drought, which no-one wants to support. No-one wants to support us to support those people in drought conditions. Here is a serious opportunity for us to develop an area where the impacts on our national interests will be very positive. It will put much into the purse of the nation, so that we can continue to invest in supporting business and regional and provincial communities so that they can employ people. When they all get a job they can spend their spare time going out to find your wounded possums, strap their legs up, take them home, put them on the teat and try to save them, but until then you have to start to consider supporting this government as we support these industries and as we promote the development of this wonderful state of ours—in my case, the state of Queensland. The invitation stands for all of my Senate colleagues on the other side, including those in the Greens, who I doubt have ever been outside the CBD of Brisbane. Give my office a bell. I will make myself available to take you for a run and to introduce you to some of these people. I cannot guarantee your safety and I cannot guarantee that I will get you home, but the offer stands. 16:46 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales That is quite the offer. I am disappointed that we are debating this MPI framed in this way. These are very worrying times for me and for all of us who believe that combating climate change is important. Climate science is under attack here and overseas. Every day seems to bring some fresh story of a conservative attack on the scientific consensus that we need to take climate action. This is a time for progressives to work together to achieve real change, but instead what we have from the Greens is, frankly, pretty petty politics in the form of a divisive MPI. The simple fact is that we are not going to get meaningful climate action from this government. That much is very clear. The only hope for addressing climate change is to change this government and to point out the folly of their position. Instead of deciding to work with us to make that happen, Greens politicians seem much more interested in spending their time attacking the Labor Party, and in doing so they are betraying millions of Australians who want to see meaningful action on climate change. Labor's position on the Adani mine is consistent. We do not have a special position on this project. Our position is consistent whether we are talking about projects in the Illawarra, the Pilbara, the Galilee Basin or anywhere else. Every project needs to meet the environmental tests. It needs to comply with relevant environmental protections and have the relevant approvals. We are not interested in propping up mining projects that are not viable. Projects need to make business sense. There are some indications that this project may not. There is a reason that Westpac are not interested in funding these types of projects, and it is not because there was a single protest at one of their events. They stated that it is a commercial decision based on their assessment of the commercial realities, and that is how it ought to be because it is not a great system to have senators making assessments about the commercial viability of individual projects. That is not a pathway for meaningful climate action, and every single one of the Greens political party people sitting up there on the crossbench know that to be true. The market is far better at doing that. What we are seeking to do now, and have sought to do for more than a decade, is make sure that the policy settings are right so that the market delivers the kinds of answers we want, by putting a price on carbon. The point that Greens senators from the Greens political party need to understand is that this should not be about a single mine in Queensland. What is needed is a proper policy on climate. What is clear is that that is on offer. It is on offer from this side of the chamber and it is not on offer in any meaningful way from the other side of the chamber, and yet we see all of the focus of the Greens political party directed in this direction. The government's climate policy does not provide meaningful signals to the market, and we are paying a great price for that. This is largely because—to state the obvious—the government actually do not have a climate policy. The situation is not just embarrassing; it is very dangerous. Last night, we had the Minister for the Environment and Energy admitting that his government is essentially giving up on meeting our commitments under the Paris Agreement to ensure that Australia achieves net zero emissions by 2050. We need action. We need to fulfil our obligations to the international community, and the simple fact is that only a Labor government can deliver this. Whatever hopes Australia may have had for climate action under Prime Minister Turnbull have been well and truly extinguished. There can be little doubt that we will not see meaningful climate action from the coalition. If we want to change the policy, we need to change government and we need a Labor government. Labor has had a consistent approach to climate for more than a decade. We believe that climate change is a systemic problem and it needs a systemic policy response. We believe that there should be a price on carbon, and it is one of our key policy priorities. If the Greens were serious about delivering climate action, they would work with Labor to bring down this government. Instead, the Greens, under the leadership of Senator Di Natale, seem more interested in attacking Labor. I am growing very tired of the continued cynicism from the Greens political party on climate change. When you watch the position that Greens politicians have taken over the last decade, it is hard sometimes not to suspect that they care more about climate change as a campaign issue than they do about obtaining meaningful action from government on climate policy. Labor in government will take action on climate. That is what we did last time we were in power, with absolutely no thanks to the Australian Greens. When Labor got elected in 2007, we had an opportunity. There was widespread community support for climate action. The business community had swung behind it, and we sought to make the most of that opportunity. We had Treasury develop policies. We tried to build a wide base of support, support that could endure for meaningful climate action. And that opportunity—let us be very, very clear—was scuttled by the Greens. They voted, in this chamber, against the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Let us be clear about the history. If the Greens had voted for the CPRS, Australia would have had a price on carbon for almost a decade. The Greens political party, through their cynicism, ruined our chance to be first movers on climate, and we will never let them forget it, and the environment certainly will not. My great worry is that the Greens' political leadership are gearing up to do it again—to play a spoiling role. We are actually having another moment for action on climate in this country because, despite all of the best efforts by the climate deniers, there is a convergence of business, scientific and public opinion in support of an emissions intensity scheme. Senator Waters interjecting— Senator McALLISTER 121628 'Where are you?' asks Senator Waters. We could ask exactly the same thing about the Greens on this very question. Experts agree that an EIS is as effective as an ETS in curbing carbon emissions—even Professor Garnaut, who was so instrumental in the design of the CPRS. It has widespread community support from businesses all across different industries and sectors. We have seen BHP, AGL and EnergyAustralia come out in support. The Chief Scientist has come out in support. CSIRO has come out in support. The CEFC supports it. The Climate Change Authority supports it. It even has the support of the National Farmers' Federation and the NSW Young Nationals. The Greens have had countless opportunities to lend their support to an emissions intensity scheme in public statements, in committee reports and in this chamber, and they have been conspicuously silent. Let us be clear. We want practical action that can gain the support of the widest possible base in the Australian community, and the emissions intensity scheme is the best chance we have to bring that into action, to take meaningful action against climate change in this country. My worry is that, when the time comes, Greens politicians are going to refuse to back an EIS for political reasons, just like they did back in 2009. I am worried that Senator Di Natale and the others in the Greens' leadership group are going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good once again and scuttle growing consensus on climate action. I am worried that the campaign team—because it is all about the campaign—may think that their chances at the next election are better if they can show policy difference with Labor, even if it comes at the cost of meaningful and effective climate policy, even if it means standing alongside Labor against a government that is plainly unwilling to take any action. I am worried that the Greens care more about attacking Labor than they do about critiquing a government that is populated by people who, on a daily basis, deny the science of climate change, a government so desperate to divert attention from their own failures in energy policy that they are willing to take lumps of coal into the chamber in the other place. The problem is we need an effective climate policy to drive long-term change, and that can only come from a Labor government. 16:56 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Australia is at a crossroads. We have an opportunity to be smart, to be making wise choices, to be heading for a clean, green, prosperous future, but this government is leading us down the wrong path. Instead of saying 'yes' to clean, renewable energy, the Turnbull government is sticking with dirty, polluting coal. Instead of planning for a transition to long-term jobs that assure regional communities a future—the regional communities across the country, including in Queensland—this government is sticking with a dying business model that is leaving people high and dry. Instead of protecting our precious Great Barrier Reef, the Turnbull government is choosing to destroy this precious natural wonder. And, instead of taking note of the structural decline of coal worldwide, this government is backing a losing industry. Coal is in decline. It is an industry from last century and the century before. We need to usher it out gracefully, plan the transition and look after the workers that are currently working in the coal industry, instead of propping it up. Instead of doing this, instead of listening to local groups across Australia, who are hitting the streets and who are talking to their MPs, this government is only bending to the vested interests. What a diabolical path to lead us all down. What is more, this government's support for the Adani coalmine is being backed by Labor. For all of the talk of Senator McAllister about being concerned about climate, we know the Adani mine is the biggest issue on the Australian agenda, in terms of tackling climate change, that we face. This mega coalmine, which is being pushed by Labor and defended by Labor, as it was just then—a Queensland Labor plan, backed by the Turnbull government—is a certain road to disaster. It is going to spew out 4.6 billion tonnes of carbon and absolutely wipe out any carbon reductions that Australia would otherwise make. As Senator Roberts told us, it is the key to unlocking global climate catastrophe because of the number of other mines that opening this mine would then make possible. I really want to pay tribute to the many hardworking campaigners who are rallying huge support behind the Stop Adani campaign, and, in particular, I pay tribute to the young people who are taking action and are standing up for a safe, clean future when the government is so badly steering us on a dangerous path. People are coming together and are saying no to a dirty, coal fired future. Australians want a future society and economy that is based on renewable energy. I hear from people across Victoria and across the country that they understand that their kids' and grandkids' future is severely compromised if we leave them a damaged and desperate world that is destroyed by a legacy of polluting, climate-wrecking coal, not to mention the financial legacy of handing over $1 billion to prop up the mine. What a travesty. This is our money. We need to spend it on infrastructure that is going to take us towards a zero-carbon future, not take us in the completely opposite direction. I spend a lot of time in my place arguing for people to be put back into the infrastructure planning processes. This whole debacle exemplifies the problem where big private companies' interests are put before people. The government has absolutely no time for anyone or anything but its billionaire coal mates. There is the proposed funding for a rail line for Adani while the government is simultaneously ignoring the neglected and failing public transport networks in our cities and towns. Labor needs to take a stand on this. Labor needs to rule out supporting this mine. We are you, Bill Shorten? Who do you stand with? Senator Chisholm and Senator McAllister, does Labor stand for jobs that do not kill workers via black lung and industries that do not kill the reef? Does Labor stand for clean groundwater for Queensland? Labor needs to rule out supporting this mine. There is so much at stake—too much at stake—for the old parties to be blindly stumbling ahead, backing the vested interests. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 111206 The time for consideration of the matter of public importance has expired. DOCUMENTS 51 DOCUMENTS Closing the Gap 51 Consideration 51 17:03 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the response by the South Australian Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, Mr Maher. Leave granted. Senator McCARTHY 122087 I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I reiterate to the Senate that we still have a very long way to go, in terms of raising the life expectancy for the first nation people of this country. It is about more than life expectancy; it is also about the quality of life for First Australians. I had the opportunity to travel across many parts of the Northern Territory and around Australia on different occasions: in my role as a parliamentarian for the Senate, previously as a minister in the Northern Territory parliament, and also as a journalist. Journalists are always covering and looking at the issues facing first nation people. We are such an incredibly wealthy country, but three per cent of the population still struggles. They have a quality of life that is, by far, a long way from the quality of life of ordinary Australians. One of the achievements in Closing the Gap this year—and I can only speak about one of the seven targets—is based around education. We in this place, the Senate, know for a fact that education is the key to any child rising above their circumstances. But it is not just education; it is access to good quality education, it is teachers who will be there day in, day out, and it is schools that function and have the resources to cope with the many issues facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. In the Northern Territory alone we have over 100 Aboriginal languages. We have an Aboriginal Interpreter Service. That reflects the importance of valuing language. But in our schools we still need to look at our teachers having adequate access to the languages spoken by the very students that they teach. What sort of opportunity is there for first-time teachers who are coming through universities to learn a first nations language? Is this something that we should also be considering? Yes, it is. If you talk to educators across the board who work in Indigenous education, they recognise that there must be scope for that. It may not be the priority that it should be for the broader commitment of education to Indigenous students, because, firstly, you have to look at the resourcing and access to schools—and I speak specifically, across our Northern Territory and in our remote regions, about having good schools built and access for housing for not only teachers who come from interstate or other parts of the Northern Territory but the very teachers and the assistant teachers from those communities. They should have access to that. Of course, better housing leads to better life and better living circumstances for those children, many of whom get up hungry each day. When we look at closing the gap and we see that this is one area out of seven targets, we have to say, 'Okay, we're moving somewhere in that direction.' I go back to the issue of first nations languages. It is something that Australia needs to have a good look at in terms of reaching out to our first nations students. In Arnhem Land, with the Yolngu language, we know that the ability to stay strong in speaking in language, in listening in language and in singing in language, as well as in understanding English, has been a huge success. We only have to look at the late Dr Mandawuy Yunupingu, who used to speak very strongly about the importance of two-way education. But we have to have the housing to back up the quality of life and we have to have the access to health—and let us have a look at the health statistics. Consider that there are 400 people on renal dialysis just in Central Australia. If you go up the track to Royal Darwin Hospital, you will see another couple of hundred Aboriginal people on dialysis. But the big kicker here is not that you see Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people lying on these machines day in, day out—some three times a week, some two times a week—but that that is their routine. (Time expired) Senator Siewert e5z I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. National Wind Farm Commissioner 52 Consideration 52 17:09 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I rise to speak on the annual report to the Parliament of Australia from the office of the National Wind Farm Commissioner. I am interested because this report was tabled not during the sitting of parliament but between the last sitting weeks. I want to start my contribution by saying that I am a senator who was on the original Select Committee on Wind Turbines that dealt with the matter around wind turbines in August 2015. That report was handed down in the Senate. The inquiry that led to the formation of the position of the Office of the National Wind Farm Commissioner came out of the report of that select committee, to which Labor provided a dissenting report. During the course of that inquiry, the committee held 11 public hearings, and 490 submissions were put forward to that inquiry. There was an interim report and then a final report, and 15 recommendations came out of that report. As I said earlier, the Labor Party made a dissenting report, which had five recommendations. One of the recommendations that came out of that was the creation of the Office of the National Wind Farm Commissioner. In the annual report of the Office of the National Wind Farm Commissioner, the first part is the commissioner's review. I just want to raise this matter. The report says: It should be noted that our complaints handling process is a voluntary process. We are not able to compel parties to respond to a complaint. The Office of the National Wind Farm Commissioner can listen to complaints but is not then compelled to act on them. From my point of view, I would question what role the commissioner has. It was established for an initial period of three years. It is an independent role, as is stated in this report. If you go to page 8 of the report, it talks about the complainant activity, and it says: From the Office's inception up to 31 December 2016, the Office received a total of 90 complaints. Those 90 complaints were: 46 complaints relating to nine operating wind farms 42 complaints relating to 19 proposed wind farms two complaints that did not specify a wind farm. One could joke about whether they came from a former member of the other place, Mr Hockey, who I know did not like wind farms. If I recall, he said they were ugly. The report continues: As at 31 December 2016, 67 complaints were closed by the Office. The remaining 23 matters are at various stages of the complaint handling process. There is not a lot of detail around what the complaints actually are about. If you go to the 67 that have been closed, 31 of the complainants chose to not progress the matter, and information was provided to a further 32 complainants addressing concerns raised—so they got some sort of information. This report does not go into what that information was. It has no detail around what that is. For two of those 67 matters that are closed it says there was a negotiated settlement between the parties, and for the other two, as I said, the details are not known. So there is not a lot of detail in the report. I know that the commissioner's report has something like 79 recommendations in it, and a lot of the recommendations that are outlined in the annual report are very similar to the dissenting report and the Labor senators' recommendations in the actual final report of the Select Committee on Wind Turbines. What compelled me to raise this issue here today was: what is the point of spending taxpayers' money on a National Wind Farm Commissioner that has no jurisdiction to follow through with complaints? A lot of the issues were raised in the original report, so my question is: why are we spending money on this? 17:14 Senator BACK J7Q Western Australia Firstly, Mr Acting Deputy President Leyonhjelm, I congratulate you on your initial turn in the chair in the role of Acting Deputy President. I am very delighted also, as Senator Urquhart has said, to rise to comment on the first annual report of the National Wind Farm Commissioner and to congratulate Mr Andrew Dyer on what I believe has been an excellent first report, no doubt laying the foundation for many more into the future. As my colleague said, there are no statutory powers conferred on the National Wind Farm Commissioner and, in some ways, that is probably the strength of the role. This gentleman, as we know, had been an ombudsman associated with the telecommunications industry, so he has a wealth of experience in this space. The greatest attestation to the role has been the wide acceptance of the commissioner's role and, I understand, the positive reports that have come back as a result of his first annual report from, pretty well, everyone associated with the industry and many who exercised their right to raise complaints. This is bearing in mind that he has no statutory powers. It is the case, nevertheless, in the face of what could have been a high degree of angst from the wind-farm industry, that he has been able to cause them to review complaints procedures, to make recommendations on a formal complaints procedure, and to get acceptance of most in the industry to adhere to a complaints procedure by people who believe they are affected or likely to be affected. As Senator Urquhart quite rightly said, the range of complaints relate, in some instances, to existing wind farms and, in others, to wind farms yet to be developed. That forum, which has not existed before in Australia, gives a voice to people's concerns about either existing wind farms or proposed wind farms. I go back, then, to the guidelines. The commissioner has recommended national guidelines that could be adopted by all states and territories. You, Acting Deputy President Leyonhjelm, were a member of that select committee that consulted widely, as were Senator Urquhart and I. One of the issues that came up immediately was the stupidity of the fact that there were not consistent planning guidelines across state boundaries. We had a situation, for example, in which recommended distances from the closest wind turbine to a home differed from South Australia to Victoria to New South Wales to Queensland. We are now seeing an accepted standardisation across all jurisdictions, not by the heavy hand of legislation, direction or mandatory requirement but by the persuasion of a very sensible person. One critically important element to come out of this report relates to an anomaly in which, in advance of a wind turbine being approved or an application going forward, an acoustician, an acoustics expert, so-called, would lend their support to what they believed was going to be the acoustic level, the sound and the infrasound that might come from that wind farm. After it was constructed, guess who got the job of going back afterwards and seeing whether or not those predictions were, indeed, accurate? Acting Deputy President, you and I recall the angst associated with this. It was exactly the same acoustician or firm of acoustics specialists. One of Commissioner Dyer's recommendations is that, for transparency, integrity and probity—and all those other reasons—it should not be the party that made the original suggestions, recommendations or predictions as to the level of sound coming out of that wind farm, it should be a totally different and independent firm on which our decisions are based. Yes, not all parties are going to be satisfied. They never are, in a complaints process. But I am aware that through his good industry, commonsense and negotiation there have been some settlements between wind-farm operators and people stating they have been affected. And he has not got himself involved in the issues associated with health or otherwise. They will, no doubt, be the subject of future scrutiny. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. Debate adjourned. Climate Change 54 Consideration 54 17:19 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I rise to speak on the document tabled titled Australia's emissions projections 2016. This document makes for sobering reading. I think we can assume that the department will have done their best with the data before them to make the case that the policies presently being deployed in relation to climate are, in some way, effective. But, despite that, the projections show that emissions are still increasing up until 2030. To state the obvious, there is no way that that is consistent with Australia making a meaningful impact on climate change and making a contribution that is consistent with our global agreements. Just last night, the Minister for the Environment and Energy admitted that his government has given up on us meeting our commitments under the Paris agreement, specifically the commitment that we approach net zero emissions by 2050. He has lowered the bar substantially, saying that to get to zero emissions over the course of this century would be a good achievement. Well, nice try, Minister. Self-assessment: good achievement. Move the goalposts. It just does not cut it. The scientific evidence is very clear that we need to make much greater progress and have much more ambitious targets for emissions reduction by mid-century if we are to have any hope of keeping our temperature well below two degrees above pre-industrial levels. The problem, of course, is the complete vacuum of policy. The document, in a small-font dot point, says that the projections do not include any policy decisions that might be taken to have effect after 2020. Of course, we all know why that is. That is because there is no policy on climate change after 2020. That is why, when you ask departmental officials in committee hearings, as I have, 'When will Australian emissions peak?' they say, 'Oh, well, that's a very good question, Senator.' It is quite embarrassing. I was embarrassed for them, because it must be most awkward to be a public servant who understands what a properly designed government policy looks like and to be in the position of implementing something that has absolutely no relation to the targets that the government has supposedly adopted—and very weak targets at that. As we have seen in recent months, the lack of policy is also causing very real and very immediate problems in terms of our energy system. We know that retail prices in energy are expected to rise in the coming months. What everyone in the sector is telling us is that it is because there is no investment certainty. The National Energy Market is designed to allow prices to rise. When prices hit a certain level, the idea is that investors will flood into the market to build new capacity. Why are they not flooding the market at this point, when price projections are there that would ordinarily sustain new investment? They tell us, in the clearest possible terms, that they are not investing, because of the lack of policy certainty under this government. You could not get a clearer message from business that what is needed to resolve our energy crisis is action on climate change. This is the moment we ought to seize. We have the most amazing opportunity. Our existing fleet is ageing, and that causes us challenges. Our existing energy generation needs to be replaced. This would happen irrespective of climate change but, given that it is happening, it presents a golden opportunity for us to step up and build an energy system that is consistent with our climate obligations, consistent with a low-carbon future and consistent with our objective of providing a secure and affordable energy supply to Australians. It is to the great shame of this government that their budget this evening, and their actions this year, are unlikely to produce anything like it. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 54 COMMITTEES Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit 54 Additional Information 54 17:28 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia I seek leave to make a statement concerning the draft budget estimates for the Australian National Audit Office and the Parliamentary Budget Office for 2017-2018. Leave granted. Senator SMITH 241710 Each year the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is required by legislation to consider the draft budget estimates of the Parliamentary Budget Office and the Australian National Audit Office and make recommendations to both houses of parliament. I rise today to fulfil this requirement and to make a statement on whether the committee considers that the proposed funding for these offices is sufficient to carry out their respective mandates. With regard to the Parliamentary Budget Office, the committee has been informed that the PBO is not seeking supplementation in the 2017-2018 budget. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has advised the committee that the PBO's estimated expenses for 2017-18 can be met from within the PBO's existing resources. The committee endorses the proposed 2017-18 budget for the Parliamentary Budget Office and commends the PBO for its high-quality work in support of parliamentarians and the broader community. With regard to the Australian National Audit Office, the committee has been informed that the Australian National Audit Office is not seeking supplementation in the 2017-18 budget. The Auditor-General has advised the committee that the Australian National Audit Office's resources are adequate for 2017-18 and that he anticipates completing approximately 48 performance audits over this period. Enhanced performance information is a key focus of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. The Australian National Audit Office is continuing to develop its audit methodology in this area so it is to be in a position to audit the annual performance statements of all Commonwealth entities. The committee endorses the proposed budget for the Australian National Audit Office in 2017-18 and commends the Australian National Audit Office for its continuing high-quality work and focus on the Commonwealth performance framework. In conclusion, the committee will continue to closely monitor the work, programs and draft budget estimates of both the PBO and the Australian National Audit Office. As independent authorities, the PBO and the Australian National Audit Office need to be sufficiently funded to fulfil their legislative requirements and adequately support the parliament. The committee appreciates the efforts of both the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor-General in maintaining strong working relationships with the parliament and particularly with this committee. They have made themselves available for regular briefings and provided invaluable advice to the committee on a variety of matters. The committee looks forward to continuing these productive relationships. Finally, the committee draws the parliament's attention to the fact that Mr Phil Bowen has announced his retirement in July. The committee extends its appreciation for Mr Bowen's proficient and meticulous stewardship of the Parliamentary Budget Office in its first five years of operations and notes that the most recent independent review of the PBO, undertaken by Dr Ian Watt, stated that in a short period of time the PBO has developed into a well-regarded, credible, independent, non-partisan source of expertise on the budget cycle, fiscal policy and policy costings. I also table the statement. Community Affairs Legislation Committee 55 Additional Information 55 17:32 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales On behalf of the Chair of the Community Affairs Legislative Committee, Senator Duniam, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiries into various bills, Fairer Paid Parental Leave Bill 2016, National Cancer Screening Register Bill 2016 and related bill, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 55 Report 55 17:32 Senator SINGH M0R Tasmania I rise to speak on government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report Empowering women and girls: The human rights issues confronting women and girls in the Indian Ocean-Asia Pacific region. I do so as a member of that particular inquiry that took place in 2015—so some time ago now. It is only now, of course, that we have received of late the actual response from the government into this particular inquiry, an inquiry which is so crucial and important for not only girls in our region but also how Australia responds to those human rights issues facing women and girls in the region. As the government would know, there were a number of really important human rights recommendations that were put forward to the government from this inquiry. This inquiry came out of a subcommittee of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee that looks specifically at the issue of human rights for women and girls. I have noticed in the 33 recommendations that the committee provided in its final report that the government seems to have adopted, or at least accepted, most of them. I would hope that that means the government will actually act upon them. The idea of accepting recommendations—and please correct me if I am wrong—is to then subsequently act upon them. A number of legislative changes and policy changes are recommended in this report, so I am going to watch the government over time to make sure it actually does improve its aim. Part of that leads to tonight and what the government hands down in its budget. There have already been rumours and innuendo to do with the government increasing its budget on national security potentially at the detriment of our aid and development budget. Firstly, I just cannot see how you can cut the aid and development budget anymore. It has already been absolutely cut to the bone by this government. Never in our history have we had such a low level of aid and development commitment as we currently do. I think it is now at—and correct me if I am wrong—0.23 per cent of GNI. We know the Millennium Development Goals' aim was 0.7 per cent—something that the UK still holds. We had at one point in this parliament a bipartisan commitment of 0.5 per cent. Now look at where we are. We are at less than half of that. It is absolutely shameful, and at a time when we have a global humanitarian crisis with record numbers of displaced people across the globe needing our assistance. I really hope that tonight we do not see any further cutting of the aid budget to be used in any way at all, but rather that we see an increase in the aid budget, so that it can achieve some of the recommendations in the human rights issues confronting women and girls report by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade that the government has responded to. Since this report was written and since the inquiry took place into the human rights issues confronting women and girls in the Indian Ocean Asia-Pacific region something more detrimental has happened to them. With the election of US President Trump we have seen the reimplementation of the global gag rule. That in itself is going to have a major effect on these women and girls because USAID funding can no longer go to those organisations that provide advice and counselling to women and girls, in relation to family planning, contraception, abortion and the like. I am deeply concerned by that and I am deeply concerned by the fact that the government in its response to these recommendations does not actually draw on that as an important issue. I am asking it to because in our report we do actually talk about issues to do with sexual and reproductive rights. We talk about the UNFPA and its funding as being crucially important. That is another body in the line of fire by the Trump administration. We talk about the fact that Australia itself provides targeted funding to prevent and respond to sexual and gender based violence in humanitarian crises as well as that being incredibly important to gender equality and women's empowerment. I commend the government for accepting the recommendations, but I hope it also considers the fact that now nearly two years have passed and the implementation of that global gag rule is going to have a terrible impact on women and girls in our region, and so that needs to be responded to. I highlighted this to the government during the last Senate additional estimates, where I asked the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade whether the government would provide funding to make up some of the shortfall from the global gag rule that was being initiated by a number of Nordic countries, particularly Belgium—to provide some funds to close that loophole. Our Ambassador for Women and Girls, who was actually the chair of the particular inquiry that I am referring to, Dr Sharman Stone, attended the pledging conference on behalf of the government. The government provided her as a representative for Australia but, unfortunately, did not offer up any funding at all. However, there is another opportunity, because this July there will be another pledging conference. I again ask the government to join with so many other countries in ensuring that the rights of women and girls, particularly those that we focus on, which are those in the Asia Pacific—not just solely but that is the area in which we live—are protected. The only way to protect those rights is to ensure that we play our role in providing some funds to organisations that provide family planning support and advice, in light of the current impact that they are experiencing due to the Trump administration. This conference is occurring in early July. It is something that I will continue to call on the government to support. If this inquiry—the report of which the government has responded to—had been held today we would have addressed the Mexico City policy, as it is known, or the global gag rule. For this report to be given justice, we all need to recognise the fact that the human rights of women and girls affect all of us. If there is a girl in Indonesia, Thailand or Papua New Guinea who is not being able to fulfil her full potential, as we are here, that makes us all less of a contributor to humanity. So it is my hope that the government takes these recommendations to heart, particularly at a time when it has put itself forward on the United Nations Human Rights Council. Acting on these recommendations will show that the government is being a good humanitarian citizen. (Time expired) Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 56 Report 56 17:43 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I rise to speak on the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee on its inquiry into serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in relation to the Nauru Regional Processing Centre and any like allegations in relation to the Manus Regional Processing Centre. Last week I was in Papua New Guinea on Manus Island, where Australia has been detaining innocent people in the Manus Island detention centre, in many cases for nearly four years. Those people who are detained there, along with the people Australia is detaining on Nauru, are Australia's political prisoners. They are being deliberately harmed by the Australian government in order to coerce other people. That is why what is happening on Manus Island as well as what is happening on Nauru can accurately be described, and has been described by Amnesty International, as torture. When I was on Manus Island I learnt a number of things—and I will speak about some of those matters at another time. What I did learn was exactly what happened in the lead-up to the Good Friday shootings at the Manus Island detention camp. I learnt about those events through lengthy conversations with eyewitness detainees and with Inspector David Yapu, who is the senior Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary officer on Manus Island. What happened on Good Friday on Manus Island was that Papua New Guinea naval personnel attacked Australia's detention camp. They fired over a hundred shots into and over the camp, and they tried to ram through the gates of the camp with a naval vehicle. During this attack, detainees huddled for their lives—on the floor, under their beds, wherever they could find—to get out of the way of the bullets. Right beside them, huddling for their very lives, were the staff at the centre, who were quite understandably terrified—along with the detainees—about what was going on. I want to talk specifically about the comments made on the public record by the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, Mr Dutton, about what led up to these shootings. Mr Dutton was asked on Sky News on 19 April by David Speers what he knew about an incident where, as Mr Speers put it: … the PNG Defence Force allegedly fired shots at the detention centre after a fight with asylum seekers. Mr Dutton, after briefly mentioning that there was an investigation underway by the PNG police, said: There was difficulty, as I understand it, in the community. There was an alleged incident where three asylum seekers were alleged to be leading a local five year old boy back toward the facility and there was a lot of angst around that, if you like, within the local PNG community. David Speers then asked: Why was there angst about that? Mr Dutton said: Well because I think there was concern about why the boy was being led or for what purpose he was being led away back into the regional processing centre. So I think it's fair to say that the mood had elevated quite quickly. I think some of the local residents were quite angry about this particular incident and another alleged sexual assault. So there you have it: the immigration minister, Peter Dutton, directly linking an event that involved a young, local boy with the shootings. 'What is wrong with that?' you might ask. I will tell you what is wrong with that. It is complete and utter rubbish. It is a deliberate fabrication from the minister—a falsehood designed to demonise asylum seekers in the minds of the Australian people. I know that, because I have spoken to many people who were there, and I have also had a lengthy briefing from the Papua New Guinea police about this matter. I want to inform the Senate what Inspector David Yapu of the Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary told me. I am reading directly from my contemporaneous notes of the conversation that I had with Inspector Yapu. The first point he made was that the event around a boy was 'a completely unrelated matter.' He said that that event happened on the ninth and, as he pointed out to me, Good Friday was much later. Inspector Yapu also said that there has been no complaint laid to the PNG police over the event with a young boy. The direct quote from Inspector Yapu was: 'The boy's parents have not come to the police. It is a dead issue, as far as we are concerned. It is a dead issue.' That is what he said to me. Why is Peter Dutton, the minister for immigration, trying to link an event involving a young boy with the terrible shootings on Good Friday when, in fact, the PNG police—both in that conversation and that briefing they provided to me, but also in other public comments—have made it very clear that there is no connection between the two events? Well, of course, Peter Dutton is doing this because it worked for the Liberals last time, when they lied about children being thrown overboard. The Liberals have got plenty of exposed form on lying about people seeking asylum and refugees and doing so because they think it is to their political benefit. I have spoken to detainees who were there when the young boy came up to the centre—he was not led up there, by the way; Mr Dutton is wrong about that, too. When he came up, the detainees gave the boy some fruit. He had said he was hungry. The detainees gave some of their precious fruit—and it is precious, in that place—to the boy, in an act of kindness and of good heart. And the boy left, completely unharmed. But that is not Mr Dutton's version of events. His version of events is completely different. In fact, his version of events bears very little or no relationship to reality and to what actually happened, both on 9 April—when that boy came up and was given fruit and left completely unharmed—and on Good Friday. I am going to tell you what actually led to the Good Friday shootings on Manus Island. There is a football field on the naval base within which the Manus Island detention centre is located, and there is an informal arrangement that the detainees can use that football field up to a particular time and that after that it reverts back to use by the navy personnel. There was a dispute around whether the detainees should leave the field, and that dispute escalated in such a way that shots ultimately ended up being fired. But what happened is that PNG naval personnel, holding alcoholic drinks, started by throwing rocks and actually successfully hitting some of the detainees. I have seen the scar on one detainee's head; the scab is still there; it is the size of a 50c piece. He was rescued by other detainees who were in fear of their lives from these drunken Papua New Guinea naval personnel, and he was conveyed back up to the camp. And shortly after that the shooting started. That is what caused the shooting. It was nothing to do with Mr Dutton's version of events. But Mr Dutton has made it worse for himself because, when he was cross-examined by Barrie Cassidy on 23 April on the ABC's Insiders program and Barrie Cassidy said, 'Why didn't you let the investigation happen before you pre-empted it?' Mr Dutton said, 'I was asked why the mood had elevated on the ground on Manus Island.' Well, no, he was not! No, he was not asked that at all. That was another lie. He was asked about the shooting. He was not asked why there was an elevation in the mood on the ground. So he has doubled down here, lie on lie. And the Australian people deserve an answer from Mr Dutton as to why he is demonising asylum seekers— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, resume your seat, please. Senator Williams? Senator Williams I0V Madam Acting Deputy President, I thought it was agreed that to use the word 'lie' and to refer to people as liars in this place was unacceptable language, and I ask you to ask Senator McKim to withdraw those comments he has made about that particular minister. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Williams. I have been listening carefully. My view was that Senator McKim was skirting quite close, but I will ask him to consider withdrawing and remind him that that terminology is unacceptable. Senator McKIM JKM Thank you, Acting Deputy President. I certainly appreciate your ruling. But, in the very short time that I have left to me, I just want to say: Australians deserve— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, I have asked you to consider withdrawing the last comment you made. Senator McKIM JKM Because you are indicating it is contrary to standing orders, I will withdraw it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McKim. Please— Senator McKIM JKM But I want to say: Australians deserve the truth and they deserve better— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Yes, and you are free to continue, thank you. Senator McKIM JKM Thank you. Australians deserve the truth, and they deserve better from their immigration minister. (Time expired) 17:54 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I rise this evening to discuss the report of the inquiry by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, of which I was chair, into serious allegations of abuse, self-harm and neglect of asylum seekers in relation to the Nauru Regional Processing Centre and any like allegations in relation to the Manus Regional Processing Centre. We tabled that report during the break. I want to, at the outset, raise a couple of structural complexities about this inquiry, one of which is the fact that we were inquiring into something that is almost wholly in the domain of Australian control, although the government says that these centres are the subject of the overseas nations' control. But the extent to which they are being funded and controlled by Australian interests was absolutely clear. However, because they are offshore, we were prevented, as a committee, from being able to visit either Manus or Nauru, and it was also difficult for anyone to call in from those countries, because it meant that they would not be protected by parliamentary privilege. That in and of itself highlights some of the structural complexity around our offshore processing centres. In effect, the Australian government is trying to paint itself as being at arms-length from these issues on Manus Island and Nauru because of their offshore nature, because it has purportedly given control to the national interests of the countries concerned and because it relies heavily on the private sector to administer day-to-day management of the scheme. In effect, that amounts to an extreme lack of accountability and transparency in the administration of our offshore processing policy. That has also meant that there is a complete failure to clearly acknowledge where the duty of care actually lies in relation to the asylum seekers in these offshore centres. For a policy that represents such an incredibly significant investment of Australian public funds, that lack of accountability is extraordinarily disturbing. A great deal of our inquiry was spent trying to unpick these issues. The Australian government continues to facilitate the processing of asylum seekers who have claimed or attempted to claim protection from Australia. As our report makes clear, significant changes to the administration of this policy are necessary. First and foremost, the Australian government needs to acknowledge something that is absolutely and substantively true, and that is that it controls these regional processing centres. The department—that is, the Australian government—pays for all of the associated costs, engages all of the major contractors, owns all of the major assets and, to date, has been responsible for negotiating all of the possible third-country resettlement options. If that is not effective control, I do not know what it is. And yet time and time again in this place, in our committee and in any other forum, the government continues to pretend that it is at arms-length from these operations. That is utterly false. It is also clear that the department is the decision-maker for approving the provision of specialist health services and medical transfers for anyone who needs specialist or urgent medical care. Again, that is absolute effective control over the lives and wellbeing of every one of the asylum seekers in these regional processing centres. Indeed, the government is also responsible for the development of policies and procedures that relate to the operation of those regional processing centres. The government might pretend that these things are at arm's length or effectively in the control of other nations, but manifestly they are absolutely not, and it is quite extraordinary really to think that this parliament does not have an adequate privilege to be able to scrutinise those matters. The Australian government clearly has the primary duty of care in relation to all of those asylum seekers who have been transferred to Nauru or Papua New Guinea, and for the government to suggest otherwise is an extraordinary fiction. I want to highlight that the secrecy surrounding the regional processing centres really needs to cease. Refugees and asylum seekers are extremely vulnerable, and their vulnerability has been exacerbated because of the fact that they are housed in these distant and remote locations. I believe that this place—the Senate—and international human rights bodies and indeed all Australians should be in a position to scrutinise the running of these regional processing centres. While Australia continues to manage concerns about asylum seekers making the dangerous journey to Australia by boat, the day-to-day management of the regional processing centres in fact has little connection to that problem. It is difficult to see how transparency about the provision of, for example, medical services or education services, the refugee status determination processes and a deportation risk assessment would have any bearing on the future success of those efforts. I truly think we need a much greater degree of transparency from this government, particularly in relation to the costs of administering this policy and the services provided as part of any contracts. Despite the fact that the government wants to stand at arm's length from these policies, Australian taxpayers bear all the costs of offshore processing. And, as the Australian National Audit Office has highlighted in a number of reports now, there is significant maladministration taking place in the management of these contracts that is exacerbated by the way the government is choosing to hide the issues. Australians are entitled to know how public funds are being spent, and this place is likewise entitled to that information. A significant part of the report we are discussing today was devoted to recording the high number of incident reports made public through the publication of the Nauru files and was supported with evidence from submitters to the inquiry, and we received a great deal of additional evidence. While the evidence this inquiry received is not new, it really does show that the allegations and much of the information contained was observed firsthand and revealed disturbing and alarming harm towards refugees and asylum seekers taking place. The picture we received paints a deeply troubled asylum seeker and refugee population and an unsafe living environment, especially for children, and these should all be issues of great concern to the Senate. Even more troubling, these reports record only those incidents that have actually been reported to workers or that workers themselves have observed. They do not, I think, represent the true prevalence of such incidents. These issues are a significant concern— (Time expired) 18:05 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland This report by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee is, to my recollection, probably the fourth or fifth or sixth report that this Senate has done on the Nauru and Manus Island centres. These reports all stem from the goal of the Labor Party and the Greens and some of the crossbenchers to denigrate the wonderful work the coalition government has done in stopping the boats and preventing the illegal entry into Australia of people who are, quite frankly, jumping the queue. For some reason, the Labor Party and the Greens think it is okay for people who have the money to do so to fly from wherever to Malaysia or Indonesia and then pay people smugglers $15,000 per person or more to enter Australia illegally. The Greens and the Labor Party seem to think that is not a bad system. It is a system which most Australians do not agree with, in fairness, and it is one that we were determined to stop and have stopped. As a result of that, the Labor Party eventually got the message from the Australian people. It was when Mr Kevin Rudd, a Labor Prime Minister, was in charge that the penny eventually dropped. He realised that he had to adopt a similar process. So Mr Kevin Rudd, the Labor Party Prime Minister, made arrangements with the PNG government and the Nauru government to set up detention centres on their islands so that these people would not be in Australia but be in some other countries. This was an arrangement—I repeat again and again—made by the Labor Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd. He did it badly and in a hurry, and as a result the Auditor-General's report which Senator Pratt referred to made some findings that we accept. We know they are right, because the Labor government put these arrangements into place so quickly that they made mistakes—gross mistakes, very serious mistakes. Over the time we have been in government we have tried to address those mistakes, and all credit to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection for the wonderful work they have done. They have been under a lot of pressure. They were under real pressure when there were 2,000 or 3,000 people arriving on our shores illegally every week. They did a fantastic job as public servants. It was a very difficult and emotional area of public policy, but they did the job. Then they were asked by Mr Rudd, the Labor Prime Minister, to make these arrangements with Nauru and Manus almost overnight, and mistakes were made. We have acknowledged that, and they have acknowledged that, and we have addressed most of those mistakes. I must say that I was not able to attend most of the hearings related to this report, although I am deputy chairman of the committee. But very often—and this is a complaint I have often made—those hearings seemed to be scheduled for times when the Labor Party and the Greens knew that neither I nor the other government senator on that committee would be available. And so I did not attend a lot of those hearings. But for those that I did—and I tried to attend wherever I could—the 'evidence' that is referred to in the majority report on this particular inquiry really, in most cases, was not evidence at all. It was hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay. It was comments made by people anonymously, so they could never be checked. Where allegations were made and were referred to the department, the department almost in every case had an explanation that was quite different to what the witness or the submission had said. I think the majority report even acknowledges that a lot of the allegations were unsubstantiated and unsupported. It is for this reason that I take little notice and little regard of what the majority has said in this report. I would suggest to anyone listening to this and to all other Australians that they should treat this report with real suspicion and should very carefully assess what is said. The minority report of government senators was done very quickly at short notice, but it highlighted some of the things that I have been saying tonight. It highlighted that these are simply allegations from people who, I might say, have a specific interest in this issue. You have people who illegally tried to enter Australia. They were sent by Mr Kevin Rudd, the Labor Prime Minister, to Manus and Nauru. They have been very angry, and you can understand that. They paid tens of thousands of dollars to people smugglers and to airlines to almost get to Australia. You can understand that they are very unhappy at being incarcerated on Nauru and Manus. They will do anything possible to get into Australia. And, in this, they are supported by the Greens and the Labor Party. It just undermines the border security and border arrangements that have been put in place—badly in the first instance by Mr Rudd, the Labor Prime Minister, but then perfected by us. We have made it very clear that these people on Manus and Nauru can go back to their country of origin at any time at the Australian taxpayers' expense. Senator Hanson-Young interjecting— Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 They are housed in situations which are, in some cases, far better than many original Australians are housed in in our own country. There are facilities in these centres that many Australians do not enjoy. There are many Australians without air-conditioning. Yet we have complaints from these people who are illegally trying to enter Australia. Senator Hanson-Young interjecting — Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Senator Hanson-Young is asking if I have been there. No, I have not. But, Senator Hanson-Young, we have a professional public service—a public service who are not part of the political game but who do the job. They are there regularly; they are talking to people who are there regularly. All of the allegations made by people there and by the Greens political party, in particular, are from people with a motive. And you notice that the people supporting them—the lawyers who now do not have the government funded work in dealing with many of these applications, and there are other groups—have, I might say, conflicts of interest. So you have to take with a big grain of salt a lot of the allegations made. There are some serious concerns raised. These are followed up by the department professionally, sympathetically and in a very humane way. But you do not hear about that from the Greens or the Labor Party. Our professional public servants who are in charge of this do a wonderful job. Just because the people who are running these systems on Nauru and Manus are not Australian officials but officials from governments of Papua New Guinea and Nauru, for some reason the Labor Party and the Greens will say, 'They're not doing it right.' If you talk about xenophobia, you would see a bit of that in the allegations made by the Greens and the Labor Party against government officials from PNG and Manus who do a good job, a wonderful job in difficult circumstances, and they are supported very substantially by the Australian taxpayer and by assistance from Australian officials. I conclude by saying: for anyone interested in this subject, treat this report with a lot of caution. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Resilience of Electricity Infrastructure in a Warming World 61 Report 61 18:15 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales In respect of the report of the Select Committee on Resilience of Electricity Infrastructure in a Warming World, I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This inquiry was initiated at a certain point in time and, subsequent to its commencement, the public debate and the public concern around the state of energy policy under this government intensified significantly. It happened that this committee was in a very good position to examine some of the more outrageous claims made by members of the government in relation to electricity shortages that occurred in both New South Wales and South Australia during the peak of the heatwaves this summer. It presented, consequently, a unique opportunity, a very timely opportunity, to articulate a clear policy vision for Australia's energy future, something which, as I have already pointed out in previous debates this afternoon, this government has absolutely failed to provide. Labor senators were concerned that the majority report did not fully grasp the opportunity to lay out a complete vision and a sober vision for how we might effect what is doubtless a very difficult transition. It was for that reason that we submitted a dissenting report, while acknowledging that much of the evidence captured in the chair's report faithfully reflected the evidence that was received by the committee. I want to take the time this afternoon to step the recommendations that Labor senators made in that dissenting report. The first related to the way that the electricity companies plan for a changed climate. The evidence that we heard was that the electricity companies have received no guidance whatsoever from the AER about whether it is reasonable to make additional investments to strengthen electricity infrastructure. We saw in the South Australian case very significant damage to infrastructure that had been built to appropriate design standards to withstand very bad windstorms. Yet, because of the severity of that storm—a very, very severe storm—that infrastructure was not able to withstand the wind speeds that it was subjected to. In discussing this with the energy companies, what became clear was that there is no guidance at all about whether electricity companies are in a position to work to more demanding design standards in anticipation of a climate that is significantly more risky than the one that most of this infrastructure was built for. That is why Labor senators recommended that the AER and the AMC consider reviewing existing policies to ensure that the transmission and distribution asset owners have clear guidance as to what constitutes prudent investment to protect their networks against climate change risk. We also recommended that government not provide public financing for new coal-fired power plants. This was widely reported as us recommending that the government stop doing this. Of course, the government does not presently provide financing for coal-fired power plants. That is because we have a National Electricity Market that imagines that new investment is undertaken by the private sector. The idea floated by government ministers that government ought to initiate some new program of investment in coal fired power stations is, quite frankly, extremely surprising and reckless. The committee heard evidence from many different industry participants that the risks associated with building new coal fired power plants in the context of global commitments to reduce carbon emissions are such that these projects are not bankable and the application of public funds to projects of this kind would not represent a prudent application of public money. That was the clear evidence from policy experts and also the industry. That is why there are no private sector investors—with the possible exception of Clive Palmer, who was willing to bankroll a dinosaur farm. There are no private sector investors, in any serious way, proposing to invest in new coal fired plants. We recommended that the government continue to provide support for emerging energy technologies because they face real technical and regulatory hurdles when they enter the market. We note the significance of the institutions established by Labor—ARENA and the CEFC—in providing support of this kind. We note the continuing attacks on those institutions by the government, led by Mr Turnbull, and by the previous government, led by Mr Abbott, and we strongly urge the government to stand down from their attacks on those institutions and to fund them properly in the budget. We heard that, as the range of next generation technologies in the market continues to diversify as a response to technological development and consumer preference, reforms need to be made to the National Electricity Market rules. These are reforms that would reward the provision of ancillary services, including the services associated with reliability and stability. It is way past time that the AER and the AEMC started examining these questions with seriousness and that the government accepted recommendations around rule changes of this kind. We also recommended that the AER and the AEMC consider reforms to the NEM to reduce any technical barriers of entry for new energy technologies and to recognise and reward the new services they are able to offer to the grid. This was particularly in relation to the evidence we heard from battery suppliers who were concerned that unreasonably restrictive requirements, particularly around OH&S, may prevent the deployment of household-scale batteries. They were keen to see interventions to prevent unreasonable barriers of this kind being put in place. As I have noted here on more than one occasion this afternoon, Labor senators reiterated our call for the government to end the uncertainty about national energy policy. We need a stable and consistent policy—probably an emissions intensity scheme. This seems to be the scheme most likely to gain wide-scale community support, but we need a consistent policy that can support investment in new energy infrastructure. There is a problem. Industry told us time and time again that, despite the fact that there is obviously a need for next generation technologies in the NEM, industry is unlikely to step up while policy uncertainty around carbon pricing remains. It is time for this to be brought to an end. It is time for a clear framework for emissions reduction to be put in place by the government. It is very surprising that we face yet another budget where we can confidently anticipate that there will be no serious plan by the government to deal with the energy crisis and no serious plan to deal with climate change. We note that the Finkel review is underway. Labor senators called for that review to be made public as soon as possible, and for government to respond to its recommendations as a matter of urgency. To reiterate the point: there is a horrible vacuum in our national energy policy, and the sooner the government can initiate a proper response to this crisis, the better. I am not, however, holding my breath. We heard evidence, particularly from AGL, that there is an issue with ageing infrastructure and, in particular, with allowing investors to see when some of this ageing infrastructure may exit the market. We have recommended that the Australian government work with stakeholders on a framework to provide for the orderly exit of ageing generation. We sought to lay out a coherent plan; it is time for the government to do the same. 18:25 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Given the late hour, I seek to continue my remarks in relation to this report at a later date. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BILLS 62 BILLS Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017 62

Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017

Report of Legislation Committee 62 18:26 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, I present the report of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee on the Fair Work Amendment (Corrupting Benefits) Bill 2017, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017 62

Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017

Report of Legislation Committee 62 18:26 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee, I present the report of the Education and Employment Legislation Committee on the Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2017, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill 2016 62

Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill 2016

Report of Legislation Committee 62 18:26 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on the Racial Discrimination Amendment Bill 2016, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017 63

Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017

Report of Legislation Committee 63 18:26 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, I present the report of the Economics Legislation Committee on the Treasury Laws Amendment (GST Low Value Goods) Bill 2017, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Amendment Bill 2017 63

Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Amendment Bill 2017

Report of Legislation Committee 63 18:26 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, I present the report of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Amendment Bill 2017, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. COMMITTEES 63 COMMITTEES Economics References Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 63 Membership 63 18:26 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Order! The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees. 18:26 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Economics References Committee— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Georgiou Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee— Discharged—Senator McCarthy Appointed—Senator Singh Question agreed to. BILLS 63 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016 63

Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016

Returned from the House of Representatives 63 Customs and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016, Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 2016, Diverted Profits Tax Bill 2017, Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016, Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2017, Treasury Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016, Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017, Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017, Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill 2017, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-2017, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016-2017, Education and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2017, Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 64

Customs and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2016

Customs Tariff Amendment Bill 2016

Diverted Profits Tax Bill 2017

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Jobs for Families Child Care Package) Bill 2016

Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2017

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Simplifying Student Payments) Bill 2017

Treasury Laws Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016

Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017

Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Multinational Tax Avoidance) Bill 2017

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Digital Readiness and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2016-2017

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2016-2017

Education and Other Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2017

Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2017

Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2017

Assent 64 DOCUMENTS 64 DOCUMENTS Saudi Arabia: Human Rights 64 Order for the Production of Documents 64 18:27 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning military exports to Saudi Arabia. Sitting suspended from 18 : 28 to 20:30 BUDGET 64 BUDGET Statement and Documents 64 20:30 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I table the following documents: Budget statement and documents 2017-18 Budget speech 2017-18—Statement by the Treasurer (Mr Morrison), dated 9 May 2017. Budget papers— No. 1—Budget strategy and outlook No. 2—Budget measures No. 3—Federal financial relations No. 4—Agency resourcing Ministerial statement—Regional Australia—Driving our economy 2017-18 I seek leave to move a motion relating to the documents. Leave granted. Senator CORMANN HDA I move: That the Senate take note of the Budget statement and documents. Debate adjourned. Proposed Expenditure 64 20:30 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I table particulars of proposed and certain expenditure for 2017-18. I seek leave to move a motion to refer the documents to legislation committees. Leave granted. Senator CORMANN HDA I move: That the documents be referred to legislation committees for the consideration of the estimates. Question agreed to. Portfolio Budget Statements 65 20:30 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I table portfolio budget statements for 2017-18 for portfolio and executive departments in accordance with the list circulated in the chamber. Copies are available from the Senate Table Office. The list read as follows— Budget Related Documents—9 May 2017 2017-18 Portfolio Budget Statements (PBS) Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio Attorney-General's portfolio Communications and the Arts portfolio Defence portfolio Department of Human Services Department of Veterans' Affairs Education and Training portfolio Employment portfolio Environment and Energy portfolio Finance portfolio Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio Health portfolio Immigration and Border Protection portfolio Industry, Innovation and Science portfolio Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio Social Services portfolio Treasury portfolio 20:31 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 204953 I table the portfolio budget statements for 2017-18 for the Department of the Senate, the Parliamentary Budget Office and the Department of Parliamentary Services. Copies are available from the Senate Table Office. ADJOURNMENT 65 ADJOURNMENT Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II 65 20:31 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia In March this year I was delighted to attend an ecumenical service at St Paul's Anglican Church in Manuka in celebration of the sapphire jubilee of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II and to recognise Her Majesty turning 90 last year. The service was attended by more than a couple of hundred people and included many of my parliamentary colleagues, members of the diplomatic corps, representatives of the Australian Defence Force, many community groups and members of the public committed to demonstrating their support for our constitutional arrangements. It was particularly pleasing to have clergy from various denominations participating in the service and was a powerful demonstration of the unifying influence the Crown and more particularly Her Majesty, our queen, continues to have over the Australian community. A special highlight was the sermon delivered by Archbishop Christopher Prowse from the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn. In the archbishop's sermon he spoke of Her Majesty's inspired leadership as being a symbol of unity in a polarised world and the qualities she has demonstrated in service to her people. I would like to share with the Senate the archbishop's contribution, which was called 'A symbol of unity in a polarised world'. I would like to read two parts of his sermon. In the first part the archbishop said: In the First Collect for today there is a prayer that seems particularly apt when applied to the qualities of Her Majesty. The Collect gives thanks to God “to our sovereign Queen Elizabeth”, because God has given her “gifts of faith in your promises, and hope for the future and love of her people”. This I think is the first quality of extraordinary leadership that Her Majesty has given us—living out faith, hope and love. In doing this she is living out the Baptism she has been given in service to her people. Faith, hope and love are described as the three theological virtues. They are given as gifts from God. They dispose us to do the good. For those who live out these theological virtues of faith, hope and charity, God gives them knowledge of their origins, their motives and their objectives. For such a long period of time, we can see that Her Majesty has used these Baptismal gifts of faith, hope and love in great service. For the virtuous way that she has lived out her Baptismal calling, we thank God. It is expressed in her tremendous continuous service over so many years. Importantly for me, the archbishop went on to describe another important quality. He went on to talk about one of the other qualities and said: A third quality that comes to my mind on this important anniversary today of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, is that she is a symbol of unity in a very polarised world. …   …   … To a certain degree, I find Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II for so many has symbolically held the Commonwealth together. With her many gifts she has been able to embrace so many disparate cultures and societies and to assure them that, ultimately, we must remain united as a global village in a very polarised world. Whether this has happened, in reality, others may comment. However, I am referring to her symbolic presence which is so unifying. I would just like to reflect briefly on, and to extend my very warm thanks and gratitude to, the Venerable Dr Brian Douglas, Rector of St Paul's, for his assistance, guidance and counsel in organising the service, which was a tremendously gracious way to acknowledge Her Majesty's devotion to public service above self. In closing, though, may I make one final remark: in recent days, we have learnt that His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh has decided that he will no longer carry out his public engagements, from the autumn of this year. In taking this decision, he has reflected clearly, and he can be comforted by his tremendous service. I am sure I speak on behalf of all Australians when I extend our very best wishes and our sincerest acknowledgement and recognition of his tremendous service in his various roles but, most importantly, his lifelong service and public and private commitment to Her Majesty the Queen. Anzac Day Commemorations, Broadband 66 20:36 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise to make some remarks around Anzac Day, which has occurred in the interim since our last sitting. Traditionally, Anzac Day is a day of solemn reflection and remembrance, and senators in this place absolutely understand the role it plays in the articulation of the character of our nation. But, for me, this year, it was a celebration—a celebration of all that the best of the Anzac spirit stands for, in terms of camaraderie, family, and the connection that it makes between all Australians, even across time. I was honoured to play a part in a heart-warming Anzac story that stretches from World War II, from the staging ground in Darwin, to the ammunition stores of Fort Scratchley in Newcastle, and from Umina Beach on the New South Wales Central Coast to the grazing town of Grenfell in the central west of the state. It began with a chance meeting with a Umina local by the name of Ian Wilkes at Woy Woy, while I was actually handing out at the by-election for the state seat of Gosford—and I want to take this opportunity immediately to congratulate the wonderful Liesl Tesch, who is now the member for Gosford; she is a remarkable woman and it is a pleasure to have her representing the Labor Party and the community of Gosford. Ian Wilkes told me of some medals that he had found amongst his father's war memorabilia from some years ago. The problem Ian had wrestled with for years was trying to find who these medals belonged to. They were inscribed 'Private Vivian Huckel', and he had made many attempts, over decades, to track down the owner, but he was unsuccessful. I asked Ian to pass the details on to my office and, after a bit of great sleuthing and a happy dose of good luck, we turned up Ron Huckel, Vivian's brother, in Grenfell. I can tell you: it was an emotional experience, on Tuesday, 18 April, to receive these medals from Ian Wilkes, who was indeed relieved to hand them over to me, knowing that he need wrestle with his conscience no longer because he had done his job; he was sending them home. To say that Ron was excited when he was contacted by my office would be to understate his reaction. I travelled to Grenfell on the following Friday to reunite the Huckel family with the awards made to their late relative, who had survived the war but was later tragically killed in a car accident. The people of Grenfell turned out at the cenotaph in support of Ron and his family, and it was a truly moving reunion. As I said, it was all about the nature of home and things returning home and to their right place. Apart from the reunion, the story leaves more questions than answers. How did Ian's dad, Noel Wilkes, who served at Fort Scratchley in Newcastle, come to be in possession of the medals awarded to Vivian, who hailed from Pullabooka near Forbes and was stationed in Darwin? It is a mystery that endures for both of these gentlemen. But it was wonderful for me to play a small part in returning the medals to Ron and the family. Earlier on that day, I had had a morning tea with locals in Wagga, just over two hours drive down the road in the Riverina, as I was in transit from an NBN hearing over the border in Wodonga. The highway from Wagga Wagga to Grenfell winds through some of the state's most productive rural countryside. There are many parallels between the productive lands around Wagga and the city's businesses, the B85 and the National Broadband Network in the bush. Wagga is fertile ground for innovative web based companies that range from tech support to local online TV streaming operations. But the NBN rollout in this vibrant centre has not lived up to the expectations of these IT innovators. One local IT strategist, by the name of Michael Meyer, did in fact predict this. He saw the writing on the wall. Back in February last year, on the eve of the NBN rollout in Wagga, he called on the local member, Michael McCormack, to hit pause on the connection process, over fears the city would be lumped with a second-rate network. Mr Meyer believed, and he has been proven quite correct, that the NBN, better known as MTM, or 'Malcolm Turnbull's mess'—he likes to call it a 'multitechnology mix'—would be a cobweb of technologies. It is similar, according to Mr Meyer, to outdated ADSL networks. 'We are about to inherit an anchor,' he said, prophetically. Mr Meyer recently took to social media to call on Mr McCormack to speak up for a stronger digital policy, after it was revealed that residents of Quambi Place in Mount Austin were told by the NBN that they could be without their broadband services for up to three months, after the copper wires were cut on a building site. This is a story we are hearing all around the country. Mr Meyer said: 'Unfortunately this is not an isolated incident. NBN fault rectification SLAs are often simply ignored and appointments missed without notification.' There is much more to say for the people of Wagga, and I will be making further contributions on that matter in this chamber. Williams, Ms Lou 67 Freedom of Speech 68 20:46 Senator LUDLAM I07 Western Australia No other topic of recent debate in Australia sends people hurrying into their corners faster than debate about free speech. This complex and crucial topic has been appropriated by conservative culture warriors to promote unrestrained racism to the degree that it is in danger of losing all greater meaning. Tonight, I want to reclaim some of that space, and maybe even build some bridges, by talking about real threats to speech in Australia in 2017. I want to start with some context. There are countries around the world where the act of journalism itself can be, in the eyes of the authorities, sufficient justification for imprisonment. There are countries around the world that have state intelligence apparatus so opaque and far-reaching that a journalist may not even know that they have transgressed. The first clue could come at the moment of their arrest, and not sooner. Even if they were able to determine the cause for their arrest, they would not be able to share it, not even with the publication that they work for or with their family or their lawyer. There are countries where federal law enforcement can be deployed to pursue not the perpetrators of gross mismanagement of public funds or corruption but the person who blew the whistle. There are countries where federal law enforcement can monitor a journalist's call records with no oversight and identify a confidential source in order to then monitor them some more. There are countries where a journalist working internationally can publish explosive, important, world-shifting public-interest revelations only to find that their government all but abandons them as they are hunted by the powers implicated in their stories and then pursued in secret. There are countries that record every movement of their citizens and make that information available to law enforcement and a range of agencies without a warrant. There are countries where governments at all levels are massively escalating and consolidating the collection of biometric data—facial-recognition material, DNA, fingerprints and photographs—on all of their citizens, including those never suspected of a crime. There are countries where a single media entity can overwhelmingly dominate the landscape in most cities and freely use that commercial dominance as a political weapon—and, yes, that country is us in 2017: Australia. The measure of the strength of our public discourse and, in fact, our democracy itself must be how well the powerful can be held to account by even the most marginalised. Instead, debate around speech has centred on which words the wealthiest and the whitest can use in their war of words against people who do not get a right of reply in tabloid newspapers or on talkback radio, and real, substantive discussion about a strong, independent, diverse and free press is long overdue in Australia. Maybe it took those who have bravely stood up for their industrial rights, including those right here in the bureau two storeys up from where we are standing tonight: those journalists from Fairfax Media, who have even had to sit out the budget—this week of all weeks! If it takes industrial action of that measure and that integrity to provoke this discussion, then so be it. When WikiLeaks, led by Australian publisher and journalist Julian Assange, first published the collateral murder video, it was not hailed as a vital blow for freedom of expression and accountability by the self-proclaimed free speech advocates in conservative parties or the think tanks and the publications—and Reuters journalists were murdered in that war crime, amongst a number of innocent Iraqi civilians. But, instead, Mr Assange and his colleagues were labelled as traitors, and the Australian government distanced themselves from him as rapidly as they could. In the 10 years since the attack in that video took place, the capacity of media organisations and citizen journalists to serve their fourth estate function has been eroded—I would argue, deliberately—by successive Australian federal governments. Among other things, the internet has relentlessly consumed old business models and has left many organisations struggling for their existence. How do we ensure the survival of public interest journalism and how do we keep as many voices as possible in our media landscape? How do we prevent state interference in acts of journalism? I would have thought these are the free speech debates that we needed to be having. At the start of this year, as has been so for many years, the most visited news sites in the country were those belonging to the major media groups—news.com.au, nine.com.au, the ABC, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age. This success obviously has not translated to sustainability for some publishers in the internet age. Nevertheless, the same incumbent voices have carried their incumbency into the digital age and they dominate online as they do in older media. The same people are holding the same power; the same people are pushing the same agendas; the same columnists and professional 'opinion-havers' are waging the same boring cultural war. After Mr Edward Snowden brought the world's attention to covert surveillance by intelligence agencies on an incredible scale—fine-grained, real-time surveillance into every aspect of our lives—every other nation in the Five Eyes alliance had lively public debates, including the US and the UK. They did not always go in the direction that the Australian Greens would have liked, but the debates happened. In the United States, for example, they have a powerful rights-based discourse that dates back to the founding of their republic. That debate simply failed to happen here in Australia. Instead of seizing that opportunity for considered discussion, Australia's then relatively freshly-minted Attorney-General disregarded those revelations entirely and dismissed the whistleblower Ed Snowden as a 'traitor'—that was the word he used. With each new expansion of powers for law enforcement and spy agencies under the guise of national security—justified by the ever-malleable war on terror—the coalition has retreated further and further from any fidelity to the principle of free expression, confident in the knowledge that the speech that they were most curtailing was criticism directed at them. The Australian Labor Party sadly capitulated to this argument, over and over again, deliberately scrambling to avoid any suggestion that they were weak on national security, no matter how facile the attack on their integrity. After a campaign that should have reached a very different conclusion, Labor signed on and voted for the Liberal government's expensive and ineffective data retention scheme. The signal stayed the same, and the noise exponentially increased. Mandatory data retention is a perfectly abhorrent mix of intrusion and ineffectiveness. The implementation has been a comedy of errors, a debacle, behind the scenes and in public. In just a few minutes, an individual with basic technological literacy can circumvent that scheme—as helpfully described by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on Sky TV. The concessions in the bill, as ineffective and narrow as they were, to protect journalists have been proven ultimately worthless by the AFP's recent announcement that their own officers broke the law—their law—for which they have received no disciplinary action and obviously no charges. They were spying on an Australian journalist without having obtained a warrant. The response yielded a press conference and a shrug of the shoulders, and they moved on. Once again, the free speech champions in the coalition stayed silent. To the coalition spokespeople who are in here tonight: feel free to interject if any amongst your number raised a finger in protest at that outrage. The government's only response, I understand, freshly enough, was an announcement of more than $300 million in new funding for the Australian Federal Police. It feels somewhat as though Australian journalists and their colleagues overseas, who also put up with extraordinary risks, including to their lives, are caught between the hammer and the anvil—the hammer of an indifferent business model where, even now, we are seeing that the proud mastheads of Fairfax may simply be subject to asset stripping by an offshore conglomerate that has absolutely no interest in the role of public interest journalism; and, on the other hand, the deprivations of law enforcement and an indifferent government that is seeking merely to manage the message and to manage it out of existence, if necessary. Who would be a journalist in 2017? On behalf of the Australian Greens, I want to convey my respect to the Fairfax staff who have taken unprotected industrial action this week and last week not just in defence of their own employment—because, clearly, it is their employment that is at stake—but also in defence of all of us. We may not like what they write about us down here on the floor of the Senate, but that is just too bad. We may want to see them better supported and we may want to see more diverse voices in the media landscape but, in the here and now, they are the ones who are on the frontline, and we support them. We hope that they can reach some kind of conclusion with management, who are taking home multimillion dollar pay cheques to asset strip this proud entity in the Australian media landscape. At the same time as this is occurring, public broadcasting is under unprecedented threat. I have not yet been into the budget papers in detail to see whether community broadcasters got a break or whether they will shortly be going to the wall as well. But from ABC to SBS to community broadcasters to the old commercial broadcasters and print businesses, independent, free, fair, public interest journalism is under attack from all sides. There are things that we can do about it, and the Australian Greens are up for that debate. We will work with anybody in this chamber on providing support, if it is appropriate, for new business models to hold us in here to account because, ultimately, that is what keeps all of us and this country in good shape. Human Rights 69 20:56 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Recently reports from around the world have reminded us of the ongoing and deeply frightening human rights abuses of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people. Tonight I want to bear witness to those atrocities and call on Australia to stand firm and to defend the rights of all people to respect, dignity and legal protection, especially in their own homelands across the globe. From Chechnya we hear reports of over a hundred men suspected of being gay who have been imprisoned in at least six concentration camps, tortured and some even killed, by their own government. Families of men suspected of being gay have been told that, if they do not kill them, the authorities will. They call it 'cleaning your honour with blood'. It is too horrific to even think about. Credible sources from within the autonomous region say that the government has ordered what the police have called a 'preventative mopping up' of people they consider undesirable. This has included beatings and electroshock torture, with three men confirmed as having been killed and one gay teen killed after his uncle pushed him off a ninth floor balcony. The Chechen president first claimed that 'you cannot arrest or repress people who don't exist' before later announcing that by Ramadan, later this month, Chechnya would have no gay people left. My colleague Senator Ludlam and I wrote to our government upon hearing the first reports of these horrific incidents, and I was pleased to hear that our foreign minister, Julie Bishop, has condemned this violence and abuse and has raised our government's concerns directly with the Russian government. I want to note for the Senate that I have given notice of a motion to be moved tomorrow on just this issue. I hope to secure my Senate colleagues' backing for this important motion which calls on the government to work internationally to condemn the Chechen government's actions, and the Russian government's support for these actions, and to accept gay people from Chechnya as refugees. I also commend those in my home town of Melbourne who have organised a vigil for next week to gather in solidarity with the Chechen LGBTI community, who are being captured and tortured because of who they are and who they love. I look forward to joining my friends in Melbourne next week. Around the same time as reports emerged from Chechnya, we heard from Aceh province in Indonesia that two men were arrested and faced punishment for allegedly having same-sex relations, punished by up to 100 lashes in public. This constitutes torture under international law. Following this incident, 14 men were detained in Surabaya, Indonesia's second-largest city, for taking part in a gay party. All 14 were forced to undergo HIV tests and eight men were charged, and the two men accused of hosting and organising the party could face up to 15 years in jail. In Uganda, academic and outspoken LGBTI ally Dr Stella Nyanzi was arrested and charged for criticising the President. Not only has she experienced reprisals, such as questioning by authorities, she has had her passport confiscated, she has been prevented from travelling to the Netherlands for a conference and she has been placed on a no-fly list. She has also stated that her sister's car was followed and her home raided by armed men. Each of these examples highlights the appalling treatment of LGBTI people and our allies in many places around the world for simply being who we are. But more than that, the truly horrifying similarity between these is that the human rights abuses and persecution of LGBTI people and our allies is state sanctioned abuse. Imprisonment, torture, harassment and death at the hands of government or incited by government for being an LGBTI person is horrific and wrong. We must never stand by and be silent when countries, regimes and governments contravene the human rights of LGBTI people, people who cannot change who they are and who are not doing anything wrong. In fact, there are 76 countries around the world where it is still illegal to be homosexual. In the context of these atrocious abuses of the human rights of LGBTI people I want to make sure that your calendars are marked in preparation for the International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia, IDAHOBIT day, which is held on 17 May. Since 2004, IDAHOBIT has drawn attention to the violence and discrimination experienced by LGBTI people around the world and it is now celebrated in more than 130 countries, including 37 where homosexuality is illegal. The date of 17 May was chosen to commemorate the World Health Organization's 1990 decision to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. As the human rights abuse examples I have mentioned demonstrate, there has never been a more important time for us to recognise IDAHOBIT day and shine a spotlight on human rights abuses and discrimination of LGBTI people around the world. It breaks my heart to hear these stories of people being persecuted when they just want to live their lives in peace and feel safe with who they are and to love who they love. So let us all commit to bearing witness, to speaking out and to standing firm for the safety and the lives of our friends across the globe. In Australia we can be proud that we are a long way down the road of recognising and celebrating LGBTIQ people, proud that because of the persistent campaigning by many people and organisations over decades we have moved from the days when homosexuality was illegal here too. South Australia was the first to decriminalise male homosexuality in 1975, but it was not until 1997 that the last state, Tasmania, followed suit. But unlike 23 countries around the world, including the UK, the US, New Zealand and Canada, and even Catholic Spain and Portugal, we have not taken the final step of allowing people to marry regardless of their sex, sexuality or gender identity. It is way past time. We know the support is there in the Australian community and, indeed, in this parliament. A free vote would do it, Mr Turnbull. And every day that we wait, someone's heart is broken. I was recently contacted by a couple, Peter de Waal and Peter Bonsall-Boone, who have been together for 50 years—50 years of partnership. Bon, 78, was diagnosed with aggressive cancer two years ago and has been through rounds of treatment but is now living on borrowed time. He was given only months to live last November. He is now preparing to die without his last wish being granted—to be able to marry his partner. Peter and Bon wrote to the Prime Minister just before Easter, begging him to allow a free vote in the parliament as soon as possible to allow Bon's dying wish to be granted. But they have not yet heard back from Mr Turnbull. So just in case their letter has been overlooked, I will personally deliver another copy to the Prime Minister this week. Fulfilling Peter and Bon's wish to be married would be a fitting way for Australia to finally acknowledge that love is love and that we as Australians value the relationships of all couples. Peter and Bon have spent 50 years together. They deserve to have their relationship recognised. Mr Turnbull, it is time. Racial Discrimination Act 1975 71 21:06 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Many people in this country might think that the debate around section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act has been put to bed by a recent decision of this Senate. But, unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth. There still remain live in this parliament today attempts from various people to water down protections against racist hate speech in this country. It is interesting that we are often subjected to, it has to be said, lectures mainly from the Liberal backbench and their fellow right-wingers in One Nation and Senator Bernardi's newly minted Australian Conservatives about what they describe as their unshakeable belief in freedom. In fact, it is often their first point of reference in their malicious attempts to water down protections against race-based hate speech. You can be absolutely certain that we are going to hear more of it this year in this place. This so-called unshakeable belief in freedom is a brazen and fundamentally dishonest position when you look at the track record on human rights of the people who purport to be the great freedom warriors in this place. It is most obviously displayed in the absolute horrors that this government is visiting on innocent people that we are incarcerating on Manus Island and Nauru right now—a denial of basic freedom which has cost people their lives and which has cost many others serious injuries and many, many others serious psychological torment. While the wealthy politicians—almost exclusively middle-aged white blokes—moan and whinge about how they should be free to use the 'n' word without consequence in this country, or bizarrely complain in this place about the suppression of holocaust deniers, they keep silent the tortured screams of the men, women and children on Manus Island and Nauru in Australia's offshore detention regime. Of course, they are members of a government that stubbornly entrenches discrimination in the Marriage Act. It is a denial of the very basic freedom that one ought to have in Australia: to marry the person that you love. And what of their deafening silence about their good mates in One Nation and their consistent attacks on freedom of religion in this place—basically, their Islamophobia? What of their massive expansion of the surveillance state that we have seen in recent years in this country, where hard-won civil liberties that Australian soldiers have fought and tragically died for in wars are eroded away time after time after time in this place? They are attacks on fundamental freedoms led by the people who claim to defend freedom in this place. And what about their attack on the rights of Australians to live in a clean environment and to breathe clean air, and their continued war on the planet through massive new coalmines and other policies that make climate change worse? How many freedoms will that compromise, and how many lives will that cost? What are they doing to ensure that people have a right to a home, to shelter, or that people are free from poverty? The simple fact is that the Liberal senators who want to water down protections against race based hate speech in this country, the Liberal senators who claim to be the great freedom warriors in this place, are far more interested in the rights of people who look like them and sound like them, people who went to the same private schools that they did. They bemoan identity politics, but they come after people who do no share their identity. That is why there are no wealthy middle-aged white blokes imprisoned on Manus Island or Nauru. These people—the self-styled freedom warriors—care about freedom, or purport to care about freedom, for people who are already very free. But for those who lack freedom, the Liberal Party offers nothing. They want racists to be free to offend, to insult, to humiliate other people on the basis of their race. It is like trickle-down economics in social policy, and it is just as flawed in its logic. The government seems to believe that if people like them are unburdened of their basic civic responsibilities like paying tax, looking after the environment and not being incredible racists, then eventually all of us are going to live in some kind of utopia. Well, these conservatives who would like to imagine that they have inherited the principles of the French Revolution are actually nothing more than stale, reheated culture warriors, spouting the same old tired garbage that Bob Santamaria bored us to sleep with on our televisions in the 1980s. When they talk about protecting freedom, they really mean protecting the entrenched ruling class, its property and its privilege in this country. To take up the French Revolution metaphor again, they are actually the aristocrats, not the revolutionaries. And I want to name one particular culture warrior who has been particularly egregious in his decades of fighting against the rights of others to be free, and that is my fellow Tasmanian senator Senator Eric Abetz, a man who spent his earliest days in this place arguing against Tasmania's decision to legalise homosexuality. His battle against LGBTI rights continues to this very day, whether it be against rainbow flags in the foyer or for the incredibly harmful practice of conversion therapy. Culture war is total war for Senator Abetz. And he has now freed himself of any notion of being a representative for the Tasmanian people, and that is why Tasmania fared so abjectly poorly in tonight's budget. And Senator Abetz, of course, has decided to channel all of his remaining energies into the things he really hates: LGBTI rights, the ABC and the Human Rights Commission. His latest target, of course, has been Yassmin Abdel-Magied, who has been subjected to disgraceful public denigration by Senator Abetz and others with whom he shares views in this place and by their hacks and masters at The Daily Telegraph and The Australian over an innocuous seven-word Facebook post. That campaign continues today—15 days after that post was made. The fact that the campaign continues shows that Senator Abetz and his colleagues in the race-baiting media in this country could not give a fig about freedom when it comes to a woman of colour in Australia. I also want to make a comment about the newest entrant into the Liberal Democrats, the former leader of the Australian Labor Party, Mark Latham, who apparently met his new political bedfellows at a Friedman Liberty Conference and apparently got a massive round of applause when he showed up there. Make no mistake. These are the sorts of small-government, pro-freedom types who clearly really like the company of a bully on a taxpayer funded pension who now passes his time wandering around the streets of Western Sydney with a microphone insulting random passers-by. This is the same crowd, I remind the Senate, who thought it was funny when Ross Cameron threw a Nazi salute at a Jewish journalist who was covering the event. Well, all I can say to Mark Latham and to the Liberal Democrats is: you thoroughly deserve each other. Senate adjourned at 21:15 DOCUMENTS 72 DOCUMENTS Tabling 72 Tabling 79