2017-09-07 45 1 4 Senate 0 0

Thursday, 7 September 2017

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 09:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.

 

DOCUMENTS 6603 DOCUMENTS Tabling 6603 COMMITTEES 6603 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 6603 Meeting 6603 PARLIAMENTARY ZONE 6603 PARLIAMENTARY ZONE Approval of Works 6603 09:31 The PRESIDENT e5v For the information of senators, I present an addendum to the tabling statement relating to the Parliament House security upgrade works concerning perimeter security enhancements, which was tabled on 30 November 2016. BILLS 6603 BILLS A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Amendment (Make Electricity GST Free) Bill 2017 6603

A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Amendment (Make Electricity GST Free) Bill 2017

Second Reading 6603 09:31 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales Australian households are hurting. Politicians are to blame, and politicians can relieve this pain right here, right now. Household electricity bills across the country have risen by around eight per cent each year over the past decade, and household electricity bills have risen by a further 20 per cent just over the last quarter. This is crippling. Charities have reported that thousands of low-income households have had to go without heating this winter because of unaffordable electricity—thousands of households, including our sick and elderly. We will never know just how many deaths this winter can be attributed to unaffordable electricity, but the number would be substantial. And of course any number is unacceptable in a developed, resource-rich country like Australia. Thousands of households will go without cooling this summer, and more deaths will be the result. I challenge those who feel moral superiority when they cheer for policies that make electricity more expensive to acknowledge these deaths, and I challenge them to acknowledge their role in these deaths. You might say that this is the greatest moral challenge of our time. Politicians are to blame for the pain of exorbitant electricity prices. Two decades ago, Australia enjoyed the lowest electricity prices in the world. Now Australians pay the highest electricity prices in the world. How is this possible? It is possible because, over the past two decades, no large-scale generators of reliable base-load power have been built in Australia. This is despite the fact that there has been considerable economic and population growth and the fact that the construction costs of power plants—along with their fuel, coal and gas—have gone down, although gas prices have currently gone up. This investment drought has been caused by politicians. They have implemented renewable energy targets that force coal-fired generators to pay small-scale, intermittent generators whatever it takes for their market share to grow. They have imposed carbon taxes with the specific purpose of driving out coal-fired base-load generators. Even now, with the carbon tax gone, they threaten carbon pricing that, depending on the carbon price involved, could drive the lowest-cost coal-fired power plant to bankruptcy. To top it off, the politicians have maintained an evidence-free ban on nuclear power. Politicians can relieve the pain of exorbitant prices right here, right now. The building of new large-scale generators of dispatchable power will take years and will require either the suspension of the renewable energy target and a guarantee that there will be no carbon pricing or the legalisation of nuclear power. But we can relieve some of the pain of high electricity prices right now by making electricity GST free. My bill before the Senate makes electricity GST free. I propose that the Senate votes on this straightforward bill within the hour. Electricity is an essential service like water and should be treated the same for tax purposes. I challenge any politician who plans to vote against making electricity GST free to declare that electricity is not an essential service; to explain how their constituents can live without electricity, which is more than likely what some of them will have to do this summer or, indeed, each summer until more generators are constructed; and to explain why water should be GST free but electricity should not. Making electricity GST free will immediately save a typical household around $200 each year. For any politician planning to vote against it, please stop wringing your hands about the punishing electricity bills facing your constituents and admit that you just do not care. For those who use the excuse that the state governments would receive around $2 billion less in GST grants if we made electricity GST free, might I point out: each state budget other than Western Australia's is in surplus, and WA gets so little of its GST back that its deficit would be little changed. Together the state governments enjoy annual revenue of around $300 billion. So, if you plan on voting against making electricity GST free, please explain why you think it is that the state governments rather than the people should not struggle. If you care about everyday Australians as they struggle with electricity prices created by politicians, I believe you must vote to make electricity GST free. I commend this bill to the Senate. 09:37 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I thank Senator Leyonhjelm for his bill, which indicates a desire to address what is one of the most significant issues facing Australians—consumers not only in a residential sense but also in a small business sense. I note news announced today that Cafe Buongiorno at Modbury in South Australia, which is a cafe I have frequented a number of times over the years, has announced that this will be its last week of operation. It is looking to close down because of high electricity costs. Senator Farrell I0N Yes, because you sold ENSA. Senator FAWCETT DYU We are seeing a number of businesses impacted as they come off contract and get bill shocks as they go onto higher electricity costs. I note Senator Farrell interjecting from the other side. I highlight to Senator Farrell that one of the drivers of the high electricity costs that people are paying is because of our market design with the peaking gas plants that come in at the end of the bidding cycle and all of the other providers that get lifted up to that point. It's been acknowledged in the last couple of weeks that, when Senator Farrell's side were in government, they were warned that the approvals they gave for the export of LNG would drive up domestic prices if domestic supply was constrained and yet they did nothing about that. Senator Farrell is from the Labor Party in South Australia, where we've seen the Labor Premier embark upon what he called one of the greatest experiments in energy production and we've seen a reckless pursuit of renewable energy to the point where the excessive amount of wind power has undermined the market for thermal-based base load. So we've seen the state government refuse to keep open the Northern Power Station at Port Augusta, which would have been a cost that pales in comparison to what they now have to do, which is to commission a large fleet diesel generators in order to provide some kind of reliable power for South Australia in the approaching summer. The reckless ideology of the Labor Party in this regard, as evidenced in South Australia and as we see in the policies that have been enacted by Labor in the past and have been promised should they ever—heaven forbid!—return to power in Australia, will only worsen the kind of situation we currently see. I've said in this place a number of times that one of the reasons these things occur is we have far too many lawyers in the parliament as opposed to engineers. If we had more engineers—people who understand systems engineering and the interface of mechanical, technical and systems-related things—instead of saying that you could push on with more renewables you would understand there is a cost to having renewables because of the interface with the electricity system and the requirement for frequency stability as well as being able to dispatch. AEMO came out with their report looking at a range of these issues. My report to Senator Leyonhjelm is that removing the GST from electricity, whilst there is a very short-term gain, does nothing to actually change the long-term structural issues causing the drive-up in price. Let me come to a number of specific things in relation to his bill and what we need to be doing moving forward. Firstly, from a technical perspective, as Senator Leyonhjelm should know, section 53 of the Constitution requires that bills dealing with the appropriation of revenue or moneys, or imposing taxation, need to originate in the House of Representatives. From a purely technical perspective, whilst it's a good idea, this is actually the wrong chamber to introduce it. From a purely technical perspective, even if it were to pass, it would not necessarily have the desired outcome. Putting that aside though, he's indicated that this could result in a change of around $200 for an average household. The modelling shows that the actions the government has taken in a range of areas—such as specifically requiring that the retailers contact customers to make sure they are aware of the best deal available to them—could save the average household around $500 a year and in some cases up to $1,500 a year. Whilst I hear Senator Leyonhjelm's case that this is a simple fix, I would point out that, technically, it may not work and there are other measures that the government is putting in place that will provide savings of a far greater magnitude than what Senator Leyonhjelm is proposing. Lastly, when it comes to the GST, it is not explicitly a federal issue. Changes to the GST actually require the agreement of all the states. The deal we are working on to get the providers to provide that incentive and information to consumers to save them $500 to $1,500 a year is something that is within the power of the federal government. What Senator Leyonhjelm is proposing is not explicitly within the federal government's power. It would require the agreement of the states. Therefore, even were something to pass here in the appropriate chamber, there is no guarantee that the states would agree. In the time it would take to get that agreement, there are other things we can be putting in place. One of those is the issue of a limited merits review. In 2008 the then Labor government allowed the network providers to challenge decisions that were taken around pricing. I think some 32 out of 51 decisions of the Australian Energy Regulator have been challenged. A research note by a major broker said investors are getting this as a free option, with the upside being that it brings forward a dividend surprise. In other words, every time they are able to challenge a decision of the regulator, it actually brings forward more profit and more dividend to those network providers. Given that one of the largest components of the price which is paid by residents and commercial users of electricity in Australia is the network cost, then one of the actions this Senate should be taking is on the limited merits review. In fact, we are dealing with an issue right now where we are seeking to have that limited merits review removed, which is in line with other things such as postal, water et cetera. We are seeking to do that now. We're seeking to do it quickly, and yet we will have a vote in this place later today as to how the Senate deals with the government's legislation to remove that limited merits review. I call on Senator Leyonhjelm and others on the crossbench, and the opposition: when that comes up for a vote today you should be supporting the government to bring that legislation forward as soon as possible, rather than referring it off to a committee. Bring it forward so that we can take action now to bring electricity supply, in terms of the networks, into line with things like water networks so that the people who are providing that can't make additional profit by using what brokers in the system call 'the free option to them', which increases their profits at the expense of the Australian public. Since 2008, when it was established by the Labor government, it is calculated that those 32 out of 51 decisions taken against the Australian Energy Regulator have resulted in some $6.5 billion of additional costs being passed on to consumers in their electricity bills. We are looking to make sure that the Australian Energy Regulator can make informed and sensible decisions that can't be challenged as a free option. There's still a judicial review if the networks want to go to that extent—if they think there is inequity or unfairness in the decision. But the limited merits review has cost consumers some $6.5 billion since it was established by the Labor government in 2008. We wish to remove it. There is a vote coming before this chamber today which will provide a passage forward for the government to take that action, and I will be calling on Senator Leyonhjelm to help us to take those steps to address something that is a substantial component of the electricity price that goes to consumers. More broadly, we also need to look at market design—the whole concept of how we retail electricity in Australia, or, in fact, how the providers put it into the National Electricity Market. If you look at other nations, other models and other ways of pricing that, there are different models that could put significant downward pressure on electricity. That's something that we need to be looking at, as well as the other levers that talk about how renewable energy is introduced into the system. As I've looked at the Finkel report and the modelling that's been done out of that, I believe the government has been right to adopt the 49 recommendations there. But we also need to understand whether the optimum modelling has been done around that last recommendation and where we should be moving to. Finkel himself said it could take a number of months for the government to examine what was proposed there, to look at alternative modelling and to understand how best to move forward in that area. Personally, I believe that the market in Australia, without the extent of government interference that we've seen—particularly with the state governments pushing for the very high renewable targets—would have delivered more investment in base-load energy over the last couple of decades and would have been providing Australia with more reliable and affordable power than we currently have. What are some of those policies? Well, the opposition has put forward that it wants a 45 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030 and a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030. It is talking about forcing the closure of coal-fired power plants. This is despite people, like AEMO, looking and saying that that rapid closure is actually going to ramp up costs as well as decrease reliability. People who want those really high renewable targets have to look no further than South Australia to see that what Premier Weatherill called his great big experiment has in fact failed. Here we are in a First World country, with supplies of coal, gas and uranium—if we had the courage to move down that path—and yet we had state-wide blackouts in this nation. The cost to South Australian businesses was huge. Senator Farrell I0N It was a catastrophic storm! Come on, be honest! Senator FAWCETT DYU Senator Farrell interjects again with the normal claim that comes from South Australian Labor, which is that there was a storm. Well, Senator Farrell, you know that my background was as an experimental test pilot. I was dealing with the design of systems that had to be able to cope with a range of environmental factors. When you design an aircraft well, it can cope with turbulence and interruptions without failing either structurally or in terms of its systems. Those trigger events highlight good design or poor design. And so the fact that there was a storm in South Australia merely points to the fact that the system was poorly designed; it had low redundancy; and it didn't take account of the failure modes. Basic systems engineering has a thing called failure mode criticality effects analysis. I would argue that nobody ever did the level of systems engineering to understand what the failure modes were in the South Australian system as a result of the rapid increase of renewable, unreliable, intermittent energy as opposed to reliable, frequency-stable, base-load energy. So don't come into this place and say that it was a storm. The storm was merely a trigger event. The storm was merely a trigger event that highlighted the poor system design that resulted because of the policies that have seen that incredible growth in renewable energy in South Australia. Having seen that there, why would we then impose that same kind of system instability and poor design on the whole nation? Yet that's what federal Labor's plans are for Australia. Labor said in its climate action plan that it would kickstart the closure of coal-fired power stations. It teamed up with the Greens to pass a motion that would encourage the closure of coal-fired power stations, saying: The question is not if coal fired power stations will close, but how quickly … This would lead, as we've seen in Victoria and other places, to the destruction of jobs in Australia's coal-fired plants and thousands of jobs elsewhere. The Australian Energy Market Commission has said that the forced closure policy could cost up to $24 billion around Australia. In Hazelwood, in Victoria, as a result of their closure, energy companies AGL and Energy Australia have increased bills by up to $135 in 2017. In South Australia, as a result of pushing out the Northern Power plant, at Port Augusta, contract prices for large industrial users jumped 50 per cent, and spot market prices tripled in the months following. So there are a range of issues with taking the view that we can just push renewables without doing the engineering behind it and realising that there is a cost associated with the integration of renewables. Doing that systems engineering, understanding the failure modes and understanding the true costs of those inputs, is what we need to be considering as we look to see whether we would expand the RET. Consequently, we should also be considering what we can achieve in terms of optimising the three critical parameters that we're concerned about, which are energy price, keeping it low; energy reliability; and emissions. The whole concept of modern use of big data in modelling is to test those various parameters and variables and iterate your modelling until you come up with the optimal mix. I would lay odds that the answer would not be a 50 per cent renewable target, as is being pushed by the ideologues. As the Prime Minister has said, rather than engineering, it's ideology and in some cases idiocy that have brought us to this point. I will come back to Senator Leyonhjelm's bill. As I said, this is not the chamber. If it's to do with appropriation and taxation it needs to come into the other place. You've quoted $200. Some of the interim steps that the government is seeking, around the dealing with retailers, could save families orders of magnitude more than that—$500 to $1,500. Importantly, in terms of things that this chamber can do, today there will be a vote in this chamber about how we deal with the limited merits review. The indications are that those opposite want to push it off to a committee and kick it down the road, as opposed to dealing with it today. I would challenge them: if they are concerned about the of closure of businesses, like Buongiorno Cafe in Modbury, and if they are concerned about the impact of prices that are impacting families in South Australia then they will be voting with the government today to enable us to deal with the limited merits review, given that network costs are one of the most significant inputs to the costs paid by consumers and businesses in Australia. So I won't be supporting Senator Leyonhjelm's bill, not because I don't share his concern about electricity prices, but because technically this is not the chamber and because there are other measures that we could be dealing with today that could have a far greater impact on prices that go to Australian consumers. 09:56 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I rise to speak on the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Amendment (Make Electricity GST Free) Bill 2017. I'll detail in a moment why Labor, regrettably, Senator Leyonhjelm, will oppose this bill. However, before I get onto that, I think I do need to respond to some of the absolute misrepresentations made to the chamber by Senator Fawcett. I start by making this observation: I understand why Senator Brandis often attacks South Australia and its electricity system, but I don't understand why a South Australian Senator, even a Liberal Senator, would attack South Australia. He knows full well why we have problems with electricity in South Australia. We have problems with electricity in South Australia because his government—the Olsen government—after promising not to sell the electricity service in South Australia reversed that decision and sold the electricity system in South Australia. That was the start of all of South Australia's electricity problems. Senator McGrath 217241 It's all Playford's fault, isn't it! Senator FARRELL I0N No, it isn't. I will take that interjection. Tom Playford understood why, in a monopoly situation for electricity, we needed to have a government-controlled electricity system. So in 1946, with the support of the federal Chifley government, he nationalised the South Australian electricity system. That system provided the cheapest and most efficient electricity system in this country. All that went out the window when the Liberals in South Australia sold that monopoly. That's when our problems started with electricity. If that decision had not been made—if Senator Xenophon hadn't supported the second reading speech to allow that bill to proceed—then we would not have the problems that we have today. I happened to be in Adelaide on the night of the storm that Senator Fawcett was talking about. That was the worst storm in our history. Anybody who'd gone out to the north of Adelaide would understand the catastrophic effect of that storm that night. To connect that catastrophic storm with more serious problems in the electricity market is an absolute misrepresentation, and I suspect that even Senator Fawcett knows that because, if he had been in town that day, he'd recall just how bad the weather was. I was in Clare the day after the storm, and there was one street where you could not go in any direction because massive trees had been blown over. It was a catastrophic storm, and the fact that the Liberals continue to make reference to that in relation to electricity prices is an outrage. I'm sure Senator Bernardi would agree with me in respect of that. But we are not here today to talk about the misrepresentations by the Liberal Party—I know Senator Bernardi knows a lot about that. As noted in the explanatory memorandum, A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Amendment (Make Electricity GST Free) Bill 2017 would make the supply of electricity GST free. This would commence from the first day of the quarter following royal assent. There are two important points from the explanatory memorandum that I will address: … this Bill will make electricity GST-free irrespective of the views of State and Territory Governments. The enactment of this Bill will override the commitment, previously legislated in the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 and the A New Tax System (Managing the GST Rate and Base) Act 1999, to only vary the base of the GST with the unanimous support of the State and Territory Governments. …   …   … GST revenues granted to the State and Territory Governments would fall by around $2 billion each year … The Senate dealt with the issue of GST modification only a few months ago. At that time, Labor noted that parliament should be the end of the process, not the start. It's a point we have been clear on in the past. At the time, Senator Gallagher said: We think in all fairness, considering how important the GST is for states and territories, and indeed the agreement that exists between the Commonwealth and the states and territories on GST arrangements, that these discussions about how this should be done and when it should be done needs to happen with all of those parties but also needs to be done at the start of the process, not at the end of it here in this chamber. This goes to the heart of the process for changing the GST. The GST may be levied by the Commonwealth, but the revenue from the GST is distributed to the states and territories. This arrangement is set out in the Intergovernmental Agreement—or IGA—on Federal Financial Relations. Clause A4(c)i provides that the standing Council on Federal Financial Relations, chaired by the Commonwealth Treasurer, must approve 'changes to the GST base and rate'. Clause A6 of that agreement requires that any such agreement be unanimous. Whilst it is true that it can be difficult to gain the unanimous support of the state, territory and Commonwealth governments, this is a matter of due process and good faith. If the process is not followed, it could potentially allow any government, present or future, to ride roughshod over revenue for states and territories. Whether you like the GST or not, this bill will remove roughly $31 billion of revenue from the states and territories over the next 10 years, according to the Parliamentary Budget Office costings attached to the explanatory memorandum. It goes without saying that the premiers and chief ministers of those states and territories will be the first to let you know which schools, hospitals and services will be hit by the sudden collapse in revenue. Some legal commentary has suggested that the Commonwealth would be legally free to disregard the IGA and amend the GST legislation unilaterally. That is the presumption on which this bill is also based. Even if this happens to be the case, the inherent imposition and purpose of the goods and services tax is underpinned by good faith and intergovernmental cooperation. We can spare ourselves the lengthy discussion about horizontal fiscal equalisation, but I take this opportunity to point out that Labor deeply understands the complexity and challenges of the GST. The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, recently outlined Labor's Fair Share for WA Fund. Labor would invest $1.6 billion in Western Australia in the first budget of a Shorten Labor government—which is looking closer and closer, and I'm sure Senator Sterle would be delighted to hear that news and for that to happen. That would bring Western Australia's funding up to the equivalent of 70c in the dollar, up from the current 33c. I re-emphasise the importance of agreement. The job-creating infrastructure projects that would flow would be decided in agreement with the Western Australian government on the advice of local businesses and the community. On that basis alone, we cannot support the bill as a matter of due process. We would also add that this bill does not address the issues that underpin the Australian energy crisis under the present government. Wholesale electricity prices have doubled in the four years this government has been in power. This is particularly important for businesses for whom this bill has no impact, as GST-taxable businesses are able to claim input tax credits for the GST included in the price of the electricity they consume. The government refuses to give full and fair consideration to the Finkel review, including the clean energy target. Business groups, environmental groups, unions, industry and stakeholders all believe that the worst outcome for energy consumers and suppliers alike would be the absence of any credible and enduring energy and climate policy in Australia. This bill will not achieve the cheaper, reliable and cleaner energy that households and businesses need. Without reform, Australia will endure higher prices, reduced security, lost investment opportunities and stubbornly high emissions. The Turnbull government stumbles from one energy crisis to another—in fact, they seem to stumble from one crisis to another on a whole range of things. Yes, I know you are agreeing with me there, Acting Deputy President Bernardi. I know that you know that what I'm saying is absolutely true. The Prime Minister may have accomplished his plan to get energy retailers to write letters to customers—what a terrific thing to do—but he is yet to start talking about any real action on implementing a clean energy target to bring electricity prices down for all Australians. Labor has extended the offer to work, in good faith, on an energy policy that is clean and provides certainty for businesses and households. The Prime Minister spends the majority of his press conferences attacking Labor for the energy crisis his government has presided over, and he refuses to take any serious action on it. Experts, industry and even his own Finkel review have said clearly that it is government policy inaction that is driving up electricity prices and that a CET is the solution to crippling policy paralysis. Even the CEO of Snowy Hydro, a proponent of the Prime Minister's favourite pet project, has called for the government to adopt a CET. Why doesn't the Prime Minister listen to him? I think that's the question. I respectfully note that Senator Leyonhjelm is not proposing this bill to be a panacea to the electricity crisis, and also has a different view to the circumstances precipitating the crisis. In summary, Labor will not be supporting the bill, but I take the opportunity to note that Labor is willing to work constructively in the parliament on delivering cleaner, cheaper and more reliable energy. 10:08 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I rise to speak on behalf of the Australian Greens today in relation to Senator Leyonhjelm's private members' bill, A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Amendment (Make Electricity GST Free) Bill 2017. I will start by indicating that we will be supporting this bill. The Greens have been very clear for over a decade now that we don't support a broad-based, blanket, untargeted goods and services tax on the Australian people, especially on low-income Australian people, so we're happy to support Senator Leyonhjelm. Had we had more time or had this gone to committee, we may have talked to Senator Leyonhjelm about how we could target this more specifically—for example, to low-income households or renters. We do feel that there should be some price incentives in place in the electricity market to reflect the externalities of climate change and, for example, the burning of dirty fossil fuels. So, while we would support the removal of a broad-based, untargeted, progressive tax—it just makes life harder for low-income Australians—we do as a party have a very strong view on supporting a price on pollution. We feel that the revenue raised through a price on pollution—such as we saw in this country before it was cynically and ruthlessly removed by Mr Tony Abbott and his Liberal government—is a better way to accurately reflect the prices in the electricity market. So we support a targeted tax like a carbon price and would see the revenue raised from that potentially substituting for the loss of revenues to the Commonwealth for removing a goods and services tax. Let's be frank about this. We're talking about giving relief, especially to low-income Australians, by removing the GST on power. Let's call it that. Let's just say on electricity bills. Why is it needed? Electricity prices under this Liberal government, as we heard in this chamber yesterday, have nearly doubled. So much for the sky falling in when the carbon price was introduced in this place. In fact, since it was removed, the little daisy ring that was run in the other place with Mr Greg Hunt and others celebrating the loss of the carbon price because we suddenly were going to relieve Australian households of this burden of their higher electricity bills has proven to be hollow and laughable. So we have this situation now in our energy market where energy prices are going through the roof. We're having political spats over the distribution mix of power with base loads. Ironically, we've had a debate in this place in recent days about the government and its messaging about the Labor Party and their pre-1989 eastern European economic and industrial policies—their socialist and communist policies. It's actually the Liberal Party that's looking to interfere in the capitalist energy market by talking about buying coal-fired power stations or coalmines or by giving low-interest loans, which the Productivity Commission said in estimates to me was effectively a subsidy to foreign coal barons who want to build new coalmines. So here we have the government looking to implement their own eastern European policies and interfering in the energy market. And for what purpose? Is it really, as the Prime Minister says or Senator Birmingham said in here yesterday, to give us reliability in our energy market here in Australia? There are so many other ways we could have reliability in our energy market, especially in base-load power. Or is it more a cynical political tactic: short-term, self-interested politics for the Liberal government to make sure they don't lose votes in marginal seats in Queensland and New South Wales to One Nation? That's what this is. The climate policy and energy policy in this country at the moment are being dictated by the survival of Mr Malcolm Turnbull and the LNP going into a federal election. 'Too much renewable energy', 'flip it on its head', 'coal is good', 'we need more coal'—as Senator McGrath said in here yesterday, 'coal is good for you'—what is all this nonsense about? What is this messaging, like the Treasurer holding up a piece of coal as a prop in the other place, all about? Call me cynical, but I do live on planet politics, especially while I'm here in Canberra. This is all about a short-term political strategy to not lose votes to One Nation. Since they have been in this place, One Nation have been totally out of the closet about supporting the coal industry. They're climate deniers; they're unafraid. Senator Roberts is out and proud about believing that man-made climate change is rubbish. And he's a big supporter of the coal industry, as are his colleagues. That resonates in parts of Australia, and I understand why that would resonate in towns that rely on employment from coalmines and coal-fired power stations. I totally get that. I chaired the environment committee that went around the country and took evidence on this. I said at the time that, as politicians, we have a duty to show leadership on transitioning this country away from dirty coal-fired power stations to base loads that we know can be filled with renewable energy. We need a plan to transition those workers, to retrain them. We know that renewable energy is jobs rich, especially when we start looking at the disruption that's coming to the grid around battery storage and household solar, which I have no doubt at all will make the grid virtually redundant in many ways in our lifetimes, possibly even in the next five to 10 years. We are seeing big changes coming to the electricity markets, whether we want them or not. Let me tell you: it's not about coal; it's actually about people wanting to have energy independence, to not be dependent on the AGLs and the other big companies of the world. As a Greens senator, I get asked about this all the time by people who meet me—it might be a taxi driver or whoever—because it's something we've got in common, and they say: 'Senator, I've got a new household solar system. I looked at it yesterday and I'm generating all this power. Every day, I can't wait to have a look at how much I've been generating.' It's something they have in common with me, as a Green. But often when I get to the bottom of it, what I find really interesting is their motivation for getting the rooftop solar and putting in place new battery storage systems. The motivation is not necessarily that they want to save the planet and reduce emissions; the motivation is they want to be independent of the grid or power companies. It's almost a Tea Party attitude, which I find quite interesting as a Green. They're supporting us, but really what they want is to be independent and to give the big power companies the bird, to say: 'I generate my own power. I can store it. I'm not reliant on you. I don't want to pay your bloody fees, and this and that.' Good. If it's good for the planet, then I support that. These changes are coming and I reckon they're unstoppable. We're already seeing millions of household solar power systems operating around this country, and there are more to come. Why are we having this debate about the federal government interfering in the market by buying coal-fired power stations? Why are we having this debate about governments supporting some of the biggest coal mines in the world, like those being proposed for the Galilee Basin in Queensland? It's politics. It's cynical, short-term politics. But if you walk down the street in any town in this country and you ask people what they really care about, and what they want politicians to do, they want us to help solve their problems. They want new ideas. They want us to actually be constructive, and they will tell you that electricity prices are too high. Of course, it's a very complex debate as to why that's the case, but we support the intention of this bill, which is to remove GST and give some relief to households. To give relief to renters, who rely on landlords to put in place energy efficiency systems or renewable energy systems, which won't necessarily happen if those costs are being covered by their renters, and to give relief to low-income Australians, who may not necessarily be able to afford their own home. Even those Australians who can afford to buy their own home and who are suffering from mortgage stress, and we know there are way too many of those for our liking, are struggling with power prices. The flipside of that is that we, as the Greens party, want to balance incentives that allow people to put in place their own renewable energy generation systems, or move the generation mix in this country towards clean renewable energy. There have to be some pricing signals to make that happen. If you own your own home and you're wealthy, or you're an investor who owns up to eight homes, as can be the case in this country—we would have liked to have seen GST relief on power prices being targeted to those who directly need it, but we haven't got the time to go into that. If we truly want to make an impact on global warming, then we need to do a lot more than we already are. So while we support removing GST, we would also support very strong action on curbing the emissions that are leading to global warming. I know some senators watch 24-hour news coverage—ABC News 24, or Sky if you're in the Liberal Party. If you go back to your offices, have a look at your screens. You're likely to see images of the biggest hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic, Hurricane Irma, and tracking charts. This is just a week after Hurricane Harvey, which is now officially the biggest natural disaster in US history. What have those two events got in common? It's a bit more simple than most people think. Hurricane Harvey, before it made landfall, was expected to diminish in size and intensity, but it didn't do that—quite the opposite. Against all expectations and against all modelling, it increased in intensity just before it made landfall. Why did it do that? The answer is simple—because of warming oceans. The ocean temperatures were much higher than predicted. Sadly, for those people in Haiti and Cuba and other countries that are getting battered, Irma is a storm that meteorologists never thought could happen. It has exceeded the maximum theoretical speeds in their models. Why? The same reason—ocean temperatures are higher than their models could have predicted. What is it about warming oceans and hurricanes? What is it about warming oceans and coral bleaching? What is it about warming oceans and floods and droughts? The oceans dictate our global weather systems, and warming oceans are directly correlated to rising global carbon emissions. While Irma is making its way to the US—very possibly to break another US record since climate records were begun, with two category 4 hurricanes hitting in the same year, let alone in back-to-back weeks, with unprecedented wind speeds and rainfall—another two storm systems are now forming behind Irma that look like they are also going to become hurricanes. This is literally off the charts. As I found during the recent Senate committee visit to the Great Barrier Reef, there are unprecedented warming events in our oceans. I support our climate scientists and all the great work they do, even though this government has tried to sack the lot of them in the last couple of years, but their modelling predicted that these kinds of events couldn't happen till 2040 or 2050. They're happening now. This is global warming happening now. What are we doing about it? Even if we meet our Paris global emissions targets, or have even deeper cuts to global emissions leading into Paris—I suppose even the most optimistic of us don't necessarily believe that could happen—we're still going to get 15 years of warming oceans locked in from our current emissions trajectory. Think of what is happening around the world now, including in our own country. We have mortality to half the Barrier Reef, one of the biggest living organisms on the planet, because of warming oceans. You can stick your head in the sand, but I challenge every senator in here to go and stick their head under the water at the Great Barrier Reef and see what is happening. You can't avoid seeing the effects of global warming. So, while we're talking about the need to put policies in place to provide relief to low-income Australians, we need to be very clear that we need legislation and the right incentives, the right price signals, to reflect the externality that is climate change and the horrific damage it's doing all around the world. We have heard a lot about Harvey in the US, and rightly so—the damage bill is in the hundreds of billions of dollars already. You can laugh about climate change and stick your head in the sand, but these events cause economic damage as well as social and environmental damage. We have seen in Bangladesh 1,200 people die from record floods. This is not just happening in Australia and in the Atlantic; this is happening all around the world. We need a system that correctly prices the externality of climate change if we're going to fix it. I will now finish up—probably much to all senators' relief—and say we'll be supporting this bill. The Greens would still like to see a price on carbon that reflects the damage that climate change is doing to our environment, to our communities and to our economy. 10:25 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia I move: That the question be now put. Senator Smith 241710 Point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President. I didn't quite hear what Senator Bernardi had to say. Senator BERNARDI G0D I moved that the question be put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 111206 The question is that the question be put. A division having been called and the bells being rung— Senator Cormann HDA Mr Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to cancel this division. Leave granted. Question agreed to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D The question is that the bill be now read a second time.

The Senate divided. [10:32]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Bernardi)

 18 AYES Bernardi, C Burston, B Di Natale, R Georgiou, P Griff, S Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Kakoschke-Moore, S Lambie, J Leyonhjelm, DE (teller) McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Roberts, M Siewert, R Whish-Wilson, PS Xenophon, N 35 NOES Bilyk, CL Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Bushby, DC Cash, MC Chisholm, A Cormann, M Dodson, P Duniam, J Farrell, D Fawcett, DJ Fifield, MP Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Hume, J Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lines, S Marshall, GM McCarthy, M McGrath, J McKenzie, B Moore, CM O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Ruston, A Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Sinodinos, A Smith, D Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Aged Care Amendment (Ratio of Skilled Staff to Care Recipients) Bill 2017 6616

Aged Care Amendment (Ratio of Skilled Staff to Care Recipients) Bill 2017

Second Reading 6616 10:36 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria For decades in my past life as a radio and television commentator, I used the same comment over and over when talking about the latest scandal involving nursing homes or retirement villages, and, tragically, there were lots of them. I could even go back to that scandal where old people in Melbourne were being given kerosene baths. I would say: 'The only difference between old people and us is that they got there first.' Some of the people most guilty of forgetting that fact were politicians, and, sadly, that still seems to apply today, 30 years later. I was going to say, 'You forget that we will get there too one day,' but I guess at my age I already qualify. But I have not forgotten the plight of elderly Australians, which is why I put forward the Aged Care Amendment (Ratio of Skilled Staff to Care Recipients) Bill 2017 to try to improve the lot of people, often defenceless people—people being treated abominably, being treated inhumanely, being treated like nuisances in our nursing homes or being treated purely as cash cows. I can anticipate the reaction, so I will acknowledge that, if you can afford it, there are some terrific establishments in this country. Ironically, some of the best are the ones run by Wintringham in Melbourne and country Victoria. They will also soon be in Tasmania. Wintringham is there for formerly homeless people over 50. They have fantastic quality facilities. I visited one in Port Melbourne several weeks ago. But there are some real shockers. As Rob Harris reported in the Herald Sun this week: Nineteen Victorian nursing homes failed to meet some of the most basic standards of care in the past year—including one eastern suburbs facility which was forced to close. A damning report has revealed an emerging crisis in the aged care sector, showing almost 600 facilities across the country did not meet industry regulations in the past five years. An audit summary, seen by the Herald Sun, has named and shamed the homes for the first time—detailing breaches across the board … For example: Marlborough Gardens Hostel, in Heathmont, was forced to shut its door in July after meeting just 27 of the 44 accreditation standards following an on-the-spot audit from government regulator, the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency. That is only 27 out of 44. Remember, there have been allegations that nursing homes have, on occasion, been given prior warning that an 'instant inspection' was coming their way. The article continues: Among its many failures, the hostel operated by Noble Care Pty Ltd failed to have an effective infection control program and had not minimised fire or security risks. The audit found there was insufficient staff— This is a big point— at the 35-bed home to meet all of the needs of care recipients. Alarmingly, it found the home's medication system did not consistently ensure residents' treatment were managed safely and that staff did not always follow prescribed orders. 'Care recipients are not always receiving medication based on instructions by a medical officer. Medication was not always packed or dispensed according to relevant legislation,' the report found. The agency said its decision to revoke Marlborough Gardens Hostel's aged care accreditation 'reflects the seriousness of recent failures to meet the Accreditation Standards'. As I said, 19 Victorian establishments failed to reach accreditation standards, and, boy, it makes me tempted to do a 'shame, shame, shame'. Don't forget that this comes after a flu outbreak in Victoria that killed seven people aged between 70 and 94 in Wangaratta last month. That belatedly forced federal government intervention, to make flu shots compulsory for all staff. You'd have thought that that was a given, but it was too late for those flu victims and, also, their families at Wangaratta. The federal Minister for Aged Care, Ken Wyatt, will soon get an urgent report into fixing the aged-care system which was commissioned after frightening details came to light of the treatment of residents at the Oakden nursing home in Adelaide. I know that the Nick Xenophon Team's been right onto that one. Allanvale Private Nursing Home in Altona Meadows failed to meet five crucial standards, including clinical care, medication management and skincare. The Boort District Health Low Care, a 30-bed facility in north-west Victoria, also failed basic standards that demand residents receive 'adequate nourishment and hydration'. That's bureaucratic speak for food and water, for God's sake! Both homes were given some months to fix their breaches and were later reaccredited by the agency. Too many times in too many places, profit is the name of the game. Some companies running these places know that you can keep that profit margin up by cutting costs, cutting staff numbers and playing games with the numbers so that it looks like there are more staff physically dealing with the wants and needs of the residents than there actually are. You've got the gardener, the accountant and the kitchen staff in the so-called 'care army' for the residents. It's not true. They're also shaving dollars off the daily food budget. That goes on all over the country. I know, from experience, that I ate a hundred times better in jail at HM Prison Langi Kal Kal several years ago than most pensioners do whether they're at home, in a nursing home or a retirement village. When it comes to quotas and ratios—this is what this bill's all about—I have been receiving damning emails from aged-care workers saying things like this: We are too scared to speak out about ratios, about what we see and what we know. We all received an email from head office recently instructing us that if we receive any inquiries from the media we are not to answer any questions. We were told to say: 'I am unable to answer your questions. You will need to ring our head office in Melbourne'. How many other nursing homes around the state have got this warning? That is why carers are too scared to speak up for fear of losing our jobs that pay our bills. And scared of the legal ramifications. I want to pass on the closing words of a carer who detailed an exhausting day in her life, made even worse by an outbreak of gastro in her unit. She said: I love the residents I love most of my work mates but I am exhausted. I give my hand over to the medication carer. Now this story was on a good day! You show up to work not knowing what is going to happen. There are falls, deaths, sickness, residents who are having an off/bad day. I have missed out on lunch … because of resident's collapsing and the 3 carers who are meant to be attending to it are dealing with another problem. (Residents pay a lot of money to be in a nursing home) I am writing this story about personal care workers who look after the elderly in nursing homes because in the media there has been a lot of bad press against us carers. Yes there will be those who are at fault and should not be in the industry but there are those who truly do care and do their best to care for the residents. The world neglect has been used. Neglect is a negative word that makes us look like we— don't— care and we're inhumane. The fact is we do care, we go home crying and frustrated that a resident was left to sit in— his or her— urine because we couldn't get to them. WE NEED MORE PCW's NOW. It's not just the RESIDENTS WHO ARE SUFFERING, but THE STAFF as like I said at the beginning of this letter, staff are going home EMOTIONALLY, MENTALLY & PHYSICALLY EXHAUSTED and that's not just the PCW's but the RN, Admin, cleaning & Kitchen staff. For the health and wellbeing of not only the staff but the residents as well, PLEASE reconsider the resident/staff ratios and act accordingly, if not for the staff but for the RESIDENTS. THIS IS THEIR HOME. They are not just paying for their meals and a room, they are paying to BE CARED FOR and they are NOT receiving the care they deserve. That is true: many are not receiving the care that they deserve. That is a disgrace in 2017. One of the problems is that the Aged Care Act 1997 does not demand a minimum staffing standard for aged-care residential facilities that are funded by the federal government. It does not specify what constitutes appropriately skilled and qualified staff for the purpose of providing care. I know that New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria do prescribe staffing requirements for some residential aged-care facilities, but all elderly Australians deserve the best level of care when they can no longer live independently and have to rely on other people for their health, wellbeing and protection. It doesn't surprise me—in fact, it's common sense—that international research shows that higher registered nurse staffing levels, higher total staffing levels and a higher skills ratio mix of registered nurses to other nursing staff will lead to better quality care. It's bleeding obvious. Finally, keep in mind what a lot of politicians seem to ignore or conveniently forget—these people, these elderly Aussies, have contributed valiantly to our society throughout their lives. They have helped make Australia the great country it is today. They have worked. They have paid taxes for decades. They have raised their families. Some have been to war. Many live with the scars of those wars. Some of their relatives made the ultimate sacrifice and paid with their lives. But, unfortunately, many of these Australians who have given so much to society are highly vulnerable. I believe they are not guaranteed these days the standard of care that they deserve within our aged-care facilities as many of them operate in the way they operate today. I will finish up by saying just remember what I said at the start: the only difference between old people and us is that they got there first. For years on radio and television, I used to ask the question: who is looking after the children? Sadly, these days, I have to amend that and ask you: who is looking after the elderly? 10:47 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Labor is extremely pleased to talk about the hundreds of thousands of aged-care workers supporting older Australians to grow old, because they are a group of people that the Turnbull-Liberal government has forgotten. Personal care workers, nurses, support staff, allied health professionals and a range of other workers are critical in ensuring older Australians can choose the care they want, receive it where they want and grow old with respect, dignity and safety. Unfortunately, we have had four years of inaction when it comes to the aged-care workforce from the Turnbull-Liberal government. Indeed, in four years the only thing that the Turnbull government has actually done is to scrap Labor's $1.5 billion workforce compact. This was a policy that was working to deliver higher wages, improve career structures for aged-care workers, enhance training and education opportunities, improve care development, improve career development and workforce planning, and develop better work practices. This was a policy that was developed by an independently chaired workforce advisory group to ensure workforce reforms led to improvements in services for older people and benefits for the workforce. The care of older Australians and the hardworking Australians who care for them has simply dropped off the agenda for the Turnbull government, which appears to be more focused on its own survival. Labor strongly supports moves to ensure that we have adequate, safe and appropriately skilled aged-care staffing levels that meet the care needs of recipients. It's clear that more work needs to be done to support and grow our aged-care workforce. The demographics of our nation are well known. Around 1.3 million Australians are currently receiving some form of aged care, provided by almost 400,000 aged-care workers. About a quarter of all Australians are expected to be 65 years and older by the middle of the 21st century. As a result, demand for residential aged-care services is projected to increase by almost 68 per cent in the next 40 years. Ensuring there is a sufficient workforce to meet the increasing demand in aged-care services is a major challenge for the sustainability of this sector's future. Increasing demand is predominantly driven by two factors: the ageing population and the increased prevalence of dementia, with the associated need for higher levels of support and care. The Productivity Commission's Caring for older Australians report in 2011 stated that, in order to meet ever-increasing demand for aged-care services and support, the aged-care workforce will need to more than triple by 2050. This need for significant growth was again affirmed in 2015 by the Aged Care Financing Authority. This represents a workforce growth rate of about two per cent annually in order to meet future demand, at a time when the overall employment-to-population ratio will be declining. By 2050 we will need to have more than one million Australians working in the aged-care sector—a 300 per cent increase. According to the National Aged Care Workforce Census and Survey, the aged-care sector is already confronting workforce shortages, which will be exacerbated as sectors competing for the same workforce, such as disability services, simultaneously grow with the increased rollout of the NDIS. Further, increasing rates of complex chronic conditions and a mismatch between the first language of some older Australians requiring care and the current workforce present some even greater challenges in keeping pace with the diversity and skills required for the care of our ageing population. Indeed, the growth rate of the number of older Australians living with dementia—currently at around 400,000 Australians and expected to exceed 900,000 by 2050—is a key consideration in the future of the aged-care workforce. The aged-care workforce will need to broaden its skills and capacities in order to assist older Australians with increasingly complex needs, such as dementia and other cognitive impairments, the increasing incidence of mental illness, palliative care and HIV. We're not even touching the effects of the epidemic we're having at the moment with drugs such as ice. More than 80 per cent of direct-care workers in home and residential aged care are women, and as many as 40 per cent of recent hires in residential care were migrant workers. This paints the picture of a diverse workforce that has significant capacity but that also faces unique and complex challenges. In the context of cost pressures in residential care, in particular, it is also worth noting that staff costs represent 67 per cent of the total expenses in residential care. That's a significant amount of their budget. Aged-care providers are accredited and monitored by the Australian Aged Care Quality Agency. The regulation of staffing and the provision of Commonwealth government funded aged-care services is legislated in federal law. Aged-care providers must comply with accreditation standards detailed in the Quality of Care Principles 2014, overseen by the Aged Care Quality Agency. While there is no prescribed minimum staffing standard, the accreditation standards for residential care facilities require there to be appropriately skilled and qualified staff sufficient to ensure that the appropriate services are delivered to older Australians. With the exception of public Victorian and Queensland aged-care facilities, most state and territory jurisdictions do not legislate minimum staffing ratios or determine a required skill mix for nursing. While the vast majority of aged-care providers in Australia provide high levels of care and support and have well-managed and well-resourced staffing systems in place, we have serious concerns in regard to a number of significant failures of care at facilities only months after being found to have met accreditation standards. As a result, Labor has backed the Commonwealth government's independent Review of National Aged Care Quality Regulatory Processes, which is currently under way. It is expected that this should consider how regulatory processes can be improved to support appropriate staffing levels and staffing mix, and we look forward to reviewing the findings and recommendations of this report later this month. It's critical to the future of the aged-care sector that families can have faith that their loved ones will be safe and will receive a high level of care in residential homes. There is no doubt that more work needs to be done to address deficiencies in the current regulatory processes. While Labor has shown a genuine commitment to work with the government and the aged-care sector to ensure senior Australians can age safely and happily in their own homes or in residential homes, the lack of urgency shown by this government is deeply disturbing. Too often we hear stories of aged-care homes where just one registered nurse is responsible for the care management of hundreds of residents, sometimes across multiple homes. Too often we hear stories of personal-care workers with little more training than a first aid certificate being responsible for the primary care of vulnerable older Australians. This is unacceptable. Labor will stand with aged-care workers and aged-care recipients and demand better outcomes that support our workers and protect older Australians. Fundamentally, the question of how we can achieve these outcomes, whatever it comes down to, has to be based on evidence. We have to have an evidence-based approach to our regulatory system. Labor is completely committed to working with the unions and aged-care providers to support a strategy to meet growing demand in the aged-care workforce, with a framework that ensures decent conditions and career progression for workers and a high level of care for consumers. We fundamentally believe that this approach includes looking at the issues of 24-hour registered nurse coverage, nurse ratios and the skills mix that will enable enrolled nurses, assistant nurses and personal care workers to provide sustainable quality of care. Labor believes that the skills mix is critical to ensuring sustainable, quality care. It requires regulatory and administrative processes that will support that outcome. An evidence-based approach to the training and educational development of the workforce, and a review of regulations that govern accreditation, quality and compliance, are critical to this process. Labor continues to progress this commitment from opposition through a number of mechanisms. Importantly, we have been a driving force behind the inquiry of the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs into the future of the aged-care workforce. Can I put on record that that committee travelled around Australia. We went to regional Australia and to remote Australia. We had people from the government. We had senators from the government. We had Green senators. I travelled along with my colleague Senator Watt. We all heard the same evidence. There is no doubt that the government is fully aware of the issues facing this sector. But the reality is that it's not just the responsibility of the people on the committee or the minister responsible for aged care; it is the responsibility of every member of parliament and every senator, every member of state government and every member of our local governments, because we all need to play an active role in ensuring we address not only the aged-care issues in this country but also issues concerning ageing. We all have to take that responsibility. In fact, there needs to be a greater conversation in our communities about how we want to show our respect and give safe, well-trained, highly skilled care for older Australians. We should never accept anything less than that. The inquiry investigated a number of key issues and addressed some key questions in the future development and regulation of the aged-care workforce. There were 19 recommendations in the report, which all aligned with Labor's 2016 federal election commitments and which were unanimously supported by the government senators, the Greens Senator and the Labor senators. There is a clear need for an aged-care workforce strategy, and the report made a number of recommendations about what the strategy needed to address. It's pleasing to see firm recommendations about the active role that the Turnbull government needs to take in workforce development. They're a key stakeholder and funder of the aged-care sector, after all—unlike the former minister, who said it was not their responsibility. Quite frankly, it's a responsibility of government, the sector and the unions. We all have a role to play. Other key recommendations for the government include the examination of the introduction of a minimum nursing requirement in aged-care homes; a national employment screening and working registration scheme; the implementation of the national code of conduct for healthcare workers; the publication of staff ratios in aged-care homes to help people make informed decisions; and nationally consistent accreditation standards to ensure quality across the board. The report also made recommendations on the direction of the aged-care workforce task force, which was allocated $1.9 million in the 2017-18 budget, which include better support for regional and rural workers; efforts to tackle pay issues in aged care; and a national campaign to promote the benefits of working in aged care. Labor strongly supports the recommendations of The future of Australia's aged care sector workforce report. The approach detailed in this report includes further examination of minimum nursing requirements in the context of increasing demand and the complex needs of these older Australians. Unfortunately, this approach requires the Turnbull government to actually confront these issues and provide guidance and resources in regulating the growth of the aged-care workforce. Importantly, the report, which was adopted unanimously, as I said, by all political parties, recommends the age care workforce task force include all stakeholders—that is, the unions, the workers and the providers. All of them need to be involved. This makes good old-fashioned common sense. If the task force is to be credited, it must have representation from across the full range of providers, unions, carers, health professionals, employees and consumers. For a moment, we had a glimpse of hope from the Turnbull government that maybe, just maybe, they were starting to understand the importance of aged-care workforce development and regulations. Indeed, Minister Ken Wyatt said in response to the release of the inquiry report: The task force will be required to consult widely within the health and aged care sector, and engage with other sectors, including social services, education and employment. Planning for this is well underway, with the task force expected to be established in July 2017 This appeared to be a positive step, particularly considering the statement from Senator Nash, who stated in February estimates of 2016—my favourite time of the year here in the Senate is estimates—that the aged-care workforce is a matter for the sector. Unfortunately, this appears to have been nothing more than a hollow promise. We are now into the second week of September, many weeks after July, and there is no detail about who will make up the task force, no detail about when or how the funding will be delivered—no progress whatsoever. To add insult to injury, it appears that a package that sits alongside the task force, the $33 million Boosting the Local Care Workforce package, designed to help existing service providers in the disability and aged-care sectors grow their workforce, has dropped the aged-care sector from its focus altogether. In a media release from 30 August 2017, the Turnbull government announced that 10 organisations have been shortlisted and invited to apply to deliver the $33 million package. The 10 organisations include groups and peak bodies for the disability and employment services sector.    Even though the grants are supposed to be targeted to the aged-care service sector and the disability service sector workforces, no aged-care peak body has been invited to apply for the grant. It's just another clear sign that the government is recklessly overlooking the needs of older Australians and the people who provide their care. We know for sure that the nature of aged-care provisions is changing, and it is changing for the better. We're all living older, but we need to keep up with the times. When last in government, Labor delivered the biggest reforms to aged care and ageing policy in a generation. Labor's $3.7 billion strategy known as the Living Longer Living Better aged-care package provided a ten-year plan to deliver choice, fairness, quality, sustainability and respect to our aged-care system. We delivered a strong framework to build the aged-care services that Australians deserve, and progress was being made. As a result of this approach, more Australians are able to choose the type of care and support they receive when they grow old, and more Australians are able to choose to grow old in their own home and decide who provides their care. But if we are going to go forward—Labor did all the heavy lifting, but we didn't do it all on our own. We showed the leadership that was needed, but we worked with the opposition of the day, the unions, the sector and consumers. That was the framework that was supposed to be the foundation. These guys in government have absolutely taken their eye off the ball. You can't take $4 billion out of a sector and then expect the same type of care. It just cannot be delivered. I thought we'd made progress in that Senate committee, and I commend Senator Duniam, who was very open to seeing what was happening in our community, not only in aged-care homes but in what we're trying to deliver in our own homes. There are some real challenges there, and we have said time and time again that Labor wants to work with the government, but we have to earnestly address these issues— (Time expired) 11:07 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania It's always a delight, and somehow I always have the good fortune, to follow Senator Polley in debates. It's a Tasmanian thing. We travel everywhere together in pairs, and here we are again. It is a pleasure to be able to rise to speak on Senator Hinch's Aged Care Amendment (Ratio of Skilled Staff to Care Recipients) Bill 2017. I commend any senator or any member of parliament or any member of the community or any stakeholder who takes an interest in this issue and actually wants to do something to ensure that some of the things we've read about, heard about, seen for ourselves or know about don't occur again. I don't think there's anyone out there without serious issues who doesn't want to address these issues, although it's a case of making sure, as Senator Polley rightly pointed out in her contribution—one of the one or two things that she said that was right and accurate—that responses to these issues are evidence based and that we have the facts at our disposal to make sure we make the right decisions. I absolutely agree with Senator Polley on that very point. There's a couple of things I want to highlight. I was having a look at the explanatory memorandum of this bill. It made a reference to ensuring that aged care is more focused on the protection of the elderly than on the profit margins of aged-care facilities. One thing I did notice—and I'm sure it's unintentional—as we travelled around the country meeting with stakeholders and aged-care providers is that there were a great many providers that are not for profits. They run on the smell of an oily rag. If you go and meet with these entities you see that they're not making huge profits, building large staffrooms and taking their staff on big retreats overseas or anything like that; they are actually very trim and efficient organisations. I think we need to acknowledge that fact as well—that some of these organisations do the best they can with what they have, particularly in my home state and the state of Senator Polley, Tasmania. Many of the aged-care providers run things very efficiently and do a great job with limited resources. Senator Polley referred to the inquiry that took place through the Community Affairs References Committee, which I had great delight in participating in as a member. It was one of my first inquiries. Being a new senator and someone who hasn't had a great deal of experience in this space, it was very much a learning experience to meet with stakeholders and understand how the industry actually works, what consumers are looking for, what hurdles the industry faces and what government needs to do, along with stakeholders, to address the concerns raised in this inquiry. As senators may know, over an extensive period of time this inquiry had 12 public hearings right across the country. We travelled to every corner of the country from April 2016 through to June of this year—Melbourne, Perth, Bunbury, Darwin, Alice Springs, Launceston, Canberra, Townsville, Wollongong, Adelaide and Broome—plus there were a number of very informative site visits, not all of which I could attend. The committee did a very thorough job, and I commend Senator Polley for driving that inquiry and setting up the agenda for the work the inquiry undertook. We were left with very few questions as to the state of play in the industry, so it was an excellent learning experience for me. I'm not sure whether Senator Hinch has read the report, but I do recommend that he has a look at it, and I will go through some elements that I think are salient to this debate. A lot of issues were canvassed, including the one this bill touches on and that we as a committee deliberated on at length. As Senator Polley acknowledges, it was a consensus committee report. There weren't additional comments. There was no dissenting report. We actually all agreed that there were things that needed to be done. As a government senator on that committee it was my view—and, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds, you were on that committee as well, and you shared my view—that it was that committee's role to make these recommendations. One of the key things that jumped out at me in the hearings I participated in was rural and remote or regional aged care and being able to provide the necessary workforce to communities that probably don't have access to the larger numbers of prospective employees—and skilled employees at that, if we refer to this piece of legislation—that larger population centres do. Even in Tasmania, Hobart, its largest city, and Launceston, its second-largest city, have their own struggles when it comes to attracting people to these professions. As the report notes, particularly on this issue of remote and very remote areas, aged-care services may be provided by a limited number of organisations and in some cases by just one provider. We heard about one organisation, a local government organisation in the MacDonnell Regional Council, which was the only provider in their region for aged-care services in the eight remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in Central Australia. That gives you an indication, at one very extreme end of the spectrum, of how difficult it is for some organisations to provide and sustain these mandated ratios we're talking about here. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare noted in relation to this issue that people who live in rural and remote areas face additional difficulties in accessing health care and ageing related services. Rural and remote areas have fewer services available, particularly in close proximity to where people live, and the services that do exist may not be attainable, for example, due to the cost or lack of transport. In addition, service providers in rural or remote areas face challenges in service provision. The costs of building and operating facilities are higher, and—this is probably the most important and salient part with regard to this piece of legislation—there are fewer skilled workers available. So, while I agree with the principle and the intent of this legislation, I think we need to take stock of what the committee report found and look at the recommendations of this committee report with regard to this particular issue, because there are some difficulties and complexities around how you achieve these sorts of things. The end aim, I think we would all agree, is a better standard of aged care for everyone; as for how we do that, there are many different avenues and issues that we need to deal with. But, when we hear things like this from institutions like the Institute of Health and Welfare, we need to make sure we understand the complexities, because simply putting in place a mandated ratio may have unintended consequences and will have aged-care providers like the MacDonnell Regional Council falling foul of that, meaning they may not be able to operate their service in a set of communities that require it, and no-one else is going to be able to provide those services. The committee also looked very closely at the changing nature of aged-care services and services for the ageing in this country. It isn't what it used to be 20 years ago; I think that's fairly widely acknowledged. It's a very different landscape, with much more complex sets of needs on the part of many residents in many facilities, with increasing numbers of dementia patients with high-care needs, and all sorts of ailments and illnesses that carers now need to deal with. According to our report, the estimate is that the number of workers required for the aged-care sector will need to grow from 366,000 to 980,000 to meet the needs of increasing numbers of older Australians accessing aged-care services. That's a huge number of people that are going to be needed to be brought into this industry to support this vital part of our community—the people who have, in the generations that have gone before us, built our country. In Tasmania alone, interestingly—being a very passionate Tasmanian—we'll require an additional 4,000 workers by 2025 to meet future demand. That's greater than the population of the town in Tasmania that I grew up in. That's a significant challenge that we have to take seriously and address, but by way of a measured and comprehensive response to the issues and not a blunt instrument or one element of the problem being dealt with to the exclusion of others. I think it is important we deal with this in an holistic way and make sure we don't leave off the agenda other elements that need to be dealt with. Indeed, the changing service delivery in the aged-care sector is something that we considered and many submitters expressed a great deal of concern about. You'd have to agree that there are many providers who thought the Consumer Directed Care model was an unsustainable model—and they're in the know; they're the ones who are trying to provide the services as they're funded—but this model does demonstrate again this problem we have with regard to rural and regional communities. This model, where customers have greater choice and control regarding the services they access, is difficult in a very remote or a regional community, where, as I've already stated, there are limited services available and limited people that may be able to provide those services in a qualified way. Noting some of the comments in the report around this particular issue, the report says, as I've already stated: Some submitters also raised concerns that CDC is not appropriate for remote communities, as it presumes the existence of multiple service providers from which to choose, which is generally not the case in remote areas. Additionally, the generally smaller numbers of people accessing services, and the additional costs of delivering services in remote locations, have not been factored in to CDC modelling. We have to take that into account, and I think the same would apply for a mandated ratio as the one-size-fits-all approach to dealing with this issue. In some cases—again I refer to the MacDonnell Ranges example I cited earlier—mandating that floor for skilled staff may make an entity unviable, unsustainable, and the end result may be that there are no services provided at all. We have to take that into account when considering this piece of legislation. Indeed, the block funding model, which has been used previously, is something that submitters indicated would be better for these rural, remote, very remote and regional communities. That's something to take on board and it may be a way of dealing with how to ensure that these regional communities can provide the suite of services at the best standard that Senator Hinch is calling for—something I do support. I turn to the issue of making sure we can attract and retain qualified, skilled and appropriate staff in this sector. As has been noted a number of times already, it is difficult to attract people into the industry, particularly in rural and remote communities. It was interesting to hear—I suppose on reflection this was something I should have expected to be the case—about the difficulty that providers have in attracting staff to join the aged-care sector. The unions echoed that very sentiment, and it was interesting to hear why that was the case. All of this feeds into a problem I think we'll have in addressing the intent behind this bill, and that is ensuring that there are people coming through to meet the mandated ratio this bill proposes. Submitters to the inquiry said that the reputation of the sector was very poor—when people are choosing a career path, aged care might be way down their list when they compare it to being a nurse in a hospital or having some other career in the care sector. This was a career, according to the people submitters had spoken to, that those in the industry, those contemplating life post training and where to get a job, would put at the bottom of their list, for a number of reasons. The working conditions are less than optimal, which goes to many of the points that Senator Hinch has made, and Senator Polley also. Importantly, there is a lack of career path and professional development opportunities. I was encouraged, though, to see many institutions across the country, indeed some universities, getting in on the act of improving this situation—some of the new training opportunities and the innovative ways that prospective carers are being trained—and we saw some world leading practices and new programs with regard to hands-on training for future aged-care workers, particularly in the dementia space. It was really encouraging to see that, but I note the concerns of many submitters that there was not enough of a career path. Where does the career path take individuals who want to work in this field and what professional development is there? That's an important note for all providers, those who employ carers, and the employee representative groups, the unions, to take on board—as, indeed, is the issue of low rates of remuneration. All of these things feed into a concern I have about simply trying to mandate a specific number of skilled staff to do a certain job in certain areas. Specifically, though, the committee did examine the issue of mandating staffing ratios. A number of submitters did express extreme difficulty with the concept of implementing such ratios in their businesses, in their not-for-profit organisations. Some said that ratios could stifle innovation. They suggested that mandatory ratios are incompatible with consumer directed care, a matter I discussed a little earlier—the need to provide these consumer directed care models will be stifled through the implementation of a mandated minimum ratio of staff. They also indicated that the expected change to the role of rostering and service provision to be customer led rather than industry led is also of concern. It comes back to that point of the sustainability of the entities that provide these services. That's not to say we shouldn't work towards ensuring that we do have the best possible suite of resources available to support the people who live in these facilities and require the support that's being provided to them. That is what our committee report found: there are a whole suite of things that we need to work on. Sadly, it's not as simple as one small, discrete area of policy that needs reform; it is a whole-of-industry change that this committee looked at. With all of the concerns provided over the more than 12 months that evidence was taken, the 12 hearings we had and the numerous site visits, there was a comprehensive view of all of the issues the industry faces. The for-profit providers, the not-for-profit providers, the union groups, individuals and the training facilities all had their perspectives on this and they all provided their views. I would urge Senator Hinch, if he hasn't already, to have a look at this report. It is excellent reading. Just in the time I have remaining, I will look at the recommendations. As Senator Polley said, there were 19 recommendations. They were good recommendations, and I'm hoping we'll see a response to those in the near future. As Senator Polley mentioned, the aged-care workforce strategy is a crucial piece of work to actually make sure that, moving forward, the industry does deal with the issues that this bill deals with. Also those who participated in our inquiry, by way of submissions or as witnesses, raised those issues with us as well. On the development of that strategy, the committee also—as Senator Polley pointed out as well—recommended that we have at our disposal the data necessary to understand where the workforce is going and what we need to do to ensure that we can sustain its growth. It has to be evidence based; any solution to this issue has to be evidence based. The committee did, on this particular issue, recommend that the government examine the introduction of a minimum nursing requirement for aged-care facilities, in recognition of the increasing majority of people entering residential aged care and the complex health needs that they have. It also recommends that an aged-care workforce strategy include consideration of and planning for minimum nursing requirements, amongst the other 19 recommendations. They were, as I say, very comprehensive, as was the entire inquiry. I encourage Senator Hinch to have a look at the fine work of this committee and thank him for bringing on the bill for debate. 11:27 Senator MOORE 00AOQ Queensland Senator Hinch, as I said to you earlier, when people thank you for bringing an issue to this place it usually means we're all going to talk about it. When you bring forward these particular issues, it's an opportunity for the Senate to again re-examine things that are so important and so critical to our community and, indeed, as you pointed out in your contribution, to everyone of us. No-one is isolated from the issue of looking at aged care and the needs of aged care. In terms of the process, I'm just wanting to put on record some of the concerns that have been raised over years of consideration through a range of committee inquiries and the Productivity Commission review in 2011. The Productivity Commission did an independent review of the future of aged care in Australia and put on record a number of key statistical pieces of information on which financial decisions and budgetary decisions need to be made. Consistently though that review, it reminded all of us that the needs and the numbers of people requiring care are continuing to grow and also that the complexity of those needs are continuing to grow. I'm taking up some of the points that were raised by Senator Polley and Senator Duniam. However, when we have a chance to come here to talk about an issue, such as aged care, it is always an opportunity to go back and have a look at the number of community affairs inquiries that have touched on this issue. Even since I've been here—I have counted and I guarantee this won't include all of them—over 100 recommendations have been made by various groups saying what should happen in this space, and there's such a common element across these concerns. Always, it begins by saying that we understand that this is a really important issue. Then the recommendations go on to talk about the need for trained, effective staff, saying that these needs will become more difficult, and that there needs to be a whole-of-government response, and in particular that the response should take into account the needs across the whole of our country. I think the way that Senator Duniam reflected on the most recent report of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee—which I was not a member of—made those points very clearly. That report was again an example of the strength of the community affairs committee and the general committee process in this place. When you look at the terms of reference that were agreed upon and then at the interest and the passion expressed by the wider community in being involved in the process, you understand why it is absolutely important that there are opportunities for people in the community—people with lived experience, people with concerns—to be involved in the process of the Senate committee experience. They should then be able to have a sense of confidence that the effort they have put into coming forward and the great bravery that many of them have shown in talking about their own experiences will be responded to by the government of the day, whichever flavour it is, and that the response will reflect some consideration of future policy direction. That is often where there is frustration about the way the system operates. The committee affairs committee inquiry into the future of Australia's aged-care workforce went on for over 12 months. It travelled across the country, as we have heard from senators who were part of that process. Committee members talked with hundreds of people who came forward to give evidence to this inquiry. I understand there were very many more submissions. Out of that came a very detailed inquiry report, with 19 recommendations, some of which referred specifically to the issues in the private member's bill brought forward by Senator Hinch, as well as going across general conditions in aged care, regulation in aged care and resourcing for aged care. The recommendations also went to making sure that any Australian citizen, any Australian person—anyone living in our country—who requires aged-care support will be able to have that support in the best possible way for them and their families. So, again, trying to enforce absolute models can be very dangerous in terms of policy direction. However, given that statement, I need to say very quickly that I am concerned that, too often, a focus on flexibility and innovation can be a way of excusing taking no action at all. I am always concerned that, when we fall back into talking about innovation and working in different ways, that is somehow being used to take any focus away from the issues and problems that have been raised. I am very much aware of the concerns about putting in place mandated ratios, but when I am told, and when I read the evidence, that that could stifle innovation, I'm very concerned that is another way of saying that that could stifle actual care. In terms of the information we have before us, I want to stress that not only should the Senate committee process allow a wide range of engagement from the community, from care givers, from providers of services and from people who are seeking service; there should also be a very formalised process through the general government process to ensure that there is open consultation and regular advisory processes that allow people who are actively interested in this space to give advice to government, to respond to any of the concerns that are raised and to bring forward their ideas as to how the system can best work. That could be a way of balancing concerns about innovation with looking at exactly what the needs will be. The recommendations from the latest aged-care inquiry said that there needed to be awareness of future aged-care workforce requirements, including the impacts of sector growth, changes in how care is delivered and the increasing competition for workers. That last element refers to the wider aspects of care in our community. As we look at the introduction and expansion of the NDIS, we have constant demands for better and more available trained staff in that space. One of the things that has been raised in this discussion is that we can't now look at individual areas of care need without taking into consideration the wider care expectations of the community. So, at the same time we're talking about specialist care needs in the aged-care sector, we have to be aware that we now have more information, more evidence and more designated need for people who have care for a whole range of disability requirements across the country. This is, indeed, creating this quite serious issue around increasing competition for workers. This actually leads on to an understanding about the way in which we need to have clear training programs across the whole area so that the people who do make the choice to work in this industry understand they will be well protected, that they will have effective training and development, and that they will have an opportunity to use their skills in the best possible way. In the general committee process we have in this place we have the opportunity to listen to people who want to talk to us. One of the more effective programs we've had in the parliament around the issues of aged care and disability care is the opportunity for people to come and talk to us in the parliament about what they most need for their personal circumstances. I well remember a few years ago, in a previous Senate community affairs committee inquiry into aged care, around the year 2012, we had visitations from people who were users of the aged-care system and who came to see anybody in this parliament and talk with them about how they viewed their own lives, how they viewed the increasing care needs they were looking at into their futures, and what they expected from their government in terms of response. It was incredibly valuable, I think, for senators to sit down and talk with people in the Main Committee Room here who had come voluntarily as people currently receiving aged-care services, and to listen to them about how they felt about their situation and how they felt about the people providing care for them in their homes. Senator Hinch, one of the most impactful statements that you made in your contribution earlier was when you made it very clear to all of us that when we're talking about aged-care facilities or aged-care service centres, what we're talking about is the home for people who are living there. I think sometimes that is forgotten in the discussion. There is such a semimedicalisation of the process that we do not see that, for people who are living in the various facilities—and that seems to be the generally accepted term, 'facilities' or 'areas'—this is where people live. This is where they are needing care to just get through the days and nights of their lives. I think the concept that must remain central is that we're talking about home in that sense. In thinking about that term, one of the things I want to talk about—because I know we're going to hear contributions from a number of people about the aged-care process—is a linkage that I have always felt is particularly important, which is the linkage between effective aged care and palliative care. One of the previous committee inquiries in which I was involved was an inquiry in 2012 into the issue of palliative care in Australia. In that inquiry, one of the most impressive forms of evidence we got was from people who were working in aged care and were talking about how they believed that there should not be a distinction at that level between aged care and people who were living towards the end of their lives in those processes. There's considerable data that looks at the fact that people who are now moving into high-care facilities are moving at an older age and with many more complex needs. They are very much more fragile as they move into that time of their lives. What we heard in that particular inquiry is that there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement or, in fact, more specifically, any funding or resourcing acknowledgement for the extra care that is needed for people who need actual end-of-life care under the model of the palliative-care processes. We had really interesting and very compelling evidence from a number of facilities who had, at their own cost because there was no funding model which applied in this process, put resourcing in to allow them to have a very high level of particularised, very specialised care under the palliative care model which ensured that people were not only getting the appropriate medication and having regular GP attendance but also, at that time, having personal contact. People were able to sit with the person who was at that time of their lives over extended periods of time so that there was this personal relationship. There was not only skilled knowledge but also quite personal relationships. That's important because what we heard very often throughout the various inquiries which we've been a part of is that one of the real elements under the resourcing models that we have is that there is simply not enough time for the people who are working in the various facilities to spend personal time with the people for whom they're caring. They have a range of professional duties which they have to perform, all of which are counted in the accreditation process. That's particularly important. No-one actually denies that there has got to be this basic level of personal care and professional support, but what we lose is that element of genuine personal relationships and care. That issue was raised by the people from various facilities who talked to us about it, and it was certainly raised by the patients' families who said that, when they go to visit, they find that their loved one—their family member—is lonely, feeling isolated or has not had the opportunity to effectively communicate their own needs. It has been so strongly enunciated to so many people in this place by actual workers who are now working in the industry, and these are workers who have professional care qualifications. They're certainly workers who have nursing qualifications and they're people who work in the facilities themselves. They say that they just do not have the time to provide that particular personal care. They gave us data that indicates the number of people for whom they have to provide care for within a certain time and the number of people who are working on wards in that period. Recently, the New South Wales government moved to reduce the ratio of nurses in their state-controlled aged-care services. It was brought out by a number of people that you need to have a particular ratio of nurses on duty in any of the facilities over a particular time to fulfil a range of particular professional duties, medication needs and nursing procedures and to ensure that they have the appropriate supervision in an agency. But what they also wanted to ensure is that people felt as though they were being supported and cared for when they most needed it in their facility. We have heard statistics this morning. We've heard about a number of things that the government is doing. One of the things that we're waiting very impatiently for is the result of the Tune review which was required to be done on the legislation that was passed in 2013—the Aged Care (Living Longer Living Better) Act. If anything, the particular title of that legislation is one that I think we should hold very close to. If you're looking at how we can best survive in this life, you'd say that a piece of legislation that was designed to allow people to live longer and live better is something that legislation should be designed to do. As a result of that legislation, there was required to be a comprehensive review about the whole process. That review has been completed by David Tune, and it has been presented to the minister, Ken Wyatt. We are now waiting for that to be made public. Again, in the many Senate inquiries which people have been involved in, many people put forward their suggestions and took up the opportunity to be a part of that review. Consumers, carers, representatives of consumers, aged-care workers and aged-care providers all came forward and gave their information about how they felt that program of legislation had been implemented and their suggestions for what could be done better. One of the things that did strike me, though—and I think this is a concern in the particular environment in which we're operating—is that very many of the submissions that were put up on the website for this review were put forward anonymously. That has not happened in many of the Senate committees in which we've operated. People gave their names, came forward and spoke openly about their issues around aged care. But when I was reading through the submissions that were up on the website, for this review that was done on Living Longer Living Better, very many were anonymous, and I'm concerned about that. I'll be interested to see, when this review is tabled by the minister, whether any reason is given for that. The reason I say this is that, in the evidence we have received in previous inquiries and also in evidence about the New South Wales situation where they were looking at changing the ratios, people expressed that there was a fear amongst workers and a fear amongst residents of putting forward any concerns or complaints. That in itself is a genuine worry. If we cannot have a process where people are able to give information freely and to give evidence about which they are deeply concerned, we are not going to have that open consultation that we best need. As parliamentarians, as policymakers, we need to have confidence that people will come and talk to us. We have that so often in our Senate inquiries. If we lose that, if people become frightened of expressing positions of difference or frightened of giving advice, I think we will not be able to effectively develop good policy. The issues around ageing and aged care are important. Senator Hinch, I think it is absolutely critical that the hot-list discussion continues and we have further consideration of the issue of mandated ratios. I think that will be part of an evidence based—I do love that term—process into the future. But I do not want to have any issue around care, and ensuring that we have absolute standards of care for our people across the community, being pushed aside to say that we have to be more concerned about innovation in this space and being more flexible. 11:47 Senator GICHUHI 270552 South Australia I rise in support of this bill. There's no doubt that the Australian demographic is an ageing population. There are over 5.5 million Australians aged over 50. Some of the oldest are already moving into aged care. To accommodate the needs of the rising population will require a quadrupling of the aged-care workforce by 2050. Recent reports on the ageing of baby boomers show they are eight times more likely to have health problems than the previous generation. Currently, the number of people over the age of 65 receiving aged-care services exceeds 1.2 million. Of those, 83 per cent are classified as requiring high-level care. An estimated 60 per cent of these high-care-needs residents have dementia. More than 40 per cent suffer from chronic pain, over 50 per cent are incontinent and 45 per cent have a sleep disorder. The list is endless. The management of these complex conditions and combinations of conditions require the skills of experienced registered nurses supported by doctors and other allied health care providers. Over the past decade there has been a marked shift in the composition of the residential aged-care workforce. Skilled registered and enrolled nurses now account for less than 30 per cent of the aged-care workforce. This is concerning, given the complexities that the elderly residents face in their day-to-day lives. Registered and enrolled nurses working in aged-care homes have been trained in administering medication, controlling infection and ensuring that residents receive adequate care, overall care. According to the current Aged Care Act 1997, providers must 'maintain an adequate number of appropriately skilled staff to ensure that care needs of care recipients are met'. Without clear guidance on definitions of 'adequate number' and 'appropriately skilled staff', there are a list of aged-care providers interpreting this very broadly—a risk that Australia cannot afford for our seniors. The ability of nursing staff to respond to residents' needs in an effective and timely manner is largely dependent on reasonable, effective nurse-to-resident ratios. I recognise that further research is needed to better understand what the appropriate skills mix should be. Federal legislation is urgently, if not immediately, required to ensure that, at a minimum, aged-care homes have registered nurses on site at all times. Registered nurses are specifically trained to assess, monitor and, to a certain degree, manage complex medical conditions. This would reduce the need for the older clients being transferred to hospital emergency rooms unnecessarily. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator Gichuhi, please resume your seat. You will be in continuation, as the time for this debate has now expired. NOTICES 6633 NOTICES Presentation 6633 Withdrawal 6635 11:52 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales Pursuant to notice given on 6 September 2017, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in my name for 14 November 2017, proposing the disallowance of the Competition and Consumer (Industry Code—Sugar) Regulations 2017. Also, pursuant to notice given on 6 September 2017, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, standing in my name for 14 November 2017, proposing the disallowance of the Civil Aviation Order 95.10 Instrument 2017. Withdrawal 6635 11:53 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia On behalf of Senator Di Natale, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1. COMMITTEES 6635 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 6635 Report 6635 11:53 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania I present the 10th report of 2017 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 10 OF 2017 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 6 September 2017 at 7.14 pm. 2. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees: Aged Care Amendment (Ratio of Skilled Staff to Care Recipients) Bill 2017 A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Amendment (Make Electricity GST Free) Bill 2017 Defence Amendment (Fair Pay for Members of the ADF) Bill 2017 Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2017 Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment Bill 2017 High Speed Rail Planning Authority Bill 2017 International Monetary Agreements Amendment (New Arrangements to Borrow) Bill 2017. 3. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Regional Australia) Bill 2017 Australian Grape and Wine Authority Amendment (Wine Australia) Bill 2017 Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Carbon Capture and Storage) Bill 2017 Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2017 Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 5) Bill 2017 ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Amendment Bill 2017 Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Tax Integrity) Bill 2017 Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment (Vacancy Fees) Bill 2017 Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 First Home Super Saver Tax Bill 2017. 4. The committee considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement: Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017. (David Bushby) Chair 7 September 2017 APPENDIX 1 Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Scrutinise implications of Bill on electricity prices, maintenance of infrastructure and energy security. Possible submissions or evidence from: Energy industry and Network businesses. Electricity and gas consumer groups Unions Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): To be determined by the committee Possible reporting date: 16 October, 2017 Senator Anne Urquhart Senator BUSHBY HLL I move: That the report be adopted. 11:54 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move the amendment circulated in my name: At the end of the motion, add, “but in respect of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017, the bill be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report by 16 October 2017.” Just briefly, this amendment is to have the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017 referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, with a report date of 16 October 2017. Just to explain this, while Labor support the bill, our consultation with stakeholders led us to the view that there is merit in holding a short inquiry. The abolition of the limited merits review is a large reform and should be subjected to a process and to proper scrutiny. The limited merits review can be accessed by parties other than network companies—groups like unions and consumer groups—and Labor believe it's important their views are heard by the Senate. The inquiry will be very prompt, with a report back in the first sitting week of October, and will not have any material impact on the work of the Australian Energy Regulator or the broader energy system. I hope that the Senate can support this amendment. 11:55 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria The government doesn't support referring the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Abolition of Limited Merits Review) Bill 2017. The government has a commitment to an affordable, reliable electricity system. To help put downward pressure on electricity prices, the government is taking action on all fronts. With network costs making up around 50 per cent of an average electricity household bill, the abolition of the LMR regime is a key part of the government's plan. The evidence is clear that the LMR regime has failed consumers, adding $6.5 billion in prices for households and businesses. There has not been a single occasion when the LMR regime has reduced prices for consumers. The process is seen as a free option for network businesses. A recent Macquarie note described LMR, saying currently investors are getting this as a free option, with the upside being it brings forward a dividend surprise. This view was shared by the Council of Australian Governments Energy Council following the review of the limited merits review regime in 2016. The council acknowledged at its 14 December 2016 meeting that the regime was failing and was leading to higher prices for consumers. Based on the clear facts, there isn't a need to refer this bill to a committee. I note that the shadow minister for climate and energy said on 21 June at a doorstop: Abolishing the Limited Merits Review we support and there has frankly been too much time wasted over the last 12 months from the Federal Government to actually make that happen. So we are glad it has finally happened. So the question as to why the opposition is proposing to waste time on a committee is one that the government doesn't understand. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher to the motion that the report of the Selection of Bills Committee be adopted be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:02]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

 33 AYES Bernardi, C Brown, CL Cameron, DN Chisholm, A Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Kakoschke-Moore, S Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lambie, J Lines, S Marshall, GM McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Xenophon, N 24 NOES Abetz, E Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC (teller) Cash, MC Cormann, M Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Hanson, P Hume, J McGrath, J McKenzie, B Nash, F O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Sinodinos, A Smith, D Williams, JR 7 PAIRS Bilyk, CL Scullion, NG Carr, KJ Payne, MA Collins, JMA Canavan, MJ Dastyari, S Fierravanti-Wells, C McAllister, J Brandis, GH McCarthy, M Parry, S Wong, P Ryan, S

Question agreed to.

 12:04 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP The question now is that the original question, as amended, be agreed to. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 6638 BUSINESS Rearrangement 6638 12:04 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That— (a) government business orders of the day as shown on today's Order of business be considered from 12.45 pm today; and (b) government business be called on after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today. Question agreed to. Rearrangement 6639 12:05 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows: (a)   general business notice of motion no. 473 standing in the name of Senator Gallagher relating to clean energy targets; and (b)   orders of the day relating to documents. Question agreed to. Rearrangement 6639 12:05 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That following general business orders of the day be considered on Thursday, 14 September 2017 at the time for private senators' bills. No. 39 Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Full Face Coverings in Public Places) Bill 2017 Lands Acquisition Amendment (Public Purpose) Bill 2017 (subject to introduction). Question agreed to. NOTICES 6639 NOTICES Postponement 6639 COMMITTEES 6639 COMMITTEES Community Affairs References Committee 6639 Reporting Date 6639 BUSINESS 6639 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 6639 12:06 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Marshall from Monday, 16 October to Thursday, 7 December, on account of parliamentary reasons. Question agreed to. BILLS 6640 BILLS Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017 6640

Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017

First Reading 6640 12:07 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to repeal the Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002, and for related purposes. Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017. Question agreed to. Senator RICE 155410 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 6640 12:08 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017 seeks to end the destruction of Australia's native forests, by repealing the Act which enables logging to continue with exemptions from our country's environmental protection laws. For the past two decades, our native forests have been managed under the banner of ten regional forest agreements (RFAs), established between the federal government and the states. These agreements cover significant tracts of forest in Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia, and New South Wales. RFAs were meant to provide long-term forest management to protect these complex ecosystems and ensure the viability of threatened species living in the forests, as well as govern the production of timber from these forests and maintain jobs. They have failed in every regard. The government has indicated that they intend to 'roll over' the existing 20-year regional forest agreements when they come up for expiry. The lack of rigour and reflection in this position is astounding, and demonstrate that the government does not have any commitment to safeguarding our carbon stores, clean air, water supplies, tourism hot-spots and wildlife habitat. Let me remind the chamber that the Commonwealth has a duty to protect our environment for all Australians, yet in continuing the regional forest agreements and their exemption from The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act), this government is abrogating that responsibility and allowing an extractive industry to carry out its business with no regard for the long-term damage this does to our forest estate. Instead of these management regimes which include EPBC Act exemptions, our forests should be subject to the same environmental protections and approval processes that any other extractive industry must adhere to. Logging operations in Australia should not have different rules to mining. This Bill would wind up each of the ten RFAs when their expiry dates arrive, with the first occurring in November 2017 with the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement. I note that the Tasmanian RFA has been subject to a 'variation', signed on 18 August 2017 by the Prime Minister and the Tasmanian Premier. This was presented to the public as a 'variation' but the actual outcome is a substantial re-writing of the RFA. This was undertaken without any engagement with this Parliament, despite the significance of its extension of the RFA to 2037 and that, in effect, it makes future extensions automatic, into perpetuity. This Bill is doing the proper thing, where the Government has failed to, in bringing this major aspect of our forest management to the Parliament. Industrial logging in public native forests has had its day. It has failed to protect our environment and failed to protect jobs. The future for our Australian wood products industry lies in a sustainably managed plantation-based industry. The industry is already well on the way to relying solely on plantation grown timber and fibre. Eighty-five percent of wood produced in Australia now comes from plantations. Propping up the native forest logging industry flies in the face of market demand for sustainable wood products and fails to envision an industry with jobs that sustain communities in the long-term. Let us help make this vision for sustainable management of our forests a reality. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator RICE 155410 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 6641 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 6641 Reference 6641 12:09 Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE 265982 South Australia I move: That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 29 November 2017: The adequacy of existing offences in the Commonwealth Criminal Code and of state and territory criminal laws to capture cyberbullying, including: (a) the broadcasting of assaults and other crimes via social media platforms; (b) the application of section 474.17 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code "Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence", and the adequacy of the penalty, particularly where the victim of cyberbullying has self-harmed or taken their own life; (c) the adequacy of the policies, procedures and practices of social media platforms in preventing and addressing cyberbullying; (d) other measures used to combat cyberbullying predominantly between school children and young people; and (e) any other related matter. Question agreed to. 12:09 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 Cyberbullying has been successfully prosecuted under section 474.17 of the Criminal Code. Live-streaming offending conduct, including assaults, may also be captured by Commonwealth offences. During sentencing, a court must take into account any harm suffered by a victim. The Office of the eSafety Commissioner works with social media services to remove cyberbullying material. The government has also initiated programs addressing cyberbullying and online activities, including the Australian Federal Police's ThinkUKnow program, which provides cybersafety education to school students, parents and teachers, covering online grooming, sexting, cyberbullying and general online safety, and the e-safety office's online safety, education and complaints process for young people who experience cyberbullying. Question agreed to. PARLIAMENTARY ZONE 6642 PARLIAMENTARY ZONE Approval of Works 6642 12:11 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the following proposals by the National Capital Authority for capital works within the Parliamentary Zone: (a) installation of two new signs at Questacon; (b) extension of the International Flag Display and upgrade to existing lighting; and (c) installation of 40 timber bench seats at Commonwealth Place jetties. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 6642 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 6642 12:11 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move government business motion No. 2: 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: Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017 Defence Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017 Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017 Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2017 Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2017 Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2017. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator Siewert? Senator Siewert e5z Could I indicate that the Greens would like to vote differently on some of the bills. Can the question be put separately, in two sections? We would like to vote on the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2017 and the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 separately from the rest. We want to split the motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Is there any objection to those three bills being put to the vote separately? There is no objection. The question is that the motion that the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2017 and the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 be exempted from the cut-off be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:19]
The Deputy President (Senator Lines)

 32 AYES Abetz, E Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC (teller) Cash, MC Cormann, M Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S Lambie, J Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID McGrath, J McKenzie, B Nash, F O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Sinodinos, A Smith, D Williams, JR Xenophon, N 27 NOES Bernardi, C Brown, CL Cameron, DN Chisholm, A Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Hanson-Young, SC Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lines, S Marshall, GM McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

Consideration of Legislation 6644 12:21 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP The question is now that the motion that the Australian Border Force Amendment (Protected Information) Bill 2017, the Defence Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017, the Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017, the Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2017 and the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Omnibus) Bill 2017 be exempted from the cut-off be agreed to. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 6644 COMMITTEES Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations 6644 Appointment 6644 12:22 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I move: That the resolution of 17 August 2017 establishing the Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations, be amended as follows: omit paragraph (1), substitute: "That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations, be established to inquire into and report, on 7 December 2017, on the following matters:" Question agreed to. MOTIONS 6644 MOTIONS Child Care 6644 12:23 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) acknowledges:    (i) the important work early childhood educators and childcare staff around the country do in helping care for our young children,    (ii) that early childhood education and care (ECEC) is a critical component of lifelong learning,    (iii) that ECEC workers are trusted and skilled carers and educators, and    (iv) that ECEC educators and staff, earning as low as $21 per hour, are underpaid for the important job they dedicate their lives to; and (b) supports:    (i) the early childhood educators and workers taking part in the largest walk-off industrial action on 7 September 2017, and    (ii) a 35 per cent pay increase to ECEC educators' and workers' salaries. 12:23 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The Australian government provides fee relief for families; however, it does not run childcare centres, employ staff for those centres or set their fees. The case brought by a child care union seeks pay rises of between 14 and 49 per cent for childcare workers and early childhood teachers in long day care centres and preschools, on the basis that they are not receiving equal pay for work of equal or comparable value. The decision to award wage increases is a matter for the Fair Work Commission, not the government. The government is carefully monitoring the case and has made submissions to assist the Fair Work Commission with the interpretation of the Fair Work Act's equal pay provisions. 12:24 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave is granted is for minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING Labor absolutely stands with early childhood professionals in this country, but we can't support this motion because of some of the inaccuracies in its drafting. Today, after an historic ballot, 95 per cent of educators have voted for a national, sector-wide walk-off in response to the Prime Minister's inaction on equal pay. Labor is steadfastly supportive of the Big Steps campaign, which calls on the government to fund professional pay for every educator. Early childhood professionals sometimes earn as little as $20 an hour, and Labor, with United Voice, will continue to fight for these professionals to achieve equal pay. 12:24 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave is granted for one minute. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I am disappointed the Labor Party and the government are not supporting this motion. I understand that the reason the Labor Party did not want to support the motion is that they wanted the 35 per cent pay increase removed from the motion. That is the entire point of this strike today. The Greens stand firmly with educators across this country, and we'll continue to, despite who else falls to the side. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP The question is the motion as moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:26]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

 8 AYES Di Natale, R Hanson-Young, SC Lambie, J McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS 50 NOES Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Cash, MC Chisholm, A Cormann, M Duniam, J Farrell, D Fawcett, DJ Fifield, MP Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S Ketter, CR Kitching, K Leyonhjelm, DE Lines, S Macdonald, ID Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McGrath, J McKenzie, B Moore, CM Nash, F O'Neill, DM O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Pratt, LC Roberts, M Ruston, A Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Singh, LM Sinodinos, A Smith, D Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Williams, JR Xenophon, N 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Rohingya People 6646 12:29 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 468 standing in my name for today, relating to the persecution of the Rohingya people. Leave granted. Senator McKIM JKM I amend the motion in the terms circulated and ask that it be taken as formal. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? Senator McGrath 217241 Yes. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP There's an objection. Senator McKIM JKM I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McKIM JKM It's very disappointing that the government has prevented this motion from being brought on today, because what is happening to the Rohingya people in Myanmar right now is nothing less than a human rights disaster. It's the Greens' view that the Australian government has simply very weakly expressed concern about what is going on, because the Australian embassy put out a statement urging: … all sides to exercise restraint and respect human rights. That has echoes of Donald Trump's response to the Nazi rallies in Charlottesville in the United States, and Prime Minister Turnbull has to do better than that. The appalling truth is that we don't know how many Rohingya are being killed. It is vastly more than 400. We've had to amend this motion in real time to reflect what's going on. We have to hold the Myanmar government to account and allow more Rohingya refugees into Australia. 12:31 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 It is a longstanding approach taken by the coalition and Labor governments that complex foreign policy matters should not be dealt with in formal business precisely because they cannot be amended or debated. The Senate should not consider and vote on such significant issues without the ability to have a full debate. 12:31 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave is granted for one minute. Senator ROBERTS 266524 I won't need a minute! We in One Nation can support all of the clauses here except for the last. We oppose violence and we oppose oppression, but that doesn't mean we need to support a system that would encourage more refugees to come here. Anybody who wanted to remove people would simply oppress people, knowing that Australia would open its gates. That is not on. This needs to be defeated. Senator Cameron interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Order, Senator Cameron! Honourable senators interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Order! Interjections are particularly disruptive, and more so when senators are not in their own seats. National Threatened Species Day 6647 12:33 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 470 standing in my name for today, relating to National Threatened Species Day. Leave granted. Senator RICE 155410 I move the motion as amended: That the Senate— (a) notes that:    (i) National Threatened Species Day is marked today, 7 September 2017, the anniversary of the day that the last Thylacine (or Tasmanian Tiger) went extinct in 1936 in a Hobart zoo,    (ii) in Australia, we have one of the world's worst extinction rates for our native mammals, with 29 species going extinct since European settlement and that number representing a third of all global mammalian extinctions in the last 600 years,    (iii) 20 per cent of Australia's remaining mammal species are classified as threatened, including iconic species like koalas, wombats, bilbies and Tasmanian devils,    (iv) globally, we are living through what scientists are calling the Holocene extinction, which is the sixth greatest extinction event since life began on earth and is being caused by human activity, and    (v) there is good work being done in our community to save our native wildlife, but that more needs to be done by our governments to address the biodiversity crisis, including by tackling threatening processes, including land clearing, logging and pest animal and plant species; and (b) calls on the Government to take decisive action to properly fund and support biodiversity research and conservation, and stop the trajectory of animal and plant extinctions in Australia. 12:33 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The government recognises National Threatened Species Day and notes the government appointed Australia's first ever Threatened Species Commissioner; introduced Australia's first Threatened Species Strategy, which targets 20 priority birds, 20 priority mammals and 30 priority plants; launched the first ever Threatened Species Prospectus; and has mobilised over $228 million for more than 1,000 projects that are supporting species conservation. Today the Minister for the Environment and Energy announced 19 more projects under the $5 million Threatened Species Recovery Fund. 12:34 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave is granted for one minute. Senator HINCH 2O4 I will be supporting Senator Rice and National Threatened Species Day. But I would say it's rather ironic, having been in Northern Queensland last week, that we're doing National Threatened Species Day when you've got sea turtles and dugongs being slaughtered under the Native Title Act by people who are abusing it. You're also seeing styrofoam boxes of not chicken meat but turtle meat and dugong meat coming in from the Torres Strait Islands into the carousels at Cairns Airport and being sold for $80 a kilo for turtle meat and $130 a kilo of dugong meat. It's a national disgrace. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP The question is that the motion, as amended and moved by Senator Rice, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:36]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

 15 AYES Burston, B Di Natale, R Georgiou, P Griff, S Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Kakoschke-Moore, S McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Roberts, M Siewert, R (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS Xenophon, N 41 NOES Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Bushby, DC Cameron, DN Cash, MC Chisholm, A Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fifield, MP Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Gichuhi, LM Hume, J Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lambie, J Leyonhjelm, DE Lines, S Macdonald, ID Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McGrath, J McKenzie, B Moore, CM Nash, F O'Neill, DM O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Polley, H Pratt, LC Ruston, A Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Singh, LM Sinodinos, A Smith, D Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 World Suicide Prevention Day 6649 12:39 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I move: That the Senate— (a) notes:    (i) 10 September is World Suicide Prevention Day,    (ii) the theme for 2017 is 'Take a Minute, Change a Life' and aims to complement the work undertaken by RUOK? Day that encourages people to take the time to notice what is going on with your family, friends, colleagues and yourself,    (iii) 14 September is RUOK? Day – this is a day that reminds people that they have got what it takes to start a meaningful conversation if they are worried about someone and includes four steps: 1. Ask, 2. Listen, 3. Encourage action, 4. Check-in,    (iv) that in 2015, 3 027 Australians lost their lives to suicide – this represents the highest suicide rate in 15 years and is an average of 8.3 deaths by suicide every day, and    (v) that suicide is the leading cause of death for Australians aged 15 to 44 – these statistics are heartbreaking and confronting; and (b) urges all levels of government and the community to work together to:    (i) reduce the impact of mental ill health and suicide in our society,    (ii) continue to work towards reducing stigma associated with mental ill health, and    (iii) help raise community awareness around suicide prevention. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 6650 DOCUMENTS Drug and Alcohol Services 6650 Order for the Production of Documents 6650 12:40 Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE 265982 South Australia I move: (1) That the Senate notes that: (a) during the Senate inquiry into the provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017, Professor Alison Ritter, Director, Drug Policy Modelling Program, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, told Senator Kakoschke-Moore: "There was a model that I worked on to develop state-by-state estimates of unmet demand for alcohol and other drug treatment. Those data are theoretically available. The Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy said we were not able to release those results and they were not to be made available to anyone who requested them"; (b) Professor Ritter advised the direction to not make the model public occurred in 2014 and again "about 12 months ago"; and (c) Professor Ritter went on to state: "In my opinion, the concern from the ministerial council was that it would identify the substantial responsibility that the states and territories and the Commonwealth Government needed to start to take in relation to the appalling situation in relation to drug treatment". (2) That there be laid on the table, by the Minister representing the Minister for Health, by the close of business on 13 September 2017: (a) the model and technical manual which can be used to generate state-by¬-state estimates of unmet demand for alcohol and drug treatment and rehabilitation services in Australia, which has previously been described as the Drug and Alcohol Clinical Care and Prevention (DA-CCP) Project and the Drug and Alcohol Services Planning Model (DASPM); (b) any correspondence between the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre and the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy regarding the release of the model and technical manual known as the DA-CCP and DASPM; and (c) any other documentation relating to use of the model, including any reports and data produced by the Commonwealth using the model. 12:40 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The government is not in a position to table the National Drug and Alcohol Clinical Care and Prevention project model and technical report in the Senate as they were commissioned by the COAG Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy, which has now been replaced by the Ministerial Drug and Alcohol Forum. The Minister for Health will write to all of the relevant state and territory ministers on the forum, seeking their consent to release the model. State and territory governments need to be consulted on this matter as it was determined by the previous committee not to release the model. The Commonwealth government, as part of the National Ice Action Strategy, has provided an additional $241 million for increased drug and alcohol services, with the Commonwealth combined investment in drug and alcohol programs of $685 million. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 6651 MOTIONS Domestic and Family Violence 6651 12:41 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I ask that Senators Hinch, Rice, Siewert, Hanson-Young, Rhiannon and Lambie be added as sponsors of the motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP As there is no objection to those names being added, you may move the motion. Senator McALLISTER 121628 I, and on behalf of, Senators O'Neill, Urquhart, Lines, Gallagher, Singh, Bilyk, McCarthy, Collins, Polley, Wong, Pratt, Brown, Moore, Kitching, Hinch, Rice, Siewert, Hanson-Young, Rhiannon and Lambie, move: That the Senate— (a) acknowledges that:    (i) victims and survivors of sexual and family violence should be able to gain access to the highest standard of professional counselling support,    (ii) 1800 RESPECT, a national telephone and online counselling service for people living with sexual assault and family violence, is an important part of the national response to family and domestic violence,    (iii) since the establishment of the 1800 RESPECT service, Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia has provided specialist sexual assault and domestic violence trauma counselling for the service, and    (iv) Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia, which has operated for almost 50 years, has achieved international recognition for its expertise in its field; (b) notes that:    (i) Medibank Health Solutions (MHS), a for-profit company, receives public funds to administer 1800 RESPECT,    (ii) MHS recently announced that the service previously provided by Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia would now be provided by four organisations, three of which have not previously provided trauma counselling for the 1800 RESPECT service,    (iii) the consequence of this decision is a 75 per cent reduction in the public funding provided to Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia via MHS for the provision of the 1800 RESPECT service, as that organisation becomes one of four providers, rather than the sole provider, and    (iv) in those circumstances, the Board of Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia has decided not to accept the proposed Medibank Health Solutions contract, which the Board states does not provide sufficient funding to enable Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia to provide the service, and imposes obligations which the Board considers unethical; and (c) calls upon the Prime Minister to ensure that victims and survivors of family and domestic violence continue to have access to best practice specialist sexual assault and family violence trauma counselling services, as previously provided by Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia. 12:41 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales I seek leave to make a brief statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave is granted for one minute. Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 I would just like to place on the record that, while I support the intent of the motion, there is an implication that violence is perpetrated by men against women. The evidence would suggest that more than half the cases of that is true, but there is a very large minority of violence cases against men by women, and the debate does not reflect that. Question agreed to. Rohingya People 6652 12:42 Senator SINGH M0R Tasmania I ask that general business notice of motion No. 475 standing in my name and the name of Senator Watt for today, relating tot the Rohingya Muslims and Myanmar's Rakine State, be taken as a formal motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Is there any objection to the motion being taken as formal? Senator McGrath 217241 Senator Singh, are you amending this motion? Senator Singh M0R No. Are you? Senator McGrath 217241 No. In that case, formality is denied. 12:43 Senator SINGH M0R Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave is granted for one minute. Senator SINGH M0R The opposition accepts the government's right to deny formality to this motion, but we regret that this important issue could not be subject to a vote in the Senate today. The opposition accepted a number of amendments proposed by the government to this motion in order to make it acceptable. However, having suggested the amendments, the government is now not prepared to move them. The opposition hopes the Senate will be able to vote in the future on a motion to express our concern about the conflict among Rohingya Muslims, ethnic Rakine and security forces in Myanmar's Rakine state. 12:44 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 My understanding is that the government sought to work with the opposition to correct a number of factual errors in the motion that were in its original form. Because those errors were not going to be amended, the government cannot accept the motion as it stands. Polio 6652 12:45 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia I, and on behalf of Senator Polley, move: That the Senate— (a) notes:    (i) the invaluable contribution Rotary International has made since 1978 to tackle global Poliomyelitis (polio) eradication, a paralysing and potentially fatal disease that still threatens many children in some parts of the world,    (ii) that, since the launch of Rotary lnternational's PolioPlus program in 1985, Rotary has contributed more than $1.7 billion and countless volunteer hours to immunise more than 2.5 billion children in 122 countries,    (iii) that, thanks to the success of this program, there are now just 3 polio endemic countries with 37 wild polio cases worldwide in 2016, which is a reduction of more than 99.9 per cent since 1988, when there were 350 000 polio cases, and    (iv) that, thanks to Rotary's advocacy efforts, donor governments, including Australia, have contributed more than $7.2 billion to the global eradication of polio; and (b) recognises that:    (i) the Australian Government's current commitment to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI) is $54 million over six years (2015 to 2020), which builds on the $50 million provided to GPEI between 2011-2015, taking Australia's total commitment to GPEI, since 2011, to $104 million,    (ii) Australia is providing $36 million over four years (2015-16 to 2018-19) to the World Bank to support countries in Southeast Asia and the Pacific to strengthen their immunisation systems, including for the introduction of the Inactivated Polio Vaccine (IPV), a key component of the global polio eradication strategy,    (iii) the Government's dual investment approach allows Australia to contribute to global efforts to eradicate polio, and protect our region from the risk of polio re-emerging, and    (iv) Australia also supports routine immunisation through its contributions to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance ($250 million pledged for 2016-2020), UNICEF ($21 million in 2016-17), and the World Health Organization ($12.4 million voluntary contribution in 2016-17). Question agreed to. BILLS 6653 BILLS Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2017, Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment Bill 2017 6653

Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2017

Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment Bill 2017

First Reading 6653 12:45 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 6653 12:46 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— EDUCATION SERVICES FOR OVERSEAS STUDENTS (TPS LEVIES) AMENDMENT BILL 2017 Today I am introducing the Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2017 which amends the Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Act 2012. This Bill reflects the Government's commitment to support the international education sector by reducing the financial burden on education providers while maintaining our strong student protections. International education is a cornerstone of our economy and Australia's largest service export. It contributed $22.4 billion and 130,000 jobs to our economy last year. The strong growth in the sector shows the Government's policy settings are working to drive success and create job opportunities for Australians. This is only possible because of our reputation in providing high quality education and offering unique, strong student protections. The Tuition Protection Service (TPS) is an initiative of the Australian Government to assist international students whose education providers are unable to fully deliver their course of study. It is a key mechanism to protect students, and is funded by an annual levy on all international education providers which is credited into the Overseas Students Tuition Fund, or the Fund. The levy comprises an administrative fee and base fee components which are based on a provider's enrolment numbers, a risk rated premium and a special tuition protection component. Since 2012, the TPS has provided assistance to 1,228 students who have been affected by provider closures, by placing them in alternative courses or refunding their unspent tuition fees. The success and strong growth of the sector, reflected by an increased number of international student enrolments and a comparatively low number of provider closures, has resulted in the Fund reserves increasing sharply. The balance of the Fund has already passed the original target amount recommended by the Australian Government Actuary and the TPS Advisory Board in 2013. The balance in the Fund is forecast to exceed the upper target unless changes are made to current TPS levy settings. It is important to retain industry commitment to the TPS and to appropriately recognise international education providers that are managing risk effectively and contributing to stable growth in the sector. The TPS Director has taken action to address this issue by reducing the risk rated premium component of the TPS levy to slow the growth of the Fund. However, the risk rated premium is calculated based on the risk profile of each provider. Further reducing this component would result in the loss of an effective price signal to higher risk providers, and would not benefit low risk providers who are exempt from this component of the levy. Low risk providers pay proportionately more of the administrative and base fees, as the higher number of enrolments in these education providers has a significant multiplier effect on the fees collected. Further reductions to the risk rated premium would also give little incentive to providers to reduce their overall level of risk. A reduction to the current administrative and base fees will ensure the Fund remains within the target range of $30 million to $50 million, as recommended by the Australian Government Actuary and endorsed by the TPS Advisory Board. If we are to continue to be one of the most sought after study destinations in the world, we must continue to improve the effectiveness of our consumer protection mechanisms. This Bill will enable the Minister for Education and Training to proactively manage the Fund in response to changing market conditions, by setting the administrative and base fees through a legislative instrument. This will ensure that international education providers are appropriately recognised for managing risk effectively, while ensuring sufficient reserves are maintained in the Fund to meet future claims. The Minister will still be able to increase the fees to an 'upper limit' set at the current legislated levels to ensure adequate tuition protection, if required. I turn now to the specific measures which will reduce the burden on the sector while maintaining our world class student protections. The Bill contains new measures to require the Minister to set the administrative and base fee amounts for the 2018 calendar year through a legislative instrument. The Minister must do this by 31 December 2017 for the new fee amounts to take effect for the 2018 levy collection. The new amounts will help reduce the levy collections in a way that appropriately recognises international education providers managing risk effectively, while ensuring the Fund remains viable to meet any future claims. A further amendment to the TPS Levies Act gives the Minister discretion to make a new legislative instrument for the administrative and base fee amounts in following calendar years, that is, for 1 January 2019 onwards. It is anticipated that this will be a one-off reduction to the Fund and the fee settings will not be updated every year. If the Minister chooses not to make a legislative instrument in later years, the current instrument will be indexed annually until a new one is made. This will give providers some stability, as these amounts will not have to change each year. The Minister must have regard to the sustainability of the Fund and any other matters in setting the administrative and base fee components through a legislative instrument. To give certainty to providers, the Bill will impose an 'upper limit' which the Minister cannot surpass in setting the administrative and base fee amounts. The limit is set at the current indexed legislated levels. This amendment provides transparency and assurance to the sector by limiting the Minister's power to determine dollar amounts for the administrative and base fee components of the TPS levy through a legislative instrument. The Minister must cause the administrative and base fee components to be published in any manner he or she considers appropriate. This measure will ensure that the administrative and base fee amounts for each year are publicly available to providers to assist in planning their finances. In today's fast growing international sector, Australia's third largest export, the Government must play a proactive role in maintaining a healthy Fund balance to protect overseas students' investment in their education. This Bill will ensure that Australia maintains strong student protection mechanisms, appropriately recognise low risk providers and contributes to the stable growth of the international education sector. This will strengthen the industry's confidence in the TPS, and will ultimately result in better outcomes for students. This Bill delivers on the objectives of the National Strategy for International Education 2025 for developing Australia's role as a global leader in education, training and research through strengthening a fundamental student protection mechanism. EDUCATION SERVICES FOR OVERSEAS STUDENTS AMENDMENT BILL 2017 I am also introducing the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment Bill 2017 which amends the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, or ESOS Act,as a consequence of the changes to be made to the Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Act 2012, or TPS Levies Act. It builds on the Government's commitment to support the international education sector by reducing the financial burden on education providers while continually improving our student protection mechanisms. This Bill makes consequential amendments to the ESOS Act to clarify that the TPS Director works out the TPS levy payable by each provider in accordance with the legislative instruments made under the amended TPS Levies Act. This includes legislative instruments made by the Minister to set the administrative and base fee components, and legislative instruments made by the TPS Director to set the risk rated premium and special tuition protection components. This Bill gives effect to changes made to the TPS Levies Act to improve the operations of the TPS and ensure the Government has a proactive role in managing the balance in the Fund. I commend the Bills. (Quorum formed) 12:48 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Labor support the Education Services for Overseas Students (TPS Levies) Amendment Bill 2017 and the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment Bill 2017. It was Labor that introduced the tuition protection service in response to some of the poor behaviour by providers in the international education market in 2009. Labor acted swiftly to introduce more effective national regulation of Australia's tertiary education sector. The tuition protection service has been well managed and has responded appropriately where required. We are pleased that the levies have remained low, despite a significant increase in international students coming to Australia to study. That could have put pressure on the scheme. International education is one of the great success stories in Australia. It's good for the economy, our society, and soft diplomacy across the world. In fact, last year international education contributed more than $21 billion to the Australian economy. The Education Services for Overseas Students Act was groundbreaking when it was introduced as it was one of the first pieces of legislation anywhere in the world designed to address the needs of foreign students. Labor are proud that we have a strong and supportive regulatory system for the nearly 600,000 international students in this country. We believe the measures in this bill are sensible and should be supported. We caution the government on ensuring it does more to protect the rights and financial situation of Australian students. We know that far too many students took on bad VET FEE-HELP debt, and the government took too long to respond. Labor reminds this government to get on with the job of addressing some of the terribly bad debts of these students. A high-quality, well-regulated tertiary education system is an important tool for our future economic success. 12:51 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I thank Senator Cameron for his contribution and commend the bills to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bills read a second time. Third Reading 6656 12:51 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D As no amendments to the bills have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bills be considered in Committee of the Whole. 12:51 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That these bills be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2017 6657

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2017

In Committee 6657 12:52 The TEMPORARY CHAIR G0D The committee is considering the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2017 and amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8100 revised, moved by Senator Lambie. 12:52 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I have a few more questions to ask, but I want to go back to the veterans mental health inquiry where, very recently, we put a number of questions on notice in reference to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report published on 17 March 2016 concerning the mental health of Australian Defence Force members and veterans. We asked the minister if he could advise which of a number of recommendations had been actioned, or when they would be actioned. If they were not to be actioned, we asked why not. There were 17 questions that we put on notice, and this is the answer that we got back: 'The Senate inquiry report presented the government with 25 recommendations comprising 17 main recommendations and eight minority report recommendations. Of the 17 main recommendations, three were agreed to by the government, four were agreed to in principle, six were partly agreed and four were noted. The government did not rate any of the main recommendations as not agreed. Of the eight minority report recommendations, one was agreed to by the government, one was partly agreed, two were noted and four were not agreed.' What they didn't say is that not one of those things has been put into place. So, nearly 16 months later, nothing that was recommended by that committee to start helping those veterans with their mental health has been done. That is shameful in itself. I simply say this: if the government's intention in introducing the DRCA bill is to streamline veterans legislation—if that is what they believe it will do—are they prepared to make a commitment to adopting the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee's recommendation in the veterans suicide report for a Productivity Commission study into veterans' entitlement law today, instead of us all waiting for the 90-day period? 12:54 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland As I said last night, senators have put a lot of time and effort into preparing the report of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, and it's only appropriate that the government make a considered response to reflect that. In relation to the senator's earlier comments, that is within the remit of the Minister for Health. 12:55 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Chair, I want to clarify whether I'm able to do this. Labor are not supporting the amendments. Is there any way I can ask them a couple of questions? Can that be done somehow, or is that just a no? The TEMPORARY CHAIR G0D Senator Lambie, based on my experience, you can ask questions, and if any senator chooses to rise in response to those questions it is entirely in order. However, they don't have to. Senator LAMBIE 250026 Thank you, Chair. Labor has stated that it received advice that the provision in the SRCA for arranging quick rehabilitation has not been used since 2004. What authority is Labor relying upon? 12:56 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Just to be clear, are we now dealing with your amendments on sheet 8101 revised or are we still on sheet 8100? The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Farrell, we're considering amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8100 revised. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you, Chair. As Senator Lambie would appreciate, I am not the shadow minister for this particular area. But we do have a fantastic shadow minister in Amanda Rishworth. I will try to contact her while this debate is going on and get a response to your question. 12:57 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Labor stated that my amendments for arranging quick rehabilitation might conflict with another section of DRCA relating to rehabilitation. If that is truly the case, wouldn't it be prudent to amend that other section to include arranging timely or quick rehabilitation in this DRCA bill so that veterans may recover faster through the arrangement of quicker rehabilitation? 12:57 Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE 265982 South Australia I rise to outline the Nick Xenophon's Team's position in relation to Senator Lambie's amendments. At the outset I would like to emphasise our acknowledgement of the place of deep concern from which Senator Lambie's amendments arise. I understand she is seeking to incorporate into the DRCA a section in relation to emphasising that, in order to minimise the duration and severity of injuries to a veteran or a Defence personnel member, rehabilitation should be arranged quickly. We acknowledge this. We have received advice from the government and also from the opposition that, while these amendments have come from good intentions, they may in fact have some unintended consequences for those veterans. That is why, although we strongly support Senator Lambie and we strongly support the principle of allowing veterans and Defence personnel access to timely rehabilitation, we are uneasy about supporting these amendments. 12:58 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I have received advice about the question that Senator Lambie raised earlier in respect of the opposition's communications. The answer to her question is that we received that information from John Harris, who I understand is the ministerial adviser to the minister. I notice that's brought a smile to Senator Lambie's face. 12:59 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I was wondering whether the minister could afford me what qualifications Mr Harris actually has. 12:59 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland That's not relevant to the discussion at hand. 12:59 Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE 265982 South Australia It may be beneficial for the chamber and for this debate if the minister could outline what some of these potential unintended consequences could be, should this amendment pass. 12:59 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Certainly. The primary focus of rehabilitation under Comcare is to arrange an employee's return to work as quickly as possible after a work-related injury or disease. While the arrangements include restoring the individual's social as well as vocational status, this is considered within an employee's workplace setting. As former members of the ADF, DVA clients often have different needs from the typical Comcare rehabilitation client who is returning to work. Their ADF employment not only gave them an income and meaningful work, it also provided housing, health care, recreational facilities, social networks, training, and a structured career path. The impact of military life means the families of DVA clients also have complex needs. A DVA client's rehabilitation plan also addresses the family's requirements, in addition to the client's needs. For all these reasons, and others, there's a belief in the government that the treatment of ADF members using guidelines designed for public servants is not desirable. 13:00 Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE 265982 South Australia Minister, I might try to summarise what you just said to ensure that I understand it properly. It is that an unintended consequence of inserting this provision could be to force somebody into rehabilitation for the purposes of returning them to work, when in fact returning them to work may not be in the best interest of the veteran or the member of the Defence Force, and they need a more holistic approach to their rehabilitation? 13:01 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland That is the intention of the government. 13:01 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Is the government able to provide any assurances today that veterans will receive the arrangement of timely rehabilitation in this new DRCA bill, given the blow-out times in which determinations of certain claims are made under SRCA—I note that in his recent ministerial statement Minister Tehan said that permanent impairment determinations on claims under SRCA increased from 112 days to 148 days, an increase of 36 days? 13:02 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland In regard to the bill that is before the Senate, I don't think that, particularly, is relevant. The TEMPORARY CHAIR G0D The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8100 revised, moved by Senator Lambie, be agreed to. Question negatived. 13:03 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I oppose schedule 1 in the following terms: (1) Schedule 1, item 45, page 13 (line 19) to page 14 (line 2), TO BE OPPOSED. This amendment drops the Henry VIII clause altogether from the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2017, known as the DRCA. A Henry VIII clause added to DRCA effectively handballs parliament's legislative function to the executive branch of government. It gives the government unfettered power to make regulations modifying the operation of the act itself. That would be unprecedented in the history of Australia's veterans entitlement law. My amendment to scrap the Henry VIII clause has the support of our nation's leading ex-services organisations, including the Returned and Services League of Australia, the Alliance of Defence Service Organisations, or ADSO, the Defence Force Welfare Association, and the Australian Peacekeeper and Peacemaker Veterans Association, among many other ESOs. The report The constant battle: suicide by veterans, by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, noted concerns about the adequacy of staff training and recommended a review of its training. Further, the committee recommended that a Productivity Commission study be completed within 18 months on Australia's veterans legislative framework. Granting additional powers to the executive branch of government under the provision of a Henry VIII clause is bad policy, given the current situation with the chaotic legislative framework as well as the shortcomings of the Department of Veterans' Affairs—and there are many of them, as indicated in the report The constant battle: suicide by veterans. This delegation of legislative power to the executive branch of government will likely serve as a slippery slope. The foreign affairs, defence and trade committee recommended that the Productivity Commission review Australia's complex veterans legislation. So why has the government brought the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Legislation Amendment (Defence Force) Bill 2017 on for consideration before the review could even be conducted—or you people taking 90 days to even decide whether you're going to conduct that? That would be the best way forward. 13:06 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I seek to give the Labor Party's response to Senator Lambie's amendment 8101, known as the Henry VIII motion. Unfortunately, Labor will not be supporting this amendment, as the Henry VIII clause is intended only as a fail-safe in the unlikely event that something else has been overlooked in the drafting of the bill which would leave veterans worse off. Henry VIII clauses enable the government to make regulations with the power to modify the act, which are then introduced to parliament as a disallowable instrument. In the DRCA, a condition has been added to the Henry VIII clause that requires any regulations made under this provision to act in a purely beneficial way for the veteran to deal with any anomalies that may arise where there is a retrospective application of the DRCA. This condition states: Before the Governor-General makes regulations under subsection 1: a. the Minister must be satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to make the regulations to ensure that no person (except the Commonwealth) is disadvantaged by the enactment of this Act; As such, it is clear that, in the event of this clause being utilised, it can only be when someone has been made worse off by the creation of the DRCA and any changes will benefit only an individual claimant and not the government. This is a very important condition, and it is the reason the Labor Party is in a position to support the inclusion of this clause. It's worth remembering that in the event that the clause is utilised there would be an individual veteran who has been made worse off for the creation of this bill and has had this acknowledgement by the department and regulations drafted, approved and tabled. To deny or delay them the provision of receiving this benefit is unfair, particularly given that, in these circumstances, if the DRCA had not been created there would have been no delay and they would have received this assistance immediately. We call on the department to, in the event that this clause is utilised, exhaust all avenues to ensure that anyone else who would benefit from the changes to the regulations is afforded the same benefit. The government has agreed to this at Labor's request and has committed to ensuring that everything possibly will be done by the department to locate and contact any person who would be affected by the DRCA Henry VIII clause. Labor supports the inclusion of this clause without the requirement to consult prior to making the regulations, for one reason only, and that is to ensure that that there is no delay in correcting the issue which has come about due to the creation of the bill and its impact on the veteran. 13:09 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania We've seen in the past that this is an absolute mess, that Veterans' Affairs is a shambles. There's no denying that; it's a basket case. I want to know whether there are unintended consequences from your actions in putting in that Henry VIII clause. First of all, what is your action plan to take care of it and remove it? And how long is that time frame going to be? 13:09 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I think you had two questions there that merged into each other. I am wondering if you can just clarify what you meant, please. 13:09 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania We have seen in the past, when it comes to veterans affairs legislation, a lot of unintended consequences because of the legislation that is supposedly supposed to be a good thing for veterans, which it certainly has not been. I could go through them if you want, but we won't do that. But both the major parties are just as much to blame here. What you do is simply say, 'Oh well, okay. Too bad,' but you don't go in and fix it, even though there are unintended consequences because of it. So I simply want to know this: do you have an action plan for the Henry VIII clause if it has unintended consequences, and, if so, what is it? 13:10 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland The purpose of the Henry VIII clause is to ensure that there is a safety net for veterans in case a person does suffer detriment due to the DRCA's enactment. Without a Henry VIII clause, it would take a much longer time to remedy any detriments suffered by the veteran, as it would require an amendment to the principal act. Every effort has been made by the government to ensure that ADF members are not disadvantaged by the DRCA's commencement. However, in the unlikely case where it comes to light that a person is unintentionally disadvantaged by the DRCA's enactment, a Henry VIII clause would enable the minister to override the DRCA where a case of disadvantage came to his or her attention. This would allow the Minister for Veterans' Affairs to quickly address any disadvantage suffered by the veteran. Regulations can be quickly enacted to fix the disadvantage, and regulations are flexible because they allow the minister to address both individual and group needs. 13:11 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I just want to clarify something. When you decided to put this Henry VIII clause in, did Mr Harris—is that correct?—decide that he was going to do this? You didn't use somebody else? You didn't use any other recommendations from anyone else? You didn't go out and use somebody else? You didn't use a QC and hear what they had to say or anything like that? Did you simply use the department without going any further, as you would on most legislation—that's why the Department of Veterans' Affairs is in such a mess—and use no other expertise outside of the Department of Veterans' Affairs to decide on this matter? 13:12 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland We had advice from the Australian Government Solicitor. 13:12 Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE 265982 South Australia Once again, the Nick Xenophon Team acknowledges the place of deep concern that Senator Lambie's amendment has come from. Indeed, I think it's reflective of, sadly, the state of deep suspicion and distrust amongst the veterans community for the DVA. I'm hopeful that that distrust will be rectified in the future, but I think it would be helpful, for the purposes of those listening and for the purposes of Hansard, if the minister could outline why a veteran could, in fact, be worse off if the Henry VIII clause wasn't inserted into this bill. 13:13 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Very simply, actually, it would take longer to remedy any detriments suffered by a veteran because it would require an amendment to the principal act. So it is our advice, if there are disadvantages that come to light, that the quickest and most effective way to remedy that disadvantage is through this Henry VIII clause, which will enable regulations to be enacted quickly to fix any disadvantage suffered by an individual veteran or a group as such. 13:14 Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE 265982 South Australia Just finally, I noted, Minister, that in some of your remarks last night you mentioned that the government would be looking to conduct a review of any legislative instrument made following or utilising the Henry VIII clause. I think this may go to some of what Senator Lambie was referring to in terms of unintended consequences. If, for example, a regulation is tabled as a result of the Henry VIII clause, will the government conduct a review of how that regulation actually plays out for the veteran or veterans? 13:14 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Any senator can refer the regulation, as a disallowable instrument, to a committee for review. Any senator in this chamber can do that. The Henry VIII clause is not intended for regular use and may never be used. It is a safety net for any unintended consequences of this change. 13:15 Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE 265982 South Australia Just to clarify—I may have misunderstood—it was my understanding that the government would be looking to conduct a review of any legislative instrument which was tabled in parliament and was not disallowed, and once that instrument had come into force there would be a review as to whether or not that instrument achieved the ends it was seeking to achieve. 13:15 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Yes, the government will guarantee any review. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D The committee is considering Senator Lambie's amendment on sheet 8101 revised. The question is that schedule 1, item 45, page 13 (line 19) to page 14 (line 2) stand as printed. Question agreed to. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 6662 13:16 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That the bill be now read a third time. 13:17 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland I wasn't intending to take part in this debate, but I get sick and tired of certain politicians, particularly Senator Lambie, coming into this chamber and throwing one-liners away about how awful the Department of Veterans' Affairs is and how it's a shambles and how the veterans aren't well looked after by the government and the Australian taxpayer. I want to put on record that the Department of Veterans' Affairs does a magnificent job in looking after our veterans and the people who've done so much for Australia in years gone by. The minister, Mr Tehan, is approachable. He's very understanding and he will do everything in his power to help all of those for whom he has responsibility as the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. I'm not well-versed in the detail of veterans affairs matters, but often people approach me, as a senator for Queensland, with problems. Do you know what I do? Rather than going to my local newspaper or television station and getting a headline about thumping the desk about how awful this one individual case is, I actually get in touch with the minister's office. If it's possible to resolve the matter, I will work quietly with the minister and the department to get a resolution. No headlines, no politics, no seeking votes, no wanting to be known in the community because I make these outrageous claims as political pointscoring—I get in and do the job, and I know that most parliamentarians do the same. Whilst the Department of Veterans' Affairs are not perfect—none of us are—they will try their best to help out, and they do. It's not only the department. The department and the minister and the minister's office work with the RSL communities around Australia, with the advocates for veterans, and do their very best to help. I have members of my own family who receive assistance from the Department of Veterans' Affairs—magnificent assistance. In fact, at times I'm overwhelmed by the support my aged sister, who is the widow of a veteran, actually gets. I don't want to prolong this debate but I do get very sick and tired of these one-liners—unsubstantiated usually—about how awful the department, the public officials, the minister, the RSL clubs and all those trying to help veterans are. I urge senators who do get genuine complaints to speak with the minister and speak with the department. Try and resolve the matter—don't use it to score political points. As recently as last Friday I was at Lavarack Barracks, Australia's largest Army base. I was farewelling, on my own behalf and on behalf of the minister for the Army, the latest task force group going to the Middle East. I met a lot of the troops there. One particular soldier I spoke to had his grandparents there. The grandfather was in a wheelchair and, while I was there, he approached me about this. He had a complaint about his wheelchair and his mobile walker. I said to him: 'Look, here's my card. Please get in touch with my office. We can't talk about the problem here, but I'm very happy to try and help you resolve the issue you're having. It may not be possible, but I'll try and help you.' That's what senators should do. We shouldn't be making veterans affairs an issue for political pointscoring that achieves nothing. I urge senators, if they are genuinely interested in our veterans, to actually deal with the minister's office on the issues that veterans have. The minister, I know, is so approachable. His office is very, very good. The department is good and understanding. They can't help 100 per cent of the time, but they'll always try. Where they can't, those of us who have elected positions in this parliament can always try to either amend the rules or amend the legislation. But these cheap, throwaway lines about the department being a shambles are simply not correct. Ninety-eight per cent of the time they do a wonderful job and can resolve issues that come forward. In deference to the great work of the minister, his office, the department, the RSL clubs, the advocates, the other service organisations, such as Vietnam veterans—all of whom do so much work to help the veterans whom we all owe enormous gratitude—I think we should be celebrating what they all do and not using cheap, throwaway lines for political pointscoring. 13:24 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Quite clearly, somebody's going senile and has no idea what they're talking about— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D Order! Senator Lambie, I insist that you withdraw, because you know it is inappropriate to reflect upon another senator in such a manner as that. So please withdraw. Senator LAMBIE 250026 For someone to come in here and say I'm taking cheap shots— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D Order, Senator Lambie! Sit down. You have been directed to withdraw. You will withdraw that comment unconditionally. Senator Hanson-Young I0U Mr Acting Deputy President, I'd just like to clarify what exactly you would like Senator Lambie to withdraw. I think it's within her rights to defend herself when we've had another senator come in here and spend time attacking Senator Lambie. If Senator Macdonald comes in here and attacks Senator Lambie, she has every right to defend herself. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D Thank you—you are now debating the point. I have determined that Senator Lambie has used language which is (a) unparliamentary and (b) reflects poorly on another senator. It is for the chair to determine what constitutes offensive words and imputations. Senator Hanson-Young I0U Which was it, though? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D You know precisely what word it was. If you don't, I don't propose to repeat it, Senator Hanson-Young. I've asked Senator Lambie to withdraw. Senator Lambie, withdraw. Senator LAMBIE 250026 Mr Acting Deputy President, I withdraw. But what I don't appreciate, I can tell you now, is that I used two of my staff—I have no extra staffing for this, on these veterans, Senator Macdonald— Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 You've got four extra staff that I don't have. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D Order! Senator LAMBIE 250026 It is a very big cohort we have and an absolutely amazing number— Senator Hanson-Young I0U A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: I find it extremely hard to understand— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D What's your point of order, Senator Hanson-Young? Senator Hanson-Young I0U I'd like you to bring Senator Macdonald under some type of control. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D Order! Senator Hanson-Young, that is not a point of order. You're not helping the debate. You're very late to this— Senator Hanson-Young interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D That's unparliamentary too, so I'd ask you to withdraw. That is unparliamentary, Senator Hanson-Young. Senator Hanson-Young I0U I withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D Thank you. Senator Lambie, you have the call. Senator LAMBIE 250026 I have to say that the male chauvinism in here just never ceases to surprise me. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D Order! Senator McGrath on a point of order. Senator McGrath 217241 Mr Acting Deputy President, I would ask you to ask Senator Lambie to withdraw that comment, please. It is a reflection upon other senators in this chamber. And I'd ask those sitting around Senator Lambie to encourage her to calm down a bit. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D Senator Lambie, were you about to withdraw in the interests of peace and harmony? Senator LAMBIE 250026 I was just about to say it's actually a personal opinion, and everybody knows what it's like in here—it's a tough gig; it's no different from the Army. There's a lot of male chauvinistic attitude going on in this chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D Senator Lambie, resume your seat. Senator McGrath, I'm considering your request for withdrawal. It is in the chair's determination. Senator Lambie, it would help if you withdrew those comments, because they do reflect poorly on senators. It would help the debate, so I'd ask you to withdraw and then you can have the call again. Senator LAMBIE 250026 So, as I was saying— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D I'd ask you to withdraw the imputations and the words you used. Senator LAMBIE 250026 I understand what you're asking me to do, Mr Acting Deputy President, but there is truth in what I'm saying and I have no intention of withdrawing those comments. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D Order! Resume your seat, Senator Lambie. Senator Macdonald. Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 Mr Acting Deputy President, I agree with your ruling, of course, but my point of order is that the comment was a reflection on the chair, as well as others. Forgetting about the others—I know Senator Williams, Senator McGrath and I can withstand these barbs from people like Senator Lambie—I think it's the reflection on the chair that is the matter that should be withdrawn, and so I take the point of order that the senator should be asked to withdraw the reflection on the chair, which was the comment she made after you made a ruling and which you've asked her to withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D Senator Macdonald, you are quite right. Senator Lambie, there was a point of order raised in regard to a reflection that you made upon the Senate as a whole. I took some advice in respect of that. I asked you, in the interests of goodwill in the Senate, to withdraw those comments, because they were deliberately inflammatory and reflected very poorly upon others. I consider that to be disorderly. I will give you another opportunity to withdraw those comments in the interests of continuing the debate. Senator LAMBIE 250026 With all due respect, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, I don't see them as defamatory. I don't see them from the angle that you're seeing them from, but that doesn't surprise me. I actually see them as being honest and truthful, and this is what is lacking in this chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D Senator Lambie, resume your seat. Senator Lambie, it's very clear you don't understand the difference between Senate decorum and defamation. It's also clear that you are now challenging a very reasonable request of the chair. The only option you are giving me is to actually report you under 203, which is an infringement of the order. My suggestion—I will give you one last opportunity in order to do this—is to withdraw those comments in the interests of this debate. Senator Lambie, will you be withdrawing those comments? Senator LAMBIE 250026 I withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D Thank you, Senator Lambie. You have the call. Senator LAMBIE 250026 Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi. You know, these veterans are really feeling it out there. There have been issues with Veterans' Affairs for a very, very long time. You can ask any external service organisation out there. We've got some massive issues going on outside in the service organisations as well. They are split; there are many groups of them out there. They are not united either. You have put bandaid after bandaid after bandaid on from the department; that is what you've done. You people come in here and try and cover up and pretend, for nicety's sake, that it is fine and dandy and that it is running along just fine, when we've already hit 61 suicides this year. And I wake up on Monday morning and hear that a young man has finally woken up out of his coma—he is another statistic, after fighting Veterans' Affairs for five years. I think that's pretty heartbreaking. You can see that this is full-time in our face in our office. I've lost two staff, who have gone down after dealing with Veterans' Affairs over the past two years, because it's complicated and it's difficult to hear the harrowing experiences of veterans and their families and what the Department of Veterans' Affairs is doing to them. It surprises me that a senator that comes from Northern Queensland, which has one of the highest representations of Defence, can walk in here and, in plain ignorance, think that nothing is going on and that these people have been treated fairly by Veterans' Affairs. I would suggest that senator go out there with their boots on. I would suggest that senator should have shown up every day at the inquiry, while the rest of us sat through listening to their stories and trying to hold back tears. This isn't a one-off. Over 500 submissions were put to that inquiry, and they are still coming in. The Defence Force Ombudsman is struggling to keep up with the demand. So we have some serious issues here. I won't come in here and serve my time as a senator and put it in the too-hard tray, or pretend that nothing is going on. I won't do that, and I won't do that to every man and woman that has served this country. The trouble is you are now being questioned because there is finally somebody that is here to represent them. And I will continue to do that. I will not be silenced, and I shouldn't have to be silenced. They want a voice in here. You've had plenty of time—both sides—to fix this. And it is getting worse. Veterans' Affairs is getting worse. When you've got somebody like Liz McCrossin who basically says in front of a TV camera, 'Yes, I admit, we've got some massive problems,' then I think it's pretty hypocritical of a senator to walk in here and pretend everything is okay, when it quite clearly is not. They are hurting. One of the best things that you people on that side could do is get those 24 recommendations put in, and do it now, because that is what is going to save lives—not the DRCA. It will be the 24 recommendations that you put in and act on as quickly as you possibly can. And get that department cleaned up. The other issue you have in that department is that there is abuse going on with departmental staff at lower ranks. This is why we want a national audit in there, because it will pick that up. You are coming unstuck at the seams. For goodness sake, be honest with yourselves as a department and let your people come out and speak without any repercussions, and then we finally might get the veterans the help that they have been begging for year in, year out. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Liquid Fuel Emergency Amendment Bill 2017 6667

Liquid Fuel Emergency Amendment Bill 2017

Second Reading 6667 13:35 Senator MOORE 00AOQ Queensland The Liquid Fuel Emergency Amendment Bill 2017 forms part of the government's plan to comply with International Energy Agency fuel emergency reserve requirements. This is a requirement to have available 90 days worth of emergency fuels. The bill allows the government to increase the reserve of fuel by entering into financial contracts that enable fuel reserves to be held financially, avoiding physical and logistical costs of transport and storage. As a result of declining domestic production of and increased demand for liquid fuels, these stores are no longer sufficient to meet the 90-day requirement, and Australia has been non-compliant with the 90-day stockholding obligation since March 2012. Labor support this bill, but we do not support the government's broader approach to gas and energy policy, and this is part of the broader approach. Australia is in the middle of a gas price and supply crisis. If we don't see real national leadership to resolve this crisis we'll see devastating impacts on industry, business closures, and the loss of thousands of jobs, as well as more electricity price rises. Labor has been warning about the gas price and supply crunch—we've been calling it a supply crunch for years. That's why at our last national conference, in 2015, we adopted a gas export national interest test to ensure that Australian supplies wouldn't be hurt by the LNG export industry. But in recent months our conversations with industry and experts have made it clear that this is no longer a crisis that is coming sometime down the track, sometime in the future; it's a crisis that is here today. Rather than deal with the underlying cause of the gas crisis and ensure that gas exports work for the national economic interest, the government are now focused on the immediate crisis. They have implemented a domestic gas security mechanism, with export controls to be applied by the resources minister in 2018 at the earliest. As proof that this export control is intended to ensure that future gas developments are in the national interest and that they adequately supply the domestic market, the government has put an automatic five-year expiry on its export control authority. While Labor don't believe this is a perfect solution, we are supportive and in fact have called for export controls to be imposed sooner than envisaged under the government's time line. In addition, the government's mechanism doesn't explicitly reference or address the key issue of gas prices. This is a major factor in the gas crisis. But the greatest criticism of the government's handling of the gas crisis—besides its mendacity, historical revisionism and buck-passing, four years into government, and of course an absolute refusal to acknowledge that a crisis even existed until the outcry from business was deafening—relates to the government's handling of its own export control mechanism. This mechanism relies on the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia to declare a gas shortage year in the following calendar year before export controls can be put in place. At the time of drafting, the resources minister was Senator Canavan, from Queensland. Of course, we know that Senator Canavan has now stood down and made the decision that he will not take part in any votes until the situation around his eligibility is clarified. His successor on this same portfolio, the member for New England, hasn't made this same decision. Even though the minister's eligibility to sit in this place is currently before the High Court, the Prime Minister and the acting resources minister are seemingly willing and able to risk the legal integrity of their response to the gas crisis in order to shore up the actual government and the Prime Minister's job. Once again, it's putting the government before the actual needs of the country. This is not a minor distraction. It's not a minor argument. According to legal experts, including George Williams of the University of New South Wales, if the minister takes action to restrict exports next year and is subsequently found ineligible to sit in this place and serve as the minister, his decisions will be subject to credible legal challenge by industry. These decisions involve billions of dollars' worth of gas trade and the viability of swathes of Australian industry. These are not light matters. The government's regulations call on the minister to declare whether 2018 will be a gas shortage year by, preferably, 1 September. We need to have this decision about next year now. We are now at 5 September and there is still no word from the member for New England on declaring 2018 a gas shortage year and imposing export controls. This is serious, but it's only the latest sad episode of the government's mismanagement of Australia's energy system and resources. It's no wonder that they have the record that they do. This has been put on record a number of times, but I just want to put it on record again. There has been a doubling of wholesale electricity prices, an inability to agree on a clean energy target to support new-generation investment, growing carbon pollution, a full-blown gas price and supply crisis, and mismanagement of export controls. The record continues, but the crisis remains. (Quorum formed) 13:44 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales I rise to speak on the so-called Liquid Fuel Emergency Amendment Bill 2017. This bill empowers the government to enter into option contracts covering up to 90 days worth of Australia's net oil imports. This 90-day requirement is imposed by the International Energy Agency on member governments so that, if there is a major oil disruption, member governments can assist themselves and each other to access oil. While superficially sounding reasonable, there are several problems with this bill from a libertarian standpoint. The first is the real question of desirability. Why is the government getting into the oil business? As though the tentacles of the ever-intrusive state didn't snake into almost every aspect of life already, the government has managed to find a new area to meddle in and another market to distort. Private oil users secure their own supplies, including purchasing options, without government assistance. The second is the question of necessity. We aren't at war. There isn't a vital national security reason to maintain oil supplies to keep the Shermans rolling. Our defence forces maintain their own oil stocks. But, even if they didn't, ironically, these option contracts would be of limited use in the event of a major war because they cover oil stored overseas. So, if there is a trade catastrophe, the option contracts may fail and we won't be able to get our hands on the oil anyway. The third is the question of affordability. In a time of runaway deficits, this bill represents an unnecessary new cost to taxpayers. Ninety days oil supply for the whole of Australia is a lot of oil. If the government enters into oil option contracts, this will bid up the cost of securing access to oil, which will reduce the frequency with which the private sector enters into oil option contracts. So, in a self-fulfilling prophecy, government intervention will lead to insecurity in private sector arrangements, leading to further calls for government intervention. Finally is the issue of self-determination. Why is Australia being dictated to by yet another international organisation? The costly requirement for the government to buy oil options is not something that the Australian Defence Force or industry or the Australian public have asked for. This so-called emergency reserve has been demanded by a foreign organisation, unaccountable to Australian voters. The International Energy Agency, to whose diktat the Australian government is jumping, is but one of hundreds of international organisations and literally thousands of mainly UN sponsored treaties to which past governments have quietly signed us up. This is a bill for which no good case can be made. The Zeros aren't bombing Darwin. But, even if they were, our national response would hopefully be a bit more robust than rushing to exercise our call options to buy shares in a virtual lake of foreign oil. This so-called emergency oil reserve is unnecessary, a significant cost to taxpayers and a distortion of the marketplace. Moreover, the impetus to create it is driven by our membership of an international organisation. If the demand to waste millions on this scheme is a condition of membership in the International Energy Agency, that sounds like a good reason for Australia to leave; otherwise, we should simply reserve our position in respect of this condition. I therefore urge my fellow senators to exercise their own call option on this proposal and send this so-called Liquid Fuel Emergency Amendment Bill back down the gurgler. 13:48 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia I support this bill, the Liquid Fuel Emergency Amendment Bill, with reservations. The reservations are that I don't believe it goes far enough—quite a contrary position to that of Senator Leyonhjelm. I support this bill because the issue of fuel security is of fundamental importance not just in strategic terms but also to our economy. We live in an increasingly fragile geopolitical situation. We hear the news almost on a daily basis about North Korea and their mad plans in terms of intercontinental ballistic missiles and their nuclear weapons capability. If Australia were involved in a conflict, our fragility in fuel supplies could mean that, in a matter of days, we would run out of fuel, in the absence of reserves. Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, given your experience and history in the transport sector, what would that do? It would mean that the whole country would grind to a halt. The economic impact would be devastating. Trucks wouldn't be on the roads. Motor vehicles wouldn't be going anywhere. Basic logistical supplies such as food and the necessities of life wouldn't be able to be transported from point A to point B. It would be simply catastrophic to our economy and leave long-lasting scars. When you compare what Australia does at the moment, which is not very much, to, say, the United States—I understand that their strategic supply reserves are in the order of 12 months; I stand to be corrected on that—it indicates we have not taken this issue seriously. Several years ago, former senator John Madigan, to his absolute credit, referred the issue of Australia's transport energy resilience and sustainability to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, which you chaired, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle. It was a very useful inquiry. I participated in some of that inquiry, and it was a very good inquiry. The evidence given to that inquiry was quite striking. It was about how limited our fuel supplies are, particularly for some types of fuel. We are looking at maybe two, three or four weeks of fuel in the event of a conflict breaking out. If the Strait of Hormuz, the South China Sea or, dare I say, the Strait of Malacca were affected, that would be very, very significant. These are important issues. The evidence given to the inquiry indicated that there were very, very serious issues in terms of fuel supply. The recommendations made by the committee were: … that the Australian Government require all fuel supply companies to report their fuel stocks to the Department of Industry and Science on a monthly basis. The committee recommends that the Australian Government develop and publish a comprehensive Transport Energy Plan directed to achieving a secure, affordable and sustainable transport energy supply. The plan should be developed following a public consultation process. Where appropriate, the plan should set targets for the secure supply of Australia's transport energy. The other recommendation was: … that the Australian Government undertake a comprehensive whole-of-government risk assessment of Australia's fuel supply, availability and vulnerability. The assessment should consider the vulnerabilities in Australia's fuel supply to possible disruptions resulting from military actions, acts of terrorism, natural disasters, industrial accidents and financial and other structural dislocation. Any other external or domestic circumstance that could interfere with Australia's fuel supply should also be considered. These are matters that I will raise with the government in the context of whether these other recommendations have been dealt with. This is a serious issue. I'm not sure how effective the ticket system will be. It's at least a step in the right direction to ensure fuel security. My concern is that, given the geopolitical situation in the region, if a conflict breaks out—I hope it doesn't happen—then we will be incredibly vulnerable in terms of fuel supplies. That, to me, indicates that this bill is a step in the right direction, but I fear it may not go far enough. 13:52 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I rise today to speak to the Liquid Fuel Emergency Amendment Bill 2017. This bill is part 2 of the government's reform package to the way that we collect information on our liquid fuel holdings and maintain our compliance with our obligations under the International Energy Agency. Part of these obligations is that Australia hold on to, at minimum, 90 days of liquid fuel stocks. In the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee's inquiry, which I was part of, we heard how that requirement for us to hold on to 90 days of liquid fuel stocks had not been met for a very long time. There's a good reason as to why that is an appropriate thing for Australia to have. According to data released by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or OPEC, in 2016, OPEC currently controls 81.5 per cent of the existing world oil reserves and accounts for 60 per cent of exports. Since the OPEC crises of the 1970s, when the OPEC nation-states limited the export of oil and prices quadrupled in major oil-importing countries, there has been an understanding that the oil and petroleum supply chain is one of the most, if not the most, precarious supply chains in the world. It makes sense for countries like Australia to have a supply of fuel so that we are not affected by disruptions to that supply chain. Our Senate committee heard that 95 per cent of our transport currently runs on petroleum products, including the petrol that you know of, gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, LPG, bunker fuel and other oil products. In the event of a disruption in the oil supply chain and if we as a major importer don't have that 90-day supply, the price shock from increases in fuel costs would ripple across the economy. It's basically a really important measure to maintain some stability and evenness in our supply. In the worst-case scenario—if there was a disruption from those OPEC-producing countries and a genuine shortage of supply eventuated—we would be at a standstill. We would have trucks and ships unable to move produce from the regions to the city and a breakdown of the usual functioning of our economy, so there are really good reasons as to why this 90 days of supply is a sensible measure. But Australia hasn't been compliant with that. It's been over five years since Australia has held 90 days of liquid-fuel stocks and, as of April this year, Australia only holds 51 days of liquid-fuel reserves. This didn't used to be a big issue for us. We used to produce much more of our oil products ourselves, but we are now in a situation where we are largely an oil product importer. The government's proposed way of procuring these liquid-fuel stockholdings is by purchasing tickets so we actually don't have to have the 90 days of supply here physically in the country. We've got tickets on it, so there's oil supply somewhere else in the world that's identified as belonging to Australia. This was identified by the department during our inquiry as the least-cost option to bring Australia into IEA compliance. Under this ticketing contract, the seller agrees to reserve, on behalf of the buyer, a predetermined amount of oil in return for an agreed fee. During the contractual period, the buyer—in this case, Australia—has the option to purchase all or part of the reserved oil stock. The price is determined by a market-based rate under the contract. If we don't want it in that period of time, we can release the stock back into the global oil market. The entity who's going to be selling these tickets is optioned to buy and could either be a public or a private owner of oil stocks. This is the second-best option. There are merits to requiring actual real oil supplies. Obviously that sort of ticket system could break down in a global emergency as well, but we do note that there are substantially increased costs that would be required if we were going to maintain those 90 days of oil supply physically in Australia. So the Greens support the government in using this proposed ticket system and these ticketing contracts to secure sufficient reserves as a mechanism to bring us back into IEA compliance. Like Senator Xenophon has noted, we will wait to see whether this ticketing system is a useful and viable enough measure in order to be able to do this. But, of course, this is only one half of the story. If you are talking about maintaining security of liquid-fuel supplies, there are other ways of going about it rather than presuming that we are going to continue to be in the situation where 95 per cent of our fuels are coming from oil-based products. There's another way of moving to give ourselves fuel security. The other key way is reducing our dependence on these oil fuels, these fossil fuels and these liquid hydrocarbons in the first place. We know that, in terms of needing this oil supply, the key driver of it is our transport sector, so, if we're going to shift from having this reliance on foreign oil supplies, we've got to work to make sure that we can shift the fuels being used by our transport sector to renewable fuels. That's because the transport sector accounts for three-quarters of our liquid fuel demand. That means that, if we are serious about fuel security and serious about our compliance with our stockholding requirements, we need to decrease the use of oil in our transport sector. Not only would this reduce our reliance on oil; it would have very many other benefits as well. The PRESIDENT e5v It being 2 pm, we move to questions without notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 6672 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Deputy Leader of the Nationals 6672 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia My question is to the On Tuesday, the minister took three opposition questions on notice in relation to the variation of her decision-making processes as a consequence of her referral to the High Court. Yesterday, Senator Pratt wrote to the minister to ask that she provide answers to those questions after question time, but the minister failed to do so. Will the minister now provide answers to questions which were asked two days ago? 14:00 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales I did take some questions on notice and I will be providing those answers in due course. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Wong, a supplementary question. 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Could the minister please advise what she believes 'in due course' constitutes? In addition, the minister couldn't tell the Senate yesterday how much of the government's Community Development Grants Program had been allocated to projects in the Hunter Valley. The minister has now had 24 hours to find that answer. I ask again: how much of the $940 million program has been allocated to the Hunter, and can she explain why the Hunter has received a disproportionately low share of funding? 14:01 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales I can certainly advise the Senate that all of the projects that receive funding go through a very rigorous analysis process. They all go through a detailed value-for-money assessment, and projects do not proceed to funding if they do not go through that process. That is entirely appropriate. We do not— Senator Wong 00AOU I have a point of order on direct relevance. The minister has now had two questions and 24 hours to answer a simple question about the Hunter Valley. The PRESIDENT e5v The minister was explaining, and it was certainly relevant to the question. Senator NASH e5g I have indeed taken some of those on notice, and I am continuing to answer questions today. I think this might be my 13th or 14th question this week. I've indicated I'll take some on notice and answer other questions. I will provide more fulsomely for the Senate, when I have some time, further information around the Hunter and the funding that is going from the coalition government into the region. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Wong, a final supplementary question. 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Can the minister explain to the Senate why she is continually unable to answer questions within her portfolio? Is it that this minister is so distracted by her potential ineligibility she is incapable of demonstrating accountability to the chamber? 14:03 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales I reject that completely of course. I'm not incapable of answering the questions. I sign off on projects all the time. I'm sure that colleagues understand that I do that, as you would expect. As those opposite would know, at particular points in time I might not have an exact figure on hand. But it is really important to note that I sign off on those projects and those grants all the time, because that funding is so important for those communities to secure their future—something those opposite continue to ignore. They have no concept at all of the fact that funding is important in partnership with those communities to grow those futures. Those opposite would be talking about those communities if they genuinely cared about the communities across this country, particularly in regional Australia—they would have taken an opportunity to talk about something that was important to regional Australia. Trade Unions 6673 14:04 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. Is the minister aware of recent reports relating to the distribution of funds from worker entitlement funds to registered organisations? 14:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you, Senator Duniam, for your question. Yes, I am. Senators will be aware that it was recently revealed that unions in Australia have now amassed assets in excess of $1.5 billion and have an annual income of $900 million. Colleagues, as we know, this has actually been achieved whilst, at the same time, union membership has been in freefall. As a result of an article in TheAustralian today by Simon Benson, we now have a much better understanding of just how unions have managed to amass this wealth. Employee entitlement funds, designed, for example—I don't know—to cover redundancy payments or ensure that sick workers are not disadvantaged by their circumstances, have been funnelling approximately $25 million each year back to unions. Colleagues, unfortunately it won't come as a surprise to you that the CFMEU over the last four years has received $75 million from these employee entitlement funds. That is $75 million that should have gone to the workers but has instead been sent to Australia's most militant union. But there is a very, very serious issue that the Leader of the Opposition himself needs to answer. When he was leader of the AWU, we saw a cosy deal flourish between the AWU Victoria and income protection fund IUS Holdings. IUS provided income protection insurance to workers signed up to AWU agreements. Evidence shows that, between 2004 and 2007, payments worth in excess of half a million dollars were channelled to the AWU. Mr Shorten needs to explain how this occurred. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Duniam, a supplementary question. 14:07 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I thank the minister for that answer. Can the minister now explain why it's important that these funds are used for their stated purposes? 14:07 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That's exactly what Mr Shorten needs to explain: why did the income protection insurance scheme that workers were signed up to by the AWU over the period 2004 to 2007 make 20 different payments from IUS Holdings to the AWU worth a total of $566,116? Mr Shorten needs to explain what these funds were used for, despite the stated purpose of the actual fund itself. You see, this is the problem with those on the other side. They're not interested in regulation, they're not interested in transparency; they just like to funnel money from employee entitlement funds directly to unions. In some instances—Senator, you'll like this—they built houses on the water in Tasmania for their own purpose, when the money should have been going to the employees in the fund. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Duniam, a final supplementary question. 14:08 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Finally, how can registered organisations ensure better accountability in the management of these funds? 14:08 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia We now know the magnitude of the flow of the funds from worker entitlement funds to unions. It's hundreds of millions of dollars. If I were a worker in Australia who was a member of this fund, I would be shocked to know that there were hundreds of millions of dollars that potentially could have gone to members of that fund. It is a fact that the union's core business should be to represent the worker and not to exploit them to make hundreds of millions of dollars for themselves. Again, the Leader of the Opposition needs to explain why his union, the AWU, took half a million dollars from an income protection fund designed to protect his members. He needs to explain why he thought this was appropriate. You have a union funnelling money from a workers entitlement fund back into their own pocket. They need to explain to their members why this is okay. (Time expired) New England Electorate: Roads 6674 14:09 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Senator Nash. How many road-funding projects have been announced in the New England electorate since September 2013? 14:09 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales I don't have that brief with me. I'll take that on notice for the senator. The PRESIDENT e5v A supplementary question. 14:10 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales The Bolivia Hill upgrade on the New England Highway was funded in Labor's 2013 budget. Why did it take until last week for tenders to be called on this vital project? 14:10 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales Again, I'll take that on notice. But the senator would be aware that often there are a number of things that delay contracting with projects. There is information required from proponents; there is all manner of financial arrangements that have to be ticked off on. While I don't know the details of that particular project, I'll take that on notice for the senator. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Cameron, a final supplementary question. 14:10 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Given that this project was funded in Labor's 2013 budget, but tenders were only called last week, isn't it clear that it's the prospect of a snap by-election in New England that has panicked the government into action on this vital project? 14:11 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales No, that is not clear. I completely reject the assertion by the senator. Climate Change 6675 14:11 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania My question is to the minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Senator Birmingham. The US has just seen the most costly natural disaster in their history with Hurricane Harvey causing an estimated $180 billion in damage. Harvey broke a number of US climate records, including for a single rainfall event. Another hurricane, Irma—one of the most powerful storms ever recorded—is now tracking towards Florida. It's worth noting that Irma's destructive wind speeds are beyond the theoretical maximum provided by models for the Atlantic. In other words, meteorologists are saying that they had never expected or predicted a storm like Irma. Is the minister aware that climate scientists are highlighting that unpredicted, exceedingly high ocean temperatures have triggered both these historical superstorms? 14:12 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I note, Senator Whish-Wilson's very lengthy question that concluded by asking me if I am aware of what unnamed climate scientists may have said in relation to certain storms that—perhaps rather than having a long preamble, he could have directly cited any such climate scientists and made sure that there was a direct reference to what it is that he is alluding to. No, I'm not aware of the particular unnamed scientists that you're referring to. The minister may well be; his department may well be. I'm happy to take that on notice. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Whish-Wilson, a supplementary question. 14:13 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Given what has also happened recently in Australia, with at least half the Great Barrier Reef now dead from back-to-back coral bleaching and tropical storms also caused by warmer-than-forecast ocean temperatures—I hope the minister has had his brief on this one—does the government accept that rising ocean temperatures are already an existential global risk right now and will only worsen without vastly accelerated climate action? 14:13 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia On this occasion, at least the question goes to something in terms of climate action and also, of course, it goes to matters that are particularly relevant in terms of the scale of government action that is being taken around the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. Australia is making, as it has always done, major contributions in relation to emissions reductions worldwide. We have set targets—targets that are amongst the highest in the world on a per-capita basis in terms of emissions reduction targets for the future. And we will, as we have always, meet those targets, meet and exceed those targets I expect, as we have always done, and as we are doing again in relation to our 2020 targets. Equally, in relation to the Great Barrier Reef, we are doing record amounts in conjunction with the Queensland government in terms of investment, focus and action to protect the Great Barrier Reef. The focus is on practical action— The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Whish-Wilson, a point of order? Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 A point on relevance, Mr President. I asked whether he accepted that warming waters presented an existential risk to us and to the Great Barrier Reef now. That hasn't been answered. The PRESIDENT e5v Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. You did ask: 'Does the government accept that?' It's implicit in the minister's answer of all the mitigating efforts the government has taken that it probably does accept. I can only deduce that from the answer the minister has given, so I determine he's directly relevant. Minister. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Strong action in terms of our emissions reduction policies, but, more importantly, in terms of our investment in the Great Barrier Reef and ensuring its health— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Whish-Wilson, a final supplementary question. 14:15 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Warming waters in our oceans are damaging our fisheries industry, destroying the reef, intensifying storms, droughts and bushfires. Can the minister outline what the economic costs of these events are in relation to warming waters, what the projections or models the government has for these future impacts, and does he believe that the government is doing everything it can in its power to protect us from a frightening future under climate change? 14:15 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The government takes all of these matters seriously. In terms of issues of adaptation, we of course have long supported and, indeed, continued funding, after the Labor Party had ceased budget funding, for the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility and we made sure that work continued to help enhance Australia's preparedness for the future. We, as I outlined in the previous answer, are undertaking record levels of investment in terms of support for the reef and in terms of its capability to be resilient in the future— The PRESIDENT e5v A point of order, Senator Whish-Wilson? Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 It goes to relevance, Mr President. The answer is very similar to the one given to the last question that I asked. I was very specific: can the minister outline what the economic costs are of these extreme weather events and what the government's projections are in relation to future impacts? The PRESIDENT e5v I do accept your point of order, Senator Whish-Wilson, on this occasion. Minister, I remind you of the question. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X What I was seeking to highlight— The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Hinch, on the same point of order? Senator Hinch 2O4 Mr President, as it may affect question time, the High Court has cleared the way for the government— The PRESIDENT e5v That is not a point of order, Senator Hinch. Senator Birmingham, you have the call. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X As I was outlining, the government, in terms of the potential impacts of climate change, the potential impacts on the reef and the potential economic impacts, take this seriously, which is why we continue to support research funding and work around adaptation and which is why we continue to invest in building the resilience of the reef. (Time expired) New England Electorate: Roads 6677 14:17 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales My question is to Senator Nash, the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister. I refer to the Deputy Prime Minister's joint release with the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, which states: The Bolivia Hill upgrade builds on ... the $10 million I recently confirmed for the future Tenterfield Heavy Vehicle Bypass. Can the minister confirm that the Tenterfield heavy vehicle bypass was funded by the former Labor government? 14:18 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales I'm not aware of those funding arrangements. I'll take that on notice for you, Senator. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator McAllister, a supplementary question. 14:18 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Isn't this just further evidence that the prospect of a snap by-election in New England has panicked the government into action on long-overdue projects in that electorate? 14:18 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales No, not at all. What is quite extraordinary is seeing yet another example of the Labor Party opposite refusing to take an opportunity to talk about the issues that are important to people in this country. All week we have seen from the other side not a moment where they show that they are focused on regional Australia. They come in and ask a question right now about something in the regions, not something that is of priority for regional Australia. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question. 14:19 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Has the government considered any other commitments for the electorate of New England, which have not yet been publicly announced? And will the minister rule out abusing taxpayer funds to protect the Deputy Prime Minister's seat? 14:19 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales I don't believe that that particular question relates to my portfolio area. Certainly, I reject any assertion that the decisions that the government makes relate to that. Senator McAllister 121628 A point of order, Mr President. My understanding is that Senator Nash represents the Deputy Prime Minister in this chamber. I don't understand the basis on which she is refusing to answer the question. The PRESIDENT e5v That's a point of clarification. There was no need for me to intervene. The minister made her statement, and part of that question was in her capacity as representing the Deputy Prime Minister, and part of it was not within her portfolio. So the minister was right in her assertion, and the minister answered the portion that she needed to. Minister, have you concluded your answer? Senator NASH e5g Yes, Mr President. The PRESIDENT e5v Thank you, Minister. Temporary Work Visas 6678 14:20 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to Senator Michaelia Cash, the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, the Hon. Peter Dutton. Let me congratulate the minister on scrapping 457 visas in relation to the maritime industry, which I was instrumental in bringing about to protect Australian maritime jobs. However, it would seem that now, in lieu of the 457 visas, the department is issuing subclass 400 visas to applicants from countries such as Mexico, Scandinavia, Ukraine, Poland and the Philippines, to name a few. The subclass 400 visas have no foundational framework, as with the previous 457 visas. There is no labour market testing in regard to that visa and there are no criminal checks, no health checks and no checking of the qualifications of the applicant by the relevant authority. The visa can be issued within 24 hours. My question is: in view of those facts, what action does the minister intend to take to ensure such visas are no longer issued in the maritime industry? 14:21 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Hanson for her question. In relation to the subclass 400 visa, interestingly, it was actually created by the former Labor government. The regulation establishing the visa was made on 14 March 2013, and it was signed off by the member for Gorton, Mr Brendan O'Connor, when he was the immigration minister. In relation to the subclass 400 visa, what it does—and it is fundamentally different to the 457 visa—is allow only for short-term, non-ongoing, highly specialised work. Under the policy the standard period of stay is three months or less, and 92 per cent of visas are generally granted for stays of less than three months. The visa itself, though, does allow for a maximum period of stay of up to six months—however, that is only in exceptional circumstances. In terms of the visa itself, you will be aware that on 31 July we announced a review of the visa system to ensure that it is genuinely responsive to Australia's economic, social and security interests. This review includes consideration of the role and future requirements of the subclass 400 visa. Public input into this review is invited, and the period of consultation remains open until 15 September 2017. In that regard, Senator Hanson, if you do have interested parties—and clearly you do—who would like to make input to the review, clearly they are allowed to, and certainly we're able to provide you with information in relation to how they can go ahead and do that. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Hanson, a supplementary question. 14:23 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Is the minister aware that, as of July 2017, there have been numerous applications from people in countries such as those I have named that are taking jobs from Australians? There are approximately 250 unemployed Australians in the maritime industry. In one case in point, they are having to leave Australia to go to Ukraine to find a job. Yet we have a fellow from Ukraine who actually has a job. (Time expired) 14:24 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you, Senator Hanson. In relation to the grants of this visa under this government, visa grants in the subclass 400 visa category are only granted after very, very careful consideration. In fact, the number of subclass 400 visas granted has actually fallen by around 7,000. So there's been a decrease in the number of grants by around 7,000 in the last financial year. As for the applications themselves, each application is assessed on its own merit. While labour market testing is not a legislative requirement, there are a number of things the department may request. Given time constraints, I won't go through them now, but certainly I can provide you with additional information on how these visas are assessed as well as the grant process. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Hanson, a final supplementary question. 14:25 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, can you advise the Australian maritime workers who are unemployed of what steps they should take so that they have a chance of getting these jobs, rather than foreigners who are coming to Australia and taking Australian jobs? 14:25 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, thank you, Senator Hanson, for the question. Unfortunately, Senator Hanson, certainly in relation to that particular issue, often a number of union claims are made that actually don't reflect the nature of what is occurring under the visa. As I said, each application is assessed on its own merits. There may be instances where applications by members of a core group of highly specialised overseas workers meet the subclass 400— The PRESIDENT e5v A point of order, Senator Hanson? Senator Hanson BK6 My question was about how Australian workers are to go about getting a job. The PRESIDENT e5v Thank you, Senator Hanson. I will remind the minister of the question. Senator CASH I0M Thank you, and I was just getting to the reasons that the visas are granted in that particular industry. In that industry, where a vessel is internationally flagged, for example, the company may have senior foreign crew members who have extensive experience or proprietary knowledge of that particular vessel. But, again, the overall premise of this government has always been that you must employ Australians first; however, there may sometimes be a case where foreign labour is required, and I've always— (Time expired) Marriage 6680 14:26 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. Can the Attorney-General advise the Senate of the outcome of the High Court proceedings concerning the Australian marriage law postal survey? 14:26 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Thank you, Senator Paterson, for that question. I can advise the Senate that in the last few minutes the High Court dismissed two sets of proceedings—one brought by Mr Andrew Wilkie and the other brought by Australian Marriage Equality and other parties—designed to prevent the same-sex marriage postal survey from proceeding. The effect of the decision of the court is that there is now no legal impediment to that postal survey proceeding and to all Australians having their say on this important social question. The outcome of the High Court proceedings is what the government expected and is consistent with the advice provided to the government by the Commonwealth Solicitor-General, Dr Stephen Donaghue QC. On behalf of the government, might I take this opportunity to thank and congratulate Dr Donaghue and his team for their skilful advocacy and sound advice. Health Care 6680 14:27 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia My question is to Senator Nash, Minister representing the Minister for Health. I refer the minister to the recent surgical variance reports released jointly by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons and Medibank. These reports demonstrate significant variances in length of stay, readmissions, hospital acquired complications and gap payments for surgeons. In general, the less experience a surgeon has the higher the complication rates and length of hospital stay and the higher the gap payment. What is the minister doing to assist Australians to obtain the best outcomes following surgery and day surgical procedures? 14:28 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales I thank the senator for his question, and for some advance notice of it, and note his genuine concern regarding these issues. The Minister for Health is supportive of work to increase the transparency of outcomes for patients and has already been working with the royal college of surgeons, health stakeholders, and the Department of Health in examining options to improve the information available to assist consumers in making informed decisions about their health care, including the development of a transparency model. States and territories are responsible for the delivery and performance of hospitals, and as part of the agreement with the Commonwealth we expect them to meet strict standards of care and performance. The government's action to keep the pressure on private health insurers has helped drive the lowest rise in premiums in 10 years—lower than in any year under the Rudd and Gillard governments. Minister Hunt has committed to work with insurers over the next year to find ways that insurers can deliver more value for customers without compromising on the quality of cover. Under the coalition, we have delivered 45 million more bulk-billed Medicare services in 2016-17 than in 2012-13 under Labor. This includes an extra 1.9 million bulk-billed specialist attendances compared to Labor. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Griff, a supplementary question. 14:30 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia I refer the minister to the UK's My NHS website, which allows consumers to make informed choices about surgical experiences and outcomes for a very wide range of procedures. Will the minister commit to developing a similar system to make this information on these indicators publicly available to patients? 14:30 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales As I've stated, Minister Hunt is supportive of work to increase the transparency of outcomes for patients, working with the sector and stakeholders and the Department of Health in examining options to improve— The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Griff, a point of order? Senator Griff 76760 The minister is not answering the question, which is: will the minister commit to having a system similar to the My NHS website? The PRESIDENT e5v I think we have to be fair to the minister—she's only just commenced her answer. Senator NASH e5g As I've said, the minister is very supportive of that work to increase transparency, and he will be continuing to work with the Department of Health in examining those options to improve the information available to assist consumers in making informed decisions about their health care. This includes the development of a transparency model. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Griff, a final supplementary question. 14:31 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia Is the minister aware of the large variation, between four per cent and 30 per cent, in live birth success rates between different Australian IVF clinics? Why is this information for a service which attracts Medicare rebates not publicly available to assist consumers in choosing the best providers? 14:31 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales I certainly know that the Minister for Health recognises that this is a very complex and difficult area, with varying medical views regarding the merits of publishing success rates. The publishing of success rates is a matter for the Fertility Society of Australia. The society funds and operates the Australian and New Zealand Assisted Reproduction Database that collects information on every IVF clinic in Australia, including information regarding live delivery rates. Community Development Grants Program 6681 14:32 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Senator Nash. I refer to the coalition government's $2.7 million grant through the Community Development Grants Program to Central Coast Group Training Limited for the construction of the North Wyong skills training centre. What cost-benefit analysis or due diligence took place prior to the granting of this $2.7 million of taxpayer money? 14:32 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales Every single one of the projects that receives funding goes through a very rigorous process, and that includes the individual project that Senator O'Neill has just raised. There's a very detailed value-for-money assessment. It goes through a whole range of factors that are taken into account to ensure that these projects are value for money. Projects cannot and do not proceed to funding until they have gone through this rigorous assessment process, and that includes the project that the senator just raised. This does raise the issue of grants more generally. Indeed, I was recently looking at some previous Labor funding programs, and I found some very interesting material. The Labor Party had a program called the community infrastructure grants program. The department's annual report in 2012 showed that Labor spent $250 million on 87 projects. Colleagues, when the department was quizzed on how money was allocated under the community infrastructure grants program at an estimates hearing in May 2011, the then secretary stated, 'Those were decisions of government and'—wait for it, colleagues—'they are not subject to a merit selection process'. The hypocrisy of the questioning from those opposite! I table the excerpt of that transcript for the benefit of the Senate. Further, an analysis of the grants reporting register for that program in August 2012 shows—colleagues, you'll be interested in this—grants to coalition seats, $30,229,250— Senator Cash I0M How much to theirs? Senator NASH e5g Grants to Labor Party seats: $141,059,253. That is information on grants for the Senate. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question. 14:35 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Jo Eyes, a Central Coast resident, says: The Federal Government has paid for an industrial building that is now owned by Central Coast Group Training and is largely empty. How is that helping young people? In an area of above-average youth unemployment, how can the minister assure Ms Eyes that the $2.7 million of taxpayers' money has been used wisely? 14:35 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales Well, I take it from the senator that that's the view of an individual. Again, across all of our grants projects, a rigorous assessment is provided for the funding of those projects. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question. 14:35 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales With decisions like these, how can the minister claim that her decisions are balanced, well thought through and measured? Isn't it clear that the Senate can have no confidence that the minister's decisions are beyond challenge, particularly while her eligibility as a senator remains under question? 14:36 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales I'm very confident in the processes that we have in place to determine funding for regional communities and for communities right across the country. Labor has some nerve coming into this place and lecturing this government about funding for regional Australia. Indeed, Labor's former regional development minister, Catherine King, was slammed by the Auditor-General for her handling of the Regional Development Australia Fund. The Auditor-General's report showed that the minister refused her own panel's advice on 74 separate decisions in round 3 and round 4. In just round 4 alone of the RDAF, the minister at the time, Catherine King, made 34 decisions that diverged from the recommendations of the panel—a whopping 80 per cent of the 42 projects that were funded in that round. Interestingly, those on the other side don't want those sorts of facts raised because they know it's only this side that's delivering for regional Australia. Marriage 6683 14:37 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Finance and Acting Special Minister of State, Senator Cormann. Can the minister provide the Senate with an update on the conduct of the Australian marriage law postal survey? 14:37 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank Senator Paterson for that question. I join the Attorney-General in welcoming the decision by the High Court of Australia today to confirm the validity of the Australian marriage law postal survey. We have always been confident that the process we adopted to deliver on our commitment to give Australians a say on whether or not the law on marriage should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry was consistent with all the relevant requirements. The Australian marriage law postal survey will now proceed as planned, with the ABS starting to mail out survey forms from 12 September 2017 onwards. The final result will be declared by the Australian Statistician at 11.30 am on 15 November 2017. The government also intends to move swiftly now with proposed legislation to provide for relevant additional safeguards to complement existing legal protections and to support the fair and proper conduct of the Australian marriage law postal survey. We encourage all Australians on the electoral roll and eligible to vote in an election to have their say by returning their completed survey forms as soon as possible. We encourage all those involved in campaigning for either the yes case or the no case to do so with courtesy and respect. I join the Attorney-General in thanking, on behalf of the government, the Solicitor-General, Dr Stephen Donaghue QC, and his legal team for their hard work and skilful advocacy. O'Sullivan, Senator Barry 6683 14:39 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Justice, Senator Brandis. On Tuesday the minister declined to assure the Senate that all dealings with Newlands Civil Construction under the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements have been appropriately and legitimately entered into. Will the minister now give the Senate that assurance? 14:39 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator Chisholm, that is a preposterous misrepresentation of what I said to the Senate. You asked me that question, and I said that I had absolutely no reason to believe otherwise, and that is the case. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Chisholm, a supplementary question. 14:40 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland On Monday Senator O'Sullivan amended his declaration of interest to remove Newlands Civil Construction. Did Senator O'Sullivan discuss the amendment of his declaration of interest with the minister prior to doing so this week? 14:40 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland No. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Chisholm, a final supplementary question. 14:40 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Has the minister now sought assurances that Senator O'Sullivan has not received any direct or indirect benefit as a result of contracts awarded under the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements? 14:40 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland No, I've not, because I have absolutely no reason to believe that such an inquiry is necessary. I have absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that Senator O'Sullivan has done anything untoward. Broadband 6684 14:41 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield. Can the minister outline the coalition's plan to deliver better broadband for all Australians by 2020? 14:41 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I thank Senator Brockman for his question. I'm sure that all colleagues will be absolutely delighted that the NBN continues to hit its milestones. It's on its way to being completed by 2020, on time and on budget. I might remind you that, just two years ago, when we released a three-year plan to reach three-quarters of Australians by mid 2018, the plan was derided by the then shadow minister for communications as a ramp that even Evil Knievel couldn't jump. But I am very pleased to be able to report to colleagues that what some said was impossible has indeed been achieved, with six million premises now ready for service across the nation with the NBN. The NBN is now being switched on at a rate of 1,000 premises every working hour, week in, week out. Behind the rollout stats there is literally an army of skilled field technicians, mum-and-dad contracting businesses and NBN's own project managers, engineers, and technical specialists who are making this network a reality. None of us should underestimate the scale and the challenge of this project. The field workforce now exceeds 24,000 personnel, and there are some 2,500 Australian subcontracting businesses engaged either directly or indirectly to roll out the NBN. Then there are the vendors who provide the cabinets, the fibre, the electronics, the cables, the termination devices and all the other equipment. All in all, NBN will spend $6 billion this financial year procuring goods, 80 per cent of them locally. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Brockman, a supplementary question. 14:43 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Thank you, Minister, for that very comprehensive answer. Is the minister aware of any alternative policies? 14:43 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Usually in response to such a question, a minister will say yes. I have to answer honestly: on this occasion, I'm not too sure. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister can't seem to settle on what their NBN policy is. One day their policy is fibre to the premises; the next day it's fibre to the curb. On 23 July Michelle Rowland announced that Labor's policy was fibre to the curb, but then on 25 July she said that fibre to the curb isn't Labor policy. She's also claimed that NBN's decision to adopt fibre to the curb in some places proves beyond doubt that the copper age is dead. I point out something to her: with fibre to the curb, you still have copper. That is something that even the Leader of the Opposition recognises and realises. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Brockman, a final supplementary question. 14:44 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Can the minister advise how the coalition's record of rolling out the NBN compares to Labor's record? 14:44 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria It's a stark contrast. Let's take, for instance, former Senator Conroy's pledge in April 2009 when he said that fibre-to-the-premises NBN would be finished by 2018 or Senator Conroy's claim in 2010 that the cost of connecting fibre to 93 per cent of homes and businesses wouldn't exceed $43 billion. Fast forward to 2013 and, after more than $11 billion had been committed by Labor, only 51,000 premises were connected. Former Prime Minister Julia Gillard, in 2010, said that 1.3 million premises would be able to connect to the NBN fibre network by June 2013. In June 2013, was it 1.3 million premises? No. The actual result was 35,000—just a slight shortfall! The record of the coalition is a good one. We're getting the NBN built. Building and Construction Industry 6685 14:45 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science, Senator Sinodinos. Evidence presented to the current Senate inquiry into non-conforming building products has revealed the existence of widespread importation of dangerous flammable panels into Australia, panels that were described in the committee's report as being more flammable than petrol. Can the minister confirm that these products have been installed and continue to be installed on thousands of buildings in Australia, including large public hospitals in several states? 14:46 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales I thank the honourable member for his question. It's a very serious question in light of the Grenfell fire recently, which we are aware of, and of course fires that we've had here in Australia, including the Lacrosse fire in Victoria in 2014. I can confirm that, in response to what happened in Grenfell, the Prime Minister wrote to the premiers and chief ministers on 20 June, encouraging them to put in place the necessary mechanisms for a greater level of auditing of high-rise buildings to ensure that these buildings comply with the National Construction Code. All states and territories have announced the measures their respective jurisdictions are taking to address and identify non-compliant cladding. In line with the Prime Minister's request to premiers and chief ministers, all Australian government departments that oversee building works on Crown land, such as airports and defence bases, will also be undertaking audits to ensure that the external cladding products comply with the NCC. On 24 August 2017, the Building Ministers' Forum, chaired by the Hon. Craig Laundy MP, the assistant minister in my portfolio, announced that Professor Peter Shergold and Ms Bronwyn Weir would examine the broader compliance and enforcement problem within the building construction systems to ensure the effective implementation of the NCC. The Building Ministers' Forum has also directed the Australian Building Codes Board to expedite the implementation of a comprehensive package of measures to prevent the non-compliant use of all cladding on high-rise buildings. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Carr, a supplementary question. 14:48 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria The minister did not answer the question. However, I would ask him this. Evidence presented to the inquiry reveals that much of the installation that has occurred has been facilitated by inappropriate certification. Is the minister aware of the allegations of certification forgery, counterfeiting of imported products and building certifications as being fit for purpose that are, in fact, not fit for purpose? Will the minister accept the report's recommendation and establish a national licensing scheme to stamp out these abuses? 14:48 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales Let me make this point: regulation on use is a matter for the states and territories. We're working with the states and territories to clarify these enforcement and compliance obligations. It's not a matter of stopping stuff at the border, because at the border it's not necessarily the case that you can predict that the cladding will be used for a particular non-compliant or non-conforming purpose. The point here is to work with the states and territories to have adequate controls and enforcement. It is a matter for the states and territories. I have indicated a number of the mechanisms we've put in place to work with them in order to enforce the appropriate regulation. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Carr, a final supplementary question. 14:49 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria This is extraordinary. After the Grenfell disaster, the Prime Minister called on the states to ensure that a similar incident could not happen in Australia. Based on the evidence before the committee, there are over 10,000 buildings in Australia with this material on exterior walls. Will the Turnbull government now show some leadership, accept the report's first recommendation and ban this dangerous product? 14:50 Senator SINODINOS bv7 New South Wales We're all concerned about this matter. I will look very closely at the report with my colleague Mr Laundy, and we will take whatever action is necessary, in concert with the states and territories. But I say again: these are matters of enforcement, compliance and making sure that products are used for the right purpose. We will work with the states and territories, we share the concern of everybody and we thank the committee for the report that they brought forward. At this time I note that it's an interim report, but we will look closely at it. Energy 6686 14:50 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales My question is to Senator Birmingham, the Minister for Education and Training, representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Can the minister update the Senate of the importance of a secure, reliable and affordable energy system? 14:50 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Williams for his question. I know that it comes, of course, from a passionate interest in terms of energy affordability and reliability, particularly for communities in the bush and for small businesses right around Australia. The Turnbull government's priority is absolutely to ensure the security, the affordability and the reliability of our energy systems. That's why we are taking sweeping action across the generation of energy, energy networks and energy retail systems. We understand that base-load power anchors our energy system, that it is an essential component in the generation mix and that we need to ensure we have enough dispatchable base-load energy when required to keep the lights on to keep the country running. The Australian Energy Market Operator's dispatchability report released this week shows that there is a risk of shortages during summer peaks without targeted actions to provide additional firming capability. They are currently seeking to contract 1,000 megawatts of additional generation for the coming summer to make sure we have enough electricity for these peak periods, particularly in my home state of South Australia, and in Victoria. Consistent with the advice of the Australian Energy Market Operator and the advice of the Finkel review, the government is seeking to accelerate the work around the strategic reserve, which will beef up how AEMO currently contracts for reserve generation to manage summer peaks. With a major coal-fired power station—the Liddell power station in Senator Williams's home state of New South Wales—scheduled to close in 2022, AEMO has identified an additional potential shortfall of 1,000 megawatts from 2022 onwards. This is why the Prime Minister is in discussions with AGL on keeping Liddell power station operating longer, remembering that our first obligation to families and to small businesses around Australia is to ensure the stability and affordability of the energy system. Of course, that requires keeping base-load power, like that from Liddell power station, in the system for as long as possible. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Williams, a supplementary question. 14:53 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales I thank the minister. Can the minister outline the steps the Turnbull government is taking to get a better deal on electricity bills for Australian consumers? 14:53 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia There's good news for around two million Australian households as a result of the action taken by Prime Minister Turnbull, Mr Frydenberg and the government. That's why two million Australian households will have clear advice and information on how they can get onto a better energy deal and how they can save up to $1,500 per annum on their electricity bills just by changing the type of plan that they are on. Over the last little while, there have been more than 300,000 visits to the government's Energy Made Easy website, showing that consumers want to see better options in terms of the retail information that's provided to them. That's why government action is helping to make sure that they get that information. We have also, of course, introduced legislation to abolish the limited merits review process which can stop the network's ability to game the system, which has cost consumers across Australia some $6½ billion since 2008. We will bring that gaming of the system to an end. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Williams, a final supplementary question. 14:54 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales Is the minister aware of any obstacles to the government's plans to deliver stable and reliable energy for all Australians? 14:54 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia You can see one of the obstacles from the contempt of those sitting opposite us, who don't take seriously the type of action that needs to be taken in terms of the retail markets to get information to Australian households; who don't take seriously the type of action that can be taken to keep the likes of Liddell open; who don't take seriously the type of new investment in facilities such as Snowy 2.0 that is being undertaken; who don't take seriously or help to expedite the processes that we're putting in place to fix the gaming of the network systems. Then you look at the Labor states and you can see the disastrous policies in South Australia; the ignorance of the Victorian Labor government in the way in which they're just setting and following the trends of South Australia; and the Queensland government, which see no end to the types of profits they think they can suck out of the energy system from their state-owned generators, and, of course, in doing so are charging Queensland energy customers a whole lot more. They're the risks. We're delivering the solutions. (Time expired) Marriage 6688 14:55 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Prime Minister. I refer to his earlier answer in respect of the postal survey on marriage equality. Is this postal survey 'a referendum on freedoms and radical LGBTIQ sex education in schools', as Mr Lyle Shelton from the ACL has asserted? 14:56 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland No. It is a survey to determine the opinion of the Australian people on the question that is asked, and that question is: should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry? That is the only question on which the Australian people are being asked their advice. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Wong, a supplementary question? 14:56 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Brandis for that answer and I ask him a supplementary. Is the issue to be determined by this postal survey a vote on, and I quote, 'political correctness', as Senator Abetz has asserted? 14:56 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland No—and I refer to my earlier answer. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Wong, a final supplementary question? 14:56 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I note that the Prime Minister has refused to show bipartisan support for the yes case by writing to every Australian, with Mr Shorten, in support of it. Can the minister advise whether the Prime Minister will be campaigning for the yes case, or will the only leadership in this campaign be that shown by Mr Abbott for the no case? 14:57 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator Wong, honestly and truly, you talk about bipartisanship. The whole point is that this is not a partisan issue. It is not a party-political issue. That is why the Australian government is asking the Australian people for their advice, for their opinion, on what they think of what, on any view, would be a profoundly important social change. As a matter of fact, the Prime Minister has already said that he will be voting yes, and, in fact, it is the case, Senator Wong, that Mr Turnbull was a proponent of marriage law reform when Mr Shorten was an opponent of marriage law reform, just as I was a proponent of same-sex marriage when you were a public advocate against it. But, in any event, whether you are of the yes point of view or the no point of view, the decision of the High Court today means that everyone can have their say. Education 6689 14:58 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. What is the government doing to ensure that rural and regional education is being promoted and expanded by the Turnbull government? 14:58 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator McKenzie for her question and her very passionate support for rural and regional education in particular. I commend her for her leadership, over a long period of time, of the Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, which she has just stepped down as being chair of. We welcome Senator Reynolds to that role. In regard to rural and regional education, the Turnbull government recognises the profound importance of providing support to regional education. Regionally headquartered universities received almost $1.8 billion in base funding for Commonwealth-supported students in 2017, and this is projected to grow by over $2 billion by 2021. Around 50,000 extra students from rural and regional Australia have participated in higher education since 2009, which demonstrates the growing participation rate and the closing of some of the gaps in higher education participation for different equity groups. Under the Turnbull government's higher education reforms, rural and regional students will continue to benefit from the investment of $592 million over the forward estimates in the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program, which supports low-SES, Indigenous and, particularly, regional students in their participation. It will enshrine the program in legislation to ensure that universities focus on providing the support students need and that they have the capability to do so. Students in the regions will also benefit from the investment of more than $280 million over the next four years, through regional loading, to support the cost of educating students in regional and remote Australia. Rural and regional students will also benefit from the extension of the demand-driven system to sub-bachelor places, which will give rural and regional students greater opportunities to access and engage in the course that best suits them. They will also benefit from a proposal to establish up to eight new community owned regional hubs across Australia. These hubs, which will improve access for regional education students within their communities— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator McKenzie, a supplementary question. 15:00 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Thank you very much, Senator Birmingham, for your continued advocacy for equity in education for all Australians. Can the minister advise the Senate how the Turnbull government's higher education reform measures will benefit students, taxpayers and the Australian economy? 15:01 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia In terms of support for higher education, our universities will receive around $17 billion this year. Senator Cameron AI6 You're cutting $3.8 billion, and you stand up there and say that nonsense. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Cameron, the question was asked of the minister, not you. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X That $17 billion will grow over the next few years, with funding growth of 23 per cent forecast for universities over the next four years under the Turnbull government's reforms. This, of course, is providing good, strong levels of funding. We're also taking action to ensure that it is more sustainable for the future as well. It's funding growth, but at a slightly slower rate than forecast in recognition of the fact that universities have seen 70 per cent growth in their funding resource since 2009. That's far in excess of economic growth and far in excess of revenue growth. We recognise that, with the growth in student loans as well, there is absolutely a capability for universities to ensure productivity gains and efficiency gains, as has been identified by former vice-chancellors and experts in higher education, who recognise the capability for there to be more sustainable— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator McKenzie, a final supplementary question. 15:02 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Given the importance of building Australia's skilled workforce, how does the government's reform package ensure that universities are focused on supporting their students to graduate with skills for work? 15:02 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia With the growing funding that universities will receive and the record base, we are also determined to ensure that universities are accountable for that and particularly accountable for ensuring that their graduates have relevant skills, have appropriate support and are graduating in disciplines with the support to get a job and succeed in the workforce. That's why the Turnbull government proposes that there should be a stronger performance system in relation to the funding of Australian universities. An element of funding ought to be tied to the performance of universities in terms of them adhering appropriately over time to the right types of admissions practices, the right support for their students through the duration, the quality of the education they provide and the outcomes of those students in terms of getting a job and guaranteeing the benefit that accrues to students from their university education. For the autonomy and funding universities enjoy, we think it is a small price to pay that there should also be some performance contingency to that funding to guarantee success in the future. Senator Brandis 008W7 Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed upon the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 6690 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Community Development Grants Program 6690 15:03 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales I rise to table an answer to a question taken on notice yesterday. I seek leave to have that incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The answer read as follows— Toowoomba Second Range Crossing project - Answer to Question taken on notice yesterday The Government is providing up to $1.137 billion for the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, the largest Australian Government commitment to a single regional road project in Queensland's history. The Toowoomba Second Range Crossing is supporting up to 1800 jobs throughout design and construction. It will reduce travel times across the Toowoomba range by 40 minutes and allow traffic to avoid 18 sets of traffic lights, improve safety and increase freight efficiency. The contracts for this project are a matter for the Queensland State Government. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 6691 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Deputy Leader of the Nationals, New England Electorate: Roads, Community Development Grants Program 6691 15:04 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Regional Development (Senator Nash) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today. Well, what another pathetic performance from Senator Cash! What an absolute pathetic performance—not one question answered. The minister had to come here at the last minute and table an answer after her department was sent to go and find an answer for the incompetent minister. This is a minister that is absolutely sidetracked because her eligibility to be here is under question. This so-called minister was so incompetent that she couldn't stand up and deal with the questions that were asked. This is a minister incapable of answering any questions over the last period of time. There was incompetence and unprofessionalism from this minister. This is a minister that just cannot deliver for rural and regional— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator Bernardi, a point of order? Senator Bernardi G0D Senator Cameron took note of the answers provided by Senator Nash and then went on to condemn the exemplary performance of Senator Cash. I'm just a bit confused. Senator Cameron, you are ranting about the wrong minister. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Thank you, Senator Bernardi. I'm very clear that Senator Cameron is taking note of answers from Senator Nash. Senator CAMERON AI6 I thank Senator Bernardi. I did say 'Nash', but I could incorporate Senator Cash in what I've said— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator Cameron, would you resume your seat please. Senator Hinch. Senator Hinch 2O4 A point of order: Senator Cameron did say 'Senator Cash'. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Thank you, Senator Hinch. I've dealt with that. Senator CAMERON AI6 Well, the 'Human Headline' is in again! The 'Human Headline' is there with all the great help that this place needs— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator Cameron, please resume your seat. Senator Bernardi. Senator Bernardi G0D I will draw a point of order, because it is inappropriate to refer to senators in this place by anything other than their correct title. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Thank you, Senator Bernardi. I would ask Senator Cameron to withdraw. Senator CAMERON AI6 I withdraw. That was a bit easier than earlier! This is a minister—Senator Nash with an 'N'—who is in absolute policy paralysis and absolutely distracted from operating as a capable minister. She has a total lack of accountability because she cannot even do her job. This is pathetic. Senator Nash has got dual citizenship issues before the High Court and her performance demonstrates why she should have stood aside. She should have done the same as Senator Canavan. Why is it Senator Canavan can stand aside and Senator Nash cannot? There is a huge double standard here. The National Party are so incompetent that they can't ensure that three of their ministers, the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator Canavan and Senator Nash, are actually eligible to be in this place representing their states. The National Party are so incompetent that they are trying to bluff and bluster their way through this whole affair. This is a minister who has been reduced to a new level of ineffectiveness. The minister has not been very effective since she's been here, but we're now seeing a new low from this minister. Her ineffectuality underscores the National Party. She is unable to answer questions about the pork-barrelling that's going on in New England to try and save the seat of the Deputy Prime Minister, who may not be eligible to be in parliament. They are doing everything they can to cling to power in the lower house, because only one vote stands between them and disaster in the other place. There are key issues facing rural and regional Australia. They should have ministers there that can concentrate on the issues, not ministers that are so distracted and so sidelined because they may not be eligible to be in this place. People in rural and regional Australia need help on ensuring penalty rates are in place to make sure they can afford a house, help to make sure that the TAFE system in rural and regional Australia is protected, and help to make sure that energy prices are dealt with. This lot cannot deal with any of that. They are so divided, so amateurish, so bad, such a rabble that they can't even get their act together to deal with the key issue of energy prices in this country, which they actually sent the Chief Scientist to go and look at. The fundamental proposition, the key proposition from the Chief Scientist, was to put a clean energy target in place, yet this rabble of a government can't even get their act together to do that. And now we're seeing projects being announced in New England to try to save the hide of the Deputy Prime Minister—if the High Court determines that he is ineligible to be here. This is a coalition in disarray. This is a coalition that just do not have an answer for the key issues facing Australian people. (Time expired) 15:10 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania It is often said that, out of the overflow of the heart, so speaks the mouth. And what we have just heard is five minutes of personal denigration, hatred, nastiness—all those sorts of qualities that really are unbecoming of anybody in this chamber, let alone somebody who seeks to portray themselves as a frontbencher and an alternate minister in an Australian government. I just hope the Australian people who might read the Hansard or have listened to this broadcast stop to consider and ask themselves the question: would you really want such a person representing you in the high office of a government ministry? We on this side are used to these tirades from Senator Cameron, but they do him and the Australian Labor Party a great injustice. What we on this side of the House are continuing to do is deal with the questions—and that is what Senator Nash is doing as well—dealing with the questions and issues confronting the Australian people. The Australian people want their government to be focused on international security—think North Korea. That is what the government's been doing with the Prime Minister in telephone conversations with the President of the United States, and our Minister for Defence has been making a tour of the region to ensure that our international security is guaranteed. What the Australian people want to know is that our national security is guaranteed—think border protection. That is what this government is focusing on: delivering national security for our fellow Australians. What the Australian people want us to be thinking about, talking about and delivering on is security of household budgets, how we can drive down the cost of living for our fellow Australians—think energy cost: the ever-burgeoning cost of energy and electricity for Australian households, Australian small business, Australian farmers and indeed our big manufacturers. That is why the government is focused on ensuring that these issues are dealt with so that we can in fact undo the legacy issues of the idiotic ideology of the green movement, which has seen the complete compromise of our energy system. All we need to do is look at the hapless Labor government in South Australia, who bragged that on some days they can get 102 per cent of their energy from renewables. Of course, when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, their energy supply is zero—and they then wonder why they have blackouts. The Australian people also want their government to look at intergenerational fiscal equity—in other words, that we don't pass on a legacy of debt to the next generation, as the Australian Labor Party would have done with their irresponsible promises day after day after day. These are the issues that Senator Nash, a very capable minister in the coalition government, is dealing with on a day-by-day basis. And what does the Labor Party say? They focus on an unfortunate issue in relation to citizenship, which will be resolved by the High Court in due course. But do you know what the Australian people want? They want Senator Nash—a very capable, competent minister—to keep on with the task of running the country, of governing in the best interests of the Australian people, and not be distracted by this particular issue. Of course, if we were to listen to the Australian Labor Party then the postal survey on whether or not we should change the definition of 'marriage' was going to be thrown out by the High Court. Well, the news is—it was hot off the press about one hour ago—that that prediction by the Australian Labor Party was completely false, and not just by a slim margin. It was 7-0. Once again, the Labor Party, in this area, have sought to play the game of spoiler, to deny the Australian people the opportunity to have a say. We, on this side, are saying: 'We trust the Australian people. We want them to have a say.' There's a great distinction between Labor and the coalition on all these issues. (Time expired) 15:15 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I really wonder if there's any cognition of how desperately in need the Australian people are and how much failure is being demonstrated by this government. I asked a question about the Central Coast of Minister Nash today. On the Central Coast, youth unemployment is now at 17.3 per cent. The national average is a shameful 12.9 per cent, but it is 17.3 per cent on the Central Coast. That is why you'd think an investment in proper training for young people on the Central Coast would be so good. I specifically asked a question today about a grant of $2.7 million that has gone through the Community Development Grants to the Central Coast Group Training Ltd. I would like to put on the record a few detailed remarks about what's going on with that project. In 2014, the Abbott government funded this $2.7 million shiny new training facility, supposedly to boost skills and employment opportunities. But, as revealed in the Newcastle Heraldyesterdayby award-winning journalist Joanne McCarthy, a great Central Coast resident herself, the building, which opened in 2016, is almost empty, with only three of the 10 light industrial bays actually operating. The Turnbull and Abbott government's complete waste of tax money is evident not only in the failure to have that operating but in a whole lot of probity questions around it that need to be scrutinised. Central Coast Group Training chairman was none other than local Liberal mayor—now disgraced Liberal mayor—of Wyong, Doug Eaton. He is the council candidate who is up for this weekend's local government election as an independent—not endorsed by the Liberal Party, but certainly associated with them. Mr Greg Best is the manager of the Central Coast Training scheme. He was also on the council and very closely aligned with Mr Eaton. On Tuesday night, I spoke in this place about the seriously concerning links between Mr Eaton and Mr Best and their long association with another party called the Save Tuggerah Lakes Party—a puppet party created by Mr Eaton, who's on the record as having invested $1,500, as did his wife; and Mr Best invested $1,500, as did his wife. This is the council situation that's going on in the Central Coast. With regard to the building, the Turnbull-Abbott government's decision to pay Mr Eaton's company to build this failed training facility raises serious questions about the conduct of the minister, especially given the site for this facility was leased by council, of course, when none other than Mr Eaton was the mayor himself. There are many more questions, and if I thought it were worth asking them in this place to get answers, I would. But the fact is that what we have seen from the minister is a complete inability to answer anything in any detail about the serious matters that have been raised with her in this place. But she's good at answering one question. When she's asked if they're doing anything wrong, she says, 'I reject that.' Let me put these questions on the record with regard to the Central Coast Group Training facility. Did the former member for Dobell, Ms McNamara, or the minister know that, when the Wyong mayor, Mr Eaton, was the chairman of the Central Coast Group Training, he would financially benefit from this construction? What discussions did the minister have with Mr Eaton about the development? I'm sure these further questions simply won't be answered by those opposite. This facility represents, I think, another breach of faith with the people of the Central Coast in the context of these dodgy deals that are being done by the Liberal Party at multiple levels. I join with local community campaigners such as Jo and Laurie Eyes in calling for the Australian National Audit Office to conduct an audit of the Community Development Grants Program and investigate the government's decisions with regard to the Central Coast Group Training and this facility, which remains unattended. That is quite remarkable. I again repeat: with a 12.9 per cent youth unemployment rate on the coast, with a 17.3 per cent youth unemployment rate on the Central Coast, you'd think this place would be absolutely full. But there's something that really smells about this spending of money. If this facility were fulfilling its purpose, you could accept it. But the fact that it's operating at a third of its capacity, at best, is a very, very serious concern. In the short time that remains to me, I want to put on the record my great concern about the fact that this government continues to say that there are no new commitments to the electorate of New England that have not yet been publicly announced. Well, the minister went on the record here today. We'll be holding her to account on that matter. (Time expired) 15:20 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I too rise to take note of Minister Nash's answers to questions today. I said two days ago in this place that I had never been prouder of Minister Nash, and that is even more the case now. I am utterly ashamed of the tactics of those opposite in this matter over the last four days, and I'd like to go through exactly what those opposite have done this week. They have asked 17 questions of Minister Nash over the last four question times. It is absolutely their right to do that, but it is the way they do it and the nastiness and meanness of the intent of this. You can have a look at the questions. Every single day, that very smart and very nasty Labor tactics team have sat down and worked out, 'How do we get her today?' What they did on Tuesday was ask Senator Nash five questions in a row, and they were very cunning: 'How do we try to make the minister lose her cool? How can we make her look bad? How can we get under her skin? We'll just ask the same question over and over and over again'—questions that Minister Nash answered on 17 August in great detail and that the Attorney-General reinforced on 18 August. So, this is their cunning plan. They had five female senators in this place, one after the other, who got up—Senators O'Neill, Kitching, Pratt, Collins and Bilyk—all asking the same nastily intentioned questions of the minister. The minister was calm, she was graceful and she answered those questions with great dignity. That was Tuesday. The day before that, they did exactly the same thing. On the Monday, they had Senator Moore to Senator Nash, and Senators McAllister and Polley asking the same questions again, which were repeated five times on Tuesday. Then on Wednesday the Labor tactics team had this bright idea: 'Maybe we'll ask her some questions that are so obscure, one after the other, that she won't be able to answer the questions. We can question her integrity and what else she's doing or what she doesn't know.' So, on Wednesday there were questions not only within her portfolio but outside of her portfolio—five questions again, not seeking in any genuine way to get answers to these questions; it was all about ganging up and being completely horrid to a minister who has done absolutely nothing wrong. She has done absolutely the right thing. She's entitled to be here. Nobody except the Labor Party is suggesting that she is not entitled to be here as a minister. It is only those opposite. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 We are! Senator REYNOLDS 250216 And the Greens as well—I'll take that interjection. She is absolutely entitled to be here. The Solicitor-General has provided advice, and I would remind those in the chamber that his advice was spot on, as we saw today in relation to the same-sex marriage plebiscite. So, that was Wednesday. And what did that cunning, nasty Labor tactics team do again today? 'Well, let's do what we did yesterday.' While we've got North Korea, high energy prices and other things facing this nation, for four days in a row they thought, 'Let's gang up on Fiona Nash, because we haven't quite beaten her up enough.' Again, there were four questions to her about regional grants, something that it is completely hypocritical for the Labor Party to ask about, because they absolutely, as the minister said, rorted that scheme. There was no pretence of accountability. You've done that four times in a row. All of you should be ashamed. Another thing I would point out is that I absolutely know that women on this side would never, ever dream of ganging up. If a woman on any side of this chamber were in the situation that Senator Nash is in, we would not think it okay to get together and gang up on another woman just because we're women. You imagine if we on this side did that to anybody on the other side of this chamber! It would be a national disgrace and a scandal. The fact that the Labor Party—and the Greens—think it is okay to treat a minister of this state in this way, and do it in a way that is directly relevant to her gender, is an absolute disgrace. Nobody else in this place, or even in the media, may have called it out but the tactics are very clear. It makes me utterly ashamed. Again, I'm very, very proud of Senator Nash, who you have mercilessly hounded this week. She has not even raised a sweat, and for that I am very proud to be not only a colleague of hers but also a friend. 15:25 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I would agree that in some regards Senator Nash didn't raise a sweat, but that's only because she didn't answer any of the questions. She goaded us and said to ask her about policy, but when we went to policy Senator Nash couldn't answer. The whole reason we had to spend so much time this week focused on Senator Nash—and this is something that Senator Reynolds didn't mention—is that she came in here and announced her dual citizenship five minutes before the Senate shut down last sitting week. The only opportunity we've had in this place to ask questions of Senator Nash has been this week. Absolutely there's been a consistent theme to them, because there's been a consistent nonanswer from Senator Nash. There really are three parts to this that have been consistent, in my mind: (1) the lack of clarity from Senator Nash about decision making; (2) the difference between Senator Canavan, who stood down, and Senator Nash and the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce, who are still holding their ministerial portfolios; and (3) the policy dysfunction and chaos that this government is responsible for. Today we saw a lack of clarity when it comes to the decision making at the heart of this government and Minister Nash. We had no clarity into how those decisions are being made. It really does appear as if Senator Nash is a minister in name only. The only thing we could point to that has been close to a decision by this government has been the tender going out for roads project in New England, which is going to help only the Deputy Prime Minister, Barnaby Joyce. That's the only thing we could see that this minister has been a part of since it was announced that she has dual citizenship. Again, we go to the point of being unable to see the difference between Senator Canavan, who stood down, and Senator Nash and the Deputy Prime Minister, who are still holding their ministerial portfolios. The only conclusion you can come to is that they are leading a protection racket for the Deputy Prime Minister. It's clear from the answers that we've seen—and I said earlier in the week that you start to feel a little bit sorry for Senator Nash—that she knows she is doing the wrong thing. But the thing that really concerns me is the policy dysfunction and chaos. Senator Nash asked us to ask her about policy. We did that. We asked her about energy policy and we asked her about other issues in regard to her portfolio. Senator Reynolds said the questions were a bit unfair because they were too precise. Well, that's exactly what this minister should be across. She couldn't give us a coherent answer on energy. Over the last couple of days, we've asked significant questions about local regional communities, which this minister is responsible for, that she has been unable to answer. There is another significant thing that goes to the chaos and dysfunction of this government, and we saw this in question time today. Senator Abetz touched on this as well. I think what he said was that he wants to focus on the questions and issues confronting the Australian people. What are the only two recent achievements of this government? They mentioned them both in question time. The only two recent achievements of this government revolve around sending two letters—one about marriage equality, the other one to energy consumers. This is the federal government of Australia. This is their record over recent months: two letters—one about marriage equality and one to energy consumers in regard to power prices. This is the record. This is the federal government of Australia, and this is what it's saying its record has been over recent months. What's the common link between these two things? It is the weakness of the Prime Minister. The weakness of the Prime Minister is leading to the chaos and dysfunction on policy on his side. He wasn't able to stand up to his backbench when it comes to marriage equality. He was boxed into a corner. His way out of it was saying that we would have a postal survey. That is his record when it comes to marriage equality, something that he says he has believed in for a long time. He is now pursuing this survey for the Australian people. The other one is around energy. Unable to gain a commitment from his backbench about a clean energy target, he is out there looking for distractions. His most recent distraction has been repeated cups of tea. The outcome of them is a letter. That is all the Australian people are going to see from this between now and the end of the year. Power prices are going up. We're paying for an expensive survey because of the weakness and the ineptitude of this Prime Minister. It really is not good enough for the Australian people. Question agreed to. Climate Change 6697 15:30 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Education and Training (Senator Birmingham) to a question without notice asked by Senator Whish-Wilson today relating to extreme weather events. What we're seeing around the world is alarming. The weather is changing. My committee, the environment committee, has recently been up to Tropical North Queensland. It has visited Cairns and Townsville. I also visited Port Douglas and went diving on the reef last week with some scientists. It's easy to talk about the future for us and our children under climate change, to look at extreme weather events—like unprecedented, back-to-back and totally unpredicted warming of the corals on the Great Barrier Reef—and say, 'This is the future under climate change; these are the kinds of events that we're going to expect in the future under climate change,' but the truth is they're happening right now. The questions I asked Senator Birmingham were about the two hurricanes—in fact, I would say an unprecedented three hurricanes now—that we're seeing in the Atlantic, across the Bermuda islands, heading to the US coast. Last week Hurricane Harvey in the US created absolute devastation and is now officially the biggest natural disaster in US history. It's really interesting to ask why, because Harvey was actually being downgraded before it made landfall, but it hit warm waters off the US coast and actually redeveloped, restrengthened and dumped 1.25 metres of rain on Louisiana, the highest rainfall ever recorded in the US. The warming waters in the ocean were a key contributing factor for Harvey and caused the devastation. Superstorm Irma in the Atlantic is now also being attributed to warmer-than-expected waters. In fact, meteorologists are saying they had never expected or predicted a storm like Irma. It is now officially by a number of metrics the strongest hurricane ever recorded since satellite imagery began in 1966. Two other storms are now developing in the Atlantic. The islands that it has hit, it has totally devastated. We've even heard in Barbados the storm has been detected on seismic equipment used to detect earthquakes and movements in the Earth's crust. Who knows where it's going to go? But if it does make landfall, a week after what we saw last week with Hurricane Harvey, it will make US history: that two Category 4 cyclones would hit the US coast in one year, let alone back-to-back weeks—and there are three hurricanes out there at the moment. Something is going on with our oceans. Our oceans are warming. They're warming because of global carbon emissions. We know, beyond a doubt, that rising carbon emissions are highly correlated with warming oceans. Getting back to Hurricane Irma, scientists said last night—and I am surprised that Senator Birmingham hasn't been following what key climate and meteorological scientists are saying—that the hurricane exceeded their models for the maximum wind speed, their theoretical maximum wind speed. Their models didn't even have the parameters to predict the ferocity of this hurricane. They are now having to put an extra category in place: category 6. We are literally in unchartered waters here. What will it take for us to wake up and accept that the climate is changing here and now? Returning to the issue of the back-to-back bleaching of the coral reefs, the committee heard last week that events such as that were predicted not to happen for at least another 30 or 40 years, but they are already here. No matter what we do to cut emissions now, at the Paris agreement or elsewhere, we have still locked in another 15 years of warming oceans. Half the Barrier Reef is now dead—probably more than three-quarters if you include Cyclone Debbie's damage. That is an international outrage. It is an international emergency. We need to act on climate now. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP The question is that the motion to take note of answers given by Senator Birmingham be agreed to. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 6699 COMMITTEES Law Enforcement Committee 6699 Report 6699 15:36 Senator SINGH M0R Tasmania I present the first report on crystal methamphetamine (ice) of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator SINGH M0R I move: That the Senate take note of the report. After the initiation of this inquiry, in March 2015, the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Law Enforcement travelled extensively around Australia to hear from community members about the effects that methamphetamine was having on individuals, families and communities across the country. Not only did we focus this inquiry in the capital cities, but we also went to Mt Gambier, to Caboolture, and to areas and communities where people were reaching out for critical support. During this time—it has been quite a lengthy inquiry—we have heard stories of the devastating impact of this drug on particular rural and regional communities. Of course, rural and regional communities not only are at greater risk but they also lack resources and rehabilitation services. The particular stories that have stuck with me are from parents who are desperate for the opportunity to help their own children—communities who are desperately trying to keep their youth away from the scourge of crystal methamphetamine. For me, the most powerful evidence in this report has been from St Vincent's Hospital, which we visited, both in Sydney and in Melbourne. It showed the impact that it is having on emergency services and on front line staff, with increased violence and new issues arising from a growing number of users. Indeed, the submission provided to this inquiry by St Vincent's highlighted that, as a nation, we have one of the highest rates of methamphetamine use in the world. This places increasing demand on an already stretched health system, because our community is desperately seeking access to treatment and intervention. Everyday Australians who see the devastating impact of methamphetamine use feel quite powerless to help, even to help their own family members. Illicit drug use is being dealt with through a three-pillar policy—that is, demand reduction, supply reduction and harm reduction—with prevention being a central theme across those three pillars. Those things need to be looked at, particularly harm reduction, because harm reduction practices that follow best practice and are evidence based should be an important part of any national drug strategy. Indeed, they are critical to the long-term strategies across the board to minimise the impact of drug and alcohol abuse. The report that I tabled is our first report. There will be a final report, which will go into a lot more detail, with recommendations around rehabilitation and treatment services, whereas this report has a much stronger focus on law enforcement. Law enforcement, or supply reduction—which is one of the three pillars—is very important and is obviously a part of this committee's inquiry. The committee made eight key recommendations. We acknowledge the work the government is already doing and has been doing, in relation to the National Ice Taskforce and the National Ice Action Strategy, since this inquiry started. Overall, as the committee noted, the public's initial response to both the task force and the strategy was very positive. The focus on and funding for a supply-reduction approach and treatment services was supported by a number of commentators and members of the community. But, obviously, it will only work if there is enough funding for it to be successful. Harm-minimisation approaches alone are not seen as being enough. The government needs to approach this very much in a holistic frame, but harm minimisation must certainly be a key part of that. The Public Health Association of Australia went into that in detail, as noted in our report, along with Mental Health Australia, which highlighted links between methamphetamine and mental illness, and I think that is an incredibly important point to make. We cannot be blind to the fact that new illicit drugs will continue to appear. How we deal with that is what is so important as policymakers—how we have effective policies to protect our community and to support our community into the foreseeable future. The committee learnt of successful strategies that are contingent on the relationships built between health workers and law enforcement, and education providers and the community. It is that partnering that is so important. Those relationships are really critical to ensuring that individuals are diverted before becoming addicted or, if they are addicted, that they receive the necessary treatment. But, unfortunately, all through this inquiry we heard that, if someone who is addicted to crystal methamphetamine chooses to make that decision, whether through a drug-diversion mandated court process or by themselves, often the treatment services are not available; often rehabilitation beds and places are not available for them. That is the hardest thing here, and it is something that this government has to address. Meanwhile, the government now wants to embark on drug-testing welfare recipients. That is just the most ridiculous policy, and all the health professionals have made that very clear. By the same token, the government hasn't even thought about the fact that there aren't enough rehabilitation and treatment services available in the first place. That is the critical issue here that needs to be addressed. These long waiting lists for treatment services are simply exacerbating our community's inability to help their own people. If you are finally ready to deal with something as big as a drug addiction to crystal methamphetamine and you can't get in to any kind of treatment or rehabilitation service then that just shows you how the system is broken. I do commend, though, the input that the government has made into its National Ice Taskforce and also the National Ice Action Strategy. I also would like to acknowledge not only the work that is happening here but the work that is happening within our region. UNODC, which the law enforcement committee have briefings with from time to time, also plays a key role assisting member states in our region to implement evidence-based drug-use prevention policies and programs to again have, as Australia is slowly starting to, a more harm-minimisation focus, rather than a criminal focus on the end user. I know that UNODC enhances its regional capacities in drug-use prevention, treatment and reintegration by playing a key role in some of our South-East Asian states but also in China. We know that some of the substance which goes into making crystal methamphetamine has been imported from China, and that is an ongoing issue for Border Force and, indeed, our country. I would also like to acknowledge the work the AFP do in trying very hard to stop the importation of crystal methamphetamine but also in dealing with drug syndicates and organised crime to try to put an end to this proliferation of ice in our community. All in all, I would like to thank the committee members for their input during this inquiry. I look forward to working with them on the next tranche of this inquiry, which will have its focus on drug rehabilitation and treatment services, a key ingredient to fight this ice drug addiction. 15:47 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I also rise to speak to this report and to welcome the fact that what we are seeing now is some consideration given to the realities of illicit drug use in Australia. It is a report that really considers the fact that what we are doing when it comes to illicit drugs isn't effective and we need to start considering alternative approaches. We certainly welcome that. We know that the war on drugs isn't a war on drugs; it is a war on people. Those are not just the words of the Australian Greens; in fact, many experts in this area, many drug and alcohol clinicians, many academics and now many law enforcement officers are of the same view. Ken Lay, for example, a former commissioner in the Victorian police force, made a very strong statement when he was charged with leading the National Ice Taskforce. He said: We can't arrest our way out of this problem. He is absolutely right. Ken Lay is not the only law enforcement officer of that view. Mick Palmer, a former AFP commissioner, also strongly believes that, despite the fact that he was responsible for taking a tough-on-drugs approach to illicit drug use, in fact in many areas it was counterproductive. He is now a strong advocate for harm minimisation and, indeed, for the removal of criminal penalties associated with illicit drug use. The National Drug Strategy, which was very overdue, it must be said, when it was finally released, is referenced in the committee report. It's a crucial step in starting to address some of the issues associated with the use of ice. I understand that the committee are now planning a further trip to Portugal. It is largely because most of the experts in this area told the committee that the harm of ice and other illicit drugs might be reduced if we took a more evidence-based approach, such as the approach that has been adopted in Portugal. Portugal had a big problem with the use of heroin in the late nineties. They had many people overdosing from heroin. They tried to get tough on drugs—they had a very strong law-and-order approach to the use of illicit drugs—and the problem got worse. They sought the advice of experts: drug and alcohol doctors, people in the social services space, academics, judges and others. The result there was that this expert committee told them, 'We don't think criminal penalties are the answer here. It drives the problem underground. It doesn't stop drug use. It diverts resources away from treatment to the prosecution of a war that can't be won.' So, since 2001, Portugal has treated drug use in a way that most countries who understand this problem do—that is, that it must be treated as a health issue and not a criminal one. But it wasn't just that; there were a number of other strategies put in place at the same time. The removal of criminal penalties associated with personal drug use—and, let's remember, there were still strong criminal penalties for individuals who trafficked commercial quantities of drugs—was also coupled with a huge expansion in drug treatment, harm reduction services and other support services, such as housing, employment pathways and so on. The result is very clear. It's reduced the burden on the criminal justice system. It's reduced drug related deaths. They have seen a significant decline in problematic drug use, particularly intravenous drug use. I visited Portugal in 2015. I spoke to many experts in this field—I spoke, in fact, to the architect of the policy in Portugal—and I was privileged to see up close the success of the approach that Portugal took when it came to illicit drug policy. I really encourage the committee to go there with an open mind and to start to change the conversation that we're having in this country about how we deal with a very, very difficult problem. I don't come at this from the perspective that illicit drugs are harmless. I worked as a drug and alcohol doctor. I treated people every day who came to serious harm as a result of drugs, both legal and illegal—from alcohol to cannabis, heroin, prescription opiates, ice and other novel, new and emerging synthetic drugs. But what I did see was that what we were doing wasn't helping in many areas. In fact, there is a desperate shortage of treatment places for people because so much of our effort is directed at prosecuting individuals rather than helping them. Even this week, in the parliament, I moved a very simple motion on International Overdose Awareness Day calling for basic harm reduction strategies to be put in place, like many of those in the government's own National Drug Strategy. Disappointingly, both Labor and the Liberals banded together to vote against it, really saying to the community that they don't care about the evidence and they don't care about the lives that are needlessly lost thanks to our current policies, which divert money away from where we need it. I thought it was a great shame. Here was an opportunity to start supporting the things that we know work. Just last week, I joined my colleague Senator Rachel Siewert in hearings to examine the government's proposal to drug-test recipients of income support. Here we were, with a committee, taking evidence from a range of witnesses—experts in their field, right across the board, who are there at the coalface seeing people with these problems. Yet we have members of the government ignoring the advice of experts, with one of them saying that drug-testing is a positive initiative. Then, at the same time, we've got a committee going to Portugal. Which one is it? Let's start recognising that, if we are going to follow the evidence, it's time to follow the evidence and put partisan ideology aside. We Greens are very proud to be a party in the parliament that's taken on this issue for a number of years. We have done it despite the fact that we have been attacked by some elements of the media and, indeed, by some people on the conservative side of politics. We do it because it is so critical that we put ideology and politics aside and start pursuing the evidence. Australia had an incredibly proud track record of progressive drug policy that reduced harm, which in fact led the world. It must be said that, during the Hawke era, we saw the then health minister convene a group of experts to look at how to respond to the issue of HIV and hepatitis C transmission among injecting drug users. They proposed needle and syringe exchanges at a time when policies like that were unheard of. Good on them, because as a result of that Australia took strong and decisive action to reduce the transmission of blood-borne viruses among injecting drug users, while other countries around the world saw rates of those illnesses skyrocket amongst that community. We also had proposals for medically supervised injecting centres. Indeed, we had the Kings Cross centre established, with great results. It is a great shame, though, that in Victoria, where a proposal for a medically supervised injecting centre has been on the cards in Richmond for many years now, we saw the Labor government just today refuse to accept a positive proposal for a trial for 18 months of a medically supervised injecting facility. We were on the verge of a medically supervised trial of heroin in 1999, supported by all state governments. Indeed, it was supported by the then Labor opposition and supported by the Liberal health minister. It was John Howard who prevented that trial from going ahead. So, Australia has a strong and proud track record of governments taking action, of being prepared to lead the world when it comes to evidence based approaches, even though they may be controversial at the time. Let's renew that push. Let's get back on track. Let's recognise that what we are doing isn't working, that our war on drugs is a war on people and that we have to make the threshold decision to treat this as a health issue, not a criminal one. If we do that, we will save lives. We will make sure that we can invest in those areas that work. Let me say as Leader of the Australian Greens: I will do everything I can to make sure Australia takes that approach. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Joint Standing Committee on Treaties 6703 Report 6703 15:57 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I present the 173rd report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties: Consular functions in Macau—China; Montreal Protocol Ozone Layer—Amendment. I seek leave to incorporate the tabling statement. Leave granted. The statement read as follows— Mr President, today I rise to make a statement concerning the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' Report 173. Mr President, Report 173 contains the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' review of two treaty actions: the Amendments to our consular arrangements with China and Macau; and the Amendment to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. Mr President, the purpose of the amendments to our consular arrangements with China and Macau is to bring the Macau Special Administrative Region, the SAR, under the auspices of the China Agreement. We have a strong commercial presence in Macau and around 1 000 Australians living in the SAR as well as over two and a half thousand people of Macanese descent living in Australia. We have a range of bilateral agreements directly with Macau but since it came under the People's Republic of China in 1999, we also have an agreement with China on consular relations. Mr President, in 2013 and 2014 there were procedural issues in relation to a number of arrest notifications between Australia and Macau. In consequent negotiations to improve the notification process it was agreed to amend the China agreement to include the SAR. The treaty action will provide procedural clarity for managing consular cases in Macau and enable improved consular access to Australians detained in the SAR. For example, Mr President, consular officials will be informed within three days if an Australian national is arrested or committed to prison or custody pending trial in the SAR. A consular visit to the detainee must be permitted within two days. These timelines are not currently mandated in the Macau agreement. Although Macau is now included within the scope of the China agreement, the Committee notes that China has requested that the Macau agreement remain in place. We commend DFAT in its efforts to improve Australia's global consular services. Mr President, the Committee supports ratification of this treaty action. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer mandates the phase-out of scheduled ozone depleting substances. This amendment will mandate the global phase-down of hydrofluorocarbons or HFCs. Although HFCs are not ozone depleting, they are considered to have high global warming potential. Mr President, Australia has already introduced legislation to phase down the import of HFCs from January 2018 in order to meet existing climate change emission reduction commitments. That legislation will facilitate implementation of commitments under this amendment to the Montreal Protocol. Mr President, the Committee acknowledges the success of the Montreal Protocol and its role in assisting Australia to reach its climate change emissions reduction targets. Australia has supported all six previous amendments to the Protocol and the Committee has recommended that it support this one. Finally Mr President, the report also contains the Committee's review of two minor treaty actions relating to the OECD G20 Conventions addressing tax evasion by individuals and large multinationals. Mr President, on behalf of the Committee, I commend the Report to the Senate. Community Affairs Legislation Committee 6704 Report 6704 15:57 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia On behalf of the Chair of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Payment Integrity) Bill 2017, together with the Hansard recording of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. National Disability Insurance Scheme 6704 Report 6704 15:58 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of Senator Gallagher, I present the progress report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 15:58 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I wish to take note of this report. I urge senators to read this report because it is a report on the progress of the implementation of the NDIS by the NDIA. I have to say that it expresses some pretty strong concerns on a range of areas. It notes the work that the NDIA has been undertaking and the progress on the NDIS. It notes the issues that the joint parliamentary committee has been looking at and talking to people about. It also notes that we have done a separate report on psychosocial disabilities, and I spoke on that in this place during the last sitting when we tabled that report. That report highlights a large number of areas of concern in relation to psychosocial disabilities and the rollout of the NDIS. The report also talks about the concerns people have about the early childhood early intervention approach and highlights the fact that the committee has established a separate inquiry into that area. It also has established a separate inquiry into the transitional arrangements for the NDIS—in other words, how that's rolling out. And the report notes that we will be reporting very soon on our hearing inquiry, and there are huge concerns in that area. One of the areas the report specifically talks about is planning. This area under the NDIS has generated a great deal of concern. People are being asked to complete their plan or engage in the development of their plan over the phone. There are concerns about the various skills and expertise of the planners themselves and the fact that the NDIA seems to have moved away from the 'reasonable and necessary' forms of support that form the very basis of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I've got to say, that is what's in the legislation and the rules, but planners seem to have moved away from that, and in the report we point out where they have done that and give some examples from some of our public hearings. I should say here that one of the public hearings was in the main committee room here at Parliament House. We had to move from one of our normal committee rooms on the second floor—2S1 or 2S3, where you'd normally expect to have your hearings—to the main committee room because we had so many people turn up: over 100 people. Participants, carers and providers turned up. That sent an immediate message to the committee: 'Something's going on here, folks.' The evidence that I particularly recall and that we articulate in the report about reasonable and necessary supports related to the supports for a relatively young person and a particular prosthesis that the person needed. The local planner approved it and had a trial of it and it worked really well, so the recommendation was that this relatively young person have that prosthesis that was needed. But it was knocked back by head office, because the prosthesis was not considered necessary for an ordinary life. Without it, this person would fall over and could not walk. What do you think you need for an ordinary life? But they changed from 'reasonable and necessary' to assess it against what's considered necessary for an ordinary life—unacceptable in my book. Anyway, we articulate that in the report. We also articulate the fact that people have been raising concerns about the disregard by the planners for medical assessments and for the information that carers provide, as well as the fact that there's no opportunity to review plans before implementation. Some people haven't seen their plans. And there are concerns about the number of times they're reviewed, the lack of involvement in the review, the inconsistencies between plans and the unacceptable delays in developing and implementing the plans. And we deal in the report with service provider issues; they were raised a lot. These relate to people being able to get their accounts paid. They are not being told when plans are reviewed and therefore continue to provide supports under the old plan, to be told that no, there's a new plan, and they are not paid for the supports they gave under the old plan, because they hadn't been told there was a new plan. Then there is the pricing issue—a humungous issue—and the non-contextual process for pricing. There are the issues around the portal—IT issues. I'm sure that when the transition happened in June, July and August last year every member of this place got phone calls about the problems with the portal and people not being able to get accounts paid. When we held the hearing, we heard, again, a lot of concerns from the providers. The NDIA tells people that that's fixed. That's not what you hear on the ground, and you don't hear from the providers about it being fixed. There are issues around transport and the transport market design. This is a huge issue that we've had evidence on. In fact, we heard from the transport providers a number of times about the issue around generating a market here. The concern here is that, by being so focused on generating a market in transport, you actually may take the situation backwards, because there are very strong concerns that the market in this particular area will not operate. In fact, we may very well leave people worse off. These are all areas that I know we are transitioning in. I know that we are still in the process of rolling out the NDIS, but these issues need to be resolved now because they are causing very deep distress and concern for people to the point where people are saying—and I read out some participants', carers' and parents' views last night in this place during adjournment—that they're actually worse off under the NDIS than they were under the various states' proposals. That's actually saying something, in my view. The report makes a number of recommendations. The first one is: The committee recommends that the National Disability Insurance Agency provide an opportunity for participants, and those who support them, to view, comment, and rectify any errors in their plan in advance of it being finalised and implemented. Sorry, but that's basic commonsense, so can we please implement that? The committee also makes the recommendation: The committee recommends that the National Disability Insurance Agency publish the results of its participants and providers pathways review, specifically the areas identified for improvement, and the strategies in place to achieve improved outcomes. That's a particularly important point—that that occurs. Then we say: The committee recommends that the National Disability Insurance Agency include progress on issues identified in the participant and provider pathways review in future Quarterly Reports. Again, you'd think that that is a fairly obvious thing to do. We recommend: … that the National Disability Insurance Agency review its quarterly reporting terminology and metrics to ensure consistency, and apply this to all future reports. Again, you'd think that this is rocket science so that we can actually get an accurate measurement and reflection of progress being made. Finally, we say: The committee recommends that the NDIA ensure that only criteria underpinned by terminology set out in the NDIS Act and associated Rules is used in the assessment of appropriate supports. That relates back to the fact that they are moving away from the reasonable and necessary approach and using terminology that's not in the legislation. There is urgent need for change in the NDIS, and people are getting increasingly impatient. As I articulated yesterday, we remain strong supporters of the NDIS. We think that it has the potential to make profound differences and improvements to the lives of people with disabilities. But, if we don't fix these issues, that won't become a reality because people are already saying that they are not better off. They're so frustrated and so downhearted. Please, government and NDIA, listen. We encourage you to please read these recommendations and get on with making this scheme the best it can be. 16:08 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania This progress report from the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme provides an update on the progress being made in the nationwide rollout. The reports seeks to highlight concerns raised with the committee, and those concerns are particularly highlighted in chapter 3. I will say at the outset that I concur with many of the statements that Senator Siewert made in her contribution, but I also would like to say that many people have had very good packages with the NDIS. Having said that, there are also people who have had concerns and whose package hasn't delivered what they thought it would deliver. This is an issue not just for participants but also for providers, and it is also a concern raised by unions that represent the workforce within the disability sector. I want to go through some of the concerns that have been raised. They are considerable concerns but they are also concerns that should be able to be rectified. As has already been stated, we urge the NDIA to take note of the recommendations in this report. There are five recommendations. They are very simple recommendations that really shouldn't need to have been made because the actions recommended should already have been happening. I'm sure each and every one of us in the chamber has spoken to constituents who have been trying to access or become participants of the NDIS. There have been concerns regarding access to the scheme and, of course, we are behind in terms of the number of participants waiting for access. We have particular concern for participants in the planning process and also for those participants who have families and carers who also wish to be involved. This issue has come up time and time again. Participants, families and carers have raised their dissatisfaction with plans and how they are being developed. There is an issue about plans being developed over the phone. That issue has come up time and time again, and another issue that has come up is the skill and competence of planners, the inconsistency of planning decisions and the delay to plans and plan reviews. I'm just going to touch on a couple of those concerns in more detail. We are being told that someone is given a call, they talk about the plan over the phone, and if that participant has a carer or a family member who wants to help them that carer is not necessarily involved in the conversation. A plan is then developed and that's it. The plan does not go back to the participant for further review—it is finalised and then activated. Obviously that process is always going to run into trouble. That is not a process that bodes well for successful plans. Carers have told me time and time again that they are shut out of the planning process. On many occasions they have not been told that they are entitled to be part of the planning process. Indeed, they are entitled to give carer statements, and that has not been happening. We've also had issues with the portal. Most of those issues seem to have been rectified, but we are still being told about portal issues. It is not only the participants. Providers will tell you themselves that they have those issues, particularly in terms of payments for services that are directly required from the NDIS. So, what I hope we will achieve from this progress report is that the NDIA will look at the five recommendations we have put to them and will act on them. My understanding is that there has been an announcement that planning by phone will not be taking place in future. I hope that is the case. I understand that the assistant minister said it would no longer be happening. But if that is not the case and it continues to happen, the concerns that have been raised within this report will continue to come up. People will continue to be frustrated about what they receive in their plan and the process they need to go through, because the NDIS is a transformational system. For some people, it has been life changing. But we have to make sure that is the case for everyone who is a participant in the NDIS. It has to be ensured that when these concerns are raised the government and the NDIA act quickly to rectify the issues, because these are not isolated instances; these are concerns that have been raised by many, many people. As I said, I'm sure every senator in this chamber will be well aware of the concerns people have, because they're out there talking to their constituencies, getting the emails and the phone calls. So, I would recommend that senators read this report. I think the progress report is a good one. It also highlights the work of the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS and the further reviews that are currently underway and that will be reported on to the Senate and the House of Representatives in the future. I commend the report to the chamber and thank the NDIS committee for the work they've put into producing this report. 16:18 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I certainly endorse the comments of my fellow Labor senator here, Senator Carol Brown, and I'm very happy to put on the record the praise with which she is spoken of in the electorates I've visited in New South Wales for her care for the disability sector and the important work she is doing in that region. I rise to speak to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme report on the provision of services under the NDIS for people with psychosocial disabilities related to mental health conditions, and I do that with a particular sense of responsibility, because I'm very pleased to have the role of assisting the member for Franklin, Julie Collins, in her role as the shadow minister for mental health and assisting her particularly with young people. By 2019-20 a total of 64,000 people with psychosocial disabilities related to a mental health condition will become NDIS participants. That is 13.9 per cent of the total expected participants in the NDIS. However, people with mental illness will continue to require services even if they're not participants in the NDIS, and all governments need to provide that continuity of support for people with psychological disabilities who are not eligible for the NDIS. Just yesterday, I met with Tony Stevenson, National CEO of the Mental Illness Fellowship of Australia, MIFA, who visited me on one of his rounds of advocacy for this very important national issue. MIFA is a peak body consisting of longstanding membership-based organisations. It's a fantastic organisation delivering specialist place-based community building programs, with a strong focus on recovery and on lived experience. Currently MIFA has over 100 front doors across Australia, with over 50 per cent of its staff having lived experience as a consumer or a carer, such as a parent or a child. In the last parliament I recall being at hearings in Sydney with Senator Moore, who is in the chamber this afternoon, taking evidence on mental illness. I particularly recall the power of the testimony that we received from people who had lived experience themselves or were in families with people whose lived experience of mental ill-health provided incredible challenges for the whole family to confront and manage and overcome. Yesterday, Mr Stevenson stressed to me the importance of each and every one of us remembering that not everyone with a psychosocial disability will be a participant in the NDIS. MIFA collaborates and has connections with service providers and organisations in every single state in Australia, including organisations such as Suicide Prevention Australia, the national peak body for the suicide prevention sector. Earlier today I moved a motion in the Senate noting that this Sunday coming, 10 September, is World Suicide Prevention Day. I'd like to make a few comments with regard to this. World Suicide Prevention Day aims to increase awareness about the problem of suicide and the many ways each of us can work together to reduce suicide. This year, the theme for Suicide Prevention Day is 'Take a minute, change a life'. And that's all it could take—one minute of talking to someone to actually change the trajectory of a decision that they might make with a very long term consequence to a temporary solution to a problem. This theme complements the work undertaken by R U OK? Day, which encourages all of us to take the time to notice what's going on with our families, our friends, our colleagues and ourselves. Next Thursday, 14 September, we will be highlighting R U OK? Day. It is a day that reminds all of us that, if we're worried about someone, we have to take time to start meaningful conversations and to take time out to notice one another and to respond to the people who live around us, in whatever context we might find ourselves. There are four simple steps to this: to ask, to listen, to encourage action and then to check in with the person and see how things are going. It's very important for all of us to remember that suicide prevention is something that's the responsibility of each one of us. At this time in Australia's history, suicide is, very sadly, the leading cause of death for men and women between the ages of 15 and 24, and that is simply not okay. In 2015, more than 3,000 Australian men and women lost their life to suicide. This is an average of 8.3 deaths by suicide every single day. When we say these numbers—and there are many numbers recorded on the Hansard in this place—the reality of losing eight lives to suicide across this country has a powerful and significantly awful effect on the whole community. Those 8.3 statistical numbers are real people having an impact on their community. Sadly, the figures that I'm citing to you here today represent the highest suicide rate in 15 years. One death by suicide is too many. An estimated 65,000 Australian men and women also attempt suicide. That is not okay. These heartbreaking statistics are a stark reminder of the need for a coordinated effort across government and community to reduce suicide in Australia. The seriousness of Australia's mental health and suicide burden reminds all of us that we have to do more to reduce the thousands of Australian lives that are lost each year. Sadly, suicide continues to disproportionately impact Indigenous communities. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are twice as likely to die by suicide than non-Indigenous people. Young Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people aged between 15 and 17 had a suicide rate more than five times that of their non-Indigenous peers. That is not okay. We must work together—all of us—to reduce the rates and the impact of mental ill-health and suicide in Australia. Research tells us that suicide is mostly preventable, and we can all play a part in that. At this point in time I'd like to record an incident that shocked me in my experience as a teacher. It was at a year 12 farewell day. Having finished his schooling, a young man I had taught came up to me, and his farewell was a little unusual. He said, 'I want to thank you for taking the roll.' He did it in that grumbly way that teenage boys can do. I asked him to repeat it. He said, 'Thank you for taking the roll, Miss.' I was a little puzzled by what he said. I said to him, 'Did you just thank me for taking the roll?' He said, 'Yes, Miss, because I was thinking about suicide and the only thing that stopped me was knowing that you would miss me when you took the roll.' Now, you don't realise the power of a single conversation with a person when it comes to preventing suicide. And, certainly, I didn't have any sense of what taking the roll was doing. In the essence it proved one thing to me: what we have to do is see people. We busily move around in our lives but we have the opportunity to stop and to notice those who come into our field of view, and people for whom we have some responsibility—and that is everyone. That's everyone we interact with. So, from the smallest things like that, everyone can do more to reduce the loss of thousands of Australians lives every year. Everyone can be a part of creating a suicide-safe Australia. That's why Labor has offered to work with the Turnbull government in bipartisanship to address this significant national challenge. A lot of great work has already been done. But we can all do more and we can and must do better. As I have already said, one death by suicide is too many. We are always continuously inspired by the efforts of dedicated individuals and organisations such as Suicide Prevention Australia and the Mental Illness Fellowship of Australia, who are working to address suicide prevention and to tackle the stigma around mental ill-health. It is up to all of us to establish systems of care as well as actions of care and conversations of care with people we interact with daily. We can do more to take notice. We can do more to ask the question, to check in with people after we've encouraged them to seek help and to make sure that we take responsibility for our fellow Australians to keep them well and help them to get over the crises that are a part of living. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 6710 COMMITTEES Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations 6710 Membership 6710 16:28 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 204953 Order! The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees. 16:28 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Political Influence of Donations—Select Committee— Appointed— Senators Brown and Ketter Participating members: Senator Bilyk, Cameron, Carr, Chisholm, Collins, Dastyari, Dodson, Farrell, Gallacher, Gallagher, Kitching, Lines, Marshall, McAllister, McCarthy, Moore, O’Neill, Polley, Pratt, Singh, Sterle, Urquhart, Watt and Wong. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 6711 DOCUMENTS Future Frigate Program, Cashless Debit Card 6711 Order for the Production of Documents 6711 16:28 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I table documents relating to the orders for the production of documents concerning the Future Frigate tender and the Cashless Debit Card. MOTIONS 6711 MOTIONS Clean Energy Target 6711 16:29 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales At the request of Senator Gallagher, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes Government policy inaction is driving up electricity prices, and a Clean Energy Target is the solution to crippling policy paralysis; (b) observes that the Government refuses to act, citing any and all excuse to delay, when everyone knows it is internal Coalition division and the weakness of the Prime Minister that are really to blame; and (c) recognises that Australians deserve real leadership on energy and it is clearer every day that they will not get it from Prime Minister Turnbull. Now, I think we don't get that from the Prime Minister because he really is a weak Prime Minister. Even the issues that this Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, saw as important some years ago—he has now abandoned those values and abandoned those principles because he wants to cling to power as the Prime Minister of Australia. So his own personal ambitions have pushed aside any values that he once had. We see the government set about trying to resolve the issue of high electricity prices. What it did was it asked the Chief Scientist to prepare a report and give recommendations on exactly what the government should do. Dr Finkel, the Chief Scientist, developed a report. Dr Finkel delivered that report. The key recommendation in the report was to introduce a clean energy target. That was the most fundamental issue and the most powerful recommendation that was there. But it is something this rabble of a government, under a weak Prime Minister, doesn't have the capacity to deliver. That's the problem: there is absolutely no capacity to deliver. You just look at the report in the Financial Review, going back to 13 June this year. Phillip Coorey, one of the main political analysts and reporters in this country, said: Malcolm Turnbull has been hit with a stronger-than-anticipated backlash over plans to introduce a Clean Energy Target in a battle which is fast becoming a test of his leadership, Liberal sources say. It goes on to say: … only four or five MPs had spoken in favour of Dr Finkel's key recommendation— this was in the coalition party room— while about 22, including Tony Abbott, were against, and four more unclear. I'm not surprised that members of the coalition are unclear. They are really unclear about most things. It goes on: Chief complaints— this is in the coalition party room— were that the CET modelled by Dr Finkel did not classify so-called clean coal as a low emissions source and there was widespread scepticism at his forecast that his CET would deliver lower power prices than doing nothing. You had people arguing in the party room of the coalition that they shouldn't do anything on this and they should do nothing, while you have got working-class families, with kids, battling to pay their power bills. This just shows you how out of touch, weak and unfocused this government is. It goes on: "It's a slaughter," said an MP inside the meeting "and a lot of the usual suspects haven't spoken yet". It goes on to say: … the prospect of doing anything at all regarding a CET is now in serious doubt. Well, we know that because the government has had this report now for some time, and it is in no way capable of delivering, even though Labor have said that we will work with the government to deliver a clean energy target in the interests of ensuring that we can do something about reducing power prices in this country. Coorey says: Both Nationals and Liberals spoke against the plan, despite it promising to lower electricity prices and the government yet to do any design work. So it hasn't even looked at doing any design work on this. This is a government that really is only a government in name. They are doing no governing, they are weak and they are incapable of delivering reduced power prices in this country. The Financial Review goes on to quote Senator Cormann. He said: The biggest cost…tax that we could impose on consumers and taxpayers would be to do nothing. It was actually Senator Cormann who was saying that we've got to do something about this. But Senator Cormann is being ignored in this debate as well. He said that, without policy certainty, prices would continue to go 'up and up and up.' This is one of the most effective politicians within the coalition putting a warning out to his colleagues in the coalition that, if they don't do anything about this, prices would go 'up and up and up'. It even beggars belief that we have the finance minister having to tell the coalition party room that, if they don't do anything on this, power prices will go 'up and up and up'. It goes on to say: …CET with bipartisan support would restore investor certainty to a volatile and dysfunctional energy market, resulting in lower prices. The most expensive option in terms of power prices would be to do nothing, Dr Finkel said. The person who the coalition asked to do a report, Dr Finkel, is being supported by Senator Cormann, the finance minister, who is saying that we have to do something about this. But hour after hour after hour of division within the coalition party room couldn't bring about a resolution to say, 'Let's get on with the job and reduce power prices for the Australian community.' This is not in the national interest. This weak government is not in the national interest. Then the Prime Minister is reported to have stressed to the party room that the CET did not prohibit the construction of new coal-fired power stations. What planet is this Prime Minister on? No-one wants to invest in new coal-fired power stations—nobody! Yet, to try and appease the opposition to a CET in the party room, the Prime Minister is talking about building new coal-fired power stations. Then he changes his mind on that, and then the National Party bail him up and he's off down that road again. The energy sector and the experts believe that even if coal is included in the scheme there is no interest in building a coal-fired power station, if only because they are more expensive than renewable energy. This coalition is in an absolute bind. This government just cannot get its act together to operate in the interests of the Australian community. This government would, through its own ideological approach on power prices and on climate change, force ordinary Australians to pay more and more for their power. They are an absolute disgrace. Malcolm Turnbull, the Prime Minister, doesn't have a clue about how to deal with this issue, because the extremists in the coalition will do anything to stop a proper, measured, scientific approach to dealing with power prices in this country. This is the same Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who said that he would not lead a party that is not as committed to effective climate action as he was. He said that before they ditched him, and then he clawed his way back, knifed former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, became the Prime Minister, and he is now captive of the climate change deniers, the unscientific rabble that is the coalition party room. The party room is lording it over a weak and ineffective Prime Minister, a Prime Minister who is a huge disappointment to people who thought that this guy, who was on Q&A with a fancy leather jacket, would do something—that this cool character with the leather jacket would actually make a difference. Well, the cool character in the leather jacket is an absolute captive of the extremists in the coalition. He is weak, he is ineffective and everyone knows that he is a massive disappointment. It has been reported that he's got an identity crisis. Well, you have to get an identity before you can have a crisis. What is this guy's identity? He just goes from one thing to another—capitulates on one issue of his values and one issue of his principles; it's just capitulate, capitulate. That is the Prime Minister we have—a Prime Minister who would force the community to pay $122 million for a postal survey instead of standing up to the lunatics in the coalition who will never agree that everyone should get equal rights in this country. Households are battling to pay their bills, just being ignored. The man who led the campaign for a republic won't bring a republic debate, won't talk about a republic, because the extremists in the coalition have complete control. You only have to go back to look at why we're in this position. It is because the coalition is led by nose by former senator Barnaby Joyce, who was a Kiwi at the time he was in here—a New Zealander—making speeches about $100 lamb roasts. Remember that? He was creating fear in the community about doing something in relation to climate change. Why was he doing that? He was doing that because he was being funded by the mining sector in this country. He was being given massive support and the National Party were being given support by the mining industry in this country. What is the result of that? We are all facing higher and higher power bills because of his incompetence and his bending the knee to the climate change deniers. It's been a decade of stupidity from the coalition. There was even someone who wrote a thesis about climate change. It was Mr Greg Hunt, the ex-environment minister, claiming that it would be $1,300 a tonne. What did ABC Fact Check say? That it is untenable. It is just a nonsense. I worked in Liddell power station for seven years as a maintenance fitter. I went there in 1974, two years after it was opened. I worked there until about 1981. In those days, in 1972 when this power station was built, Donny Osmond was No. 1 in the charts with Puppy Love. That is how long ago it was when Liddell power station was commissioned. Don Maclean was up in the charts with American Pie, and—Senator Nash would like this—the pipes and drums of the military band of the Royal Scots Dragoon were in the charts with Amazing Grace. The P76 was out there. Remember the Leyland P76? That is when Liddell was built, yet we have a Prime Minister saying we should extend the life of that power station over 50 years. It just beggars belief. The AGL chief executive has said, 'I'm not keeping it going.' I know about some of the problems we had when I was as a maintenance fitter there, trying to keep the boiler tubes decently intact. And I know how the turbines played up and how the turbines have been closed down on a number of occasions over the last year. I know the problems that are there. Yet we have a Prime Minister who wants to keep Liddell power station going. I like Liddell. I must say, it was great. I was a union delegate at Liddell. We had good wages and conditions. We had good camaraderie. We had bosses that were awful, but we fought back. Even so, those workers deserve a proper move from a power industry that's not going to get any investment to a situation where they can get new jobs doing work in new areas such as clean energy. There was a report in The Singleton Argus today from Elise Pfeiffer. She sounds like a very good reporter; it's a very good article. It says: In a statement to the Australian Stock Exchange on Wednesday, AGL yet again insisted it does not plan to sell its ageing Liddell power station nor keep it open beyond the set date of 2022. Instead, the energy powerhouse is assessing its ability to replace the coal-fired station with a mix of energy from solar and wind, and fill its capacity gap with a mix of load-shaping and firming, from gas peaking plant, demand response, pumped hydro and batteries. That's what the future is laying out. That's where I want the kids of the people I worked with at Liddell power station to be getting their jobs. That's what they should be doing. That's where the young kids who are listening in now should be getting jobs: load-shaping and firming, hydro, batteries, wind power, solar power. That's the future of this country. Yet the coalition are so backward, so incompetent, such troglodytes that they cannot understand what the future is. It goes on to say that the more economically viable position is the one I've just described, and that is opposed to spending millions on upgrading a 46-year-old plant. Mr Andy Vesey said: It will require a significant investment and so, you know, if you're thinking about extending the life of a plant like that for 10 years, let's say, the level of investment would be significant … And the question we have to ask if we're going to make a significant investment in generation, would we do it in an older plant which is less reliable with higher maintenance costs or should we be making that investment in new technology which aligns with what we believe is the future which will be a greater value long term to our shareholders and customers. The other thing at Liddell power station is that, when the power station was built, Denman Shire Council was the council that entered arrangements about the build with the then state government, but there was no agreement about the clean-up costs, so whoever ends up with that power station will have hundreds of millions of dollars of clean-up costs. These are issues that would have to be factored into any sale price and factored in by anyone who thinks they would take that over. I will finish on this. A recent report said the coal-fired power stations, Bayswater and Liddell, were creating huge toxic problems—30 toxic substances that have serious health impacts on the communities of both Singleton and Muswellbrook. Why would we keep that going, when AGL are saying there are different ways to do this? I was not a great fan of privatising the power industry; I'm not a great fan of what's happened. Combined with the incompetence of the coalition and Malcolm Turnbull, all it has led to is this crisis. 16:49 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory I, for one, certainly enjoyed that trip down memory lane from Senator Cameron. I wasn't aware of what was on Top of the Pops in 1974. Senator Cameron AI6 You were two! Senator SESELJA HZE That was a couple of years before my birth. I've got no doubt that Senator Cameron wanted to do that trip down memory lane. I am more interested in a more recent trip down memory lane—this is going back to the last, incompetent, Labor government and its energy policy. We might talk a bit about that. I don't know who was top of the pops, I can't remember who was top of the pops, in 2010, but there was this crew in charge called 'Gillard and Brown', in a Labor-Greens government, who delivered us a carbon tax and a disastrous energy policy. That's why I'm shocked that Labor wants to talk about energy policy today in the Senate. Yesterday we were talking about its economic failures; today, its policy failures on energy—and what failures they have been. This is the party that introduced a carbon tax, the whole point of which was to raise electricity prices. This is the party that introduced a mining tax that hit the economy and made it tougher to use our abundant natural resources. This is the party that, with its partners the Greens, opposed coal mining and any effort to build power stations. Senator Cameron talked about values. Remember when the Labor Party valued workers? I recall, distantly, a Labor Party that actually used to value workers. But this is the Labor Party which, in South Australia, cost local businesses $450 million because it simply couldn't keep the lights on. With a 50 per cent renewable energy target, the Labor Party in South Australia brought blackouts throughout last summer and left its people with the highest power bills in the country—and you want to talk about an energy policy! Now Bill Shorten wants to take Jay Weatherill's energy policy national. That's what Bill Shorten wants to do. He wants to deliver the South Australian experiment and impose that on the Australian people. It is Labor nationally that is proposing a 45 per cent emissions reduction target by 2030, a 50 per cent renewable energy target, the forced closure of coal-fired power plants, and no energy security plant. That sounds like a Greens policy to me. It reminds me of a local Greens politician who said words to the effect of 'we don't want to go back to the caves just yet'. That is the type of policy, this Greens-inspired Labor policy, that will kill our economy. Together these policies would absolutely wreak havoc on Australia's households and businesses, including the 900,000 Australians who work in manufacturing. These are workers who the Labor Party used to care about, but no longer do. Labor's own modelling, back when it was in government, showed that a target similar to 45 per cent, which Bill Shorten wants to impose on Australia, would increase wholesale electricity prices by 78 per cent. The Business Council of Australia called this 45 per cent target 'risky' and 'unnecessary' and said it could jeopardise Australia's future economic growth. Only the coalition is capable of delivering solid, reliable and affordable energy for Australians. We as a government take this issue seriously, and we're not taking an ideological approach. Our priority is energy affordability and reliability, while meeting our international targets. That's what a responsible government does. We don't put forward unfunded energy targets. We don't try to close down power stations, leaving a state vulnerable to mass power outages during a storm. We look at the evidence and make considered decisions accordingly. That's why we commissioned an independent review of the National Electricity Market. Australia's Chief Scientist presented his final report on the future security of the National Electricity Market to COAG leaders on 9 June. The independent review was commissioned following the statewide blackout in South Australia on 28 September 2016. It notes that business as usual is no longer an option. On 14 July 2017, the COAG Energy Council agreed to immediately act on 49 of the 50 recommendations of the independent review into the future security of the National Electricity Market. Following the eight-month review led by Australia's Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, these significant reforms have been agreed to in record time and will help to drive down power prices and ensure we have a more reliable system well into the future. Key recommendations which the Energy Council agreed to include: A new Generator Reliability Obligation which will require intermittent sources of generation to provide an appropriate level of backup to guard against blackouts; The introduction of Energy Security Obligations to provide the necessary support services (Frequency Control and Ancillary Services and inertia) to intermittent sources of generation; A new requirement for large generators to give a minimum three years notice before closing; and The establishment of an Energy Security Board to oversee the health, security and reliability of the NEM. To help increase gas supply and reduce prices, the government calls on states and territories to accept the Chief Scientist's recommendation to adopt a science based, case-by-case approach to new gas supply and end their arbitrary bans and moratoria. This is effectively saying that we shouldn't be adopting a Greens approach when it comes to exploration. As for the clean energy target, we'll continue to work through it in a considered manner, with further analysis required. What we won't do is what the Labor Party has done and just declare a target without any planning or forethought and expect the Australian people to pay for it. The coalition government also understands that base-load power anchors our electricity system. We know that we need to keep the lights on for all Australians, something that Jay Weatherill and Labor don't understand. We need to ensure we have enough power to meet future needs. The Australian Energy Market Operator's dispatchability report confirms that the accelerated withdrawal of base-load power, as pushed by the Labor Party, creates major risks in terms of both price and stability. AEMO's analysis shows there is a heightened risk of shortages during summer peaks without targeted actions to provide additional firming capability. They are currently seeking to contract 1,000 megawatts of additional generation for the coming summer to make sure we have enough electricity for these peak demand periods in South Australia and Victoria. The reckless policy of state Labor in Victoria and South Australia, contributing to the closure of Hazelwood in Victoria and Northern power station in South Australia, has seen the need for AEMO to take these steps. Consistent with the advice of the Finkel review and of the market operator, the government will accelerate work around the strategic reserve, which will beef up how AEMO currently contracts for reserve generation to manage summer peaks. With a major coal-fired power station, Liddell in New South Wales, scheduled to close in 2022, AEMO has identified an additional shortfall of 1,000 megawatts from 2022 onwards. The Prime Minister has started discussions with AGL on keeping Liddell operating longer, remembering that our first obligation to families and businesses is to ensure the stability and affordability of the system. While the government understands coal is absolutely critical to the future of our energy system, Bill Shorten wants to close down coal-fired power stations. We aren't only looking at coal, though. To help with the integration of more renewables, we are working with ARENA on pumped hydro projects in Queensland, South Australia, Tasmania and New South Wales. The jewel in this crown is the development of Snowy Hydro 2.0, which will increase the generation of the scheme by 50 per cent, adding 2,000 megawatts of renewable energy to the national electricity market—enough to power 500,000 homes. With a reckless 45 per cent emissions reduction target, Labor needs to be held to account for policies that will lead to higher power prices and a less stable energy system. To compare and contrast: everything that the coalition government has done in this space has been designed to deliver affordability and to ensure that we have reliability; everything that Bill Shorten and the Labor Party, at both state and federal levels, is proposing will do exactly the opposite. It will undermine the security and stability of our system and it will dramatically push up prices, as we saw when Labor was last in power. We are not just looking at the supply side of electricity. We are also looking at what is happening in homes around Australia, with many families not being on the best deal they can be for their home electricity. That's why we're taking further action to help Australian families. We know that 50 per cent of households have not moved retailers or contracts in the past five years, even though savings can be as high as $1,500. At the first meeting of retailers, the Prime Minister has secured agreement on immediate measures and ongoing changes, to be backed by law, to put families and small businesses first. The commitments from the retailers include: contacting all customers who are on expired discounts and telling them how much they can save on a better deal; requiring companies to report to the government and ACCC what they are doing to get families on a better deal and how many families remain on expired deals; developing simple plain English fact sheets with understandable comparison rates; supporting a change to the electricity rules requiring companies to inform customers when their discount benefits end, setting out the dollar impact of doing nothing; and ensuring families and individuals on hardship programs will not lose any benefit or discount for late payment. At the second meeting, retailers agreed to go further, contacting another one million customers on standing offers—usually the most expensive rates. The government also secured a commitment from retailers to make available to customers their consumption and payment information, working with the Australian Energy Regulator on a QR code or equivalent on their bill which they can scan using a smartphone and instantly compare offers from other retailers. Since the first meeting, over 280,000 Australians have visited the government's Energy Made Easy website, which allows them to seek a better deal. The industry and government will continue to work together over the coming months to make more changes that will ensure families do not have to pay a cent more for electricity than they need to. The coalition government has directed the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to review retail electricity prices. The review will scrutinise electricity retail behaviour as well as contracts offered to residential and business customers and ensure consumers benefit from competition in the National Electricity Market. Competition in retail electricity markets should mean lower prices for residential and business customers. The Turnbull government is determined to ensure Australians get a better deal for their energy. An interim report will be delivered by September, with the final report by June 2018. In responding to the ACCC's review, the coalition government will consider what further action should be taken to ensure the market is competitive and energy consumers, both residential and business, can have confidence in the reliability, security, pricing and terms and conditions of supply. The coalition government will also legislate to remove the ability of networks to appeal the merits of decisions of the Australian Energy Regulator: This will remove the ability of regulated energy network companies to game the system at the expense of consumers. This reform is critical, as network costs make up around 40 to 50 per cent of the household bill. Energy networks will have access to judicial review if they want to challenge the AER's decisions. Telecommunications, water and postage sectors do not have access to merits review and nor should the energy sector. The LMR regime was established in 2008. Since then, electricity networks have used it to challenge 32 out of 51 AER decisions, resulting in $6.5 billion being passed on to consumers in their electricity bills. In not one instance has an appeal by the networks led to reduced costs for consumers. This process is seen as a free option for network businesses. A research note by a major broker said of LMR: … investors are getting this as a 'free option', with the upside being it brings forward a dividend surprise. In December 2016, the Commonwealth sought agreement at the COAG Energy Council to abolish LMR but was unsuccessful in achieving the support of all states due to vested interests. That is why we are showing leadership and taking this position to abolish this appeals mechanism. To back this, the Turnbull government is strengthening the AER by providing it with an additional $67.4 million in funding. This will ensure they are fully equipped to address behaviour in the market that is resulting in higher than necessary electricity prices. This is a response to the recommendation of the Finkel review to increase resources for the AER. Making sure the AER is well resourced is critical to consumer confidence in the electricity and gas markets. In contrast to our comprehensive, wide-ranging plan to help Australians get secure, reliable and affordable power to their homes, we have seen the results of Labor's green-inspired policies. We have seen what has happened in South Australia—the highest bills in the country and the least reliable network. We have seen in Victoria, as a result of Labor pushing out Hazelwood, energy companies AGL and Energy Australia increasing bills by up to $135 in 2017. In its Climate Action Plan, Labor said it would kick-start the closure of coal-fired plants. Senator Williams I0V They'd put us in the dark. Senator SESELJA HZE As Senator Williams points out, it would put us in the dark. It would put Australia in the dark. Labor wants to take the South Australian failed energy experiment, which leads to lights out and the highest energy prices in the country. Bill Shorten and federal Labor want to take that national. I find the fact that Labor would come to the Senate today and want to talk about energy policy absolutely extraordinary. We are happy to talk about energy policy, because we are absolutely the party who will do all we can to keep the lights on, and we will have the policies to keep prices as low as possible. Labor's only policies will see prices go up and the reliability of our system undermined. Labor's one policy prescription is closing down 24 coal-fired power plants. The Australian Energy Market Commission said a forced closure policy could cost up to $24 billion and thousands of jobs—thousands of jobs of people whom the Labor Party used to represent. No more do they represent them. The contrast could not be clearer between us and a Labor Party that is now so enthralled by Greens policy that it will take reckless action. Bill Shorten has indicated that, if he becomes Prime Minister, he will shut down our coal-fired power industry, he will push up electricity prices with a 50 per cent renewable energy target and a 45 per cent reduction target, and he will put our economy at risk. Our manufacturing sector, which relies on cheap energy, will be absolutely decimated, and the small businesses that flow from it will also be decimated. There are workers, regional towns and suburban areas and households that rely on this. There are households that can't afford to pay for Bill Shorten's deal with the Greens. And fundamentally— Senator Carol Brown F49 Mr Shorten. Senator SESELJA HZE I will respond to the interjection from Senator Brown. It is 'Mr Shorten', but I note there was no objection to what I was saying about Mr Shorten's policies: how Mr Shorten's policies will take us back to the Dark Ages; how Mr Shorten's policies will see Australia on a path to oblivion when it comes to our economy; how Mr Shorten's policies, which he has adopted from the Greens, will see the loss of tens of thousands of jobs; how Mr Shorten's policies will see jobs being exported offshore; and how Mr Shorten's policies will see families having more and more pressure put on them because of ideology. That is the offering from the Australian Labor Party and Mr Shorten. They have now adopted Greens policies. They want to shut down the coal-fired power industry in this country. They want to push up electricity prices. They want to give us a state of being that the people of South Australia have been living now for a number of years and, most starkly, in the last year or so when we've seen the statewide blackouts for the first time in living memory. They want to take us back to the Dark Ages. I'm very, very pleased to sit here and compare and contrast what a Turnbull coalition government is doing and has done with the alternative that is being put forward by Mr Bill Shorten and the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party once claimed to stand for workers but it now stands for Greens preferences. This is an Australian Labor Party that would absolutely sell this country out with its energy policy. It would sell out our economy, it would sell out our business sector and it would sell out Australian families. 17:09 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales It's apt, isn't it, to be talking about policy leadership on the day that the High Court has ruled that we have to continue with this shambles of a postal survey cooked up by the government? On energy, much like on marriage equality, the government has had to repair its makeshift solutions so many times that there's really not much left but masking tape and bits of chewing gum. In this case, it's not just a case of the government making a bad decision; it's actually refused to make any decision at all. Its policy paralysis on energy has had serious effects for business, consumers and our environment. Let's be really clear about this: we are in the middle of an unprecedented investment strike which has been brought about by the government. Earlier this year, the head of the Energy Council, which represents the coal-fired generators and the gas generators, wrote: We are already experiencing the consequences of energy policy paralysis … The "grid" as we know it is degrading in front of our eyes. But you don't hear much about that from the coalition, a group ordinarily enthusiastic about championing the views of business, because they are not listening. They are stuck in an ideological dilemma entirely of their own making. I want to take a moment to consider how we got into this mess in the first place. This is not a technical problem. We know how to reduce electricity prices and we know how to reduce emissions, and we know that those two things are entirely compatible. This is a political problem. It's a political problem because the solution requires the coalition to make a break from the universality of coal-fired generation, a mineral that has long ceased to be an energy source and instead has become a symbol of the culture wars in the coalition party room. The Liberal Party brawl about energy has been going on for so long that it is hard to remember where it all started, but late last year we were promised a circuit breaker. The Finkel review was supposed to be a way for the Liberal party room to put off having to make a decision about energy policy. They were going to defer it for a while and have an expert come up with what was hopefully a workable compromise. Within days, however, the Minister for the Environment and Energy had already been forced into an embarrassing backdown. On Monday on ABC Radio an EIS was in. The minister said: We know that there's been a large number of bodies that have recommended an emissions intensity scheme, which is effectively a baseline and credit scheme, we'll look at that … That is what he was saying on the Monday—'We'll look at it.' On talkback radio on Tuesday it was ruled out. What did he say on the Tuesday, just 24 hours later? He said: 'The Turnbull government is not contemplating such a scheme. We are not advocating for such a scheme. What we are focused on is driving down electricity prices and increasing energy security.' How utterly embarrassing and completely depressing for Australian consumers and Australian energy businesses. This depressing trend continues. Every time anyone from the government dares question the orthodoxy propagated by the hard Right of the Liberal Party, the hard Right flex their muscles and bring them right back into line. It was inevitable that the same thing would happen to Dr Finkel's proposal. Within hours of the Liberal Party's special meeting on the Finkel report in June, one anonymous but very, very talkative MP had briefed The Australian: Finkel in its current form is dead. What we have had ever since is a government in search of an escape and absolutely desperate to avoid making a decision. It has been months since Chief Scientist Alan Finkel delivered his report recommending a clean energy target. The Finkel panel indicated that there was an urgent need for a clear and early decision on a clean energy target. At this stage, I think we'd just settle for a decision. This isn't a problem caused by partisanship. At the start of this year, industry, consumer and not-for-profit groups put out a rare joint statement on energy. I'm going to read it because all of these groups, not normally allies, said: The status quo of policy uncertainty, lack of coordination and unreformed markets is increasing costs, undermining investment and worsening reliability risks. This impacts all Australians, including vulnerable low-income households, workers, regional communities and trade-exposed industries. The finger pointing will not solve our energy challenges. More than a decade of this has made most energy investments impossibly risky. This has pushed prices higher while hindering transformational change of our energy system. The result is enduring dysfunction in the electricity sector. We need mature, considered debate. Well, that was in February, and now—in September—nothing has changed. Labor have been willing all along to compromise in order to find a solution, to work with whoever we can on the other side of the aisle who might be in a position to meaningfully or coherently negotiate. But this is something the Liberal Party has proven to be unwilling and unable to do, time and time again. The problem is that the Liberal Party doesn't need to compromise with us; it needs to reach a compromise with itself. What does the solution look like? It's not coal. You have to wonder how far from the pack you have strayed if you are being slapped down by electricity companies as being too bullish on coal, as the Prime Minister was yesterday. The simple reason AGL, like all the other generation companies, is getting out of coal is that it doesn't make economic sense for them. Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 They worked for the Labor Party! Senator McALLISTER 121628 I want to take a moment to talk about this, because Senator Macdonald is having a minor fit over there about the fact that someone at AGL once worked for GetUp! and maybe supported renewables. Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting— Senator McALLISTER 121628 Well, there are all sorts of conspiracy theories, and Senator Macdonald is voicing them now, about how environmentalists are trying to capture Australian business with leftist policies. The fact that people have missed is this: it is not that the Australian energy sector has been dragged to the left; it is that renewables are now a sensible, mainstream, entirely unobjectionable policy proposition everywhere except in the coalition party room. And it's not just business but households as well. It's worth reading the material AEMO produces, rather than just name-dropping AEMO, which is the government's current approach. AEMO says that net residential demand—the households, the mums and dads the coalition love to talk about—is 'projected to decline as growth in population and appliance usage is offset by increased generation from rooftop solar and by energy efficiency initiatives'. That is what AEMO projects. That's its vision of a future electricity network, and it actually doesn't look like a great big new coal-fired power station. The electricity system is changing. It is radically altering, and the coalition are simply not keeping up with the market reality, with the technological reality, with the engineering reality. Despite all the carry-on about how they are going to be guided by economics and guided by engineering, none of that is evident in their approach, because they're so selective in the material they are willing to draw on when they are considering the AEMO information. Think about transition. On average, network charges accounted for 43 per cent of residential electricity prices in 2015. If you are generating locally, that entire charge no longer need apply to you. There are enormous savings. If you want to go chasing savings, there are enormous savings available with a more decentralised energy system. Let's talk about storage technology. We've already seen two huge technology driven changes in electricity demand. The peak in the electricity system used to be in winter, associated with heating homes. Now it's in summer, associated with the ubiquitous presence of air conditioning in so many Australian homes. The growth in rooftop storage has seen further changes. There's a dip in energy use in the afternoon as people generate their own power and then a surge in use in the early evening. And storage technology is going to drive further changes. The system is changing. The demands of the system are changing, and solutions that were appropriate back in 1970, when most of the people on the other side formed their view about energy policy, are not solutions that will work in the future. Battery technologies are expected to fall in cost by another 40 to 60 per cent by 2020. We are seeing the introduction of entirely new technologies that will radically change the way that households and businesses consume electricity, providing opportunities for people to manage their electricity demand behind the meter at home. Energy Networks Australia predicts that 30 to 50 per cent of Australia's energy needs will be supplied by millions of customer-owned generation and storage devices. The Prime Minister can complain—and he often does, slightly disingenuously, because I'm not sure that he actually believes it—about wind and solar having different generation profiles from traditional coal. Sorry, Mr Turnbull, that is just the future. That is where technology is going. People are going to have rooftop solar; they are going to have batteries—they already do. Tens of thousands of Australian households already do, and they are looking to the government for leadership as to how all these new technologies will be integrated into a new system. But all they get is a nostalgic hankering for coal, which presents no solution to the energy challenge that we face now. We should be able to make our energy system more flexible, better able to accommodate diverse sources of supply, and better able to manage our demand and sequence our demand so that overall the system is in balance. That is what all of this communication technology will allow, if only the market can be adapted to allow these things to take place, and nothing has happened on this front. The coalition has been asleep at the wheel while report after report has been produced by the AEMC, the AER and the AEMO begging the government to undertake meaningful market reform to allow these technologies to work. I come back to the original proposition. We need to create a certain investment environment. This is something the coalition has comprehensively failed to do, and the repeal of the carbon price was the first step in a long march towards trashing the energy market. Everybody who knows anything about the electricity system is demanding policy certainty. Dr Finkel presented options months ago that still wait to be enacted. All that it would take is for the coalition to get its act together, sort out its own differences, put aside the dinosaurs and the hard Right of the Liberal Party and the National party, and come to a decision, based, as they say they will, on the engineering, on the science, on the economics and on Dr Finkel's report. 17:22 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland I am so delighted the Labor Party have raised this subject for debate this afternoon. I can't for the life of me understand why they would want to do it. This debate highlights that the Labor Party federally have no policies whatsoever to address the crisis that is confronting Australia. In Queensland, the state that I represent and that I will refer to often in my presentation, naturally enough, the Labor Party are all over the ship on energy policy. The only thing that's clear from the state Labor government in Queensland is that they own the generators of electricity in Queensland. They have been gouging the market, selling electricity—generated by coal-fired power stations—at enormous profit, simply to prop up the Queensland state budget which, because it is run by the Labor Party, would otherwise be in real crisis. From a Queenslander's point of view, there are very high electricity prices. Why? Because they are gouged by the electricity generators of Queensland, owned by the state government, providing huge profits to the state government, who are trying to balance their budget at the expense of Queensland households. You wouldn't think it could get worse in Queensland, but it can. The Palaszczuk government have indicated that they want to have 50 per cent of Queensland's power in renewables by 2030. For one thing, that provides them with a real problem with balancing their budget, because renewable energy means less coal-fired energy and it means that there will be less revenue going to the Queensland budget. But for consumers in Queensland—for mums and dads and for small businesses—it means that the price of electricity will skyrocket again. In my own home town of Ayr there was a blackout for about five hours a couple of weeks ago. I don't think it was lack of supply. It was probably for some maintenance, but I suspect it's the Queensland government acclimatising us to the fact that, under their policies, Queenslanders will eventually suffer the same fate that the South Australians suffer under the Labor government there—having no power in the hottest months of the year. And for Queenslanders, and particularly where I come from in the north, having no power in the summer months will just be horrendous. This is what you can expect from state Labor governments in Queensland and around the country following the lead of the Labor government in South Australia, where the lights are simply turned out. There is a fallacy around that renewable energy is cheap. I'm pleased to say that in the north there are a number of renewable energy projects. The Kidston Solar Project has $54 million of subsidies from the Australian taxpayer via the Clean Energy Foundation and another almost $9 million from ARENA, the Australian Renewable Energy Agency. So, regarding suggestions that renewable energy doesn't cost you much: it might not cost you much because taxpayers are subsidising it. There is the Ross River Solar Farm proposal, with $20 million from the CEFC. There's the Kennedy Energy Park, with $18 million from ARENA. This doesn't fit into the same category, but there is the Moranbah solar farm which Adani are going to do. That has no subsidy at this time. There is the Collinsville Solar Farm, with a $60 million subsidy from CEFC and $9.5 million subsidy from ARENA. There is the Pentland Bioenergy Project feasibility study, with another $3 million from ARENA. They are just a few renewable energy projects in North Queensland. Forget about Australia! Imagine the taxpayer subsidies of the clean energy proposals across the nation. I want to repeat an explanation that a constituent gave me: 'Renewable energy has nothing to do with reducing energy prices; its sole purpose is to assuage the middle-class guilt of the inner-city intelligentsia.' That is not a bad description from that constituent. People who live in a completely different world to the rest of Australia think that they have to do something, so they think this renewable energy will be good for the planet. Let's have a look at how good it will be for the planet. I do hope that there is a Greens senator around who might come and tell me where this argument is wrong, because I keep raising it. I keep asking the Greens to tell me where this scenario is wrong, but, apart from abusing me and calling me names, they never answer the question. The question is this: Australia emits less than 1.2 per cent of the world's total carbon emissions. I will repeat that so that anyone who might be listening to this can understand that: Australia emits less than 1.2 per cent of the world's total carbon emissions. If Mr Shorten and Ms Palaszczuk have their way, they are going to reduce those emissions by a small amount. Let's say 50 per cent of our power comes from non-carbon sources; what we're going to do to help the world is reduce Australia's 1.2 per cent of emissions by 50 per cent. I asked Dr Finkel this question: if you reduce Australia's carbon emissions by 1.2 per cent, which is down to zero, what impact will that have on the changing climate of the world? His response was 'virtually none'. Whilst the Labor Party and, as my constituent said, the inner-city intelligentsia with their middle-class guilt feel good about this, it's not going to make one iota of difference to the changing climate of the world—yet it will cost Australians. You know, Australia used to have a competitive advantage. It was never in the price of our labour. Certainly our labour was skilled, but the price of labour made us relatively uncompetitive around the world. The one competitive advantage that Australia had was cheap, affordable, regular and reliable power. Why was that? Because in Australia we are blessed with huge reserves of high-quality coal and we can get electricity cheaper to Australian manufacturers. Korea Zinc's Sun Metal was encouraged to set up a zinc refinery in Townsville about 30 years ago. This was one of the reasons they set up in Townsville in Australia. Rather than doing what lots of others have done and take the zinc concentrate back to Korea, they set up in Townsville where the zinc was mined. Why? Because they could be guaranteed cheap coal-fired energy for a long period of time. Regrettably—and I know Sun Metal have looked at this with regret in years gone by—that agreement ran out and now they're being forced to pay enormous prices for the huge amounts of power they use, which makes it very, very difficult to compete in the world. We emit less than 1.2 per cent of the world's carbon emissions. Even if we stopped all emissions from Australia—that is, shut off every electric light, stopped every car moving and didn't allow South Australia to run all of these dirty diesel generators—it would make virtually no difference. If we shut Australia down completely and saved 1.2 per cent, according to common sense—and if you want a better authority than common sense, go to Dr Finkel, who said this—it would make virtually no difference to the changing climate of the world. My friend and colleague Senator Williams had some research done on Australia's position on coal-fired power stations compared to other countries in the world. I'll say this slowly so some of the Greens and Labor senators can absorb it. Let me give you an example. This research talks in units of power. Australia has fewer than 73 units of power—that is, units of coal-fired power generation. There are 73 from Australia. What has China got? China has 2,107 units. Australia has 73. When we get the coal-fired, base-load power station in North Queensland, which I am confident will come with a change of government in Queensland at the next election, we will go up to 74 or 75 units of power. According to the Labor Party and the Greens, this is going to destroy the world. Australia will then have, say, 75 units of power; China has 2,107; Germany; 155—double what Australia has—Japan, 119; Russia, 358; Poland, 178; South Africa, 108; Ukraine, 112; United States, 783; Again, I relate these figures to Australia. United States has 783; Australia, with its one new coal-fired power station, has 75. Can I ask the Greens or the Labor Party speakers who might be following me in this debate, how does having one new low-emissions, high-quality coal-fired power station in Australia have any impact whatsoever on the changing climate of the world? I know it is popular for the Greens to say, 'You're a dinosaur; you don't accept that the climate is changing.' Of course I accept that the climate is changing. And I always give the obvious, exaggerated example that once upon a time the world was covered in ice and now it isn't so, clearly, over time, the climate does change. I accept that the climate changes. But, Australia's carbon emissions, if carbon emissions are the problem—I say if they are, but I don't go to that debate—then Australia emits 1.2 per cent. If Labor and the Greens' policies are to be implemented, that might come down by an infinitesimal amount. But even at 1.2 per cent, Dr Finkel confirms that it has absolutely no impact on the changing climate of the world. There's a lot of misinformation that goes around about carbon emissions and electricity prices. I like energy minister Senator Canavan's description of Westpac bank. When Westpac said that they didn't want to get involved in coal—for one, Adani had never asked them for any money. When we look into it, why Westpac were a bit concerned about the Queensland coalfields opening is because Westpac owns several mines in the Hunter Valley and they own the Newcastle Port, so they don't want any competition. Senator Canavan was so right when he said that Westpac should go back to its old name of the Bank of New South Wales because clearly it was more interested in its New South Wales coal and port investments than it was in the future of Australia. A lot of comments have been made about AGL, who want to shut down a power station that is making considerable contributions towards the power that we currently have. If Liddell power station, which is owned by AGL, is closed in 2022, the authority has identified an additional shortfall of 1,000 megawatt hours to the Australian grid from 2022 onwards. Fortunately, the government is trying to arrange or assist a buyer to take that project on. But we wonder why AGL is so, what I might call, bolshie about its energy network and the huge money it's made over the years from coal and other energy supplies. Then we read in today's paper that one of their senior executives is a mouthpiece for the ALP. She was, as I understand it, on the board of GetUp! and, no doubt, influencing, very substantially, policy of AGL. I just hope that the shareholders in AGL understand that this company, which has made squillions out of energy supply, most of which was from coal-fired power stations, is now taking the GetUp!-ALP-Greens' line to their business. I suspect that their business will start to fall, and I hope shareholders are aware of that and might be interested in that. The whole energy market is ridiculous at the moment. In all of my time in the Senate—and that's been a long while!—power supply, energy supply and costing have been matters for state governments. Why? Because the state governments own the transmission lines and the generators. That's been the case, but we now have state governments refusing to allow us to tap the enormous reserves of gas under the ground in Victoria, in South Australia, and now, I understand, in Western Australia, along with the Northern Territory—all Labor governments. There's gas there, but they won't even let it be discovered. Fortunately the coalition government saw a national crisis coming and said, 'We've got to do something about this because the states are not.' The coalition government has taken the lead in trying to keep the power supply flowing. We've mandated a certain amount of what the Labor Party would allow to be exported gas. That will now be used on the domestic market to help try and bring prices down. The Commonwealth government has put pressure on the generators—in my case, that's the Queensland state government—to reduce their generating profits by stopping gouging the market and bringing it back to something that is reasonable. These initiatives had to be taken by the federal government because state Labor governments were incapable of dealing with these issues. I have a lot more I want to say on this particular subject, but I've run out of time. I again thank the Labor Party for nominating this as the topic for debate today. I couldn't have asked for a better debate myself. It just shows the people of Australia that the Labor Party has no interest. They're captured by the inner-city Greens intelligentsia, they're trying to assuage their consciences, and what they are doing is putting up prices for ordinary Australian families, making power almost unreachable for many Australians. Unless the Commonwealth acted, as it has done, this would have got worse. Congratulations to Mr Turnbull on his leadership and initiative in this area. (Time expired) 17:42 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Trust, trust, trust. As servants to the people of Queensland and Australia, we listen to the people of Queensland and across Australia, and people repeatedly tell us they can't trust the tired old parties. Think about this, senators from the Labor Party: you had an opportunity today to decrease energy prices by removing the GST on energy, and what did you do? You voted against reducing energy prices. Before we go into that further, let me just remind people of the fundamental importance of energy. Since 1850 and the industrial revolution, we have seen energy prices decrease in real terms. That has led to increasing productivity, and with increasing productivity there is increasing prosperity. That has enabled us to have human progress. Human civilisation has progressed dramatically, not just because we are a creative species and a caring species—contrary to what the Greens would have us believe—but because we also apply that creativity to reducing energy prices. That has increased human progress dramatically. Energy is what drives the implementation of our creative talents. Kevin Rudd's initiatives, joined by Penny Wong, Peter Garrett and Julia Gillard—and Christine Milne; how could we forget her!—are reversing human progress. They are denying the people of the Third World cheap energy, or they are trying to. They are denying people jobs in this country and, in fact, they are exporting jobs from this country. A false statement in this Labor Party motion is that the clean energy target will reduce energy prices. We have seen prices go up by more than double the CPI to an outstanding high—eight times what they were in 1980. That is an explosion in energy prices. As a result of the Finkel report, I commissioned, at my own cost, a review by a well-known energy economist, Alan Moran. He points out that, if we adopt the Finkel report, consumers will not be paying less for energy; they will be paying around $800 a year more. He also points out that energy prices have increased from around $40 per megawatt hour during the first 15 years of the present century to currently in excess of $80 per megawatt hour and that futures prices are now over $100 per megawatt hour. There is more to come in the future, and with the clean energy target there will be even more beyond that. So we are seeing a degradation of our energy market. In fact, this is really an energy racket, because it is polluted by subsidies, vested interests and regulations. This is a fundamental thing in what we see the Labor Party advocating. They are advocating the Finkel report and the clean energy target when, fundamentally, the driver of energy prices is the overregulation of energy. We no longer have an energy market; we have an energy racket. That energy racket is now laced with subsidies, vested interests, regulations and politicisation. We don't have an energy market now; we have an energy racket. What is more, that racket is distorting prices; it is increasing prices dramatically. We are seeing more of it and it will continue, as the Moran report shows. Let's look at the Finkel report and see what it is based on. Finkel does his projections based on the economic modelling of Jacobs. We see that, in recent years, literally within the last few years, the Jacobs modelling has contradicted itself several times. It raises serious questions about Dr Finkel's report. We have to question now the purpose and the nature of the modelling. It looks to me like it was rigged to produce the result that government wanted. Is that what Alan Finkel was paid to do? We will see something else now. As Dr Moran has pointed out, if we continue to do what the government is doing now, we will see export industries hurt. The trade-exposed energy-intensive industries that are really suffering will suffer body blows, and we could lose them as well. So it won't just be small business that falls prey to the tired old parties; it won't just be employees. It will be big businesses and our highly competitive businesses that will be destroyed in this country. We need to end the renewable energy target, not bring in a worse replacement. I must give credit to Senator Macdonald. I have developed enormous trust in him as a result of his work in recent months. Let's have a look at what has happened in South Australia. We have seen a Labor government destroy its own state, gleefully blow up a power station and celebrate it. Isn't that what terrorists do? They destroy the power stations. That is what Jay Weatherill's government has done. Why have they done that? Because the Greens have pushed them into it. They have lulled the Labor Party into it. The Labor Party needs the preferences; the Labor Party then falls for the trick. The Greens are actually running South Australia, to the detriment of all South Australians. We have seen the Greens in their home state—it is basically their home state, apart from Tasmania, the state where they were most popular—lose one of their two senators, and Senator Sarah Hanson-Young is now on her own. That is not all we see in South Australia. We see the madness that the Xenophon team has been plying the alliance of the Greens and the Labor Party. Those three have colluded to drive up energy prices in that state. But, sadly, we've also seen a dysfunctional Liberal Party in South Australia that has been gutlessly silent—cowed into submission and cowed into not having the guts to stand up and call the alliance of the Labor Party, the Greens and the Nick Xenophon Team for what it is. They're all hurting energy prices. How can we have trust in those tired old parties, especially the Greens and the Nick Xenophon Team? Why is there inaction, supposedly, from the Prime Minister, according to Senator Gallagher's motion? It's very simple: the economic reality is biting. We now see the legacy of driving up energy prices. People are now feeling it in the hip pocket. Businesses are now sacking employees. Steggles have gone under—a household name. They're gone. What we've seen is economic reality coming home to roost, but it's going to get far worse. As for action, part (b) of Senator Gallagher's motion talks about action. Look at the action that her own Labor Party is taking in the state of Queensland, where the major coal-fired power stations are owned and operated by the Labor Party government. Senator O'Sullivan 247871 Profiteering! Senator ROBERTS 266524 It is exceptionally high profiteering. It's, essentially, a tax. It is a tax—nothing else. It's a tax that's destroying jobs, a tax that's destroying people's futures, a tax that's destroying industries and a tax that's destroying exports and making us uncompetitive. Then, as South Australia is on 47 per cent for its renewable energy target, what does the Labor government want to do in Queensland? It wants to bring on a 50 per cent target. Then it has the dishonesty to claim that it won't cost jobs. If we bring in a 50 per cent renewable energy target, that means that that will either displace or be an addition to the coal-fired power stations, which will mean that they will have to shut. They will not have the subsidies that intermittent energies now have. When they shut, that will put coal operators, coal employers and power-station workers out of their jobs. They will watch these imported windmills and imported solar farms working with subsidies passed on by state governments through taxation and higher energy prices. What we have from the Greens and the Labor Party—can you believe it—is a highly regressive and destructive tax. That's because energy is an essential commodity today. It's no longer a luxury, I say to the Labor Party. Energy is now essential, a significant part of people's expenditure and highly regressive on the poor. Who is subsidising the wealthy to install subsidised solar panels? The poor, because they can't afford solar panels. So we now have a Queensland government that is stealing taxation—they're exorbitant rates, and it's nothing more than a tax—destroying the future of the state with a renewable energy target that is even beyond South Australia's imagination and using subsidies to kill the futures of people on lower incomes. That's not all. We see the Nicholls opposition in Queensland—the LNP—passing a Labor Party budget that includes a 50 per cent renewable energy target. We also see that they want a target of around 23 per cent. How can anybody trust any of the tired old parties—the Greens and the Nick Xenophon Team? Then we have hydro. Hydro is the only power source that's cheaper than coal-fired power stations, but we can't build dams in this country, despite having massive water flows and water reservoirs up in North Queensland. We cannot build dams because of the Greens. Let's look at the cause for energy prices being so high and increasing. First of all, we have the Renewable Energy Target, which kicked in in 2007. That Renewable Energy Target coincides exactly with the dramatic increase in prices for electricity. The Renewable Energy Target, with its massive subsidies to solar and wind, has driven up the price of electricity. We've seen subsidies for the intermittent energies and we've seen gold-plated networks that are abnormally high and intolerably high because they're not being managed because the sector is too highly regulated. We also see something else, and that is what the Howard government brought in. Prime Minister John Howard proudly said that he wouldn't sign the Kyoto Protocol, and that was good. But he also said that we would comply with it, and that we did. To be able to do that, the Howard government had to stop land clearing or stop industry. So what did it choose to do? It chose to stop land clearing. If he'd implemented that then, as a result, the government would have had to pay compensation to farmers in New South Wales, Queensland and the other states, but that's in fact not what happened, because to get around that compensation, Prime Minister Howard colluded with the then Premier, Peter Beattie, and the then environment minister in New South Wales, Bob Carr. They put in place native vegetation protection legislation, which stole farmers' property rights, and Bob Carr is on YouTube gloating and laughing at doing it in a way that would mean farmers would not be entitled to compensation. We've also seen jobs destroyed by the Renewable Energy Target that the Howard government put in place. A question for everyone: who was the leader of the major political party in this country that first brought in an emissions trading scheme? It wasn't Kevin Rudd; it was John Howard. Howard had the trifecta: the first emissions trading scheme as policy, the Renewable Energy Target and the stealing of farmers' property rights. How can we trust anyone in this debate? Following Kevin Rudd's mad, lunatic and disastrous quest for UN favours in his 2007 campaign, when the Labor Party brought out Al Gore to spread his lies, instead of countering it with facts, John Howard actually endorsed it by timidly falling for the ploy and reinforcing the claims about climate. Just a couple of months ago John Howard said, by the way, that the two per cent Renewable Energy Target was all it should've been. He is the man who brought in what we see now: around 23 to 28 per cent. In 2011, four years after he left the prime ministership, John Howard was delivering the Global Warming Policy Foundation's annual lecture in Britain in London. After wreaking all of this havoc and doing all of this damage, John Howard admitted that he is agnostic on climate change. He hasn't seen the evidence, and that's why he's agnostic. The reason is that there is no evidence. What we see from the Liberal Party and the National Party is gutlessness, but what we see from the Labor Party and the Greens is dishonesty and deceit. We see that from the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. Then we move onto the mad rantings we heard from the Greens this morning. We heard about hurricanes—the North American equivalent of cyclones—increasing. Let's have a look at that. We saw one cyclone last week, and then we see evidence that another cyclone is building and about to head towards North America. We then look at the records from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in North America, and we see that in the last 10 years North America has had 10 cyclones. If we go back to the 1850s, 1851 to 1860, the first years of the records, we see 19. That's double. If we then look at 1880 to 1889, we see 27, almost three times the number of cyclones we've had in the last decade. Senator Whish-Wilson this morning was speaking rubbish, absolute nonsense. There are no trends that indicate any changes in rainfall patterns; no trends that indicate any changes in drought severity, frequency or duration; no trends that indicate any changes in snowfall; and no trends that indicate any changes in cyclone severity, intensity or frequency. In fact, cyclones and hurricanes lately are unusually low in the last 10 years. We see no changes in ocean pH. What some people call acidity is actually alkalinity, because the pH is around 8.3. That makes it alkaline, not acidic. How can we trust the mad rantings of the Greens when they distort the facts? Instead of data, what do the Greens they rely on? They rely on pictures of cute, cuddly animals and colourful fish, instead of data. That is not science. Then we look at the Labor Party—and I see Senator McAllister in the chamber right now. She has mentioned things like a 97 per cent consensus. When people don't have the scientific data, they put in a red herring like 'a 97 per cent consensus'. Well, I am here to say that the 97 per cent consensus has been proven to be a 0.3 per cent fudging, and none of those scientists have any proof— The PRESIDENT e5v The time for the debate has now expired. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 6730 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 18:00 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I seek leave to make a very short personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator CAMERON AI6 During the debate on taking note of answers today, Senator Bernardi called a point of order, saying that I had said 'Senator Cash' instead of 'Senator Nash'. I denied that was the position, but I went back and checked the video and I did say that first up. So I just wanted to correct the record as soon as I could. The PRESIDENT e5v Thank you, Senator Cameron. The record now stands corrected. DOCUMENTS 6730 DOCUMENTS Consideration 6730 COMMITTEES 6730 COMMITTEES National Disability Insurance Scheme 6730 Government Response to Report 6730 18:02 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I rise to take note of the government response to the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme report Provision of services under the NDIS for people with psychosocial disabilities related to a mental health condition. This was a very important inquiry. Before I go into the content of the report, I want to thank those people and organisations, particularly from the mental health sector, who made submissions and attended the public hearings. The report makes 24 recommendations, which were unanimously agreed to by everyone on the committee, across all parties. I will touch on some of the recommendations later. As the report points out, it is estimated that 64,000 people with psychosocial disabilities related to a mental health condition will become NDIS participants by 2019-20. This equates to nearly 14 per cent of the total 460,000 Australians who will be participants in the NDIS. We must do everything that we can to ensure that each and every one gets increased supports and improved outcomes under the NDIS. We must also end the uncertainty that exists about just what psychosocial services will be available as the NDIS is fully rolled out. It is also vital that all governments continue to provide support for people with psychosocial disabilities who are not eligible for the NDIS. I've met with many carers who are worried about the future of services for people who experience mental ill-health, the majority of whom will not be covered by the NDIS. Some carers are worried that psychosocial disability support services may not be adequately funded through the information linkages and capacity-building framework. It is clear, however, that the NDIS eligibility criteria for people with mental illness are a major concern for all stakeholders. As I said, the committee made 24 recommendations. What the committee particularly recommends is that the NDIS Act be reviewed to assess the permanency provisions and the appropriateness of the reference to psychiatric conditions. It goes on to recommend at recommendation 2: … a review of the NDIS (Becoming a Participant) Rules 2016 should be considered to assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of: •Including the principle of recovery-oriented practice for psychosocial disability, and •Clarifying that Rule 5.4 which dictates that a condition is, or is likely to be permanent,[54] does not apply to psychosocial disability, to reflect that people with mental conditions will receive ongoing treatments to aid recovery. The NDIS Act, as we all know, requires that a person's condition be permanent. The mental health sector says that this runs counter to the principle of a recovery orientated practice for people with psychosocial disability. The committee heard that some people did not even bother to engage with the NDIS because of the permanent disability requirement and the definition of mental illness disability. This was particularly so for young people who experience severe mental ill-health. In fact, Anglicare Tasmania was one of the organisations to raise concerns about the permanent impairment requirement for young people. Anglicare said: Professionals are often reluctant to both diagnose and label symptoms as a specific illness and to confidently state that this is a permanent condition. Many young people living with mental health conditions are likely to be reluctant to consider that their condition is permanent, given the recovery model's emphasis on positive improvements. It is a complex matter, and I am pleased that the permanency position has been recommended to be reviewed. In a related recommendation, the committee recommends that: … the NDIA, in conjunction with the mental health sector, develops and adopts a validated fit-for-purpose assessment tool to assess the eligibility of people with psychosocial disability that focuses on their functional capacity for social and economic participation. It should be about what people can and can't do, and what we can do to support people with psychosocial disability to lead good lives. The report also touches on forensic disability services, and it goes to the point that the NDIS has the potential to decrease the incarceration rates for people with cognitive and psychosocial impairment, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who are overrepresented amongst those in prison with complex disability support needs. However, before the opportunity offered through the NDIS can be realised, access to the NDIS must be readily available and consistent within the criminal justice system. There are recommendations that have also been made in that regard. I also would like to touch on the role of carers under the NDIS. We have data from the ABS that estimates that 194,000 primary carers care for someone with a psychosocial disability. It came out in the inquiry—and I touched on this in an earlier contribution about another NDIS committee report which was tabled earlier—that it seems that the planning process to develop and review NDIS plans has not been operating as well as it should be. This has resulted in unsatisfactory experiences and outcomes for people with psychosocial disabilities, their families and particularly their carers, who have raised concerns with me and also in the context of this inquiry. Sometimes it seems that carers have not been involved in planning discussions, and, instead of face-to-face contact with NDIS participants, it has been done over the phone. That has been an issue raised continuously. Before I conclude, I want to raise the very important issue of advocacy and outreach services. The committee recognises the critical role that advocacy and outreach services can play in identifying people and engaging them, and their family and carers, with NDIS services. I quote from the executive summary of the report: In many cases the most efficient way to engage with people in the NDIS process is to work with their families and carers who have long-term, personal and special knowledge of their needs and circumstances. The operational systems in place to provide information about the NDIS and to engage with hard-to-reach cohorts through assertive outreach could be greatly improved. With the transition of Commonwealth and state and territory programs, there is a risk of emerging service gaps in these areas. I wish to thank the committee again for the work they have done in producing this report, and I thank all those people and organisations who made submissions. It is a very good report. Those recommendations are extremely important and I hope that NDIA takes up the recommendations. If they are taken up and implemented correctly, they will go a long way towards enhancing the NDIS, but they also will make the process much easier for participants entering the NDIS. Some of the gaps that are emerging for those who are inside and outside the NDIS can be identified and dealt with. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 6732 DOCUMENTS Consideration 6732 BILLS 6733 BILLS Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 6733

Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017

First Reading 6733 18:13 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 6734 18:13 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— ELECTORAL AND OTHER LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2017 I am pleased to present the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and related legislation. The Bill addresses the recommendations made by the first interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters inquiry into the 2016 Federal Election, relating to the authorisation of voter communication, which was tabled on 9 December 2016. Concerns raised during, and immediately following, the 2016 Federal Election campaign, as well as submissions received during the Inquiry, show that the current authorisation requirements have not kept pace with technological change. This means that those who wish to hide their identity from voters can do so by communicating on mediums not imagined a decade ago. These practices reduce the information available to voters in making their decision on polling day. Reduced transparency and accountability, as well as a reduced ability for regulators to trace the source of a communication, is not a good outcome for Australian democracy. The Bill proposes to ensure that: electoral communication is clearly authorised irrespective of how it is communicated; electoral matters and political debate is not only open, it is also transparent; and authorisation requirements are harmonised across different communication channels, cutting red tape for those who seek to contribute to public debate. The Bill has no impact on the news media or on satire, academic or artistic endeavours, which are important elements of our open and free democratic system. Equally, it does not impose red tape, and require an additional authorisation, where it is already clear who is communicating. This Government is committed to ensuring that voters are fully informed in making decisions at the ballot box. These changes to one of Australia's oldest pieces of legislation – the 99-year-old Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 – improve the requirements for all of those who engage in electoral communication, without imposing an undue burden on communication with voters. The Parliament has been well served by the work of its Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which regularly examines aspects of our electoral system, and the issues that arise from the conduct of national elections. I commend the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters for its work to date in identifying the need to reform the authorisation regime and I look forward to their further work. The changes to the Electoral Act proposed in this Bill will not take effect until six months after Royal Assent and therefore will not affect the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate adjourned. Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017, Product Emissions Standards (Excise) Charges Bill 2017, Product Emissions Standards (Customs) Charges Bill 2017, Product Emissions Standards (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2017 6735

Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017

Product Emissions Standards (Excise) Charges Bill 2017

Product Emissions Standards (Customs) Charges Bill 2017

Product Emissions Standards (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2017

First Reading 6735 18:14 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 6735 18:14 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— PRODUCT EMISSIONS STANDARDS BILL 2017 This Bill will allow the Commonwealth to introduce air pollution standards on non-road spark ignition engines and equipment which will deliver significant environmental and health benefits. Standards will cover outdoor power equipment such as leaf blowers, lawnmowers, chainsaws and brush cutters as well as marine engines such as outboards and personal water crafts. Emissions from these products include nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and particulate matter. This Bill will align Australia with other developed countries and major markets that already have similar standards, including the United States, European Union, Japan and China. Australian standards will be harmonised to minimise any regulatory burden. Population and transport growth will increasingly put pressure on the clean air we currently enjoy, especially in urban areas. Recognising the importance of clean air, Australian environment ministers at the Federal, State and Territory level established the National Clean Air Agreement in December 2015. The introduction of these standards was identified as a key action. Small spark engines are extremely high emitters of noxious air pollution for their size. In fact, a two-stroke leaf blower can produce the same amount of nitrogen oxides as one car and the same amount of hydrocarbons as 150 cars. At peak times, they can contribute up to 10 per cent of air pollution in urban areas. Because these products are operated within close proximity to users, their emissions have significant health impacts. New standards will deliver a benefit of up to $1.7 billion in avoided health costs over the next 20 years. In order to allow industry time to adjust to these new standards, they will be phased in over the next two years with the import of non-compliant products prohibited from 1 July 2018 and sale of non-compliant products prohibited from 1 July 2019. The Australian Government has worked with industry for over a decade to develop emissions standards for these products and will continue this cooperation to ensure Australians continue to enjoy clean air in the future. PRODUCT EMISSIONS STANDARDS (EXCISE) CHARGES BILL 2017 The Product Emissions Standards (Excise) Charges Bill 2017 will impose a charge on any domestically-manufactured products prescribed under the Product Emissions Standards legislation. This Bill, together with the Product Emissions Standards (Customs) Charges Bill 2017 and the imposition of fees under the Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017, will enable full cost recovery of the costs associated with regulating prescribed products. PRODUCT EMISSIONS STANDARDS (CUSTOMS) CHARGES BILL 2017 The Product Emissions Standards (Customs) Charges Bill 2017 will impose a charge on the importation of products prescribed under the Product Emissions Standards legislation. This Bill, together with the Product Emissions Standards (Excise) Charges Bill 2017 and the imposition of fees under the Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017, will enable full cost recovery of the costs associated with regulating prescribed products. PRODUCT EMISSIONS STANDARDS (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL 2017 This Bill will support the implementation of the Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017 by making a consequential amendment to the Customs Act 1901. The Bill amends the Customs Act 1901 to clarify that goods imported or exported in contravention of the Product Emissions Standards legislation are not forfeited to the Crown under the Customs Act 1901. This will streamline the implementation of the Product Emissions Standards legislation and ensure that all compliance and enforcement measures are overseen by the Department of the Environment and Energy. Debate adjourned. Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2017 6736

Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Amendment (Support for Commonwealth Entities) Bill 2017

Returned from the House of Representatives 6736 DOCUMENTS 6736 DOCUMENTS Tabling 6736