2017-09-11 45 1 4 Senate 0 0

Monday, 11 September 2017

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Stephen Parry) took the chair at 10:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.

 

DOCUMENTS 6739 DOCUMENTS Tabling 6739 COMMITTEES 6739 COMMITTEES Meeting 6739 10:01 The PRESIDENT e5v Does any senator wish to have the question put on any of those proposals? There being none, we will proceed. BILLS 6739 BILLS International Monetary Agreements Amendment (New Arrangements to Borrow) Bill 2017 6739

International Monetary Agreements Amendment (New Arrangements to Borrow) Bill 2017

Second Reading 6739 10:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I rise to speak in support of this bill. This bill gives effect to an agreement with the International Monetary Fund to provide a standing appropriation and authority to borrow for payments to meet drawings made by the IMF, under the decision to renew the new arrangements to borrow made by the IMF executive board in November 2016. The previous five-year arrangement will expire on 16 November 2017, with a new arrangement to go from 17 November 2017 to 16 November 2022. Under this agreement, the maximum amount of Australia's lending commitment to the IMF's special drawing rights is $2.22 billion—around A$4.05 billion. The SDR is an international reserve asset which can be allocated to member countries in proportion to their IMF quotas. The agreement is only activated when additional funds are required to support lending to member countries. This requires agreement from the participant countries that make up 85 per cent of the total credit committed under the NAB and the IMF executive board that the quota resources available to the IMF for lending are not sufficient for its lending needs. The bill has no direct impact on the budget bottom line. However, if the agreement is activated and the funds are provided, there is an indirect impact due to the government's lending to the IMF increasing our borrowing requirement, and where the interest payable on any money borrowed by Australia to meet an IMF drawdown exceeds the interest paid by the IMF in regard to that drawdown. This agreement will be included in the budget papers as a quantifiable contingent liability. The NAB became operative in November 1998, arising out of concerns first raised in 1995 that more resources might be required for the IMF to respond to future financial crises. Australia has been a participant in these arrangements since their commencement. This updates an arrangement that we made in government, which arose out of the IMF quota and governance reforms, in 2010. That legislation passed the parliament in September 2012 for the same special drawing rights amount of $2.22 billion, worth around A$3.2 billion at the time. This represents an important aspect of our international obligations as a member of the International Monetary Fund, and Labor will be supporting this bill. 10:04 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia I have deep concerns about our ongoing commitments to organisations like the IMF and the United Nations, in particular, where we are pledging what is effectively borrowed money to support the bailout of nations that can't manage their own financial affairs. I don't have that much confidence in the IMF as the arbiter of responsible financial management. If they were having a positive role in international affairs, you would expect that they would pre-empt and be able to forecast some of the crises that have captured the globe—for example, Greece, which was on a trajectory to bankruptcy for many decades. The problem we have right around the world is that the level of debt is far too high, because governments of all persuasions insist on giving people the impression that there can be a magic placement of cash that they don't have to work for, that they can just receive, and everything will be all right. There is this perception of: 'What's in it for me?' One of the great tragedies is that Australia is heading down the same path. About 50 per cent of the people in this country receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes. It operates such that the top 10 per cent of earners pay in the region of 40 or 50 per cent of the taxes, or even more. That's simply not sustainable. Those on the other side of the chamber will say that they should be taxed more to provide more benefits. Well, that's wrong. It is absolutely wrong. We need to get our own house in order before we can be better, more responsible contributors to the global economy, and pledging access to some billions of dollars for the IMF—about $8.6 billion, I understand, of money borrowed from Australian taxpayers—doesn't seem very prudent to me. In fact, it's less than prudent. It's foolish; it's inane. First of all, we have obligations to repay the intergenerational debt that has been clocked up by those on both sides of the chamber in the past 10 years. That is expected to peak at $726 billion, but I can tell you now, that will not be the peak. The runaway debt in this country shows no signs of abatement at all, and I would lay London to a brick that the debt incurred in the last 10 years will not be repaid while any of the current members of this place are still here. We'll all be long gone and leaving it to others to pay for the activities and the actions that successive governments have responded to. I'm opposed to the International Monetary Agreements Amendment (New Arrangements to Borrow) Bill 2017, because we are pledging borrowed money to give to an organisation that is unaccountable and unelected and that then gives the money to countries that have been unable to manage their finances. It's imprudent; it's illogical. There is a better way. So, I oppose this bill. 10:08 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales The International Monetary Agreements Amendment (New Arrangements to Borrow) Bill 2017 allows the Treasurer to borrow $4 billion on which we will pay interest at around 2½ per cent so that the Treasurer can lend it to the International Monetary Fund and receive interest at 0.4 per cent. Let me repeat that: the bill before us today allows the Treasurer to borrow $4 billion on which we will pay interest at around 2½ per cent so that the Treasurer can lend it to the IMF and receive interest at 0.4 per cent. As you can see, I am almost alone here in the Senate. Almost no-one else has any concerns about this lunacy. Once I sit down, the minister will speak for about 30 seconds, and 30 seconds after that the bill will have been passed by the parliament, through indifference. Minister, you've had your introduction. Let the madness begin. 10:09 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank senators who have spoken in this debate for their contributions. The new arrangements-to-borrow legislation form part of a broader global effort to ensure that the global financial safety net remains strong and resilient in the face of economic crisis. The IMF's mandate to support global economic and financial stability is of critical importance given continuing risks to the global economic outlook. For Australia, as an open trading economy engaged with and exposed to the world and to global economic and financial conditions, it is very much in our interests to do all we can to ensure that the IMF has the resources it needs to fulfil its role, which is why I commend this bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 6741 10:11 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP The question is that the bill be now read a third time.

The Senate divided. [10:15]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

 46 AYES Abetz, E Bilyk, CL Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Brown, CL Bushby, DC (teller) Cameron, DN Cormann, M Di Natale, R Dodson, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S Ketter, CR Lines, S Macdonald, ID McAllister, J McCarthy, M McGrath, J McKenzie, B McKim, NJ Moore, CM Nash, F O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Polley, H Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Rhiannon, L Rice, J Scullion, NG Siewert, R Sinodinos, A Smith, D Sterle, G Urquhart, AE Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Williams, JR Xenophon, N 6 NOES Bernardi, C (teller) Burston, B Georgiou, P Hanson, P Lambie, J Leyonhjelm, DE 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 6742

Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017

Second Reading 6742 10:18 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I rise on behalf of the opposition to support this legislation in its amended form. The Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 is proposed to address the matters canvassed by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters in the committee's Interim report on the authorisation of voter communication. Before I speak to the legislation itself, I acknowledge the Special Minister of State, Senator Ryan, who has attempted to answer the opposition's many questions on the provisions before us, and the opposition wishes him a speedy recovery. I would also like to acknowledge members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters the members for Scullin and Oxley in the other place and Senators Ketter and Brown for their constant and continual work on these issues. When the legislation was introduced, in March this year, the opposition raised significant concerns with its provisions and practical application. Labor believes in protecting, fostering and encouraging genuine political communication, and any bill that seeks to affect that right should be considered very carefully. It was disappointing to listen to the contributions of some government members in the other place. Despite the opposition working constructively on all of the issues canvassed in this piece of legislation, government members sought to use this bill to talk about the Prime Minister's spectacular dummy spit on election night about the results in Queensland. Why they wished to remind the Australian people of that night is completely beyond me. However, there they were, lined up in an attempt to distract the public from the complete chaos within the government. On the issue before the chamber, the updating of the authorisation framework is an important piece of reform. Technology is changing and with it methods of communication and political campaigning. A system that does not keep pace with this changing technology is a system that is designed to fail. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters rightly recommended that any new requirements for electoral authorisation be clear, concise and easy to navigate. The committee recommended that the framework of authorisation, as far as it is reasonably practical, not interfere with the primary purpose of communication—that is, to communicate with the electorate. The opposition, through many discussions with the government, have queried many of the provisions before the parliament to ensure that we are achieving those key aims. One of the principal queries of the government has been that of digital communication. Labor wants to ensure that digital material, which is likely to be the dominant form of future communication, is appropriately catered for and protected. In this respect, the bill confers significant powers on the Australian Electoral Commissioner to determine how certain pieces of material are to be authorised—in particular, digital audio and social media. Through this process, the opposition has received advice from both the Special Minister of State and the Australian Electoral Commissioner, Mr Tom Rogers, as to the use of these powers. We thank the commissioner for his time and cooperation and for the assurances received that necessary consultation will take place prior to these powers being utilised. In ensuring that the authorisation framework is modernised, the bill addresses current key shortfalls—for example, capturing all disclosure entities, rightly applying the regime to referenda and streamlining noncompliance provisions with a civil penalty. These are simple, commonsense measures to ensure the integrity of our democratic processes. The complicated nature of authorisation and the changing methods of political communication mean that this bill is not a complete solution and will require review. Concerns remain, including from broadcasting entities, regarding the burden placed on them by this legislation. Through the excellent work of Labor's shadow minister for communications, Ms Michelle Rowland, in the other place, the opposition have heard the concerns of groups such as Commercial Radio Australia. Although already bearing some of the burden of current authorisation provisions, there are legitimate concerns by these third-party actors and broadcasters as to the practical implementation of these provisions. The opposition will continue to work with these groups as these provisions come into practice, and we trust that the government and the Australian Electoral Commissioner will assist in liaising with these actors. Finally, I'd like to commend the reasonable exemptions provision provided by this legislation, particularly on the reporting of news and current affairs and on editorial content. Political authorisations are intended to provide the voting public with a clearer picture and should never be used to place undue burdens on genuine communication. It would be unfathomable for such regulations to restrict the information provided to the voting public through direct or indirect communication. I commend the bill to the Senate. 10:23 Senator RHIANNON CPR New South Wales The Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 reflects the work of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, of which I am a member. We took a great deal of advice on this matter, and this is the bill that has now come before us. I think it's worth making a few comments about the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I certainly feel fortunate to be on the committee. The chair, Senator Reynolds, as well as the deputy chair, Mr Andrew Giles, and the other members all work together in a very cooperative way. Obviously there are disagreements, but I think it is worth reflecting on the fact that in many ways this bill goes to the heart of the increasing cynicism around electoral processes, politicians and politics in general. Because there is that deep cynicism, I think it is incredibly important to have a clear set of rules to help restore people's confidence in how the political process works. Let's remember that so much of how we communicate is changing so rapidly. It was very clear from much of the evidence to the inquiry that we need to ensure that the communication channels aren't being stifled by the rules—that the rules are there to manage the communication channel, not to stifle the message that is being given out. So, it's getting that balance right that is critical. This is only part of the work that needs to be done, but there has been some important work already undertaken here. The other thing that came through, too, is that for these rules to work they essentially need to be easy to implement. If things get too complex when it comes to managing communications, it's obviously going to fail before we get going. So, yes, there are a range of technologies that you would expect to be used more and more extensively when it comes to election time, and surely that's to be welcomed. The more people know about what's happening in elections and hear the exchange of viewpoints, the better. Hopefully, what we're ensuring is that that information is as accurate as possible. It certainly wasn't just in the 2016 election that we had problems with truth in advertising, and it's not just with the rise in the new technology that there are problems with truth in advertising. This issue, particularly with some people issuing highly inaccurate information, often right on the eve of the election when there's very little opportunity to answer it, has been a common practice for a long time. That's why I did spend some time in my earlier remarks referring to the cynicism that is there in the political process. But now we have this legislation before us. I congratulate my colleagues on JSCEM for the work that they put into it. This is a necessary bill and it will go some way, a small way, to helping our situation. 10:26 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia As the chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I'm incredibly proud of the work that this committee does on behalf of our nation. This is a committee that is truly multipartisan. It is a committee that is made up of very dedicated members and senators who have one focus, and that is on how to ensure the integrity of our electoral system and our processes. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my deputy chair, Mr Andrew Giles, who, again, works very diligently in this committee. I would also like to acknowledge Senator Lee Rhiannon for her deep engagement in this committee and this inquiry in particular. In every functional and robust democracy, an effective electoral management body is essential to conduct free and fair elections, and Australia is no exception. We, like everybody else in a democracy, need to make sure that we pay constant attention to the health of our electoral processes and systems. Regardless of whether or not voters dislike or disagree with the result of an election, whether that is in an individual seat or a national election, Australian citizens, as voters, must have the utmost confidence in the system and that the results declared by the AEC accurately represent the votes cast by all Australians. So, today, I very proudly rise to support the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. The right to freedom of speech and the right to communicate campaign messages are cornerstones of all Western democracies, and they underpin our own unique Australian democracy. The right to freedom of speech and the right to communicate campaign messages should be and must be rights enjoyed by all Australians, but they also have to be protected. Every Australian voter must be confident that their voice has been heard in our electoral system and that all parties have acted within the rules, free of undue influence or foreign interference. With this bill, the government is taking the necessary and appropriate steps to ensure that all parties act within the rules and, therefore, that all Australians can have confidence in our electoral system. The bill achieves this by ensuring two things: firstly, that electoral and referendum communication is clearly authorised, irrespective of the medium in which this information is communicated; and, secondly, that authorisation requirements are harmonised across media and all mediums of communication. In December last year, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, which is, as I said, the committee that I chair, tabled its first interim report into the authorisation of voter communication. As part of the committee's wider inquiry into all aspects of the conduct of the 2016 federal election, the committee released its multipartisan interim report and made six unanimous recommendations to strengthen the Commonwealth Electoral Act and to ensure that every Australian has confidence with not only the electoral system but also the parties engaging in political activities and campaign communication and that they're doing so in accordance with fair and very transparent rules. The committee, as documented in our report, found that the current Commonwealth electoral laws have not kept pace with technological change and advancement in communication methods. The committee heard evidence that loopholes have emerged which made it possible, in the 2016 election, to communicate anonymously and to send misleading messages to voters via new mediums that the Electoral Act does not currently regulate—in fact, that were not even foreseen when the electoral act was written. These new mediums of communication include social-media platforms, such as Twitter and Facebook; other evolving digital platforms, such as SMS; and the use of what are referred to as robocalls. The very same messages if communicated through more traditional means, such as flyers and print advertisements, would have been subject to the authorisation requirements under the current Electoral Act. As such, this bill is a sensible one to modernise and foolproof, in a way, the Electoral Act so that messages requiring authorisations are consistent regardless of the medium in which they are conveyed. Authorisation requirements for electoral materials are longstanding and well understood by political participants. In fact, they were included in the earliest Commonwealth electoral law in 1902. The committee has reaffirmed the principles on which these laws were founded many times. However, the committee, in this report, identified that the current Commonwealth Electoral Act had developed in a very piecemeal fashion and, as I said, had not kept pace with rapid technological changes in methods of communication, which had resulted in the emergence of these loopholes. This bill, amongst other things, will directly target and close these loopholes by ensuring that authorisations will be required for all paid advertisements containing electoral matter in addition to political communications, whether paid or unpaid, by or on behalf of identities with disclosure requirements under the Electoral Act. This will include political parties, candidates, associated entities and donors that exceed the current disclosure threshold of $13,200. Additionally, the bill will provide exceptions, such news and editorial content and communications for personal purposes, and it will not infringe on our democratic right of freedom of communication. This bill will also ensure that authorisations include the name of the individual responsible and their location, and, where a communication is made by or on behalf of a disclosure entity, include the name of the organisation. Under these new amendments certain printed materials will continue to include the name of the printer. In addition, the Australian Electoral Commission will have the power to issue legislative instruments to clarify how communications in various emerging media forms should be authorised. For the first time, requirements will be harmonised across all media forms, which will result in simplified compliance and assurance. The AEC will also have additional powers to identify noncompliant entities and enforce compliance with increased financial penalties and a revised civil penalty regime. The 2016 federal election saw concerns raised regarding the authorisation of electoral material. Subsequently, questions have been asked about the current legislation and whether it is really designed to meet the needs of the 21st century. In the course of the committee inquiry, it also came to light that the AEC had inadequate powers to enforce some of the provisions within the Electoral Act. Additionally, many of the penalties associated with noncompliance have clearly been shown not to be a deterrent. Many associated entities and third parties, time and time again, continue to circumvent the rules and act in ways that many may consider to be unethical and lacking in integrity. Through this bill, the AEC will be able to enforce authorisation requirements using additional information-gathering powers through a new ability to accept an enforceable undertaking and by seeking an injunction or financial penalties in the courts. Further, the AEC will also have the power to provide clear instructions as to how to authorise communications in a way that is appropriate for that particular medium—again, making compliance simpler. In the 21st century, these are vital measures to ensure that the laws are modernised and that the AEC have the capability to perform their very important responsibilities in our democracy. This is a step forward in ensuring greater enforcement of the regulations so that all political actors in Australia are acting in accordance with the rules and regulations, and, ultimately, so that Australians have confidence in the legitimacy of the communication messages that they are receiving. As part of that, it's absolutely important—it's critical, in fact—that they know who those messages are coming from, which then allows them to make assessments about their validity, and about the perspective and the point of view that are being communicated to them. The committee agreed that these amendments are based on three core principles which we've also applied to other considerations in relation to the health of the Electoral Act. We believe these three principles will add to a fairer electoral system but not impact the capacity of candidates, parties and other political actors to make their point. In consideration of the evidence provided to the committee through submissions and from witnesses at the nine public hearings we conducted right around our country, the committee recommended that the Commonwealth Electoral Act be amended to specifically address the matters of authorisation. The three principles that have underpinned consideration by the committee in this particular inquiry and in this particular report are ones that we've continued through all of our deliberations. The first one is accountability—that is, to ensure parties and other participants are held to account and are responsible for their political statements in the public arena and the communications that they have with voters. That's the first one: accountability. The second principle that underpins all of the committee's deliberations is traceability. Traceability is very important because those who authorise electoral materials need to be identifiable and traceable (1) so people know where material has come from and (2) in case of any enforcement action that the AEC is required to do. The third principle is consistency. Consistency is important in the application of the rules and requirements to all electoral materials so that we have one simple, consistent rule for all actors. These principles of accountability, traceability and consistency in authorising electoral materials remain essential to provide a clear context for the message and to allow all voters to have confidence in the message or the position contained in that electoral material. It also reassures voters that those disseminating electoral material in the public domain are accountable for what they say and what they do in an electoral context. I believe, as I know all members of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters believe, that this is one of the most important checks and balances built into our electoral system to ensure its integrity and its accountability for campaigning in our particular democracy. This government's commitment to electoral integrity and to ensuring that Australian voters have confidence in the electoral system is to be commended, as is the commitment by those opposite—and, in fact, by all major parties—to this, and I thank all for that. This bill, the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, reaffirms both the commitment and the recommendations of the committee. I applaud the government for taking the responsible, necessary and appropriate measures as one way of ensuring electoral integrity and the confidence of Australian voters in our electoral system. I know this bill has been meticulously drafted to ensure the primacy of voter communication being accurate so that voters can have confidence in it. Also, I believe, it doesn't infringe on the right we all have to freedom of association but particularly freedom of communication. Given the committee's unanimous agreement that there must be a level playing field for all parties and political participants, this extension of the Criminal Code will ensure that Australians have confidence in the legitimacy of communications. In the interim report, the committee acknowledged that those three principles I outlined were essential elements, and again I congratulate all sides of politics on supporting these and supporting this bill. I think the bipartisan interim report and now the bill that we're considering here today are great examples of what we can do in this place when we all work together in the national interest. In conclusion, again, I commend the government for bringing this bill forward, and all in this chamber and in the other place for their support for this committee and its recommendations. 10:39 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I rise to support the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill. Trust is extremely important. People want and need trust. That explains the rise again of Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party. It's because people actually trust Pauline Hanson and those who work with her. Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party is all about trust and, for 20 years, Pauline Hanson—now Senator Hanson—has led by example and has built trust, and that is rewarding her party. How can there be trust, though, when a major party is telling lies? In the last campaign, the 'Mediscare' campaign was deplorable. Not only did it spread lies but it also spread fear—it fomented fear. The architect of the 'Mediscare' campaign, so we're told by the media, was none other than, reportedly, the daughter of the former Treasurer—the member for Lilley, Mr Wayne Swan. That seems to go to the core of the Labor Party. But it's not just the Labor Party that is misrepresenting events and trying to create havoc. We see that, instead of using data, the Greens, when they're fomenting their policies on climate and their claims on climate and misrepresenting climate, actually use photos of billowing steam as carbon dioxide, yet carbon dioxide is clear, odourless, colourless and tasteless. It's invisible. It's a trace gas, yet we see these pictures of billowing steam. We also see the Greens Party taking pictures of cute, cuddly and colourful animals—colourful fish from the Great Barrier Reef—to say that that's their evidence. There is no such evidence that humans, through our production of carbon dioxide and the use of hydrocarbon fuels, are affecting global climate—none whatsoever—yet the Greens have deceitfully started these smear campaigns about humanity and tarnished the reputation of our country and our Great Barrier Reef. Then we have Senator Watt's vexatious complaints about Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party in Queensland and the Prime Minister, in a speech last Wednesday, which I was appalled at when I listened to it, blaming the Labor Party for the energy crisis when, in fact, both major parties and the Greens are responsible for our current ongoing energy crisis. While people are not telling the truth and blaming others, we won't have the public understanding honestly what is happening and we won't have real policies being based on real evidence. The Prime Minister's party, the Liberal Party, put in place the Renewable Energy Target under Prime Minister John Howard's government. The Prime Minister's party was the first to bring in, as policy, an emissions trading scheme. That led to the carbon tax, and it's now led to other similar policies and claims. The Prime Minister's party is the one that stole farmers' property rights to comply with the Kyoto Protocol. This is what's costing people in Queensland and right across our country enormously—stealing of property rights, raising of energy prices and unaffordability of energy prices. Now, in this country, with the best coal deposits in the world, we have people who have to make a choice between eating or using heat. That is deplorable. In this country, under this government and under this opposition when it was in government, we have the destruction of energy based upon a lie—one of the biggest lies ever told. While this is occurring, people are paying the price. Everyday Australians right across our country are paying the price, so we support this bill because we need to start bringing trust back into politics. Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party puts people before politics, and this bill is a start to putting the people before politics. 10:44 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank all senators who have contributed to this debate and commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 6749 10:44 Senator RHIANNON CPR New South Wales by leave—At the request of Senator Di Natale, I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8222 together: ( 1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: 3. Schedule 2    The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. (2) Page 45 (after line 5), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2—Lowering the Voting Age Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 1 Subsection 4(3) Omit "age 16", substitute "age 14". 2 Subsection 55(2) Omit "18", substitute "16". 3 Subsection 90B(10) (subparagraph (g)(iii) of the definition of additional information ) Omit "18", substitute "16". 4 Paragraph 93(1)(a) Omit "18", substitute "16". 5 Paragraph 93(3)(b) Omit "18", substitute "16". 6 Subsection 93(4) Omit "18", substitute "16". 7 Paragraphs 95(1)(c) and (f) Omit "18", substitute "16". 8 Paragraphs 95(6)(a) and (b) Omit "18", substitute "16". 9 Subsection 95(7) Omit "18", substitute "16". 10 Paragraph 95(8)(a) Omit "18", substitute "16". 11 Paragraph 95(13)(e) Omit "18", substitute "16". 12 Subsection 98(1) Omit "16", substitute "14". 13 Subsection 98(3) Omit "16", substitute "14". 14 Section 100 (heading) Repeal the heading, substitute: 100 Claims for age 14 enrolment 15 Paragraph 100(1)(a) Omit "has turned 16, but is under 18, years of age", substitute "has turned 14, but is under 16, years of age". 16 Paragraph 100(1)(b) Omit "18", substitute "16". 17 Subsection 100(2) Omit "18", substitute "16". 18 Paragraph 108(a) Omit "16", substitute "14". 19 Subsection 120(2) (table item 4) Omit "16", substitute "14". 20 Paragraph 121(1)(c) Omit "16", substitute "14". 21 Section 208(2)(b) Omit "18", substitute "16". 22 After subsection 245(1) Insert: (1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an elector who is 16 or 17 years of age on the polling day for an election. 23 At the end of subsection 245(4)(d) Add: ; or (e) was 16 or 17 years of age on the day of the election. 24 At the end of subsection 245(15) Add: Note: A person who is 16 or 17 years old is exempt from committing an offence under subsection (15). See subsection (1A). 25 Section 342 Omit "16", substitute "14". 26 Section 343(1) Omit "16", substitute "14". Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 27 Paragraph 22(2)(b) Omit "18 years old", substitute "16 years old". 28 After subsection 45(1) Insert: (1A) Subsection (1) does not apply to an elector who is 16 or 17 years of age on the polling day of an election. 29 At the end of subsection 45(4)(d) Add: ; or (e) was 16 or 17 years of age on the day of the election. 30 At the end of subsection 45(14) Add: Note: A person who is 16 and 17 years old is exempt from committing an offence under subsection (14). See subsection (1A). The purpose of these amendments is quite straightforward, and you would hope we would all agree on it. They are amendments that lower the minimum age of a voter in an Australian federal election and referendum from 18 years to 16 years of age but keep the age of compulsory voting eligibility to standing as a federal parliamentarian at 18 years of age. That really shouldn't be something to question at this stage. Young people can work, can pay taxes, can be in the defence forces and can even get married—an issue that's well and truly in the news at the moment. They can drive a car and they can do so many things—just about everything that you can do after you're 18. So what's the problem? Surely it's time that they be given the vote. These are very straightforward amendments—ones that I'd even argue are overdue—and it's certainly changing in other countries like democracies that are collapsing, where this has been brought in. Other countries allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote and there have been good results, with youth turnout really taking off. We've seen it in Austria and Scotland, and hopefully the time will come very soon in Australia. These amendments are put forward by the Australian Greens leader, Senator Di Natale, and I highly recommend them. 10:46 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The government will not be supporting these amendments. This is clearly not a matter that is in any way related to the authorisation of electoral communications. The government does not support lowering the voting age. This is clearly a significant change to the electoral system. As far as I'm aware, it does not respond to a recommendation from the parliament's cross-party Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, whereas the bill currently before the Senate does respond to the joint standing committee recommendations to reform the authorisation of voter communication to increase the transparency and integrity of our elections. The government will not be supporting these amendments. 10:47 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia The opposition will also not be supporting either of the Greens amendments to this bill. While I commend the Greens for raising these important issues, it's the belief of the opposition that the issues addressed in these amendments should be considered fully and properly by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, of which Senator Rhiannon is, of course, a participating member. The ALP has a proud history of advocating for the extension of electoral franchise. It was the Labor government in 2012 that introduced automatic enrolment provisions, extending the right to vote to thousands of disenfranchised voters across the country. Similarly, prior to the last election, it was the Labor Party that moved to extend the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds in this country. It's Labor's belief that if you are old enough to work, old enough to pay tax, old enough to drive and even old enough to join the military, you should be considered old enough to have your say. At the time, the Leader of the Opposition committed that a Labor government would consult on the issue appropriately prior to recommending a change by way of legislative provisions. It is still our belief that this is a substantial issue requiring appropriate consultation, and, therefore, it is not adequate to simply move an amendment to an unrelated reform package. The Labor opposition would strongly recommend that the issues canvassed by the Greens amendments be referred to the JSCEM committee, of which Senator Rhiannon is a member. She can participate on behalf of the Australian Greens and seek appropriate reform. 10:49 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Right now, young people are being screwed over. They're being disenfranchised from the democratic process. We have a policy that's focused on the next election, rather than the future of young people. They are, quite rightly, angry at their political leaders. When it comes to housing, the only thing that's growing faster than housing prices is the fact that most people know that they are getting royally screwed over right now. You have young people being told, 'Do well at school, thrive at university and get a job—that's the pathway to prosperity.' But these are people who are being locked out of the housing market. There is this rigged system where property investors are buying multiple properties because they get tax breaks. Of course that's something that impacts very directly on young people. It's not just about home ownership, of course. When it comes to climate change and greenhouse pollution, we know that it's going to be future generations who are going to have to clean up the mess left by this government. It's about income inequality as well. When you look at work by the Grattan Institute, who have crunched the numbers on intergenerational inequality, you have baby boomers aged between 65 and 75 who are accruing wealth fastest—$200,000 more than that age group eight years earlier. While, if you are 25 to 35, you have been going backwards over the same period. So we've got this growing income inequality. We have complete inaction on climate change. We have young people being locked out of the housing market. We've had other reforms—for example, sniffer dogs at festivals. And the approach that's been taken in the space of digital rights means young people's online rights have been effectively taken away because of a narrow political agenda. There are so many issues on which young people are being screwed over. Right now, if they are 16 or 17, they have no opportunity to participate in the democratic process by exercising the most precious thing that we get when we turn 18, and that is the right to vote. As Senator Rhiannon said earlier, this is something that's being reconsidered in other countries. We know that, if you are a young person in Australia, you can open a bank account, you pay taxes, you can marry, you can drive a vehicle, you can serve in the Defence Force and you're effectively independent. At the age of 16 and 17, you can do some or all of these things—yet the one thing that you can't do is vote. So we absolutely recommend this amendment to the Senate. I have to say that it's very disappointing that the Labor Party right now are saying that they will vote against this amendment. In a speech by the opposition leader, he called for the voting age to be lowered to 16. He made that very, very explicit commitment. It was a speech to the New South Wales Young Labor conference in Sydney, where he said very explicitly that, if people aged 16 and 17 can drive, work, pay taxes, join the military and make their own choices about medical treatment, they should be allowed to vote. He said that very explicitly. Here's an opportunity to back up his own words by supporting this amendment. We would expect that the Labor Party would now join the Greens in giving young people a say in the decisions that are being made on their behalf, that are being made for them right now. I would have thought that, if this was an issue on which the opposition leader felt so strongly that he was prepared to make it the centrepiece of a speech to the Young Labor conference, the very least he would do is support an amendment that would allow it to happen. He didn't say at the time, 'We need to consult on this and determine whether this is an appropriate amendment to the Electoral Act.' What he said was that 16- and 17-year-olds should be given the right to vote. It was a very straightforward statement from the opposition leader, but it seems he's walking back from that by not supporting this amendment. I commend this amendment to the Senate. I think it is absolutely relevant, given we've had a process with the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters looking at a range of issues around participation in democracy and, obviously, the nature of this bill. This bill goes to the issue of authorisation and other such matters which are relevant to the work of that committee—but so too is the fact that we have young people now who are being disenfranchised from the democratic process who need to be given a voice. 10:54 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Although Pauline Hanson's One Nation party opposes the reduction of the voting age to 16, we do find ourselves to be in a position of agreeing with the Greens on one thing. We agree with Senator Di Natale, who says that young people are being screwed over—too right, they are. Look at energy prices right now; that's because of the Greens' policies. Look at housing prices; that's because of the Greens' policies. The Greens talk about carbon dioxide as a pollutant. It's a trace gas that's essential for all life on this planet. Everything green, except the Greens Party, depends upon carbon dioxide. That's why it's green; it's because of photosynthesis. We have the Greens talking about a cyclone and hurricanes in the Northern Hemisphere, an entirely natural event. But they're fabricating those events into being something unusual. So cyclone Irma comes across the Northern Hemisphere, and it's unusual and caused by us. We have had 10 hurricanes that have made landfall in the United States in the last 10 years. One hundred years ago, in the 1850s to 1860s, it was 27 hurricanes. That's three times as many as today. We see the Greens destroying coal and hydro, preventing the use of coal-fired power stations and hydro. That is destroying cheap energy. The Greens then talk about income inequality— The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 Senator Roberts, I will bring you back to the content of the bill that we are discussing at the moment. Senator ROBERTS 266524 Thank you, Temporary Chair. I'm just coming back to that now. This is nothing more than a vote grab to grab idealistic teenagers. Wait until those teenagers start earning income and start to pay bills, and then they'll see the cost of the Greens' policies. Sixteen is too young. We need to have people who have responsibility for paying bills and people who have responsibility for making serious decisions, because that is what is at stake in the elections. 11:01 The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 The question is that Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8222 be agreed to.

The committee divided. [11:01]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Sterle)

 7 AYES Di Natale, R Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS 44 NOES Abetz, E Bernardi, C Brockman, S Brown, CL Burston, B Bushby, DC Cameron, DN Cash, MC Cormann, M Dastyari, S Dodson, P Duniam, J Farrell, D Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Georgiou, P Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S Ketter, CR Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID McAllister, J McCarthy, M McGrath, J McKenzie, B Moore, CM Nash, F O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Roberts, M Seselja, Z Sinodinos, A Smith, D Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Williams, JR Xenophon, N 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 11:04 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria by leave—I move Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8228 revised together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (2) Page 45 (after line 5), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 3—Polling Day Enrolment Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 1 At the end of section 98 Add: (6) A provisional vote cast under section 235 by a person who is entitled to enrolment, but is not currently enrolled, shall qualify as a claim to enrolment under this section. 2 At the end of subsection 102(5) Add: (5A) If a claim under section 101 is made on the polling day for an election; then, despite subsection (4): (a) the claim must be regarded as having been received before the start of the suspension period; and (b) if the claimant's name is entered on the Roll in accordance with the claim, the enrolment must, in relation to any vote recorded by the claimant in an election, be regarded as having been effected before the start of the suspension period. 3 At the end of subsection 235(1) Add: ; or (f) the person makes a claim for enrolment on the polling day of an election. 4 After subsection 235(3) Insert: (3A) A person mentioned in paragraph (1)(f) must present to the polling official: (a) a claim for enrolment in accordance with section 101; and (b) any of the following evidence as to the person's identity: (i) if the person holds a driver's licence issued under the law of a State or Territory, or a law in force in Norfolk Island—that driver's licence; (ii) if the person holds an Australian passport—that Australian passport; (iii) an attestation as to the person's identity that is in the approved form and signed by another person who is enrolled; (iv) any other evidence of the person's identity that is of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purpose of this paragraph. Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 5 At the end of subsection 37(1) Add: ; or (f) the person makes a claim for enrolment on the polling day for an election. 6 After subsection 37(3) Insert: (3A) A person mentioned in paragraph (1)(f) must present to the polling official: (a) a claim for enrolment in accordance with section 101 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918; and (b) any of the following evidence as to the person's identity: (i) if the person holds a driver's licence issued under the law of a State or Territory, or a law in force in Norfolk Island—that driver's licence; (ii) if the person holds an Australian passport—that Australian passport; (iii) an attestation as to the person's identity that is in the approved form and signed by another person who is enrolled; (iv) any other evidence of the person's identity that is of a kind prescribed by the regulations for the purpose of this paragraph. This amendment provides a mechanism whereby Australians who are eligible to vote but who might not be on the electoral role—or, alternatively, are on the role but not at the correct address—can enrol to vote or update their address at a polling centre on election day, or, if they go earlier, at an early voting centre. It's a very straightforward amendment. It basically says: if you're not enrolled or if you're enrolled at the incorrect address, you can update your enrolment details when you go to vote at a polling booth. Effectively it means that those people who, for whatever reason, don't have the correct details on the electoral role are able to update them on the day of the election. When you've got compulsory voting you do have an obligation to make sure that people are enfranchised to vote, yet we've got something in the order of a million Australians missing from the electoral roll. Many people often don't know that there's an election until well after enrolments have closed—that's just the reality—and it disproportionately affects first-time voters, young Australians, often who move regularly. The Australian Electoral Commission found that nearly half of all 18-year-olds weren't on the roll for the 2013 federal election. Election day enrolment does exist in some state jurisdictions. It exists in Victoria and New South Wales, and there's no reason why it can't exist at a federal level. We need to make sure that we give people who are disenfranchised an opportunity to participate on election day. Some of them arrive at a polling booth thinking that they are enrolled and they're not, or, alternatively, their details are incorrect. Of course there are things that need to happen beyond simply election day enrolments—for example, making sure that all young people, when they are eligible to vote, are automatically enrolled to vote. There are some provisions already within the AEC that allow for automatic enrolment, but it's not comprehensive; it needs to be much broader. There are other opportunities for the AEC to use existing databases to ensure that all Australians are on the electoral roll at the time of the election, but, in the absence of that, at a very minimum, we should allow individuals who attend a polling booth on election day to update their details, allow those votes to be counted as provisional votes, and then, once they are verified, ensure that those individuals' votes are counted. It is so critical, at a time when young people, particularly, are being disenfranchised, that we give them every opportunity to participate in the democratic process. 11:08 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The government will not be supporting these amendments. This is another matter which is not related to the authorisation of electoral communication, which is what this bill is all about. The government does not support polling day enrolment. The close of rolls period is a longstanding feature of Australian electoral law. It is required to ensure the orderly and efficient conduct of elections, to ensure any delays in declaring electoral results are limited and to ensure accuracy and certainty in the electoral rolls produced for polling day. 11:08 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria I'll be opposing this amendment because, if you think that the waiting queues are long and time-consuming on election day now, bringing this up on election day would make it a nightmare. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 195565 The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Di Natale be agreed to.

The committee divided. [11:13]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Whish-Wilson)

 7 AYES Di Natale, R Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS 33 NOES Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Brown, CL Burston, B Bushby, DC Cormann, M Dastyari, S (teller) Duniam, J Farrell, D Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Georgiou, P Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S Ketter, CR Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID McAllister, J McCarthy, M McGrath, J McKenzie, B Moore, CM O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Roberts, M Sinodinos, A Smith, D Xenophon, N 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 11:16 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 8232 standing in my name: (1) Schedule 1, item 11, page 15 (lines 29 and 30), omit the item, substitute: 11 Sections 328 and 328B Repeal the sections, substitute: 328 Inaccurate or misleading advertising (1) This section applies in relation to electoral matter if all of the following apply: (a) the matter is an electoral advertisement; (b) all or part of the distribution or production of the advertisement was paid for; (c) the content of the advertisement was approved by a person (the notifying entity) (whether or not that person is a person who paid for the distribution or production of the advertisement). (2) The notifying entity commits an offence if: (a) the notifying entity publishes, or causes to be published, an electoral advertisement; and (b) the advertisement contains a statement purporting to be a statement of fact that is inaccurate or misleading to a material extent. Penalty: 24 penalty units. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the notifying entity could not reasonably be expected to have known that the statement was inaccurate or misleading. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (4) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code). (4) Section 15.2 of the Criminal Code (extended geographical jurisdiction—category B) applies to an offence against subsection (2). This amendment creates an offence for any election advertisement which includes a statement that purports to be a fact but is misleading to a material extent. It effectively prohibits any advertisement that is wrong in fact. Under this amendment, we would have the Electoral Commissioner make an application to the Federal Court to grant an injunction to withdraw the advertisement from further publication and/or to publish a retraction. It's very straightforward: if someone makes a statement that is simply wrong in fact, rather than saying, 'You've got to put your name to it,' which is what the bill currently does, we're saying you shouldn't be able to make a statement that is wrong in fact. The offence would result in 24 penalty units. That's about $5,040 for an individual and $25,200 for a body corporate. The penalty is immaterial when it comes to large organisations that can wear the penalty, but what is much more powerful is that the Federal Court could grant an injunction and have the advertisement withdrawn. That would make a very strong statement about what is appropriate during an election campaign. Of course, there are safeguards. It would be a defence if the defendant took no part in determining the content of the advertisement and could not reasonably be expected to have known that the statement to which the charge relates was inaccurate or misleading. It's also important to note that this approach already exists in South Australia. In the existing provision in section 113 of the Electoral Act in South Australia, there is an amendment that is very similar to this amendment. Let's be clear here. What we are currently debating is changes to AEC Act that say, 'You can lie; you can put out statements that are wrong in fact; and you can continue to mislead the Australian community. You can do all of those things. What we're going to do, though, is just make sure that you put your name to those lies.' Well, hit me with a wet piece of lettuce! Really! On the back of what have been some outrageous lies told during election campaigns, that is what we're debating here today: 'We just want to make sure that the authorisation of those lies is appropriate.' Let's not skirt around the edges. Let's recognise we've got a problem and let's fix it. Let's recognise that we do need some honesty during election campaigns and we do need people to be held to account. This amendment just ensures that publishers of political material don't mislead people on matters of fact, in contrast to what we've got at the moment, which is simply having somebody's name added to an electoral advertisement. Some people will say that it's not the role of AEC to make those adjudications, but we think it's absolutely the role of an independent arbiter. Where there has been a lie told and a statement made that is factually incorrect, which may have a bearing on the outcome of an election, that lie should be corrected. It is absolutely critical in an environment where we are seeing political parties continue to engage in deceptive election campaigns, and where statements with no grounding in fact can influence the outcome of those election campaigns, that we have a process that ensures that we have some honesty and have people held to account. It's got nothing to do with free speech; it's got everything to do with ensuring that people don't believe they have a right to make statements that are untrue in election advertising during election campaigns. So we recommend this amendment. We think that it goes further than where the existing legislation goes. We have for many, many years argued for some form of truth in advertising legislation. It has been legislation put to the parliament by my predecessors, Senator Bob Brown and Senator Christine Milne. We continue to advocate for truth-in-advertising provisions. This is the time for us to ensure that we get strong protections in law during election campaigns so that advertisements have to be factually correct. 11:21 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The government will not be supporting this amendment and we appreciate the opposition indicating through Senator Farrell that the opposition will not be supporting this amendment either. What Senator Di Natale describes as very straightforward is, of course, nothing of the sort. In any democratic process, what is wrong or right in fact is very often a matter of opinion, and the ultimate judges of whether one opinion should prevail as opposed to the other are, of course, the Australian people. That is what elections and democratic processes are all about. We trust the Australian people to be able to pass these judgements. In the end, if somebody puts forward a proposition which is wrong in fact, there will, no doubt, be others involved in this democratic exercise pointing that out. The Australian people will have the benefit of various sides of the argument putting their propositions, and ultimately the Australian people will make a judgement. This is of course not a matter that is in any way related to the authorisation of electoral communications, which is what this bill is all about. The Australian parliament hasn't in the past gone down the path of seeking to regulate the content of political advertisements. We don't believe that it is desirable to do so at this point in time, and we will not be supporting this amendment. 11:22 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria In fact, there are parliaments in Australia that have precisely this form of amendment. As I said, this amendment is based on the existing provision in section 113 of the Electoral Act in South Australia. Where that's been used in South Australia, the exercise of that provision has been done in a very limited way. It hasn't impacted on freedom of speech in those jurisdictions. We know that the existence of that legislation actually serves in some ways as a handbrake on false and misleading information. So we would commend this truth in advertising amendment. We would argue that it is not appropriate, and in no way is going to make any significant difference, to simply ask that somebody who advertises during an election campaign puts their name to it. We already know that that exists in practice and in law. This extends those provisions a little further but won't do what is intended to be done, and that is ensure that people are held to account. We will argue, as we have for many, many years, that it is appropriate that statements that are simply factually inaccurate—not matters of opinion, but matters of fact—are able to be adjudicated by the Electoral Commissioner. We know that the Electoral Commissioner would exercise their judgement very judiciously in these circumstances, as they have done previously. It is important that individuals who participate in the democratic process know that there are responsibilities that come with that participation, and that is that they do not have any right, real or implied, to lie in election advertising. 11:24 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria I will be supporting this amendment by the Greens. I'm surprised that the government are not supporting it, especially after their justifiable criticisms of the opposition, the Labor Party, over 'Medismear' during last year's federal election, and especially after the Prime Minister's nocturnal comments on election night, when he got up and attacked Medismear, which, of course, saw their majority reduced to one seat. If this were the commercial world and you came out and made some non-factual claim about a miracle cure, the advertising watchdog would get you and hit on you, and you could be fined and have your product immediately withdrawn. If you are wrong in fact, as has been stressed by Senator Di Natale—not opinion or innuendo, as Senator Cormann says—then I think that you should be attacked. It should be withdrawn and you should be fined if proven guilty. It's not good enough to put your name on it and then, down the track, three months later after the election, or after the postal ballot on SSM, marriage equality, somebody says: 'Oh, that was bad. You shouldn't have done it. Naughty boy.' That's too late. If something is wrong in fact, it's wrong in fact. It should be withdrawn. It's an amendment well worth supporting. 11:26 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland If we were required to tell the absolute truth in advertising, the Greens would have nothing to campaign upon. The Greens try to tell you that the Barrier Reef is dead, and they will be running that in their next election campaign. We know that is an outright lie, but it doesn't stop the Greens from using it. We know as well that the Adani coalmine—which, fortunately, is going ahead and will create jobs in north Queensland and export wealth for all Australians—will have absolutely nothing to do with the Barrier Reef. It's 500 kilometres west of the Great Dividing Range, yet the Greens will be telling you, as they do now with their mates in GetUp!, about how this is killing the Great Barrier Reef—all lies. If this amendment were actually passed, the Greens would have absolutely nothing to campaign upon. We know that the Greens are trying to tell us as fact that what Australia emits in carbon is destroying the world—destroying the Barrier Reef and everything else. The fact of the matter is that Australia emits less than 1.2 per cent of the world's carbon emissions. How that can be destroying the world is anyone's guess, but it won't stop the Greens from running a false and misleading campaign about those three issues. Those are just three issues I raise. I'm quite surprised that the Greens are pushing this campaign barrow again. They would have nothing to advertise on at election time if they were required to be factual and to tell the truth. I acknowledge what the minister has said, that it's really not an issue for the debate before the chamber, but I notice that in the previous amendment Senator Di Natale was talking about encouraging young people to have a vote. Well, Senator Di Natale, I assume you'll be supporting me later on when we work out that there were about 15 to 20 students from James Cook University who turned up at Julia Creek to vote in the very, very closely contested election in Herbert. They were told by the AEC: 'Sorry, we haven't got any envelopes, so you can't vote. It's half past four, but, if you'd like to drive on to the next town, which is two hours away'—which would make it half past six—'you might be able to get a vote there.' If you're worried about young people not voting, there was a group of JCU students on a field trip out west who called into Julia Creek in the next-door electorate, but weren't given the opportunity to have an absentee vote in the electorate of Herbert. There were about 20 of them. Of course, the election in Herbert was decided by 37 votes. I don't know those 20 would have voted, but had they voted one way the election in Herbert would have been different. At the time of the count, the government of Australia hung in the balance—was it going to be a one-seat majority, a two-seat or a no-seat majority? What was it going to be? Because the AEC were unable to properly give those people a vote we got a result in Herbert which I think is illegitimate. Further on that, there was one ward in the Townsville Hospital, where the patients had, from eight o'clock, demanded of nursing staff that they get a vote. They were told time and time again by the hospital staff, who had checked with the AEC, that someone would be around to collect their votes. They kept asking all through the day until just before the poll closed and they were told, 'Sorry, the AEC is too busy to get your vote.' There were, I think, 42 people in that hospital ward, most of whom were registered in the electorate of Herbert and didn't get a vote. Again, I don't know how they would have voted, but they could have voted in one particular way, when the electorate was decided by just 37 votes. You can see how important it is for the AEC to do what it needs to do, and that is to make sure everyone who wants to vote is given a ballot paper. Senator Di Natale wants the AEC to be working out whether the 1.2 per cent of the world's carbon emissions from Australia is going to kill the Great Barrier Reef. That's what Senator Di Natale wants them to be doing. I can just imagine the AEC saying: 'Sorry, you're wrong Senator Di Natale. That's not factual.' And Senator Di Natale would be down to the High Court at the drop of a hat to try to get the them to rule on it. The proposition that Senator Di Natale puts is just ridiculous. If Senator Di Natale is interested in democracy and the proper administration of balloting in Australia, he'll join with me at the appropriate time in making sure that everyone who wants to vote—as indicated in the electorate of Herbert, where it would have made a difference—has that opportunity. Unfortunately the AEC was not able to do that. They do a fabulous job usually, but in this instance they failed badly, and they acknowledge that. Hopefully it will never happen again, but the government of Australia could have depended upon the actions of the AEC. That's what the AEC should be doing, rather than trying to work out whether Senator Di Natale's claims that the Barrier Reef is dead are accurate or inaccurate. I know where they would come down in that, but I can just imagine the High Court challenges that would ensue were this amendment to be adopted. I don't want to prolong this debate, and I know the minister wants to proceed as quickly as we can, but it would be interesting to see what the proposal was once the AEC decided accurately that the Barrier Reef is not dead. Would Senator Di Natale just accept that and say, 'Okay, we'll withdraw all our advertising'? What is the appeal mechanism, I wonder, that Senator Di Natale has in place for the AEC? I support the minister's approach to this amendment and oppose the amendment but urge the bill to be passed. 11:33 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland There have been a couple of issues raised today with regard to the Electoral and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. In essence, I do agree with what Senator Di Natale has said; there should be truth in advertising. We've seen too many times over the years that lies have been put out in advertising by all political parties, but I've seen it mostly regarding the major political parties. The people of Australia are fed up with the lies that are being told. Voting is a very important issue for all Australians, because it will determine the future of this country and who will hold government and where the legislation will be made and how it will be passed. The people of Australia demand far better from all sides of politics, that we tell the truth when we are standing for parliament. Give the voters the opportunity to judge us on our merits, whether it be on policy or our credentials, or who we are as people representing them. I also take the side of the argument that Senator Macdonald raised: if there are lies being put forward in a campaign with regard to Adani or the Great Barrier Reef, that needs to be up-front as well—and I totally agree. But if we go back to the last election, the Medicare scare and the text messages that were sent out—and just recently over the last weekend with regard to text messages supposedly coming from NRMAA, which was not correct—I think people expect far better. I'll also expand on this: a scare campaign and lies have already started in relation to Pauline Hanson's One Nation—the CFMEU are already putting out their scare campaign, lies and advertising, and it's not even an election. If we expect people to be protected by legislation, any company that advertises a product must deliver what they are advertising. Why is it any different with political parties? If we expect the consumer to have a right to fair and decent products from a person or company selling that product, we should expect the same standards in the parliament and at elections. Like I said, Pauline Hanson's One Nation will be supporting the Greens amendment to this bill. I think it needs to be reined in. I think there has to be accountability, and it's very important to the voters of this nation that we show leadership. If we expect others to abide by laws, we must also do it and at election time. The fines that Senator Di Natale raised with regard to this, I think, are very minimal. When we are talking about millions and millions of dollars that can be gained—and it's around $50 to $60 million from political parties and electoral funding—paying out a $5,000 or a $25,000 fine is minuscule. There is a lot to be gained by political parties from their false advertising, when they can gain many, many votes and they can get people elected to parliament. Because the public have no understanding about what the real truth is, I think we should actually increase the fines and be very vigilant in making sure that whoever runs the parliament, whichever political party, is doing the right thing by the people. 11:37 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I just want to stand and reflect on the quite outrageous contribution to this debate that the chamber just heard from Senator Macdonald. Senator Macdonald has accused the Greens of many things. He has made an art form of falsely accusing the Australian Greens of many things, but the central premise of Senator Macdonald's argument was that, because Australia, in his view—and I don't accept these figures, by the way—contributes less than 1.2 per cent of the total emissions of the world, therefore we shouldn't do anything to rein in our greenhouse gas emissions in this country. Well, that's akin to Senator Macdonald arguing that, because the amount of tax that any Australian pays in any given year is just a tiny fraction of the total tax take in this country, citizens should be able to withhold their taxes. That's the kind of logic that we're hearing from the coalition on this issue. If Senator Macdonald is serious in the fundamental point that he makes, then I think what we just heard from Senator Macdonald is a speech about why he's about to cross the floor and vote for a Greens amendment that is currently before the chamber. He has said very clearly that in his view, if this amendment were passed, it would significantly curtail the way the Greens do politics in this country. Well, it wouldn't but, if he's serious about making that point, I expect to see Senator Macdonald cross the floor and vote for this amendment. I also want to make this point with regard to the comments that Senator Macdonald made on Adani and its impact on the Great Barrier Reef: climate change is killing the Great Barrier Reef. That's what the science is telling us. That's what lived observation is telling us. That's what people who have dived on the reef, including Senator Di Natale and Senator Whish-Wilson, are telling us. It is what the scientists who have dedicated their lives to studying and understanding the Great Barrier Reef are telling us. Climate change is killing the Great Barrier Reef. And one of the primary drivers of climate change is humanity burning coal, and yet this government wants to proceed with the Adani mine, along with their mates in the Labor Party, both here in the Senate and in the Queensland government, and do everything they can—free coal, free water, free money—for Adani to get this shocking mine underway. The Greens won't have a bar of it. We won't have a bar of it. We'll stand up and defend the Great Barrier Reef. We'll stand up and defend the people in the Caribbean and the people on the Florida peninsula right now, who are living through the impacts of climate change and who are having their lives absolutely smashed because of storms that are stronger due to the effect of climate change on our planet. We're all going to see it reflected in our insurance premiums, reflected in extra bushfires in this country, reflected in the loss of tourism dollars into Queensland and the loss of spectacular globally significant coral reef. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 195565 Senator Hanson, a point of order? Senator Hanson BK6 My point goes to relevance drawing it back to what the bill is rather than talking about the upside. I draw it back to what the bill is about and it's about the recent advertising. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: That's not a point of order, Senator Hanson. Senator McKIM JKM It is interesting that Senator Hanson sat quietly by and listened to the rubbish we heard from Senator Macdonald around Adani and the Great Barrier Reef without taking a point of order. She is quite happy to take a point of order on the Australian Greens when we point out the facts backed by science—something that Senator Hanson and One Nation would know absolutely nothing about whatsoever, because they are conspiracy theorists, and rampant conspiracy theorists at that. The Greens proudly have suggested this amendment to the Senate chamber, because truth is important. Truth in advertising is important and truth in politics is important. We've seen what happened in the Brexit vote in the UK and in the presidential vote in the US, where truth became a casualty of people's greed for power. That's what we've seen, and it's time that this place, the Australian parliament, stood up and took a stand against false political advertising, took a stand against those people who prioritise their desperate scramble for political power over truth and respect for the people that we are supposed to represent in this place. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the amendment moved by Senator Di Natale on sheet 8232 be agreed to.

The committee divided. [11:47]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Whish-Wilson)

 16 AYES Burston, B Di Natale, R Georgiou, P Griff, S Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Kakoschke-Moore, S Lambie, J McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Roberts, M Siewert, R (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS Xenophon, N 28 NOES Abetz, E Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Bushby, DC Cash, MC Cormann, M Dastyari, S (teller) Duniam, J Farrell, D Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Hume, J Ketter, CR McAllister, J McCarthy, M McGrath, J McKenzie, B Moore, CM O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Payne, MA Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Sinodinos, A Smith, D Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 11:50 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia by leave—I move amendments (1), (2), (3) and (4) on sheet 8229 standing in my name: (1) Schedule 1, page 11 (after line 7), after subclause 321D(5), insert: Bulk voice calls (5A) If a notifying entity communicates, or approves the communication of, electoral matter to a person by bulk voice call, the notifying entity must ensure that: (i) the particulars required to be given in respect of that communication by subsection (5), or any other particulars determined under subsection (7) for the purposes of subsection (5), are given at the beginning of the call; and (ii) immediately after those particulars are given, a statement is given that the call is an automated political call and the call will not proceed unless the recipient of the call takes the necessary steps to allow the call to proceed. Note: This provision is a civil penalty provision which is enforceable under the Regulatory Powers Act (see section 384A of this Act). Civil penalty: 120 penalty units. (5B) A notifying entity contravenes this subsection if: (a) the notifying entity communicates, or approves the communication of, electoral matter to a person by bulk voice call; and (b) the notifying entity has not ensured that a facility is available to the recipient of the call to enable the recipient to take steps to: (i) allow the call to proceed; or (ii) terminate the call. Note: This provision is a civil penalty provision which is enforceable under the Regulatory Powers Act (see section 384A of this Act). Civil penalty: 120 penalty units. (2) Schedule 1, item 10, page 12 (line 3), after "(5)", insert ", (5A) or (5B)". (3) Schedule 1, item 10, page 12 (line 19), after "(5)", insert ", (5A) or (5B)". (4) Schedule 1, item 30, page 27 (after line 7), after subclause 110C(5), insert: Bulk voice calls (5A) If a notifying entity communicates, or approves the communication of, referendum matter to a person by bulk voice call, the notifying entity must ensure that: (i) the particulars required to be given in respect of that communication by subsection (5), or any other particulars determined under subsection 321D(7) of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 for the purposes of subsection (5), are given at the beginning of the call; and (ii) immediately after those particulars are given, a statement is given that the call is an automated political call and the call will not proceed unless the recipient of the call takes the necessary steps to allow the call to proceed. Note: This provision is a civil penalty provision which is enforceable under the Regulatory Powers Act (see section 140AAA of this Act). Civil penalty: 120 penalty units. (5B) A notifying entity contravenes this subsection if: (a) the notifying entity communicates, or approves the communication of, referendum matter to a person by bulk voice call; and (b) the notifying entity has not ensured that a facility is available to the recipient of the call to enable the recipient to take steps to: (i) allow the call to proceed; or (ii) terminate the call. Note: This provision is a civil penalty provision which is enforceable under the Regulatory Powers Act (see section 140AAA of this Act). Civil penalty: 120 penalty units. These are what would colloquially be known as the 'robocall amendments'. These amendments relate to bulk voice calls. What these amendments essentially do is the following. If a notifying entity communicates or approves the communication of an electoral matter to a person by bulk voice call—that is, a robocall—the notifying entity must ensure, essentially, that upfront you are told who is the body responsible for it, whether it is the Liberal Party, the Labor Party or a union. It is all about ensuring that upfront you know who is authorising the call. Secondly, the important safeguard is that you are then given an option to specifically opt in if you want to take that call. This amendment is technology-neutral in relation to that, but you can decide—it could be a voice command for yes or no, or 'Press 1 to hear the rest of the call.' What we are seeing with robo-calls is that you get a spiel that goes on for quite a while. At the end of it, you find out who is authorising it. I think that the party responsible—that is, the entity responsible—should be upfront as to who is behind the robo-call. The voter should get a chance to decide whether they want to hear that call. The method of authorisation, the method of giving voters the power to say yes or no to that call, ought to be reformed. That is what this particular amendment seeks to do. Otherwise, I think this will be an increasing issue. Of course, this does not constrain political communication. What it does is give the power back to the voter—firstly, to know who is authorising these calls upfront and, secondly, to make a decision as to whether they want to hear the message. 11:53 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The government's bill already extends the authorisation of electoral matters to include bulk voice calls for the first time. In fact, that is one of the key features of the legislation in front of us. The bill allows the Electoral Commissioner, by legislative instrument, to determine further requirements in relation to the particulars announced as part of the authorisation. This allows the Electoral Commissioner to update requirements in response to changing circumstances and new technology and ensures the requirements are appropriate for the medium used to communicate the message. While it would ultimately be a matter for the commissioner, the logical place for the authorisation of such communication is, in our view, at the start of a call, but that is not something that the parliament needs to get itself involved in. We should leave that to the independent judgement of the Electoral Commissioner, as is the case in relation to authorisation arrangements and particulars of authorisation requirements more generally. In just picking up on the point that Senator Xenophon has made about empowering the voter, the voter is, of course, empowered. The recipient of any phone call is able to hang up at any time. We don't believe it is necessary to amend the bill to require the recipient of a bulk voice call to take necessary steps in order for the call to proceed. We would encourage anyone who receives a phone call in relation to a political communication that they don't approve of to just hang up. For these reasons, the government does not support this amendment at this time. 11:55 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia The opposition will not be supporting the amendments. We've only just received them in the last few minutes. If Senator Xenophon was serious about these amendments then he would have at least started some meaningful discussions about them. We don't believe the provisions suggested by Senator Xenophon would assist in fostering genuine political communications. As Senator Cormann noted, if you don't like the contents of the robocall, you can simply hang up. The Australian Electoral Commission is provided with significant powers in this bill, as a result of the work of the JSCEM committee. I'm not sure whether any member of the Xenophon team seriously participated in that process, but those people who did so have come forward with a significant and meaningful piece of legislation. As I said, the Australian Electoral Commission is provided with significant powers in this bill to determine the intricacies of political authorisation, and we trust that it will do so appropriately. 11:56 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia Given that there will be regulations around this bill, I ask: does the government, as a matter of principle, at least consider at this stage the merit of an authorisation being required upfront—in other words, so that the voter knows upfront who is making the call—rather than a minute or two later? It's pretty obvious, if the robocall starts off with, 'This is Malcolm Turnbull', or, 'This is Bill Shorten', who is authorising it— Senator Di Natale 53369 The Minerals Council! Senator XENOPHON 8IV I will ignore that very cynical interjection from Senator Di Natale! Senator Di Natale interjecting— Senator XENOPHON 8IV Even in those cases, maybe there are some people in this country who don't know who Malcolm Turnbull or Bill Shorten are—not many, but there might be a couple. So, can the government indicate (a) whether they consider there is merit in what is being proposed, at least in relation to the issue of the upfront authorisation, and (b) whether the regulations would have the scope to allow for upfront authorisations to be embedded in the regulations? 11:58 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I actually directly addressed that point in my initial comments to your amendments, Senator Xenophon. Just to make it clear again: this bill gives the Electoral Commissioner the power to make a legislative instrument prescribing certain matters. It doesn't mean that the Electoral Commissioner has to exercise these powers, but he can. The legislative instrument can prescribe, amongst other things, a requirement in relation to when and how the authorisations in the context of voice calls are most appropriately made. As I said in my remarks, while it would ultimately be a matter for the Electoral Commissioner, the government certainly agrees that the logical place for the authorisation of such communication to take place is at the start of the call. But we believe that the legislation in front of the parliament, which responds to relevant recommendations from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and extends, for the first time, the authorisation of electoral matter to include bulk voice calls, gives the Electoral Commissioner all of the necessary powers which he or she exercises independently to make relevant arrangements in relation to the authorisation of robocalls. 11:59 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania We all know that everything takes time, whether it's up here or elsewhere; the robocalls are already over and done with; and then the Electoral Commissioner takes a week or two to get on to it and to all the complaints he has finally got. Does the commissioner have a time line for answering or for doing something about this? Or have we not struck those laws yet? 11:59 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The Electoral Commissioner is an independent statutory officer and that is as it should be, because while all of us are actors in the political process, it's very important for the Electoral Commissioner to exercise his responsibilities independently. If this bill is passed by the parliament, and based on the indications so far it will be, then the Electoral Commissioner will have the opportunity to make certain arrangements around authorisation requirements. But it will be a matter for him—if, how and when he chooses to exercise those powers. 12:00 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I just wanted to clarify that, Minister. So there is no time line, so he can either do it today, or he can do it in two weeks time. I'm just not sure how this is supposed to help the situation: if you don't have a time frame around when he's supposed to act on what he has been told about these robocalls, then what's the point of it? 12:01 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The point is, what the government is doing here in good faith is responding to the recommendations from the non-partisan, cross-party Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters by modernising authorisation requirements to ensure that new methods of communications are appropriately catered for. But in the end, yes—as it was before—the Electoral Commissioner continues to be independent. He is not forced to make certain determinations. He will have the option to make certain determinations but, ultimately, it is a matter for his independent judgement. From the government's point of view—and I'm sure that the opposition would have the same view—we think it is very important for the Electoral Commissioner to continue to exercise his statutory responsibilities independently and not be subject to political direction from anyone. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 250216 The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Xenophon be agreed to.

The committee divided. [12:06]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Reynolds)

 16 AYES Burston, B Di Natale, R Georgiou, P Griff, S Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Kakoschke-Moore, S Lambie, J McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Roberts, M Siewert, R (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS Xenophon, N 27 NOES Abetz, E Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Bushby, DC Cameron, DN Cash, MC Cormann, M Duniam, J Farrell, D Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Hume, J Ketter, CR Macdonald, ID McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKenzie, B Moore, CM O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Sinodinos, A Smith, D Sterle, G Williams, JR (teller) 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.

 Third Reading 6769 12:10 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Liquid Fuel Emergency Amendment Bill 2017 6769

Liquid Fuel Emergency Amendment Bill 2017

Second Reading 6769 12:10 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria As I was discussing when we were interrupted in our previous debate on this bill, there are broadly two ways in which we can reduce the problems of not having sufficient supplies of liquid fuels. The way that the government is addressing it is to bring our supplies up to 90 days by having tickets on levels of fossil fuel stocks—oil stocks—elsewhere in the world. The other way—the much more significant, much more sustainable, much more strategic way—is to reduce our reliance on these oil supplies. If we can reduce our need to import oil, we are no longer as reliant on it. That is the way to achieve fuel security. By doing that, we're also, at the same time, tackling the huge issue of dangerous global warming. It's a win-win situation. It means that we are changing the types of fuels that we're using in the country and, simultaneously, Australia is doing its part to tackle global warming. It is significant because the transport sector accounts for three-quarters of Australia's liquid fuel demand and that sector is so ripe to have those fuels substituted. There are two broad ways in which we can reduce the demand for liquid fossil fuels in the transport sector. One is to reduce overall the level of travel that's done in personal vehicles and in freight vehicles. The second is to substitute renewable fuels for fossil fuels. Reducing the amount of fuel-intensive travel overall means shifting some journeys away from personal car use and freight vehicles and to public transport and freight on rail and getting people to actively transport themselves by cycling and walking. All of these strategies are being used much more in other parts of the world. In other parts of the world, people don't have the huge reliance on personal motor vehicle travel that we have in Australia. Here in Australia, almost 90 per cent of our vehicle trips are done by motor vehicles where, basically, you've only got one person. Sometimes you've got two people, but, on average, it's only 1.1 person per vehicle. If we can just shift a small proportion of those trips to public transport or to walking and cycling, we will make a huge difference in the amount of fuel that we need to import. Of course, there are other benefits. By doing that, not only are we tackling climate change and reducing our problems of being reliant on imported oil, we are also dealing significantly with congestion in our cities. The way you deal with congestion in the cities is to give people the choice of getting out of their cars. We're dealing with health as well. We know we have an obesity crisis in this country. We need to find ways to make our cities work so it easier and more straightforward for people to get exercise into their day. One of the most straightforward ways of doing that is to have active transport so that, when people are on their way to work, to the shops or to pick up the kids from school, they can do that by walking and cycling. If, as well as investing in fuel substitution and paying money to have these fuel supplies in the world, we just invested a small amount in making it safe for people to walk and to ride bikes, this would have a very substantial and constructive impact on our overall fuel security. The thing that puts people off riding and makes them think, 'Oh, no, I'm not going to get on my bike,' isn't that it's something that they don't think that they could possibly do; it's that they don't feel safe riding. There is one sure-fire way to make people feel safe to ride their bikes, so that, once they've given it a go, they will give it a go again, and that is to give them safe cycling infrastructure. That's what's required. These are the sorts of initiatives that are required as part of a package, a suite of programs, to deal with increasing the resilience of our transport fuels. The other big area, once you've shifted some trips away from personal vehicles and shifted some freight transport trips away from very polluting, high-fuel-use trucks to much less polluting, much more fuel efficient freight rail, is to look at the remainder of the vehicle trips. That's when you get into working out what the long-term future is for those remaining car trips and truck trips. How can we get the triple whammy where we've got fuel security, we're tackling climate change and we're dealing with air pollution in our country? The way to do that—all the evidence points to it—is to push to have much greater use of renewable fuels, much greater uptake of electric vehicles and a shift to the use of hydrogen in freight vehicles. These are the sorts of initiatives, the sorts of measures, that other countries around the world are taking up with gusto—but not Australia. We are stuck in the last century, stuck with this absolutely dogged attachment to oil, gas and coal. We know why that is. The vested interests have got the government in their pocket. The government is just saying to the oil companies, the coal companies and the gas companies, 'Anything that you want, you can get it.' That's why we haven't had the initiatives to have electric vehicle uptake here in Australia. We're one of the worst performers in the world when it comes to electric vehicle uptake. We know all the benefits of electric vehicles. They're cheaper to refuel. They're much more fuel efficient due to the efficiency of electric motors. They're cheaper to operate and maintain. And, as I said, they're much better for the climate—but particularly better for the climate when they are running on renewable energy, which is the other part of the equation—and much better for health. There are so many reasons why we should be investing in electric vehicles, but we are lagging behind because of the government being wedded to the fossil fuel industries. If we just had some small initiatives to encourage the use of electric vehicles, then we would have that uptake in their usage. We could be in a situation like the UK, France and other countries, where they have said they are going to be phasing out fossil fuel vehicles by 2030 or 2040. They are planning for it. They know that it makes sense. But here in Australia we are just stuck in the last century. There is another thing that we are not doing where we've got these existing fossil fuel vehicles. If we put measures in place so that we are increasing the uptake of electric vehicles, with all of the benefits that that's going to have, we know that in the transition period there will be ongoing use and ongoing sale of fossil fuel engines—petrol and diesel engines. At the very least, if we are concerned about reducing our reliance on fossil fuel and increasing our fuel security, we need to be doing something about emissions standards. In the world market, 80 per cent of light vehicles that are sold have standards when it comes to CO2 emissions, but Australia is falling behind. We are becoming a dumping ground for vehicles that have high emissions and low fuel economy. These are the measures that we need to be acting on, which the government flagged a few months ago but now seems to be backtracking on, unwilling to take the action that's required by insisting that vehicles must have high-quality fuel-emission standards. Such action would we save people money as well. Vehicles with very high fuel efficiency don't use as much fuel, so you don't need to pay for as much petrol or diesel to put into your car. Yes, there's a small up-front cost for having more fuel-efficient vehicles, but the payback period is less than five years. It's cheaper for consumers, good for our environment, good for climate and good for our resilience and for having fuel security in this country. Having higher emission standards would reduce our carbon dioxide emissions by the same amount as taking every car and truck off the road for a year. By 2030, that's how much we would reduce our carbon emissions. If we had a government that was serious about dealing with our transport sector emissions, fuel security and global warming, it's this package of emissions that would be adopted. But, instead, there's no plan. We've got a government that isn't serious about reducing oil imports, increasing energy security or working out how to decarbonise our transport system and move it away from oil, gas and coal. It's a package of measures that we need. If we had a shift into electric vehicles to seriously reduce the carbon pollution that comes from our transport system, those electric vehicles would need to be fuelled by renewable energy—clean, green solar, wind, geothermal and hydro energy. But, although it might be grudgingly dragged into electric vehicles down the track, the government is still committed to coal fuelling our power systems. We have a massive commitment to coal, as with the Adani coal mine, which the government and the Labor Party are still supporting, and now we've got the government talking about throwing a billion dollars at trying to maintain a dirty, polluting, coal-fired power station—the Liddell power station. Just think: rather than trying to extend the life of a power station that is polluting the local area and polluting the globe, if you took the sort of money going into the subsidies that the government's now talking about and spent them on encouraging renewable energy, electric vehicles and other initiatives that are going to lead us to a clean, sustainable transport sector, that would create the win-win-win-wins that would drive our transport system in the direction that it needs to go. The Greens will continue to fight for this. We will continue to push for cleaner air, cleaner transport and more fuel security, and I ask the government and the Labor Party to look at the evidence and to look at what makes sense—what the transport planners around the country are saying and what the scientists around the country are saying—and let us shift to a cleaner, greener transport system. 12:23 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to reaffirm Pauline Hanson's One Nation party's commitment to reducing pollution—real pollution: sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide, particulates; these are real pollutants. We also want to make sure that we have energy—cheap, abundant, accessible and affordable energy—because energy is the key to human progress. The fundamental driving force for human progress is our own creativity. That has blossomed in the last 167 years, since 1850, and the start of the industrial revolution, but the key slave that has powered this for humanity has been the relentlessly decreasing cost of energy. That is what has driven human progress: our creativity, implemented through cheaper energy, ever reducing in price, until 10 years ago. And now we see the Greens, aided and abetted by the deceitful Labor policies under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard and by the weakness under the Liberal Party, destroying that by reversing the trend in energy prices. We have now seen energy prices increasing for 10 years under the policies of both the Liberal Party and Labor Party. We see that as a retrograde step for human progress—a return to the Dark Ages. We see it as a retrograde step for the standard of living as things become more expensive. The cost of energy is reflected in the cost of almost every single service, every single product across our community, across our nation. We see the Chinese using our coal and many other countries in Asia using our coal to produce cheap electricity, cheaper than we can sell it for here. We also see that as manifesting then in a reduction in standard of living and an increase in cost of living. These are the things that trouble not only young people but people in their retirement and people on low incomes. Energy has become an essential good. It is not a luxury any more. That means that people on lower incomes find this to be a highly regressive tax. The Greens, fundamentally, want to reverse human progress. That is anti-human. Senator Rice has mentioned electric vehicles. Electric vehicles have their place, but in small quantities. If we went to widespread use of electric vehicles, it would lead to dramatic increases in the price of electricity because the demand for electricity would rise. Yet, the Greens give us no solution. They prevent hydroelectricity, they prevent the use of coal-fired power stations, they prevent the use of nuclear power generation. Those three are the only base-load providers of energy in this country and anywhere in the world—hydro, coal, nuclear. And the Greens are opposed to all of them. They want us to go on windmills, a product of the 19th century. Old technology indeed. How do we produce hydrogen? We produce hydrogen through electrolysis. That's how we produce hydrogen—more electricity. Senator Rice is advocating for yet more electricity while curtailing the supply of electricity. That's the first point I want to mention. My second point about the Greens' charade is that they have never, ever produced any empirical evidence that we need to cut the use of hydrocarbon fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas. No-one in the world has proven any human causation of global warming or global climate change due to the human use of hydrocarbon fuels. It is an ideology that contradicts science. Let's have a look at some of the empirical evidence. Temperatures have not risen for 22 years. There is no warming. Secondly, the longest temperature trend for the last 160 years was 40 years of cooling from the 1930s to 1976. At that time, the human production of carbon dioxide increased dramatically in the Second World War and in the post-war economic boom. Thirdly, temperatures in the 1880s and 1890s were warmer in Australia than they are today—warmer 120 years ago than they are today. In the United States, which has the best temperature records in the world for the last century, we see that the 1930s were warmer than today. Any changes in temperature are found not to be driven by changes in carbon dioxide. The reverse applies. What we see are changes in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere driven by the changes in temperature, which are entirely natural. That is due to the enormous capacity of the oceans to absorb 50 times more carbon dioxide. They currently contain 50 times more carbon dioxide than is in the entire atmosphere. Slight changes in temperature lead to slight changes in carbon dioxide levels. In the last 20 years, we have seen massive production of carbon dioxide from human activity, yet no increase in temperature. The whole thing is a scam. The third point: even if we were causing warming, is it detrimental? No. Warming is highly beneficial. In fact, all of earth's past far-warmer periods are known by scientists as climate optimums. Why? Because they're beneficial for humans, civilisation, the planet, animal species and plant species. What we see here is the Greens wanting to control our future and wanting to put us back into poverty, stuck with failed technology. Without subsidies, the Greens' policies are dead, and that is the same for human activity. We want to commend the government for bringing forward this bill, because the government has fallen down in this area. Previous governments have fallen down as well. We are very pleased to see this minor change, but we argue that we need a comprehensive approach to energy, a freeing-up of markets—getting rid of the energy market that is now governing electricity use and restoring free markets, not controlled markets. The problem with markets today is that they're not markets in energy. The electricity market is not a market; it's an energy racket controlled by subsidies, vested interests and politicised ideologies. What we need to see is a restoration of a free market so that people can make their choice. We are very pleased to see this minor change, and that's why we will be supporting this bill. 12:31 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria by leave—I move the second reading amendment standing in my name: At the end of the motion, add: "but the Senate calls upon the Government to work to minimise liquid fuel use in Australia, improve fuel security and lower the cost of compliance with Australia's 90 day stockholding obligation, by: (a) introducing a mandatory vehicle emission or fuel economy standard; (b) introducing measures to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles; (c) introducing measures to encourage mode switching from private vehicle transport to mass transit or active transport options; and (d) the development and publication of a comprehensive transport energy plan directed to achieving a secure, affordable and sustainable transport energy supply." 12:32 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank all members for their contributions to the debate on the Liquid Fuel Emergency Amendment Bill 2017 which, as the government's made clear, will enable it to work toward its goal of compliance with the International Energy Agency's requirement that Australia holds 90 days of oil stockholdings by authorising the Australian government to enter into oil stockholding contracts. I note a number of contributions in the debate. The government appreciates the intent from all senators, but appreciates in particular the general bipartisan approach to the handling of this legislation and support of the government's measures in this regard. The government will not be supporting the second reading amendment moved by the Greens. The government has established a ministerial forum on vehicle emissions to consider possible reforms in three areas, namely fuel efficiency standards, fuel quality standards and noxious emissions standards. The government intends to encourage more efficient vehicles, which will reduce fuel use and mean cheaper petrol bills for families in the future. We are still working through the implementation of measures in all of these areas, particularly by consulting widely with stakeholders, which the government has done and continues to do, so as to ensure a balanced, evidence-based approach to this important area of public policy. I commend the bill to the Senate. The PRESIDENT e5v The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Rice be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:38]
(The President—Senator Parry)

 30 AYES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Dastyari, S Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Griff, S Kakoschke-Moore, S Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lines, S McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Xenophon, N 27 NOES Abetz, E Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Cash, MC Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Georgiou, P Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J McGrath, J McKenzie, B Nash, F O'Sullivan, B Parry, S Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Roberts, M Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Sinodinos, A Smith, D Williams, JR (teller) 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 12:40 The PRESIDENT e5v As there have been no amendments circulated and unless any minister wishes to move into a committee stage, I propose to call the minister for the third reading. Senator Xenophon, do you wish to move into committee? Senator Xenophon 8IV Just very briefly, yes. In Committee 6775 12:41 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia I thought the bill was going to go into committee but I didn't realise that there were no real surprises here. The bill proposes a ticket system to mandate or ensure our 90-day rule compliance. We had a discussion in the second reading debate about our vulnerability in terms of fuel. My question is essentially about having ticket contracts. If we have a ticket contract with, say, Singapore, because that's where a lot of the fuel comes from, but in the event that a hostility breaks out—and I emphasise not with Singapore, which is a close friend and ally of Australia—or if there's anything that would interrupt the supply of fuel through a ticketing system, then has the government considered the legal principle of force majeure in the event of a conflict? In other words, in an event such as an outbreak of hostilities or an outbreak of war, force majeure would mean that the ticket contracts would be essentially unenforceable. One of the reasons this bill has come about is because we're not meeting our international commitments in terms of fuel reserves. I understand the intent of what the government is doing, but how does the government see the issue of ticket contracts operating—particularly if it's a ticket contract with fuel suppliers in Singapore, which seems to be the most likely place—if there's a conflict or an outbreak of hostilities? Surely force majeure, or some other legal principles, would apply and would render this ineffective in terms of Australia's fuel security? 12:43 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I'm advised that the commercial contract that we would put in place would provide that the host country needs to be able to identify the ticketed stock and its availability, throughout the contracted period. Terms in both the contract and the bilateral arrangement include how the entity needs to report the stock so that the stock cannot be double-counted by more than one country towards their IEA stockholdings. This is checked by the IEA to ensure accurate reporting. The IEA requires an overarching bilateral arrangement to be in place between the host and the buying countries. The IEA mandates that the arrangement include a clause that the host government agrees that it will not impede the release of stock in the event of a collective action. The commercial contract will also contain clauses relating to the release of stocks. If the host company refuses to release stocks, it may be violating the terms of the contract. Australia would have two options under a ticket contract: the option to purchase and uplift the stock or the option to release the stock in-country. This, of course, would depend on the circumstances of different scenarios that play out, but the government believes that this measure in this legislation not only meets its IEA obligations but enhances fuel security arrangements. 12:45 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia I thank the minister for his answer. I have a few questions arising out of that. Firstly, where does the government envisage that the host countries will be? Obviously, depending on where the host countries are, the fuel might have to go through the Strait of Hormuz or the Strait of Malacca. Secondly, the host contract references an accountability mechanism about whether they can fulfil those contracts or whether they are robust. Is that something that will be made publicly available or is that something that we can establish, for instance, through the mechanisms of the estimates process or some other process? In other words, how can the public and industry be assured that these host contracts are robust? So that's the second question. Thirdly, I go back to the issue of force majeure. Does the government concede that these contracts may not be enforceable in the event of the outbreak of a conflict, which I hope never occurs, but, given the geopolitical situation we see in our region, particularly on the Korean peninsula, we cannot assume that there will not be an outbreak of conflict at some time in the future? 12:46 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I emphasise that commercial contracts must be underpinned by government-to-government level arrangements and that there be a treaty or a MOU in those circumstances. It is an IEA requirement for bilateral requirements to be put in place to ensure that there can be no impediment to the release of ticketed stock. Senator Xenophon, in terms of the types of risk profiles or scenarios that you ask about and extrapolate the possibilities of, I can advise that the government is in discussion with 11 potential host countries. Obviously, a multiplicity of arrangements or contracts being in place would provide for a variety of ways to mitigate the types of scenarios that you've suggested were they ever to eventuate. The bill does also allow for the Australian government to purchase tickets to be held onshore by Australian entities. Whilst the ticket market is not yet established in Australia, if there were a financial incentive for Australian entities to do so and to invest more or earlier in storage through ticketing, there is a belief that entities may begin to hold surplus stock domestically as well. 12:47 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia I just have some further questions on this because this is important. If something goes wrong with our fuel supply—if there's a natural disaster or if some oil tankers can't make it to Australia for whatever reason—then that could have enormous consequences for our nation and enormous consequences for our economy, let alone the disruption it could cause to ordinary citizens and the impact it could have on our Defence Force. Are the 11 host countries—without necessarily naming them—in the Asia-Pacific region, in Europe, in Africa or in the Americas? Secondly, the minister helpfully said that there's nothing to stop ticket contracts from being held here in Australia, but there is no market yet for them. Does that mean that we couldn't have our own supplies of fuel here in Australia, within our borders, because the market just isn't there or it would simply be too prohibitive in cost? I'm just concerned that we won't have much of a supply of fuel on the ground here in Australia in the event that we have a geopolitical event or a natural disaster that causes disruption to our fuel supplies. Again I go back to the issue of force majeure. Is that something that the government has considered? In the event of an outbreak of conflict, does the government concede that a ticket contract of the type envisaged in this legislation cannot reasonably be enforceable by virtue of the principle of force majeure? 12:49 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I can advise Senator Xenophon that the types of geographical localities in which discussions are occurring are spread across Europe, North America and Asia. So the profile of potential contracts, in the sense of the 11 locations that are in discussions, is quite broad and would provide for geographical diversity in all likelihood. The government is really working to see the ticket market, as such, expanded to ensure there are as many options as possible. That brings both cost and price benefits as well as geographical security benefits of sorts. At present, there are two main purchasers of tickets: the New Zealand government purchases tickets under an arrangement such as the one before the Senate at present, and companies operating in the EU also purchase tickets to manage separate stockholding obligations that some European countries have under national legislation requirements. Obviously, Australia's entry into this approach would expand that market and create more opportunities, and opportunities to provide for, as I say, a range of scenarios in which contracts are held that do provide for the necessary security that Australia seeks to guarantee under its IEA obligations and out of our domestic interests. 12:51 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia So I can go to the issue of: if there is a conflict, will the contracts be enforceable or not, given force majeure? I might get your guidance as to how I should pronounce that. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 I go with 'majeure'. Senator XENOPHON 8IV Maybe that's why I haven't got an answer: I didn't say it right. I will check Google pronunciation or whatever. So thank you for your assistance, Mr Acting Chairman Sterle. I stuffed up the pronunciation, so no wonder the minister couldn't answer my question. I apologise to my colleagues, to the Senate and to the officials who are present. Thank you, again, Mr Acting Chairman, for your help. In the event of a conflict—or indeed a natural disaster—where the country that we are supposed to have the ticketing arrangement with says, 'Sorry, buddy, we're in a conflict with whichever country' or 'We've got a natural disaster, and we need it for our domestic consumption,' wouldn't that be a case of force majeure? Again, I apologise for stuffing up the pronunciation. 12:53 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The government is in negotiations to establish a number of contracts. You expand about a hypothetical scenario, and that's reasonable in these circumstances and I will make a couple of points. The government will take every step in its contract negotiations to ensure that they are as secure as possible under whatever eventualities may occur. But of course you're talking about global conflict scenarios, and there are, no doubt, under any such scenarios, possibilities to create some degree of uncertainty. So, whilst contract negotiations will seek to provide as much certainty as possible into the future, the other aspect to that, as I've emphasised, is that the government seeks to mitigate—to spread its risk as such—by ensuring that contracts occur across geographically diverse locations and, indeed, hopes that there may be some enthusiasm for the establishment of a domestic ticketing market as well, which would ensure support there. I also, again, emphasise that those contracts must, under the arrangements being put in place, be underpinned by bilateral agreements or arrangements with the host country as well. So there are a number of different safeguards that are put into the legislation and the operation of it in this regard. 12:54 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia Has the government done any costing as to how much more expensive a domestic ticket market arrangement may be in relative terms? Has there been any analysis or modelling done as to whether a domestic ticket market would cost more? Going back to the earlier question on force majeure and the fact that it can't be answered, I think there are general legal principles that will probably say that it wouldn't be enforceable. But that's something that perhaps could be explored further. My final question relates to the question I asked earlier. Will the information about the robustness of arrangements and contracts be made publicly available? At the very least, is this something that can be asked and answered in the context of government estimates? 12:56 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia These are obviously commercial negotiations, and the government wants to extract best value for money. So, in that sense, we hope that the existence of Australia as a purchaser in the market and the opportunities that that provides will hopefully bring some domestic engagement to that market. As to the cost basis there, the government will also be guided by trying to secure the most competitive environment in the market. But we'll obviously be mindful of all the other factors that might be beneficial, should there be interest in the production of domestic tickets and development of a domestic ticket market. On the domestic front— Senator Xenophon interjecting— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Not that I'm aware of, Senator Xenophon. In terms of exploration of the value for money and security around the contracts, the treaties or bilateral agreements with other countries would, in the normal course of events, be public documents; so that level of engagement will be clear. Other documents will absolutely be able to be questioned through normal Senate procedures—estimates and so forth. There may be some elements of them that are commercially sensitive, and that's a matter that will have to be explained and dealt with at the time. I think that addresses the questions you asked on that occasion. 12:57 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia I just wanted to thank the minister for his answers, even though I'm still concerned about force majeure. I do not oppose this bill, but I am concerned as to its efficacy. I'm concerned that, if Australia were caught up, directly or indirectly, in a regional conflict, these contracts may not be worth the paper they're written on and that, in the event that there's a conflict, the host countries could say, 'Our fuel needs are more important than any contract and we can break the contract as a result.' Even though there is a cost involved in having more fuel stockpiled here in Australia, I still believe that that is a good insurance policy against geopolitical instability and the outbreak of a conflict in the region that could affect our fuel supplies. It has happened here in Australia that sometimes we're only a couple of oil tankers away from fuel shortages in this country, and it is very finely balanced. So I welcome the intent of the legislation but I just query its efficacy. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 6779 13:00 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 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 6779

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

Second Reading 6779 13:00 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Labor supports this legislation before us, which is the Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017 and related bills. Labor understands that these measures are good for the health of Australia and Australians. They are good for the environment and provide certainty for industry in our country. The bills follow up the agreement made by state and territory ministers in December 2015. Importantly, they have the support of industry. The bills enable the minister to prescribe products as emissions controlled, make rules relating to these products and set emissions standards. Products include non-road petrol engines in lawnmowers, leaf blowers and outboard motors. So it's good to see the true diversity of products now coming in under emissions regulations. It's important to note that Australia has been somewhat behind in this regard. This bill covers exemptions, penalties and certification, and triggers compliance and enforcement. We note that the excise and charges bills also allow charges to be imposed on imports or, if applicable, domestic manufacture of emissions-controlled products. The proposed standards cover noxious air pollutants such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides that have significant impacts on human health. From that point of view, I commend these measures. It is recognised that these new standards could deliver up to $1.7 billion in avoided health costs for our nation and the avoidance of nearly 3,000 premature deaths. The measures will also provide for a reduction of 1.9 million tonnes of CO2 emissions over the next 20 years. It's important to recognise that similar standards are already in place in 26 of the 35 OECD countries. These standards exist in the US, Japan and China. So what we're doing here is by no means leading; it simply brings Australia in line with these countries and, indeed, assists in minimising the regulatory burden on industry. Australia's low standards have resulted in our markets, sadly, being a dumping ground for high-polluting products manufactured overseas. This is unfortunate and highlights why these changes are important. I would like to recognise the long history of my party in environmental protection and, indeed, to real action on climate change in our nation. It's good to see that the government is taking belated action on the issues within this legislation to reduce carbon emissions. But this simply isn't enough. These are only modest changes. While important, their impact on our carbon footprint is not significant. More must be done. However, I'm not confident, and the Labor Party certainly doesn't believe that the government is doing enough in this regard. We're concerned about the lack of energy and emissions reduction policy from this government because, after four years, we've seen a disappointing lack of action, the consequences of which are playing out in a number of different sectors including our electricity markets. There's no doubt that this government can and should do more in climate change and the energy space. You should be doing more to address carbon pollution from transport and light vehicles by dealing with mandatory emission standards, which exist in 80 per cent of the global market but not here in Australia. In 2014, The Climate Change Authority recommended that these standards commence in 2018 and be phased in over seven years. But we saw little action from the Liberal government under the previous Prime Minister, and so far, under this Prime Minister, we've seen little more than discussion papers and a little bit of media speculation. I note that the minister wrote an opinion piece for The Australian, admitting that European cars were more efficient than models available in Australia and that Canada, Europe, the US and Asia have all moved forward to deliver better health, environmental and economic outcomes. But the minister has not yet told us what his government is doing about it. There's not even a lot of thinking involved here. The Climate Change Authority has already made recommendations about how this could work, but the government has failed to respond to the thinking that's been put forward. We know that, despite an increase in the initial cost of cars, over time Australians would save money on running costs and would be better off overall. So, despite the fact that we have a clear blueprint, despite the financial benefits, despite the health and environmental benefits, we've not seen action from our government on a way forward. This is not the only place this government is failing to protect the environment from the impacts of climate change and, in fact, we've had some recent debates about those things. I spoke just last week about the Great Barrier Reef and the largest removal of protected areas in the history of any government on the planet. That is of significance to this debate because our Great Barrier Reef is being overburdened by the impacts on it of climate change, and we should be responding with improved protections not reduced protections. Only last month, the Liberal government and, indeed, Liberal members from South Australia voted against a national judicial inquiry to get to the bottom of water theft and corruption in the Murray-Darling Basin, despite the shocking Four Corners report about the use of environmental water. The government has also failed to capitalise on the renewable energy market, at the expense of Australian jobs. It's done everything in its power to try to destroy Australia's share in one of the world's fastest-growing industries, with devastating consequences for our country and our economy. We know that in the last two years more than two million renewable energy jobs were added to the global economy, but over the same period 2,900 jobs in this sector were lost in Australia. From 2014, clean energy investment has grown by 32 per cent in China, eight per cent in the US, 12 per cent in Japan, three per cent in Germany and three per cent the UK. But, over that same period, investment in large-scale renewables dropped by a massive 88 per cent in Australia—from over two billion to around 240 million. A strong renewable sector will be at the centre of Labor's response to the challenges of climate change. The renewable energy sector can provide immense opportunities, but only with the right policies. Policy attention to the renewable energy sector will drive job creation and manufacturing investment and will put downward pressure on power prices, which will help Australian families and our small businesses. This most profound restructuring of the world's economy that's currently taking place is being driven by climate change, and Australia is lagging behind. The transition is happening globally and it is accelerating. It's alarming to me that this legislation really points out to us how we are only scratching the surface of the real changes that need to take place in regulation and within our economy. Australia's being left behind because our government is not willing to do the work that's required to get us there. I'm pleased, though, that we on the Labor side, as an alternative government, have a plan to get us on track. That includes ensuring that at least 50 per cent of the nation's electricity is sourced from renewable energy by 2030, expanding the investment mandate of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, providing $206 million to ARENA to support specific concentrated solar thermal funding, establishing a community power network of regional hubs at a cost of $98 million over four years and ensuring the Commonwealth government leads by example as a direct purchaser of renewable energy. While commending the legislation before us as important, we on this side of the chamber believe there is much more work to do and we look forward to doing that work in government, taking real action on climate change and emissions on behalf of our nation. 13:11 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria In rising to speak on the Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017, I note that this is a welcome package of legislation and a package of legislation that's long overdue. Australia is one of the last developed countries to regulate the emissions, and the very poisonous emissions, that come from the small motors that are covered by this emissions standards bill, from lawnmowers, chainsaws, leaf blowers and the like. So it is important that we are seeing legislation to regulate these emissions. The Australian Greens have long called for controls on air pollution. In fact, in 2013, we initiated a very far-reaching Senate inquiry looking at the impacts on health from air pollution, because this is a significant cause of death in our society and a significant cause of ill-health—that is, the impacts of pollution from a whole range of different motors and different technologies. This bill will provide a national framework to enable us to address the adverse impacts of air pollution on human and environmental health from certain products. In particular, we're looking at non-road spark ignition engines and equipment. We congratulate the government. This bill is good as far as it goes, but in this speech I want to cover that, unfortunately, 'as far as it goes' is only a very small way down the track. We are covering a very small proportion of the technologies and the things that cause air pollution in Australia, and I'm calling on the government to get some perspective. If you're really serious about air pollution, you can't afford to stop here. This is important as far as it goes. But then, if you look at the impact of air pollution from the very poorly regulated motor vehicles and then, in particular, the impact of air pollution from coal-fired power stations, you'll realise that what we're starting with today is just a very tiny baby step in terms of seriously addressing air pollution in Australia. As I say, it's good as far as it goes. It's going to finally regulate emissions from lawnmowers, leaf blowers, chainsaws and the like. Indeed, when I think back to my father mowing the lawn, when I was growing up in Altona in the western suburbs of Melbourne in the sixties and the seventies, and think of the pollutants that came out of the Pace lawnmower that he was using, I think it's a good thing. I know we've moved a long way from those lawnmowers, but, still, the fact that they are unregulated is surprising. One limitation with this bill and the products that it covers is that it only covers particulates and other pollutions. It doesn't cover carbon dioxide and other global warming gases. In particular, given that this bill only covers what's estimated to be 10 per cent of the air pollution in our cities, it's clear that it's only a tiny step that we are beginning to take. The second area of this bill, which doesn't go far enough is that it fails to make a defence to modify a machine that changes its certified level of emissions. So this is clearly a way around even the limits that are being put in place with this legislation. There's no point having certified, cleaner engines imported if there are no restrictions on modifications. In fact, I'm led to understand that one existing manufacturer, as a matter of course, modifies every Honda engine that it uses in the products it manufactures. So, basically, if you don't put limitations on modifying engines, you've got a workaround and a back door to continue to have polluting products. Given the limitations in this framework, another important issue is that this is just the beginning of other products that are going to be regulated. It's important to get this framework right in the beginning. Some stakeholders have legitimate concerns about how well these regulations are going to be enforced. Given that we've got 1.3 million small engines imported yearly, enforcing these restrictions is going to be a really critical thing that we do not believe this legislation covers effectively. Finally, in terms of the limitations, even as far as these small engines go, there are exemptions in the bill that are also of concern. In fact, issues have been raised with us that the department may in fact allow any products that are sold in limited numbers in the US to be sold in unlimited numbers in Australia, even if they don't meet the regulations in this bill. So, essentially, that means that the US 2006 standards will be in place, which aren't exactly world's best practice. They're our concerns with this bill as far as it goes. But I also want to focus on: if the government really wants to start tackling issues of air pollution, how about starting to tackle the really big sources of air pollution in this country? Our vehicle emissions standards are way behind other countries, so that is where we need to be having much stronger controls on our vehicle emission standards, because we know that a much greater source of particulates come from vehicles rather than these small engines. For example, small engines aren't even listed as a source of particle size 2.5 in the National Pollutant Inventory. Lawnmowers are listed in that inventory for nitrous oxide, but they're in 14th place. In terms of that nitrous oxide, a total of 390,000 kilograms will be regulated by this bill, compared with 360 million kilograms from power stations and 340 million kilograms from motor vehicles. That is, coal-fired power stations and motor vehicles each have more than a thousand times the emissions of these small engines. We have to get some perspective and actually start thinking. If we're serious about addressing air pollution, it's a good start. But let's really get to the nub of the problem, where the problems really arise. As I said, as far as motor vehicles go, we are lagging behind other countries in the world. We are lagging behind in both the particulates and air pollution such nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide and other emissions. And clearly, the fact that we haven't got carbon dioxide standards in place, as we discussed earlier this morning, is a real area where we are falling behind the rest of the world. But let's look at coal-fired power stations. Coal-fired power stations are a huge and major source of air pollution throughout the country. And if we're serious about getting cleaner cities, if we're serious about wanting to do something to ensure that the air in our cities isn't impacting on people's health, then we need to deal with coal-fired power stations. A major new report was released by Environmental Justice Australia just two years ago which shows that Australian power stations are allowed to emit far more pollution than those in the US and Europe and that many operators are actually failing to adopt even available pollution-reduction technologies—and, in one case, falsifying pollution reports. That report states that nearly 900,000 Australians—in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria—live dangerously close to coal-fired power stations, with the impact of that being reflected in increasing rates of asthma, increasing rates of respiratory illness and an increased likelihood of stroke and heart attack. This is where we need to be getting serious. This is where we have a choice. With the same enthusiasm for regulating the emissions from leaf blowers and lawnmowers, we could be saying: 'Okay, we've actually got a much bigger problem here with coal-fired power stations. Let us plan to be shifting away from them and shifting to clean, renewable, reliable, affordable power from renewable sources.' But, no, we are finding instead that we've got a government that is in the pockets of the fossil fuel lobby—a government that is talking about extending the life of the Liddell power station, a polluting power station that is one of the dirtiest in the country and yet there are negotiations going on to extend its life, rather than saying, 'That power station, as well as contributing to global warming, is having a major impact on the health of the people that live nearby' or 'We have the opportunity here to be improving people's wellbeing, improving people's health, as well as tackling global warming, by accelerating the closure of that power station.' And at the same time as the government could be accelerating the closure of that power station, or at least allowing it to close down in five years time, it could be planning to have power coming from clean, renewable sources—solar, wind, hydro, geothermal—and to increase battery storage and to make the changes to the grid that are required so that we can be shifting our energy sources to clean power. Those are the sorts of measures and the direction that we need to be heading in, rather than tinkering at the edges and—good as far as it goes—regulating emissions from leaf blowers and lawnmowers. Let's get serious. Let's tackle the major sources of pollution in Australia. Let's look at some of the other impacts of pollution from coal-fired power stations. Australian coal-fired power stations are allowed to be much more polluting than coal-fired power stations in China. Mercury limits in some New South Wales power stations are 666 times higher than in the United States. And the Environmental Justice report that I mentioned before found that pollution reduction technologies that have been available for many years and are used overseas could significantly reduce power station emissions—but they're not in use in Australia. This is where we need to be focusing our efforts. If we are serious about air pollution, if we are serious about reducing premature deaths from air pollution, we need to be tackling these emissions. For example, the Environmental Justice report found that fine-particle pollution exposure is responsible for 1,590 premature deaths each year in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth; that people who live within 50km of coal-fired stations are three to four times more likely to die prematurely than people who live further away; and that 87 per cent of the sulphur dioxide pollution recorded in Sydney can be traced to have come from power stations in the Hunter Valley, more than 100 kilometres away. Let's get serious. Let's get our perspective right. Let's start working on the things that we need to be working on—the things that should have priority when it comes to creating a cleaner future for us all. You would think that, faced with this evidence, as well as moving on leaf blowers and lawnmowers, we could be moving on much more stringent vehicle emissions so that the people living in my neighbourhood in Yarraville and Footscray don't have to be putting up with particulate pollution from heavy vehicles, which have got much more lax emission controls than heavy vehicles in other parts of the world. In particular, though, what we need to be doing is saying that coal is in the past. We need to be shifting to cleaner vehicles, we need to be shifting to cleaner energy and we need to be cutting our ties with coal. We need to be saying that coal served a good purpose in the past but that it's not serving a good purpose now. We can be shifting out of it, transitioning the jobs into clean energy and transitioning our energy sources into clean energy. That's the direction that the country needs to be heading in. That's the direction that other countries around the world are heading in. That is where we need to be going. But we are not getting any leadership from this government. We also see that the Labor Party are standing side by side with this government when it comes to the Adani coal-fired power station and have not yet said what they're going to be doing about the Liddell power station. We need the Labor Party to be joining the Greens and saying: 'That power station has reached the end of its life. It has served a purpose up until now but it is not going to be required post-2022.' Then we need to be moving forward. That's the direction that we should be going. If we are serious about air pollution, we've got to get serious about coal. So, with that, I move a second reading amendment: At the end of the motion, add: "but the Senate calls upon the Government to regulate toxic emissions from coal-fired power stations." I congratulate the government on finally bringing the Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017 to the chamber. It's good as far as it goes, but, to be serious about air pollution, to be serious about creating a clean, healthy future for us all, we need to get serious and to be moving out of coal. 13:27 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales Bring back the bulb. In 2007 the Prime Minister, who was then the environment minister, banned incandescent light bulbs. When he thought this up, a little light bulb did not appear above his head, because it was not a bright idea. Then Minister Turnbull admitted that compact fluorescent globes would cost around 10 times more than the humble light bulb, but he said they would last around 10 times longer. Experience over the last decade suggests this was wishful thinking. Bring back the bulb and let the people decide what they want. Unfortunately, the bills before us today, the Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017 and a couple of associated bills, suggest that the bulb is not coming back. These bills empower the minister to ban certain products of his choosing. They also empower the minister to tax certain products of his choosing so as to pay for this regime of bans. The bans are to meet an objective of improving air quality or contributing to Australia meeting its climate change obligations. The Liberal Democrats oppose these bills. The objective of improving air quality is an important one and on occasion may best be achieved by banning products that generate noxious fumes in our cities. But we should not have a policy objective of reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions while most of the 14 countries that emit more than Australia continue to rapidly increase their greenhouse gas emissions. Even if we were to have an objective of reducing Australia's greenhouse gas emissions, assuming these other countries have something similar, this objective should not be pursued by banning products. If we are to have this objective, we should pursue it by treating more emissions-intensive products more harshly on a sliding scale. This would provide more freedom of choice and consumer satisfaction for any given impact on emissions compared to the crude black-and-white approach of bans. There are further reasons to oppose these bills. They empower a minister rather than the parliament to instigate bans. If importers import a banned product, they face a fine of up to $12,600, even if they didn't know about the ban, and there is no reason that they should have known about it. This is yet another instance of dodgy law known as strict liability. The minister is planning to use these laws to ban the outboard motor on my dinghy, but the only person who breathes in these fumes is me, and I quite like them. Please don't let the bad man take away my outboard! 13:30 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia I feel I can say that Elvis is finally entering the building. I say that because, when The Daily Telegraph said in July of this year that the government was working on emissions standards, particularly applying some to motor vehicles, labelling it as a 'carbon tax on cars', Energy Minister Frydenberg told the ABC, 'There is as much chance of a carbon tax on cars as Elvis making a comeback.' Well, the Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017 is the regime that heralds Elvis entering the building. The Prime Minister, who at the time when this story broke was busy in the United Kingdom telling the Brits that there was no conservative party in Australia, tried to hose down these revelations straightaway. In this debate on product emissions standards today, we are being told—it's a sales job, I should tell you—that it applies to whipper-snippers, leaf blowers, outboard motors and lawnmowers, and that the coalition is only consulting about applying these emissions regulations to cars. I'm telling you that you can hear Elvis warming up his vocal cords, because we cannot believe what we've been told. Whilst the direct application is on the whipper-snippers, outboard motors and leaf blowers, the government is indeed consulting about applying this emissions regime, or a very similar one, to cars. You can't hide from that fact. The Daily Telegraph was effectively right. This is a new version of the carbon tax. And so the skirmish has begun. But ultimately those who are far-sighted and have that reasonable, rational and sensible distrust of what government says and what it delivers know exactly what is coming down the pipe. I understand this will be of benefit to some in the coalition—those who think they're election-winning machines, those who secretly plot against the long-term interests of the coalition to get their own sorts of outcomes that they can boast about drunkenly in bars, but the policy agenda is absolutely wrong. The policy agenda here is absolutely wrong, because it's not so much about air quality. Australian Conservatives support good-quality air. But no-one is reasonably and rationally saying that the air quality in Australia is so bad that we have to limit the use or prohibit or limit the importation of some of the machinery that makes our jobs and our lives that much easier. Air quality will be improved as technology improves, not because government is imposing criminal sanctions or breathtakingly audacious regulatory regimes to stop you, me or any other Australian consumer from purchasing a reasonably priced whipper-snipper or leaf blower. This regime will impose additional costs to the products that so many of us use every day. It's dressed up in the guise of what's good for public health, but, as Senator Leyonhjelm said, the only person who's been impacted by the outboard motor on his dinghy is himself. I'm looking to buy a boat with two outboard motors. I'd best get in before the outboard motor loathers tell us all off and ban it. But I also make this point: before the last election there was no forecast, no prediction, no statement from the coalition, which I could identify, that they were going to put up the price of whipper-snippers and leaf blowers. So much so, they were criticised by the Climate and Health Alliance, which rated the major parties at the last election. Neither the Liberal Party nor the National Party had any stronger air pollution laws. I note that the alliance even criticised the Labor Party, claiming they didn't support them either. So, if you can't identify a policy statement in this respect, or where the motivation for this has come from, you have to go back to: have they abandoned all sense and reason? I understand the minister will probably say later on, 'This came out of the COAG assessment process.' But, do you know what? If states want to impose penalties on individuals in their own state, you have to wonder how they seduced a coalition government, which is meant to be responsible and acting in the interests of the Australian people, into imposing what is effectively a new tax. It is a new tax, because everyone who buys these machines from now on will be paying more. The costs of this are going to be felt by consumers. The benefits have been quantified from a health point of view, which is always spurious because they're completely unprovable. If you think that imposing this regime is going to save $600 million or $700 million in five years time, I can guarantee you no-one will ever be able to demonstrate that fact, because I can promise you this: the health bill in this country in five years time will be higher than it is today. Of course, they will go, 'But it would be that much worse if we didn't put this ban on whipper-snippers as they currently stand.' That's wrong. The costing in the regulatory impact statement is that the community is going to pay an extra $636 million to regulate and recover the cost of this program. The quid pro quo, as I said before, is that they are saying there's going to be $1.7 billion in health cost savings and $786 million in fuel cost savings. I don't believe that. I don't believe the health cost savings at all; I think they've just made those up with whatever spurious research they came up with—and we're entitled to question all the figures that are put forward in this space. This, of course, is a regime that enables the government, by regulation, I would presume—in some instances it may need future legislation, but I presume it will be by regulation—to expand this to a whole range of other items. We're at the end of winter; we're going into barbeque season. Is this what we are going to see next? Are we going to see an emissions standard on barbeques because the government suddenly thinks it needs to make barbecues cleaner? Maybe we'll have an emissions standard on fireplaces. We'll continue to regulate and regulate and regulate until the government decides almost everything that can be done in this space. When it comes to motor vehicles, because that's where it is going to go—we've seen the demands from the Greens today. The government, I can assure you, will say it's not going to apply to motor vehicles, but it's a logical extension of where this is—it has all the hallmarks of that famous 'cash for clunkers' policy of the Labor Party, where they were going to buy old clunkers and get them off the road. But, in this instance, you can foresee an environment where older cars will effectively be taxed off the road. As new emissions schemes and targets come in, you will find yourself in a circumstance where you won't be able to sell your older car because it doesn't comply with what Big Brother is telling you. This is not scaremongering. As I said, the regulatory impact statement, which was released last December, estimates that, if European-style emissions standards are imposed, via this regime on light and heavy vehicles, it would cost about $675 million. Interestingly, the draft statement said: There are no benefits or costs associated with option 1 as this is the 'do nothing' approach. I like the idea that there's no cost associated with the do-nothing approach. I'm attracted to that. And there are no benefits. So what? It's not like we're drowning in smog at the moment. Australia has an amazing environment. We're living within our means, doing our bit in efficiency, as we go along in a whole range of areas, and it doesn't require government regulation to do that. But there are other benefits, and those are lower taxes, lower cost of living and limited government. Those are the absolute benefits of doing nothing in this space: lower taxes, lower cost of living and you get smaller government. Those are huge benefits. And yet, suddenly, it's so unfashionable that they're clamouring to increase new regulations and bureaucracy. I also point out that the draft discussion paper listed from 2019 forwards, when that policy might be imposed—the one on motor vehicles—that a Euro 6 standard on heavy vehicles could cost trucking companies $1.5 billion to 2024 in capital costs alone. That's what this bill today is opening the door to. That's $230 million in higher fuel costs for those selfsame trucking companies and about $452 million in lost productivity. Now, that would peak at $28 million in a single year in nine years time. So when the carbon tax on cars, which was denied by the government at the time—and yet we see the embryonic commencement of it in these bills—was introduced and discussed, the Australian Automobile Association said that the average family car could cost as much as $5,000 more. Make no mistake: that is where we're heading. The regulations within this bill and the regime within which this bill is created allow for the extension to motor vehicles—as I said, perhaps by regulation. So it's not just a benign regime; it's not something that is just going to put the cost of your whipper-snipper up $10, $20, $30, $50 or $100. This could come at a significant community, family and economic cost. The same draft discussion paper, as far as motor vehicles go, mentioned that our petrol might not meet the European standard that is on the cards either, and this is going to put up the cost of fuel—the cost of petrol—if we adopt it. I would suggest to you that, if we examine the European community, there is not so much as a beacon of light there for us to model ourselves on. It is not the great productive nirvana that some would have you believe that we should ape and map after. The same people—who are telling us that we should embrace the European migration experiment, the European welfare experiment, the European big government experiment or the European big taxes experiment, which have all failed dismally—are telling us to embrace the big new European emissions experiment. It is just a falsehood. If their models are living in the European Union, if their ideal environment is in the European Union, let them go and subject themselves to it. Let them see how much they can prosper in the regimes of Greece and how freedom of speech has been tortured or migration is dislocating the social compact between nations. Just don't bring it here, because it doesn't work. We don't need a Big Brother nanny state here. Let's not forget that, in that nanny state of Europe, they had the diesel emissions scandal of Volkswagen in, I think, Germany. It cost $4.3 billion because they had to lie to comply with the emissions that were going on. Are we going to have the same sort of thing here? Are we going to expect every importer to be criminally responsible, potentially, for importing a whipper-snipper or a leaf blower or a lawnmower that doesn't comply? That's the sort of obligation we've got here: a criminal regime for people making misleading representations under this system. I think it's onerous. I think it's all about Big Brother. It's not good for our country to have government foisting itself into this microlegislation. And who knows where it's going to end? They come for the leaf blowers today, but what about the motoring enthusiasts later on? What about those who go to the Summernats where people are doing burnouts, drag races and stuff like that? Will they be penalising those people for the emissions that they're putting out there, because they're using a different type of fuel than we are? What about the farmers? Will they to start targeting farm machinery or anything powered by fossil fuels—tractors, slashers and chainsaws used to prevent bushfires. Imagine that. Will they penalise someone using a chainsaw who's trying to make their community safer because they might mistakenly or inappropriately inhale a few emissions? It's better to inhale a few emissions, because that might sit uncomfortably with the government, than to watch your property go up in smoke because you can't manage the land and the foliage around it. What about forklifts? Are they going to go for the forklifts as well? Is that what's going to happen because they don't like the emissions? We can keep going on and on. But you have to open the door somewhere and this is what this regime does. So it's no surprise that I oppose what is effectively a carbon tax by stealth. This is the start of a war on emissions. It is not grounded in reality; it is grounded in spurious savings that are going to come at a massive cost to the Australian taxpayers—taxpayers who are already struggling to make ends meet, taxpayers who are taking it upon themselves to do a little bit more work around the house because they can't afford to get some assistance to do it but will have to pay more if they want to buy a new leaf blower, a new lawnmower or a new whipper-snipper because of the regime that is being imposed by this government. We are a nation of fewer than 30 million people. Nothing we do in this space is going to change the climate whatsoever. They can dress this up all they like—as a health measure—but its ideological basis is in the foundation of climate change, the paranoia that has gripped the globe and needs to be exposed for the fraud that it is. This bill contributes to the fraud. This bill is not worthy of this place, and I will be opposing it. 13:46 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to argue the case for freedom. I also argue that we are opposed to real pollution because Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party is fundamentally in favour of protecting the environment. However, we believe that the best people to protect the environment are the people who are managing the environment—farmers, industrialists and employees. We are against real pollution, and that's what the Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017 seeks to address. Real pollutants, like carbon monoxide—not carbon dioxide—like particulates, like sulphur dioxide and like nitrous oxide, are the things that affect people's quality of life and respiration. These are the things that blanketed out the sky and the stars from London for 600 years, until the advent of modern coal-fired power stations. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, as Senator Rice alluded to. Carbon dioxide is fundamentally not on the list of pollutants anywhere in this planet, because carbon dioxide is essential to all life on this planet. Carbon dioxide is nature's essential trace gas that is essential for life on this planet. It is essential for everything green on this planet, as a part of the process of photosynthesis that gives us our food, our forests, our grass and our seaweed. I want to talk about real pollutants and how we need to reduce them. I also want to talk about reality. What the Greens are fomenting and advocating is an increase in real pollutants—carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxide and particulates. The Greens are saying that we need to cut the production of carbon dioxide, which is essential for all of life on this planet. They want to do that by increasing taxes. When that happens we will see an increase in electricity costs in this country, and the production of electricity increasing overseas at the risk of our jobs. That is what is happening; it is the reality of what is happening. We are shutting down industry here, losing our aluminium smelters and losing our car plants. We won't be making aluminium soon. We won't be making cars after the end of this year. That is now being transferred overseas, creating jobs in Asia, jobs in Africa and jobs in North America, thanks to Donald Trump, and we see them shutting down here. That is increasing our cost of living, decreasing our standard of living and decreasing our quality of life. Senator Rice advocates the use of bikes and walking. Well, try telling that to people who live in Bourke or Boulia or Birdsville—or even Brisbane or even Bardon. That is not real. That is just a pipedream. But I want to go on to something else. She talks about coal. Well, let's talk about coal. Coal is used to make steel. Everything around us, except the flesh in our bodies, depends upon steel. The clothes are made from cotton or made from wool. They are harvested and sewn, in fact, with steel based implements. And what's the key ingredient to steel? Coal. Coal is responsible for our food. It is responsible for our clothing. It is responsible for our shelter, our homes. It is responsible for our industry because steel is a part of all of those industries. Steel is fundamental to transport: cars, buses, trucks and pushbikes. It is fundament to the leather thongs and sandals that the Greens want to wear. Coal is fundamental to steel, and that is fundamental to every aspect of our transport. What we are seeing is that the Greens are trying to destroy this debate by bringing in carbon dioxide when, in fact, to be clear, the emissions of concern in this package are actual pollutants: carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide particulates and nitrous oxides. Carbon dioxide is not a part of this framework, but the Greens keep talking about it. That illustrates why carbon dioxide has been demonised and is now, in the minds of most school kids, seen as a pollutant when it is not. It is not listed anywhere in the world as a pollutant. Then the Greens talk about clean power. What is clean power? They never define what clean power is. But they say that the way to generate clean power is in windmills and solar farms. Windmills rely upon steel. Windmills rely upon electricity to be made. And where does that electricity come from in China? It comes from coal—Australian coal, in places. What we see is the subsidies for windmills and solar farms in this country driving industry in other countries. We are subsidising the industrialisation of China. They're going hell for leather on coal-fired power stations. This Greens insanity is just that. I want to talk about the way humans have reduced real pollutants. I want to illustrate, for example, Honda Motor Company. Honda Motor Company's founder was Soichiro Honda. He visited Lake Tahoe in the 1970s and he saw on the water of that beautiful lake something that looked like oil. He asked his sales people what that was on the pristine waters of Lake Tahoe. They said that was oil from two-stroke motors. He made a vow then and there to never build a two-stroke outboard motor, even though it was lighter and used less fuel. Instead, he worked savagely on reducing the weight, the cost and the complexity of four-stroke outboard motors because they are inherently less polluting, and he worked on improving their efficiency and reducing their cost. As a result, Honda makes no two-stroke outboard motors. Honda Motor Company in the 1970s brought in pollution levels that were lower than the mandated requirements all through the seventies and all through the eighties. Why? When they studied the combustion of fuel in a cylinder chamber, Honda Motor Company worked out that being more efficient would produce less pollution, increase power and increase fuel efficiency. The way to improve the efficiency and reduce the pollution of engines is to have a standard and then let companies get at it. That's what we are seeing here. We commend the government for addressing real pollution—carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrous oxides—and we condemn the Greens for trying, yet again, to tell a lie to the Australian people, that carbon dioxide needs to be cut, when it doesn't. We see all around us a dependency on coal. We see the Greens talking about the lights that are powered by coal, but not the cotton, not the timber, not the clothes, not the speakers and not the steel—nothing else in this room that is generated by steel, which depends upon coal. Why is it that the Greens will let go of half of the coal production in this country and let it go overseas? Because they are not game to tackle the fact that steel is in everything. The Greens campaign is a lie. The Greens campaign is distorting reality. The Greens campaign fundamentally contradicts empirical evidence. We've had no warming for 22 years. The largest temperature trend in the last 160 years was 40 years of cooling from the 1930s to 1976. Temperatures were warmer in Australia in the 1890s than today. Carbon dioxide from human activity is not affecting the temperature. What's more, we know that carbon dioxide from human activity is not even affecting the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In 2009, we had a recession, and carbon dioxide production from humans decreased, yet the level in the atmosphere increased because the oceans control that. The oceans contain 50 times more carbon dioxide in dissolved form than is in the entire atmosphere. Lastly, I want to point out to the Greens that every warmer period in the past has been called a climate optimum, because it has been highly beneficial to humans, to the natural environment and to all plant and animal species. If we could increase the temperature, we would, but we can't control it. If we could increase the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we would, but we can't control it. What we want to do is make a clear distinction between carbon dioxide and the real pollutants. We note, contrary to what the Greens imply, that this bill does not refer in any way to carbon dioxide production; it refers only to real pollutants: sulphur dioxide, nitrous oxides and particulates. That is why Pauline Hanson's One Nation party is in favour of progress. That's why we support coal. That's why we support steel. That's why we support freedom of choice. Pauline Hanson's One Nation party is in favour of the cutting pollution. That's why we support this bill. 13:57 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank senators for their diverse contributions and note that there was also a diversity of support for this bill. I commend the bill to the chamber. The PRESIDENT e5v The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Rice be agreed to.

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

 7 AYES Di Natale, R Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS 55 NOES Abetz, E Bilyk, CL Birmingham, SJ Brandis, GH Brockman, S Brown, CL Burston, B Bushby, DC Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Cash, MC Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Dastyari, S (teller) Dodson, P Duniam, J Farrell, D Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Georgiou, P Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Ketter, CR Kitching, K Leyonhjelm, DE Lines, S Macdonald, ID McAllister, J McCarthy, M McGrath, J McKenzie, B Moore, CM Nash, F O'Sullivan, B Parry, S Paterson, J Payne, MA Polley, H Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Roberts, M Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Singh, LM Sinodinos, A Smith, D Sterle, G Urquhart, AE Watt, M Williams, JR Wong, P 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Debate interrupted.

 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 6792 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Renewable Energy 6792 14:07 Senator MOORE 00AOQ Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator Nash. Yesterday, the Nationals' federal conference voted to 'reject the Finkel proposed clean energy target of 42 per cent of renewable energy by 2030'. Does this motion reflect the position of the Nationals' party room? The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Moore, this is purely a matter for the National Party. It doesn't fit within the minister's portfolio and it doesn't fit within the Deputy Prime Minister's portfolio, whom the minister represents. I feel as though this is not a matter that I can direct to the minister. Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU On the point of order— The PRESIDENT e5v Well, there's no point of order; it's my ruling at the moment. Senator Wong 00AOU In respect of your ruling, this is a clean energy target that the Prime Minister has made clear that he's seeking to implement. This is a question that goes directly to whether or not the Deputy Prime Minister and the coalition partner support the government's policy. If the minister wants to read it down, we didn't ask her about the federal conference; we stated as a fact that this occurred at the federal conference and asked whether that was a reflection of the position of the coalition partner. The PRESIDENT e5v Attorney-General? Senator Brandis 008W7 Mr President, it does not relate to the minister's portfolio and, as you rightly apprehended, it is purely a party question. Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting— Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Order on both sides! You're wasting time, senators. As we have done in the past, I'm always happy to invite the senator to rephrase the question—which is provided for under our convention and the standing orders. Senator Moore, would you like to rephrase your question? Senator MOORE 00AOQ Mr President, I was actually considering changing the direction of the question to Minister Birmingham in terms of the clean energy target— Government senators interjecting— Senator MOORE 00AOQ In relation to the process in terms of the government position. The PRESIDENT e5v I'm very happy, Senator Moore, for you to redirect the question as well, but, if the question is purely about the happenings at the National Party conference, again I would deem that to be out of order. Senator Macdonald? Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 I think you've rightly ruled that question out of order and, if Senator Moore can't ask the question properly, we should move on. It doesn't need me to point out that Senator Birmingham wasn't at the National Party conference, so he can't say what the National Party might or might not have done. But I ask you to stand by your ruling in ruling it out of order. The PRESIDENT e5v As I've indicated, it has been past practice, and the standing orders do provide, for the President to allow a senator to rephrase a question. I'm being very liberal on this occasion by allowing her not just to rephrase it but to redirect it. Senator Moore, I'll be listening carefully to your question. Senator MOORE 00AOQ I do thank you for being very liberal. My question now is to the minister about energy. It's been widely reported that yesterday, at the National Party conference, there was a motion that looked at rejecting the Finkel position of around 42 per cent renewable energy by 2030. Given the public coverage of that issue, does it in any way impact on the government's position in this space, which has been widely discussed in this place, and is a government position, which includes both the National and the Liberal parties? 14:11 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Moore for the question, though it was a long, drawn-out process to get to it. The short answer is no; it doesn't impact on the government's determination to carefully consider the implementation of the recommendation from the Finkel report, and we will give that the type of careful consideration that, clearly, the opposition didn't give to any of their energy policies, just as they're unable to give any careful consideration as to how they frame their questions in question time. The challenges we're grappling with in terms of energy markets in Australia are challenges that are brought about in many ways by the flawed and failed policies of those opposite and by the flawed and failed policies of the state governments, who are also Labor governments, that they've championed, which have put undue pressure on prices and reliability right across the electricity landscape. That's why the Turnbull government's been taking action across the retail sector, the energy market and distribution channels, and in terms of energy generation to make sure that, at every possible step, we drive prices down into the future so far as possible and improve reliability. If the Labor Party want to talk about divisions in the energy policy space, they need only look at Mr Fitzgibbon, who last week was saying that he'd like to see jobs saved at the Liddell power plant and that he'd like to see Liddell stay open if possible. He seems to have weaselled his way out of those statements, because Senator Cameron, Mr Shorten and others are quite happy, it seems, to see those jobs go and the power plant close and with that, though, the uncertainty that comes from the shortfall in dispatchable energy in Australia identified by AEMO, a shortfall that threatens affordability and reliability and one that the Turnbull government is determined to address and fix. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Moore, a supplementary question? 14:13 Senator MOORE 00AOQ Queensland Given that modelling shows the proposed clean energy target would reduce wholesale power prices by approximately $40 a megawatt hour by 2030 and given what Senator Birmingham has just told us about the government considering a range of things in the Finkel process, why are people within the government standing in the way of a policy that would reduce pressure on power prices? 14:13 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia (—) (): I'd be very surprised if Senator Moore has ever attended a Labor Party conference at which she's found that everybody is in complete agreement with her. In fact, I'd be very surprised if she's ever attended a Labor Party conference where she's never been on the minority side of a debate from a grassroots motion. On this side of the chamber, the Liberal Party and the National Party are parties that empower our members to have debates and get involved in issues; we empower people to join our party so they can have a say. Those opposite like to invite people to their conferences and have it all entirely scripted and controlled by the union movement. They don't allow grassroots members to come and have a say. But we will make sure, as a government, that we take the policy steps to guarantee affordability and reliability across the energy landscape. We are taking those steps already and we will continue to take them and carefully assess each and every policy proposition into the future. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Moore, a final supplementary question? 14:14 Senator MOORE 00AOQ Queensland After more than three months, the coalition party room— Senator Wong interjecting— Senator Birmingham interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Order, Senator Wong and Senator Birmingham! I can't hear Senator Moore. Senator Moore, start again, please. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Order on both sides. We go back to Senator Moore. Senator MOORE 00AOQ After more than three months, the coalition party room has still not been able to agree a position on the Finkel review's clean energy target. Can the minister confirm that it is the engagement of members, including members in the National Party, who are standing in the way of action to reduce pressure on power prices? 14:15 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Far from confirming that, I can deny that proposition outright because what we are doing as a government is making sure that we give careful and thorough analysis to every policy position that we take in the energy market and that we don't do what I've seen happen in my home state, where an energy crisis has seen Premier Weatherill rush out to try to solve it by putting diesel generators around the place; that we don't do what is happening in Victoria, where a desire for popularity suddenly sees the Victorian state Labor government put in place a 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target; and that we don't do what the Queensland Labor government in Senator Moore's home state has done and decide to price-gouge energy generators and basically rip off Queensland businesses and households by profiteering. We won't take those sorts of poor policy decisions. We'll take careful, considered and measured policy decisions in the best interests of Australian households and businesses. Iraq and Syria 6795 14:16 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. Can the minister update the Senate on the progress of the campaign to defeat Daesh in Iraq and Syria? 14:16 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator McKenzie very much for her question. After what has been an extended period of extremist and terrorist activity in Iraq, in the past few months the Iraqi security forces have won a number of decisive victories and have now liberated more than 90 per cent of the territory that was once held by Daesh. Indeed, following the liberation of Mosul in July, the momentum against Daesh has continued to increase. Just at the end of August, the Iraqi security forces, with the support of the membership of the international coalition, liberated the strategic city of Tal Afar, which is west of Mosul. But the liberation of Mosul and Tal Afar doesn't mean that Daesh is defeated. They still retain other strongholds that need to be liberated. These include the town of Hawija and towns in the Euphrates river valley near the border with Syria. In Syria itself, more than 60 per cent of Raqqa, their self-proclaimed capital, has been liberated by Syrian Democratic Forces. However, Daesh continue to use what are barbaric and illegal tactics to slow their inevitable defeat. As we saw in Mosul, they are again preventing civilians from leaving and they are using them as human shields. Recently in Raqqa, they used a children's hospital as a fortified headquarters. The stabilisation efforts in Mosul and in Tel Afar are ongoing and they will take some time. The re-establishment of both institutions and essential services are critical to ensure that residents are able to begin to rebuild their lives. This has been a particular focus of the counter-ISIL defence ministers' meetings that have occurred in relation to progress. Australia's commitment to the coalition continues and we will continue to support Iraq and its security forces so that they can defeat Daesh, keep their people safe, defend themselves from hostile foreign interference and maintain territorial sovereignty. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator McKenzie, a supplementary question. 14:18 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Can the minister advise the Senate how the Australian Defence Force is contributing to the campaign against Daesh? 14:18 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I want to particularly acknowledge the men and women of the ADF who continue to make a very significant contribution to the international counter-Daesh coalition in support of the Iraqi security forces. Government senators: Hear, hear! Senator PAYNE M56 Over 26,500 Iraqi army trainees have graduated from our Building Partner Capacity mission at Task Group Taji, and that also includes 4,000 police trainees following the change to our activity there. Following from the Iraqi security forces liberation of Mosul and Tal Afar, our Special Operations Task Group continues to work to support the Iraqi Counter-Terrorism Service. Our Air Task Group is providing support to the coalition air campaign. Currently, our F/A18 Hornets continue to provide precision air strikes against deliberate terrorist targets. Our KC-30A tankers have offloaded more than 39 million kilograms of fuel to coalition aircraft as part of the in-flight refuelling program and our E7A Wedgetail continues to provide what is critical battle space management in both Northern Iraq and Syria. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator McKenzie, a final supplementary question. 14:20 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Can the minister advise the Senate why it's important that Australia contributes to the international coalition to defeat Daesh at its source. 14:20 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales It is vital for global security and stability that we defeat Daesh in Iraq and Syria to deny it a base of operations and a narrative of its success. This narrative has been used as a key social media recruitment tool to attract foreign fighters from around the world—and we know that that has included Australia. It has also used that narrative to radicalise vulnerable youth in many countries to act with appalling violence against their fellow citizens, and we have seen that most recently in Spain, Finland and the United Kingdom as a number of examples. We know that fleeing Daesh fighters will seek refuge and a new base of operations somewhere around the world, and our region is vulnerable to that exploitation. Recognising this threat and the challenges that we face, the member nations of the Five Power Defence Arrangements have, for example, agreed to strengthen their focus on counterterrorism as a recognition of the regional challenge. That's why Australia continues to make a substantial air and land— (Time expired) Renewable Energy 6796 14:21 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister Senator Brandis. Yesterday the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Josh Frydenberg, said: … renewables play an important part of the energy mix. Does this reflect the Turnbull government's position? 14:21 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland It certainly does, Senator Collins, which is why the minister responsible for this area, Mr Frydenberg, said so. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Collins, a supplementary question. 14:21 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria I refer to reports that Queensland Liberal-National Party member George Christensen will cross the floor, if the government attempts to legislate a clean energy target. Has the Prime Minister explained the government's position to Mr Christensen? 14:22 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator Collins, Mr Christensen has his views as he's perfectly entitled to. Senator Birmingham tried to explain to your colleague Senator Moore in his answer that one of the differences between those who sit on this side of the chamber and those on your side of the chamber is that we actually rejoice in the fact that we can have a vigorous debate and we can have a multiplicity of views on important issues. Mr Christensen is a member of the backbench. He has a strong view about these matters, which he is not afraid of expressing, volubly and frequently, but, nevertheless, the view that he expresses is not the policy of the government. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Collins, a final supplementary question. 14:23 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria When asked by the ABC's Leigh Sales whether the government would make a decision on the clean energy target before the end of the year, the Prime Minister said: We're certainly aiming to do so, Leigh. Isn't it clear that, with coalition MPs threatening to cross the floor, the policy paralysis that is costing energy consumers will only continue under this government? 14:23 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland No, Senator Collins. Once again, Senator Collins, all you're interested in is the politics of an issue. What we're interested in is getting the policy right, and that is why, as the Treasurer, Mr Morrison, pointed out to Andrew Probyn on Insiders yesterday, we've taken a number of measures in order to protect the interests of Australian consumers to ensure they have reliable and affordable supply. We have restricted gas exports—something, by the way, that you ought to have done and Mr Butler last week conceded the failure to do had a significant effect on domestic energy prices and was a serious mistake. We've ensured that Australia's energy suppliers are giving Australian consumers the best deal they can give them by being more transparent about their pricing. We've ensured new regulatory arrangements in particular to prevent the— (Time expired) Trade Unions 6797 14:24 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. Is the minister aware of any recent reports about payments between employers and registered organisations? 14:24 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Unfortunately, yet again I am. Today we saw yet another concerning report of questionable arrangements between the SDA— Senator Brandis 008W7 Another one? Senator CASH I0M Another one, Senator Brandis—and employers Coles and Woolworths. Ewan Hannan has revealed today that, in exchange for Coles and Woolworths collecting membership fees of SDA union members, the SDA then gives back to Coles and Woolworths a so-called administration fee of 10 per cent. What this means is that 10 per cent of these union members' membership fees goes straight back to their employer. The question then becomes, though: what does the SDA or the employer actually get for this exchange? Well, nobody knows, because, until recently, nobody actually knew of this little transaction. Let's do the math. SDA members can pay up to $500 per year in membership fees to the SDA, and $50 of that $500 then goes back to Coles or Woolies. All I can say there is: it must be a very, very complex deduction process to cost 10 per cent of the membership fees. But, in terms of the bigger picture, this is just another example of concern about the financial deals that are being done between big unions and big employers. As I informed the Senate last week, union membership has now been in free fall for many, many years, and yet, when you look at their asset base, $1.5 billion, and their revenue stream, $900 million, you have to ask: where does the money come from? The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Smith, a supplementary question. 14:26 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia Can the minister describe what concerns have been raised about these and similar financial arrangements? 14:27 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The key concern about these payments is that they benefit union officials—for example, like Mr Bill Shorten—but do nothing to benefit the membership of the union who are paying their hard-earned membership fees. In the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption, this comment was made: A cause for increasing concern over the last two decades is the growth of other forms of more sophisticated, and less transparent, fund raising activities by some trade union officials … The moneys may be raised for the personal advancement of the officials, and not for the union. In relation to personal advancement, as we know, Mr Bill Shorten traded away penalty rates, negotiated deals for his workers that paid below awards and, at the same time, saw a complex web of moneys donated to his union—hardly a proper use of members' funds. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Smith, a final supplementary question. 14:28 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia Can the minister outline what actions the Turnbull government is taking to increase accountability in registered organisations? 14:28 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Despite those opposite fighting us every single step of the way, we are very proud, on this side of the chamber, to have increased accountability and transparency for registered organisations, regardless of whether you are an employer organisation or a union organisation. What we do on this side is all about putting members first. It is critical that these organisations, in particular in relation to the amount of funds they control and the fact that they pay no tax, put their members first. They need to come clean about their financial arrangements. The $132 million of funds that flow into union coffers from workers entitlement funds, income protection funds, training funds and charity funds needs to be explained. The members in these funds need to know how this flow of funds benefits them and, if it doesn't, why not. Climate Change 6798 14:29 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Prime Minister. Minister, I refer you to a series of devastating natural disasters that have occurred in recent weeks, including flooding from monsoonal rains in South Asia and hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Katia and Jose that have caused untold damage, including the tragic loss of life in the Caribbean and North America. Minister, isn't your government's continued denial that there is a link between climate change and an increase in the frequency and severity of extreme weather events putting people's lives in danger? 14:30 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland I don't accept the premise of your question. The government does accept the science of climate change. Of course we accept the science of climate change. We also, by the way, accept that within that broad descriptor there is vigorous debate, particularly, of course, among scientists themselves, as to certain premises and certain conclusions. Nevertheless, the broad proposition that there is an empirically established link between human behaviour and climate change, we do support and accept. For that reason— The PRESIDENT e5v A point of order, Senate Di Natale? Senator Di Natale 53369 A point of order on relevance. My question went specifically to the link between climate change and extreme weather. I didn't question the government's view on whether climate change was caused by humans. We know the debate within the coalition around that. I said specifically that the government denied that there was a link between climate change and the frequency and severity of extreme weather. The minister has not addressed that part of the question. The PRESIDENT e5v Thank you, Senator Di Natale. The minister did reject the premise of your question outright at the beginning. But, also, the minister has been relevant to your preamble and to parts of the question. I will call the minister. Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Senator Di Natale, we have been debating this issue, as you and I both know, in this chamber for many years. What has been a subject of frustration to me, I must say, and to many on my side of the chamber, is the refusal of those who have your concerns to even pay the courtesy of a hearing to those who might challenge your assertions. We believe, on our side of the chamber, that the discussion of any question of public importance is improved by a debate, is improved by having the premises tested and is improved by having the conclusions questioned, rather than the assertion that we so often hear from the Greens that there is only one point of view available here, and that's the end of the matter. Having said that, I accept, and the government accepts, the proposition that there is an empirically established link between human behaviour and climate change, and that includes, on occasions, extreme weather events. Although, among scientists, as you know, Senator Di Natale, there is also a vigorous debate about which extreme weather events may be attributable to which particular causes of agents. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question. 14:33 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria The government continues to throw public money at fossil fuel projects, despite the link that you have just accepted, through finance bodies by propping up ageing rust buckets like the Liddell coal plant. Why is the business community fleeing these bad investments, yet the government, the so-called champion of free-market economics, is flocking to them? Does it have something to do with the millions of dollars in donations from the coal lobby? 14:33 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland No, Senator Di Natale. It has everything to do with keeping the lights on. That's what it has to do with: keeping the lights on. In order to keep the lights on, in order to ensure that the Australian people have affordable and secure and reliable power supply, we adopt a pragmatic, engineering based and economically informed agnostic approach to energy sources. We are not ideological about this, Senator Di Natale, as you are. We are not theological about this, Senator Di Natale, as you are. We believe that renewables have a very important role in the energy mix. But we also think that fossil fuels will continue, for a very long time to come, to have an important role in the energy mix. If you go to the streets of your home city, Senator Di Natale, I'm sure you will find that people are more interested in ensuring that power remains affordable and reliable than where it comes from. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question. 14:34 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Minister, isn't the fact that the government continues to desperately spruik coal-fired power, rather than the much more sensible options of solar, wind, battery technology and energy efficiency, just the clearest sign yet that the coal lobby is running the Liberal-National Party's energy policy? 14:35 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland The difference between your approach to climate change and the government's is the difference between ideology and rationality. On our side of the chamber, Senator Di Natale, we take a technology-agnostic approach. Let me put it to you really simply, Senator Di Natale: whatever works. Therefore, we accept that there is an important and growing role for renewables—of course, we do—but we also accept, as you should accept, Senator Di Natale, because I know that this is an area of policy that is of great interest to you, that we are not going to convert from a fossil fuel based energy system to a renewables-only energy system overnight, which is what the Greens would have us do. Of course, there has to be sequencing. Of course, there has to be intelligent integration. Of course, there has to be evolutionary change. While that change is occurring, fossil fuels will continue to be a very important part of the mix. (Time expired) Newlands Civil Construction: Senator O'Sullivan 6800 14:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Senator Nash. Can the minister confirm that Newlands Civil Construction has been contracted to undertake $1 million worth of works as the part of the Warrego Highway upgrade, a $635 million project partly funded by the Commonwealth government? 14:36 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales That's a very specific question, and I will take it on notice for the senator. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Watt, a supplementary question. 14:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland What is the total value of works Newlands Civil Construction, a company in which Senator O'Sullivan has an interest, has been contracted to deliver under the Warrego Highway upgrade program? 14:37 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales Again, that is a very specific question, but my understanding is that these are matters for the state government and should be directed to the state government. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Watt, a final supplementary question. 14:37 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I know the minister chooses to overlook that the funding comes from the Commonwealth, but given this $1 million contract is the third example of a Commonwealth funded contract to a company in which Senator O'Sullivan had an interest, exactly how many contracts funded by Commonwealth taxpayers' money has Senator O'Sullivan stood to benefit from? The PRESIDENT e5v In relation to the latter part of that question, Senator Watt, you are going to a scope beyond Senator Nash's or the minister's knowledge, but the minister can respond, if she wishes to, to the first aspect about the third example. Senator WATT 245759 I'm happy to restrict my question to the minister's portfolio—transport or infrastructure projects. The PRESIDENT e5v In relation to transport, thank you. 14:38 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales I would have thought that the senator would understand that the contractual arrangements are done by the state government, and questions relating to that should be directed to the state government. The PRESIDENT e5v A point of order, Senator Williams? Senator Williams I0V Senator Sarah Hanson-Young just said to Senator O'Sullivan, 'You're as dodgy as.' I ask you to ask her to withdraw that, please. The PRESIDENT e5v Thank you, Senator Williams. It is very borderline. I think all senators in this place have thick skins. But, Senator Hanson-Young, if you feel as though you have said something unparliamentary, would you withdraw it. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Thank you. I've allowed Senator Hanson-Young to withdraw it if she feels as though she said something unparliamentary, which I didn't hear. Infrastructure 6801 14:39 Senator GEORGIOU 269583 Western Australia My question is directed to Senator Brandis. The Smart Cities Plan was launched last year as a blueprint to encourage jobs and growth across the nation. It set out the Australian government's vision for our cities, metropolitan and regional, and its commitment to smart investment, smart policy and smart technology. In July the government released the performance framework for the City Deals; however, I was disappointed to learn that only cities with populations of 85,000 or more were included. As a result, this effectively eliminates every country city in Western Australia. Does the federal government acknowledge that there are economically significant regional cities in Western Australia, such as Kalgoorlie-Boulder, Greater Geraldton, Karratha and Port Hedland? If so, why are they not included in the performance framework? 14:40 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Thank you very much, Senator Georgiou, and thank you also for the courtesy of advance notice of the question and of your acknowledgement of the government's Smart Cities policy, which is indeed a very, very good policy. A key pillar of that policy is the performance framework to which you have referred. It recognises the important role that cities, both regional and metropolitan, play in driving the national economy. This is also true of Western Australian cities, where a range of regional cities, including Bunbury, Rockingham, Geraldton, Mandurah and others, are playing a key role in the Western Australian economy. The government is developing the first ever national cities performance framework, to be released later this year. The framework will track the performance of Australia's cities and support an evidence based approach to cities policy. This online and interactive framework will provide a snapshot of the productivity, liveability and progress of our major centres. As a starting point, the framework will focus on the 21 largest cities, with the framework to be expanded over time, alongside Australia's regions yearbook. Senator Georgiou, the point I make to you is that there are criteria. Those criteria are published criteria within the national cities performance framework. They are being developed over time. There are thresholds for eligibility, as there are in any evidence based policy area, and there will be some cities in Western Australia, regional cities, such as those I have referred to, which will meet those thresholds and others which will not. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Georgiou, a supplementary question. 14:42 Senator GEORGIOU 269583 Western Australia Will the government move to lower the population threshold to include regional Western Australia and other regional areas across Australia? 14:42 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland As I said a moment ago, Senator Georgiou, the performance framework is designed to be a living resource that will be expanded and improved over time. So just because the thresholds may lie at a particular population size at the moment does not mean that they are unable to be revised—and will be revised with the passage of time. Future updates to the performance framework may include the addition of new cities or indicators where these are identified as priorities by stakeholders. Regional issues are important to the Australian government and are also addressed through other initiatives, including the Australia's regions yearbook. But, Senator Georgiou, to your main point: these thresholds are always a matter that the government keeps under review. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Georgiou, a final supplementary question. 14:43 Senator GEORGIOU 269583 Western Australia Will the Regional Growth Fund, which has $272 million in the pipe for grants of $10 million or more, be considered to fund transformational projects that are agreed to out of any regional City Deals? 14:43 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator Georgiou, it is vitally important that economic opportunity is secured and shared right across Australia, which is why the Australian government is very proud of some of the policies that you have raised in your question to me today. In particular, that is why this government delivers economic leadership to the regions. Regional City Deals are about leveraging our major strategic investments to deliver broader outcomes for a community, including co-commitments from all levels of government as well as from the private sector. The Regional Growth Fund includes $272.2 million to provide grants of $10 million or more for major transformational projects which support long-term economic growth and create jobs in regions undergoing structural adjustment. The guidelines for the Regional Growth Fund are currently being developed and will be published when that development is finalised. Energy 6803 14:44 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia My question is to the Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister advise the Senate of how the Turnbull government is working to deliver a stable, reliable and affordable energy system? 14:45 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Fawcett for his question and his ongoing commitment, which all members of our government have, to ensuring the stability, reliability and affordability of Australia's energy markets—guaranteeing, therefore, affordability and reliability for businesses across Australia to operate, and, of course, for households in tackling and dealing with their cost-of-living pressures. We must simply ensure that the lights stay on for our businesses to continue to succeed in Australia and for jobs growth, which we have enjoyed in recent years, to be maintained and enhanced. We must also ensure that prices are tackled to help vulnerable Australians. That is why our government takes a technology-neutral, non-ideological approach to energy policy that is based on the economics and the engineering of the circumstances. That is why our focus is on affordability, to ensure that families and households are on the best possible energy deals around Australia. We know that around 50 per cent of Australian households have not moved retailers or changed contracts in the past five years, even though savings can be as high as $1,500 per annum for those households. That's why we are guaranteeing that some two million Australian households will get the information they need to be confident that they are on the plan best suited to their house to give them the lowest prices into the future. Equally, we are taking action on stability and reliability. Our now generator reliability obligations ensure that intermittent sources of energy generation have offsetting sources that are reliable, with an appropriate level of back-up, to guard against blackouts in future. There are new requirements for large generators to give minimum three-year notice periods before closure, and we're seeing direct government action to work to ensure those large generators stay in the market as long as possible. There are tough new regulations in the gas sector, as well as abolishing the Limited Merits Review, which has been rorted by network systems, despite the fact that those opposite seem to want to play politics and delay our steps to abolish that Limited Merits Review. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question? 14:47 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Can the minister outline how Labor's energy policy failures continue to make energy less stable, less reliable and less affordable for Australian families and businesses, particularly in our home state of South Australia? 14:47 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia It is very clear that those opposite simply don't get energy policy and they never have. We see it writ large, as I told the Senate earlier, in relation to the energy policies of the state and territory Labor governments. Mr Weatherill describes the South Australian energy market as a 'big experiment'. As Senator Fawcett knows, as I know and as other South Australians should know: it is a big experiment that has gone dangerously wrong in terms of reliability and affordability in SA. Yet, those opposite commit to similar policies, wanting to see a 50 per cent RET by 2030 and committing to 45 per cent emissions reductions targets by 2030, all of which go contrary to the detailed work our government has done to ensure sensible, affordable and achievable emissions targets. Then, when confronted with the AEMO report last week, what did Mr Shorten call it? He said it was a 'bit of a distraction'. A report that says there are risks of shortfall to baseload power in the future is just a 'bit of a distraction'? This is a demonstration that they just don't get it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question? 14:48 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Can the minister explain the importance of keeping baseload, dispatchable power in Australia's energy system? 14:48 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia It is base-load power that anchors our energy system, that ensures that the energy needed by households and businesses gets there in a manner that is required, when it is required, at an affordable rate. AEMO's dispatchability report last week demonstrated that there are clear risks of shortages, and yet the Leader of the Opposition said that that was a matter for down the track. Well, it's not a matter for down the track. AEMO makes clear there are risks of shortages for this summer. They are seeking to contract 1,000 megawatts of additional generation for the coming summer. Indeed, there may be further risks down the track for which we must take action on now. For example, the scheduled closure of Liddell, which the AEMO report identified as a further potential shortfall of 1,000 megawatts in 2022. Again, this is why we are taking action now. The Prime Minister is taking action now, and we won't take the advice of those opposite who say it's just a bit of a distraction. We know that it is important and we will deliver the— (Time expired) Newlands Civil Construction: Senator O'Sullivan 6804 14:49 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Newlands Civil Construction, a company in which Senator O'Sullivan has an interest, was awarded a $2.5 million contract under the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements. When did the minister first become aware that Senator O'Sullivan stood to benefit from this contract? 14:50 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland As I said to you when you pursued this line of questioning with me last week, I have no awareness that Senator O'Sullivan has ever done anything untoward whatsoever in relation to the matter. I first became aware of the issue when it was raised. But the issue is not as you describe it, Senator Chisholm, with the implication against Senator O'Sullivan. It is not apparent to me today, and it has never been apparent to me in the past, that Senator O'Sullivan has anything to answer for. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Chisholm, a supplementary question? 14:50 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Newlands Civil Construction, a company in which Senator O'Sullivan has an interest, was awarded a $2.5 million contract as part of the $1.6 billion Toowoomba Second Range Crossing project. When did the minister first become aware that Senator O'Sullivan stood to benefit from this contract? 14:51 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Once again, I'm not aware of that fact. I'm not aware of that fact and I've never been aware of that fact. You've made a number of factual assertions. I'm not aware that any of those particular factual assertions are true. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Chisholm, a final supplementary question? 14:51 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Given Senator O'Sullivan has an interest in $6 billion in Commonwealth contracts, isn't it clear Minister Chester is right to say Senator O'Sullivan has 'an issue that he needs to explain'? 14:51 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator Chisholm, I haven't seen Mr Chester's remarks. Resources Industry 6805 14:51 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales My question is to my fearless leader in the Senate, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs representing the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Scullion. Can the minister update the Senate on the strength of the resources industry and the importance of this sector to the Australian economy? 14:52 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory Thank you, Senator Williams, for your question, and I acknowledge your strong interest and passion in the resources sector, particularly the way it supports jobs in New South Wales. The resources sector is an absolute cornerstone of our economy. On the latest figures, I would like to report it's now six per cent of Australia's GDP, around $200 billion a year in export revenue, and, most importantly, employment for 235,000 people. In your home state of New South Wales, approximately 48,000 jobs are supported directly, with 22,000 of those being in the very important coal industry. In Central Queensland, 10,000 people are directly employed in mining, and, as a result, regional businesses across regional Queensland continue to grow strongly. In the Northern Territory, it is $2.75 billion worth of our economy, and, as I said, more importantly, that translates to 5,700 jobs. That's about 12 per cent of the entire GDP of the Northern Territory. We welcome significant improvements in metallurgical and thermal coal prices. The average metallurgical prices in August were about double what they were the same time last year. Thermal coal prices were about 60 per cent higher than they were the same time last year. That's because government is backing the resources industries and the jobs that they provide. We're encouraging, at every opportunity, further exploration, further investment, further development, because we know that those investments will ensure that others will invest in the jobs we so desperately need. It will also, so importantly, ensure that we put downward pressure on power prices for those who need that leadership most. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Williams, a supplementary question? 14:54 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales I thank the minister for that good news, and I ask: how can Australia use its resources sector to help guarantee access to affordable and reliable energy, particularly for hardworking families in regional Australia? 14:54 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory We are a country of vast resources. That's why we are backing coal as an essential source of power for the long-term future, especially high-efficiency, low-emissions technology. The reality is that we should all agree that we need thermal power to ensure households and businesses across Australia can (a) survive and (b) thrive. We're also encouraging states and territories to open up gas supplies and to encourage the exploration of gas reserves. This is a very important part of what our nation needs to keep downward pressure on power prices. We have got an abundance of high-quality coal resources, and we should be utilising those resources for the benefit of our communities. Our households and our businesses are being crippled by rising energy costs, and we need to be absolutely supporting these sectors so they can deliver the jobs that regional Australia requires. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Williams, a further supplementary question. 14:55 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:55 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory The biggest threat to the future of the resources industry and the jobs it supports across Australia are those on the other side of this chamber. It is Labor, under 'Blackout Bill', that has absolutely no plans for the economy. They have absolutely no plans for energy— The PRESIDENT e5v Order! On a point of order, Senator Cameron. Senator Cameron AI6 Mr President, that should be withdrawn. The PRESIDENT e5v Yes. On the point of order, Senator Brandis. Senator Brandis 008W7 While acknowledging that members of the lower house should be referred to by their proper styles and titles, it is, I think, a matter of notorious public record that the Hon. Bill Shorten is now widely known as 'Blackout Bill'— Senator Wong 00AOU Mr President, he's abusing his position. The PRESIDENT e5v I agree, Senator Wong. Senator Scullion, I would ask you to withdraw that. I remind all senators to refer to members of the other place, and indeed colleagues, by their correct titles. Senator SCULLION 00AOM I'll withdraw and I'll replace that with 'Mr Shorten'. In October, 2016 Labor voted down a motion in favour of shutting down coal-fired power stations. Sorry, Senator Williams, your home state will be impacted if Liddell goes, and they are certainly supporting that process. Labor has said they want to force the closure of power stations. They have committed to a 50 per cent renewable energy target. They have said it can only be done by shutting down coal. You have got to come clean with the Australian people about which power stations you are going to close, which workers you are going to sack, and release to the Australian people the real cost of your reckless policies on the Australian economy. (Time expired) Burma 6807 14:57 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Prime Minister. Attorney, I refer you to the humanitarian disaster currently unfolding in Myanmar, and the ongoing persecution of the Rohingyan people by the Myanmar military. The most recent figures, I am sure you will agree, show that almost 300,000 Rohingyan people have fled Rakhine State in the last 10 days—that is 30,000 a day—and crossed the border into Bangladesh. Is the funding of up to $5 million announced on the weekend the entirety of the Australian government's response to this crisis? And when will the Prime Minister follow the lead of other global leaders and personally express concern about the situation in Myanmar? 14:58 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator McKim, I think you're wrong. The Prime Minister, I understand, has already expressed on behalf of the Australian people his concern about the humanitarian issues of the people in Rakhine State. The foreign minister, as well, on behalf of the government on Saturday, set out the Australian government's response, including a commitment of up to $5 million to address immediate needs. The government has spoken directly to Myanmar and we've called for restraint, the protection of civilians, and unfettered access for humanitarian workers. We have also spoken directly with our regional partners. The foreign minister personally spoke with President Widodo and will continue to closely engage with Indonesia and others. We, like everyone in our region, are very focused on this crisis. At the moment, Senator McKim, what Australia—like other regional partners—needs to do is to focus on immediate issues. Our focus must be on meeting the urgent need for food and shelter, and supporting agencies like the UNHCR. Australia recognises the heavy burden placed on Bangladesh. We have committed up to $5 million for our immediate response to the crisis. That funding will bring Australia's assistance for Rohingya and other affected communities to over $50 million since 2012. We also welcome Myanmar's commitment to ensure assistance reaches communities through the Red Cross, but this must be expanded to other agencies, including UN agencies. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator McKim, a supplementary question. 15:00 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Attorney, the Greens welcome the response to date from the Australian government. But could you explain what steps the government intends to take to resettle, or to assist in resettling, the Rohingya people who have been displaced? Do you agree that Australia has a leadership role to play in our region and that it has a much greater capacity to assist the Rohingya people than most other countries in the world? 15:00 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Before I respond, I will just correct something I said in answer to your primary question, Senator McKim. The conversation to which I referred was a conversation between the Prime Minister and President Widodo. I think I said it was between the foreign minister and President Widodo. Senator McKim, I have outlined what the Australian government's response is to this humanitarian crisis. As I said, it is an aspect of the broader assistance of over $50 million that Australia has provided since 2012 for the Rohingya and other affected communities. That has been a generous response. It is a response in which Australia has been one of the leading regional participants, and that is the response that the government proposes to make. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator McKim, a final supplementary question. 15:01 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Attorney, I refer you to the letter written by Senator Di Natale and me to the Prime Minister over the weekend. It calls for a special intake of 20,000 Rohingya refugees over and above our current annual humanitarian intake. Could you advise whether, in good faith, the government will at least consider this request, noting the urgency of the situation? 15:02 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator McKim, first of all, the urgency of the situation demands the urgent response which I've outlined in answer to your primary question. The government is presently not minded to accede to calls, including those from you and Senator Di Natale, for increases in the humanitarian intake. But, as you know, Senator, we do operate a most generous humanitarian refugee program. Defence Procurement 6808 15:02 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. Last Friday, in evidence to the Senate inquiry on the future of naval shipbuilding, defence officials revealed that, after the announcement of the Austal-ASC teaming agreement, Mr Kim Gillis, deputy secretary of CASG, called three international bidders for the $35 billion Future Frigate program and assured them they were not required to utilise the Australian workforce. Why are bidders for the program being discouraged from working with Australian companies? 15:03 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Gallacher for his question. I don't have the benefit of the Hansard of the committee hearing, because, as I understand it, it has yet to be produced. But what I do understand is that Defence officials appearing before the Senate Economics References Committee last Friday outlined that, following the announcement of the ASC-Austal teaming arrangement in June this year, the deputy secretary of the capability acquisition and sustainment group, Mr Gillis, did contact each of the Future Frigate tender participants to assure them that they were able to continue to rely on the tender documents. Now, I'm not going to canvass the details of the tender, because it is an active tender that is underway. But the provisions of the tender documents and the assurance that Mr Gillis provided to those participants were to say that, while Defence has not mandated a particular workforce, Defence has placed an obligation on industry to maximise Australian industry involvement. All three of the international shipbuilders invited to tender on the Future Frigate program have said that, if they are successful, they will use the existing and experienced shipbuilding workforce in Adelaide as the base from which to grow the workforce they need to deliver on our continuous naval shipbuilding program. Let me remind the chamber that that naval shipbuilding program is intended to create more than 5,200 direct jobs by the mid-2020s, with another 10,000 created across the supply chain. That will be a threefold increase on the workforce we already have. Any suggestion otherwise is nothing but grandstanding and, frankly, from those opposite, blatant hypocrisy, given their appalling, negligent record on naval shipbuilding in this country. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Gallacher, a supplementary question. 15:05 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia My supplementary question is to Minister Payne again. How is this action consistent with the comments made in October by the Minister for Defence Industry, who proclaimed, 'It is critical that we provide Australian companies with opportunities to enter the supply chain'? 15:05 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales It is absolutely consistent with any observation about providing Australian companies with opportunities to enter the supply chain. We have had dozens of industry days between the naval shipbuilding program, both surface and submarine. We have involved hundreds and hundreds of Australian businesses in that process. Let me just remind the chamber of a number of observations of all the three international shipbuilders who've been invited to tender on the Future Frigates program. BAE Systems Australia said: If successful on the SEA 5000 program, the Company intends to not only utilise the current South Australian ship building workforce, but would complement this with skills from other sectors and commit to an early careers program to bring in hundreds of apprentices and graduates over the life of the program. Navantia Australia said: When we already have an experienced shipbuilding workforce in Adelaide, why would we look anywhere else? Fincantieri said: … our proposal will create long-term security for the Adelaide shipbuilding workforce, build a new advanced manufacturing industry nationally … It is still not good enough for those opposite—still not good enough for them. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Gallacher, a final supplementary question. 15:06 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia Will the Future Frigates program maximise the use of Australian companies and Australian workers, and, if so, how? Senator Brandis 008W7 She just told you. Senator GALLACHER 204953 No; Australian companies, Senator Brandis. The PRESIDENT e5v Order on both sides! 15:07 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Yes and yes. Senator Brandis 008W7 I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT 6809 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry 6809 15:07 The PRESIDENT e5v On 23 June this year I advised the Senate that the presiding officers had decided to approve the publication of the class A records of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into the conduct of the late Justice Lionel Keith Murphy. The class A records are those relating specifically to Justice Murphy's conduct. I advised that, after a number of processes had been completed, the records would be released on 24 July this year. On 20 July this year, the Speaker and I issued a press release advising that the processes we had agreed to were taking longer than expected and there would be a delay in the publication of the records. I can now advise that those processes have been completed, and the Speaker and I will table the records in our respective houses at 9.30 am on this Thursday, 14 September. The records will be published immediately afterwards on the Australian Parliament House website, under the authority of the standing orders of each house. Access to the documents will only be through the APH website. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 6810 ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE 15:08 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—I raise the issue of Senator Nash's failure to provide answers to questions asked in question time that she has taken on notice. She has had notice of this. We had questions taken on notice from Senator Cameron, Senator Pratt, Senator Dastyari, Senator Watt and Senator McAllister last week. 15:09 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales I indicated to the chamber last week that I would be providing answers to questions taken on notice in due course. As is the process, the conclusion of question time is the appropriate time, and I rise to table answers to questions taken on notice and seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The answers read as follows— Answer to question taken on notice - 6 September, 2017 Senator Urquhart: Yesterday, the Minister denied that her potential ineligibility as a senator had impacted her decision-making by claiming she was 'very recently with the member for Whitlam announcing $10 million for a road'. Given that the decision to fund this road was made almost 12 months ago, does the minister want to try again? Just name one funding decision made since questions about your eligibility as a senator were revealed. Response: As Minister for Regional Development, Local Government & Territories and Regional Communications, I make funding decisions regularly and frequently. As I have already made clear, I will continue to execute my duties as Minister, but I do not intend on providing a live tally on the number of decisions I have made at any point in time. Answer to question taken on notice - 6 September, 2017 Senator Cameron: My question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Senator Nash. Yesterday the minister begged senators to ask her questions about issues important to the Australian people, including, 'What is the coalition government doing to improve energy affordability?' Can the minister confirm that, under the coalition government, wholesale electricity prices have doubled? Response: When the Coalition repealed the Carbon Tax, it led to the largest fall on record in electricity prices. A fall in prices of up to 12.5 per cent across Australia according to ACCC, which was an annual cost saving of between $46 and $263 on energy bills. Last time Labor was in office, electricity prices doubled, increasing by 101 per cent. Answer to question taken on notice - 6 September, 2017 Senator Dastyari: I'm going to shock everyone here. My policy question is to the Minister for Regional Development, Senator Nash. Grant program guidelines for the coalition government's $940 million Community Development Grants Program indicate that only applications 'identified by the Australian government will be considered'. Of the $940 million, Minister, how much has been allocated to projects in the Hunter Valley? Response: The Coalition has provided significant amounts of funding to the Hunter Valley region including more than $23 million as part of the Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Programme on improvements to the Golden Hwy. In 2017-18 alone, the Coalition will provide $5,955,599 in Roads to Recovery funding and $3,300,000 in Bridges to Renew al funding within the electorate of Hunter. The Coalition has provided $950,000 to the Cessnock City Council in the Hunter Valley for the Cessnock Civic Precinct Revitalisation project and $1.25 million for the Hunter Valley Wine Country Tourism Signage implementation project . These are just some of the great projects that the Coalition is funding in the Hunter Valley region. Answer to question taken on notice - 7 September, 2017 Senator McAllister: 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 thefuture Tenterfield Heavy Vehicle Bypass. Can the minister confirm that the Tenterfield heavy vehicle bypass was funded by the former Labor government? Response: The Coalition government is the only government to fund the Tenterfield heavy vehicle bypass. Answer to question taken on notice - 7 September, 2017 Senator Cameron: 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? Response: The Coalition is funding a hundreds of projects across Australia, including a number of highly important road project in the electorate of New England, including the Scone Bypass, the Drury Street Bridge and the Bolivia Hill re-alignment. The Coalition also boosted funding under the Roads to Recovery Programme by over $1 billion, providing critical funds to roads that have been neglected under the previous Labor Government. Answer to question taken on notice - 7 September, 2017 Senator O ' Neill: 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? Response: All projects funded through Community Development Grants program go through a rigorous assessment process by the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development. This includes a detailed value for money assessment which looks at a wide range of factors, including any risks associated with the project; project benefits; project viability and sustainability; and proponent viability. Projects cannot and do not proceed to funding until they have gone through this rigorous assessment process. The process for providing funding under CDG is transparent and is in accordance with the CDG Guidelines, which are publically available. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 6812 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Disability Support Pension: Transvaginal Mesh 6812 15:09 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I have further information to provide to Senator Hinch in relation to a question he asked of me in question time last week. The PRESIDENT e5v Do you want to seek leave to incorporate it or do you wish to make any further statement? Senator PAYNE M56 No, not in its current state. I may perhaps defer this till tomorrow afternoon and do it when Senator Hinch is here. He was here two seconds ago. The PRESIDENT e5v So deferred. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 6812 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Newlands Civil Construction: Senator O'Sullivan 6812 15:09 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) and the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to questions without notice asked by Senators Watt and Chisholm today relating to the award of contracts to Newlands Civil Construction. This is a very serious issue, and I don't think this issue has been given the due diligence from the Attorney-General in relation to how serious this is. The Attorney-General has dismissed this on a couple of occasions now, and this goes to the very serious issue of whether Senator O'Sullivan has a direct or indirect interest in a range of Commonwealth funded projects that are jointly funded by the state and the Commonwealth. Senator O'Sullivan denied to AAP that he either directly or indirectly holds a pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth. This is not about an agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth; this is about a direct or indirect pecuniary interest. After the questions were asked of Senator O'Sullivan, Senator O'Sullivan updated his pecuniary interests in this area on 16 June 2017, and it says under O'Sullivan and Sons Pty Ltd, 'remove its subsidiary Newlands Civil Construction Pty Ltd'. This was done on 16 June 2017. Newlands Civil Construction has been subcontracted to work on an 80 per cent federally funded government project which is worth about $2.5 million. Senator O'Sullivan went on to say, importantly, that a review by Newlands Civil Construction has proven that it does not hold any agreement with any company or any entity that has an agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth. So what we are expected to do, as Senator Brandis has done, is accept that Barry Jr, the son of Senator O'Sullivan, who is now the managing director of Newlands, says, 'There's nothing to see here; nothing to see here.' This is a company whose managing director, between 1991 and 2013, was Senator O'Sullivan. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator CAMERON AI6 That is correct. That's what the pecuniary interest says. Senator O'Sullivan has, as part of the O'Sullivan family, controlling interests. They are the controlling shareholders in this company. Due process, proper accountability and ensuring that the senator has no direct or indirect interest actually demands more than Barry Jr saying that Barry Sr—that is, Senator O'Sullivan—has no problem. Well, we think that there is more to be seen here. We think there is more to be answered. We agree with Minister Chester, who says that Senator O'Sullivan has an issue that he needs to explain. In my view, he certainly does need to explain why, after questions were asked, the pecuniary interests were changed so quickly. We need to ensure that Senator O'Sullivan is not using his privileged position as a senator to influence contracts and that he is not benefitting from these contracts, one of which is 80 per cent funded— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator Cameron, please resume your seat. Senator Brandis? Senator Brandis 008W7 Madam Deputy President, as you well know, under standing order 193(3) there is a prohibition against senators using imputations of improper motives or personal reflections on other senators. I ask you to call the senator to order. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator Cameron, I ask that you be careful in this area, and perhaps rephrase your comments so that there are no direct imputations. Senator CAMERON AI6 Certainly, Madam Deputy President. These are issues that go to the credibility of the Senate, not just any individual senator. We cannot have a position where any senator is under a cloud in relation to section 44, or any practice that does not meet the requirements of both the Senate and the Constitution. Senator O'Sullivan does need to explain what's going on here. Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 No, he doesn't. Senator CAMERON AI6 Senator Macdonald says, 'No, he doesn't,' need to explain. Well, he does need to explain, because this is a problem that he has that should be resolved. This needs further clarity as to exactly what's going on with this web of companies that he controls. (Time expired) 15:16 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I thank Senator Cameron for raising this extremely trivial issue. I can't believe we're back here talking about ourselves once again. There are so many important things going on in the world and there are so many important things going on in our nation, yet those opposite once again decide to play the man, and not the ball, by talking about section 44. Last week, it was all about Senator Nash. Not a single question during question time in this chamber was not directed to Senator Nash, yet this was at a time when we could have been talking about the military brinkmanship going on in North Korea. There was not a single question from those opposite about that. We could have spoken about the incredibly good news stories that were coming out of the economy, the green shoots that are showing through in the Australian economy—a quarter of a million new jobs—yet those opposite continued to speak about Senator Nash. We could have spoken about the genuine action that is taking place on energy prices—imposing downward pressure on energy prices and finding a solution to the energy crisis in this country going forward—yet those opposite continued to speak about Senator Nash. The repetition is becoming not just tiresome for those of us in the government but tiresome for those in the gallery. How very dull this can be. And yet, this week, they've decided to move away from Senator Nash and to move onto Senator O'Sullivan and whether Senator O'Sullivan directly or indirectly holds a pecuniary interest in an organisation. The irony, of course, in all of this is that whatever contract there may or may not have been was definitely a contract with the Queensland government, not with the Commonwealth. Again, what we see is a significant misunderstanding of the issue by those opposite and an opportunity to play politics as opposed to dealing with issues of policy. I've got to say, at one stage I thought there was a moment there where, potentially, we could have been speaking about energy policy—energy policy which, let's face it, is possibly the most pressing issue facing this country right now. And what is it that those opposite are doing on energy policy? Well, I can't imagine— Senator Cameron interjecting— Senator HUME 266499 I've not heard a single solution, Senator Cameron; not a single solution. Now, I'm not going to go the way of Senator Scullion and start talking about Blackout Bill, because I think that saying the words Blackout Bill when referring to those opposite is disrespectful, and Senator Scullion was right to withdraw it— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator Hume, please resume your seat. There is a message from the President about repeating offences. You are well aware that that was an issue raised at question time. I would draw your attention to the remarks of the President. I would ask you to withdraw those statements. Senator HUME 266499 Thank you, Madam Deputy President. You are absolutely right. I think that Senator Scullion was absolutely right to withdraw those remarks and to not refer to the Leader of the Opposition by such a disrespectful name. And I, too, withdraw— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Resume your seat, Senator Hume. Senator Cameron? Senator Cameron AI6 Senator Hume has reiterated the issue that the President dealt with. She should be asked to withdraw it and she should not be allowed to comment further. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator Brandis, on the same point of order? Senator Brandis 008W7 Senator Hume did not repeat what was objected to. It's as simple as that and, therefore, there is no point of order— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Thank you, Senator Brandis. I think you are now raising a debating point. Senator Brandis 008W7 It's not a debating point. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Please resume your seat, Senator Brandis. Senator Brandis interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator Brandis, I've asked you to resume your seat. Are you now disobeying a request that I've made? Senator Brandis interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Sit down, Senator Brandis. I think I've heard enough on this point of order. Senator Hume, whilst you did not repeat the offence, I think there was an implication there, so I ask you to note what happened at question time and note the comments from the President about repeating language that disparages senators or those in the other place. Senator Cameron? Senator Cameron AI6 Senator Hume on two occasions used exactly the same words that the President commented on. She should withdraw them. It should be clear and simple. That is not appropriate and they should be withdrawn. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Thank you, Senator Cameron. I'll seek advice from the Clerk. I think she withdrew them, but I'm more than happy to check the record, Senator Cameron, and come back to you if necessary. Senator Brandis, did you have a further point? Senator Brandis 008W7 No, I just want to make the point that Senator Hume did withdraw— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Thank you, Senator Brandis. Senator Brandis 008W7 and did not repeat the remarks in any event. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP I've made a decision, thank you. Senator Hume. Senator HUME 266499 Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I understand that there is a need in this place of dignity to treat colleagues and those in the other place with respect, and I wouldn't dream of impugning those in this place or those in the other place either. What I am very disappointed about, though, is the inability of those opposite to deal with the issues of importance, not just the issues of importance in this place but the issues of importance to the Australian people. That's something that this opposition seems to have failed to do repeatedly. On the issue of energy, which is how this topic came up—and rising energy prices and reliability are of great importance—what we've seen from those opposite is little more than game playing. It has been a game-playing exercise. The best example of that is this government's policy to abolish the limited merits review. The limited merits review was a policy that was imposed upon the Australian people by those opposite during their time in government. The Turnbull government has been moving in this parliament to abolish the limited merits review to stop the electricity networks gaming the system and boosting their profits. What we've instead seen is those opposite, as part of their game playing and as part of their lack of focus on what is important, not supporting such a basic and sensible policy. The limited merits review has cost consumers approximately $6.5 billion since it was implemented in 2008 under the previous Labor government, because it has come out in favour of the electricity companies, as opposed to the consumers, 31 out of 52 times. If Labor were serious about the cost of living, it would support this very important policy. If it were serious about seeking solutions to rising electricity prices, it would do so. Instead, it has sent this legislation to a Senate committee for review. Again this is a delaying tactic. It could support the government's efforts, but instead it has sent the legislation to a Senate committee. Those opposite clearly are not focusing on the game and are not focusing on the ball; they are focusing on the man by focusing on Senator O'Sullivan and Senator Nash. (Time expired) 15:24 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I rise to also speak on the growing controversy surrounding the business affairs of Senator O'Sullivan, a Queensland LNP senator. I think it's useful to just map out what this controversy is all about. It comes down to three different contracts that have been awarded to companies controlled by Senator O'Sullivan and his family. Not only are there three contracts but—and this is the important point—they are contracts to provide works that are funded by the Commonwealth government. In 2015, Senator O'Sullivan's family company was awarded a contract to undertake roadworks in Emerald in Central Queensland under the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements. That was a contract valued at $2.2 million. In October 2016, a second contract was awarded to Senator O'Sullivan's family business, this time for $2.5 million worth of work on the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing—again, a project that is majority funded by the Commonwealth government. What we've learned today is that there is a third contract for Commonwealth-funded works that has been awarded to Senator O'Sullivan's family company—this time for works on the Warrego Highway west of Brisbane to the value of $1 million. So putting those three contracts together, what we now learn is that Senator O'Sullivan's family company has benefited to the order of $6 million in contracts to provide works funded by the Commonwealth government. The common theme across all three of these contracts is that they are performed by Newlands Civil Construction Pty Ltd. When you dig into the ownership of that company, of course it has the opaque, difficult-to-understand company structure that we've come to expect of Senator O'Sullivan. Newlands Civil Construction Company until June 2017 was owned 100 per cent by a company called O'Sullivan & Sons Pty Ltd. That, of course, is a company which, when you trace it all back, is part-owned by Senator O'Sullivan himself in combination with another company that is owned by his very own son. It seems that Senator O'Sullivan likes to keep it in the family—not only are he and his son both called Barry but they like to own companies which benefit from Commonwealth contracts. Mysteriously, only a week or two ago, Senator O'Sullivan updated his pecuniary interests register. One would have to wonder why, after all of this activity being undertaken for so long, all of a sudden he decided to update his register to record company restructuring which happened back in June. So he was well beyond the 30-day requirement to update his register after a company restructure. But let's leave that aside. The most interesting thing about that is that in June 2017, on the very day the government made announcements about new NDRRA funding that it was going to be providing, he restructured his arrangements to transfer his company's interest in Newlands Civil Construction to another company. And, what do you know, that's a company that is part-owned by his son. So we're still keeping it in the family. We're still keeping it from Barry Sr to Barry Jr, and now we're passing it from Barry Sr's company through to Barry Jr's company. It doesn't really matter, as long as there's a Barry O'Sullivan who's drawing a benefit. That seems to be the guiding rule for Senator O'Sullivan's business activities. We've asked a number of questions about this today and last week in question time. What has been very conspicuous is the lack of enthusiasm by both Senator Brandis and Senator Nash to jump to the defence of their colleague Senator O'Sullivan. The strongest we've heard from Senator Brandis is that he has no reason to believe that Senator O'Sullivan is in any trouble or that anything untoward has occurred. I would hardly call that a ringing endorsement. That's not the kind of language I'd be looking for from my Senate leader if I was in a spot of bother. The reason for that is that they know that Senator O'Sullivan is in trouble. They know that he has a problem under section 44 of the Constitution, which says that a senator is disqualified from holding office if they have a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in any agreement with the Commonwealth. In Senator O'Sullivan's case, there's not just one agreement with the Commonwealth; there's not just two. There are now three agreements under which Senator O'Sullivan's family companies draw a benefit via Commonwealth funding. Commonwealth funding is passed through a range of different entities and, what do you know, at the end of the day it finds itself in the pockets of Senator O'Sullivan and his son, Barry Jr. Senators Brandis and Nash should ask Senator O'Sullivan some questions, and Senator O'Sullivan should make a statement to the Senate explaining himself. 15:29 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Another question time and another little grubby display of Labor backroom tactics. They are probably mildly amusing to those people who sit at home and do nothing other than watch Senate question time. But, to the rest of the world, it matters nought. I feel sorry for the people here in the gallery today and for those students who have come through to see what's on display when it comes to the tactics— Senator Brandis 008W7 That's why they're all leaving. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Yes, they're walking out. You're quite right, Senators Brandis, they are leaving—I suspect in disgust. Off the back of a failed tactic at the beginning of question time, where questions were being asked of the wrong minister, which backfired embarrassingly—I haven't seen that in my time in the Senate, I have to say—they picked themselves up, or at least so they thought, changed tact and went on with this fascination, this obsession, the Labor Party has with pecuniary interests of senators in this place. Again, it's something that matters nought to the people of Australia, frankly. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator DUNIAM 263418 And, as much as those on the other side chuckle and guffaw and think it's a great little show and that we should be sitting down with a bucket of popcorn to take it all in, the reality is that people out there in the real world, don't care. They're not worried about this sort of thing. I have to say, though, in my own mind, it conjures up images of Labor senators and their staff sitting in smoky, dark rooms with dim lighting, rifling through the pecuniary interest register of senators to see what they've changed, what they own, what they had yesterday and what they're going to be changing if things are put on the public record, as they assert. It doesn't fill one with confidence about a group of people that aspires to lead this country in government one day. They're more interested in rifling through bits of paper and trying to sling mud at members of this place about fake arguments around what they own and the benefits they may be drawing. As Senator Brandis mentioned in his answer to the questions that he was asked, he canvassed these matters last week, and much of this was put on the public record. That begs the question: why are we back here? Because it's all about mud-slinging; it's all about characterising this as something that it is not. The questions have so much loaded language around the actual situation. All are assertions that are trying to draw conclusions that cannot be established on the facts available. It was most enlightening to hear Senator Watt, under pressure by way of interjection from the Attorney-General, change his language. He was talking about Senator O'Sullivan having contracts with the Commonwealth when, in fact, the contracts with companies—whether or not there is an interest held by Senator O'Sullivan—are held with the Queensland state government, not the Commonwealth. Senator Watt realised that and he changed his language quite significantly, talking about benefits derived. There, immediately, he highlighted that he accepts that this argument does not hold water, and, really, it is only further ambulance-chasing and grubby politics, which is exceptionally disappointing. One thing I would ask is whether those opposite have actually done an ASIC search of Senator O'Sullivan's companies. I wonder whether they would find, as I understand the case to be, that a simple ASIC search will show that Senator O'Sullivan holds shares in none of the companies that have been mentioned. I wonder if the next opposition speaker—I assume that will be Senator Chisholm—would be able to answer that question for me when they rise to their feet to contribute to this debate. It is about the facts; it's not about the assertions. We have to remember that. The other thing we have to remember—as I started by saying—is that we ought to be focusing on the issues that actually really matter to people. It was revealing that this took up the lion's share of the opposition's questions today. Again, there is more of that 'gotcha politics' arrangement going on. They are not focused on things that people are concerned about. Senator Gallacher did ask a question about jobs. It was the last question, just squeezed in in time. But, beyond the feigned interest in jobs for communities outside of Canberra, Sydney or Melbourne, there was not much talk of real-world issues, which is disappointing. I think it is about getting the facts on the record. It's about clarifying the assertions that have been put on record in here—the disappointing reflections on individuals and just slinging mud left, right and centre to try to get someone. That is what this is all about. It's politics; it's not policy. It's not about advancing our country and it's not about advancing the lives of Australians that we apparently represent in this place; it's about slinging mud. It is exceptionally disappointing. I invite senators who want to pursue this matter to do so in a way that is based on facts and nothing else. 15:34 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I think the important point that Senator Duniam touched on here is: let's get the facts on the record. I couldn't agree more. Let's get Senator O'Sullivan in the chamber to make a statement about these important issues. That's a sure-fire way we can get the facts on the record. The reality is that he has not addressed them. There have been numerous questions put to the government and they, as well, have failed to address them. I'd love nothing more than to get on with it and talk about other issues. But integrity is so important. The question marks over this government around section 44 are so important. They go to the very heart of this government's decision-making. We know the Nationals have a problem with section 44 of the Constitution. Two other senators, Senator Canavan and Senator Nash, have a problem with section 44. We know the Deputy Prime Minister in the other place has a problem with section 44, as does Senator O'Sullivan. For those opposite who have a bit of a whine about wanting us to ask other questions, the answer is easy: give Senator O'Sullivan a ring and get him to come here and put on the record what he knows about this. The reality is that he has not done that and he won't do that, and the government won't come forth either. There have been a number of questions that raised serious concerns last week and this week that the government have failed to answer. These have been questions around the contracts that Newlands Civil Construction have won, how many contracts there have been and how much money they are worth. From questioning that we have put and from what we have been able to identify, so far we know that three projects that have federal input have been won by Newlands Civil Construction: the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing, the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements in Emerald, and the Warrego Highway west of Brisbane. All up, we know that this company has done more than $6 million worth of work that has a federal contracting influence. But, when we have put questions to Senator Brandis and Senator Nash, the lack of answers only raised further alarms with us about the way in which the government has been dealing with this matter. It would be easy for Senator O'Sullivan to come in here and clear this up a very quickly. But what has Senator O'Sullivan done? Recently, he changed his entry on the pecuniary interest register and failed to make a comprehensive statement to the Senate on these concerns. We know from Minister Chester, his own National Party colleague in the other place, who is in the cabinet—and I think this is very illustrative—that this is an issue that needs to be explained. This is coming from someone on his own side, a National Party minister in government, who is saying that Senator O'Sullivan needs to explain. We will continue to pursue this because of the failure of the government to have answers and also because of the actions of Senator O'Sullivan. What are those actions? Why can't they come up and tell us the number of projects that Newlands Civil Construction has won that have federal government influence in them, the amount of money these contracts are worth and what the government have done about these serious allegations. These are the themes of the questions that we put to Senator Brandis and Senator Nash today and also raised in this place last week. But, so far, the government have been dismissive and have failed to answer the substantive nature of these questions. When you look at the way they treated the questions that we put in the chamber today, it's easy to see why they have become embroiled in so much controversy over section 44. They really fail to do their homework. They fail to realise the seriousness of the allegations and, therefore, they pay the price. This leads to the chaos and dysfunction that we see from the government. We see it when it comes to the ministers and their failure to tackle the important policy challenges around section 44. When those opposite come in here to take note of answers, they talk about why they want questions on the serious policy challenges, but they're a government that are unable to deal with such questions because of the chaos that they face around the potential ineligibility of three senators—two when it comes to citizenship and one when it comes to the pecuniary interests of Senator O'Sullivan. So, when the government have opportunities to answer questions about Senator O'Sullivan throughout the rest of this week, it really is incumbent on them to have a look at what they have done in this regard and come into this chamber prepared to go on the record about contracts from which Senator O'Sullivan's company has benefited. Question agreed to. Burma 6820 15:39 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the government's response given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator McKim today relating to Myanmar. Make no mistake, we are seeing a humanitarian crisis currently unfolding in Myanmar. It's as a result of a recent escalation in the persecution of the Rohingyan people in the Rakhine state of Myanmar. That persecution, in the main, has either been conducted or auspiced by the military in Myanmar. Recent figures from the UNHCR indicate that around 300,000 people have fled their homes and crossed the border into Bangladesh in the last 10 days. That's an average of 30,000 people a day. They are people just like us. They've got hopes and dreams for themselves, their families and their communities, just like we do. They've got aspirations to live in freedom, free from tyranny and free to make their own choices in life to the greatest extent possible, just like we do. Yet 300,000 of them, in the last 10 days, have been forced to uproot themselves from the places they love—their homes, their schools and their communities—due to ongoing persecution and terror by the Myanmar military. The Australian government—to acknowledge a start—has responded; it has pledged up to $5 million extra to assist with the provision of humanitarian services. That's a good thing. But that money, because it hasn't been stated otherwise, will come out of Australia's existing foreign aid budget, as is the usual practice of this government. So that's money that won't be spent elsewhere on people in desperate need. What the government should've done is announce a funding commitment of greater than that which it has and make it additional to Australia's existing foreign affairs budget. The Prime Minister and the minister have had a couple of conversations with other global leaders. That's good too. But they need to be clear with the Myanmar government that what is happening in that country right now is unacceptable and what the Myanmar military is doing is unacceptable. Australia also needs to stand up and make sure we are playing a leadership role in facilitating the resettlement of people displaced by the humanitarian crisis and the actions of the Myanmar military in Myanmar right now. Let's not forget what we did just two years ago when the Syrian people were so terribly displaced by conflict in their country, when millions of them—countless millions—made the perilous and arduous journey on foot into Europe. We stepped up. Under Prime Minister Tony Abbott, we created an extra 12,000 places in Australia for Syrian refugees and put them on a pathway to permanent residency and citizenship in our country. That's what we need to do for the Rohingyan people, who've been so terribly treated and so badly persecuted and who've been displaced from their home country and have fled in fear across the border to Bangladesh. Australia must announce an extra humanitarian intake for the Rohingyan people. It should be 20,000, which is what the Australian Greens called for after the Syrian crisis. As the welcoming, compassionate people that we are, we should accept those people into our country and put them on a pathway to protection, permanent residency and citizenship. It would show global leadership; it would show regional leadership; and it would help enhance regional stability in our area, something the Australian government has always claimed it wants to do. At its heart, it would be reaching out a hand to help some of our fellow human beings who are doing it so, so tough right now, fleeing violence, persecution and death and looking for a better life. We can help them find that better life and we should do that, just as we did for the Syrian refugees. (Time expired) Question agreed to. NOTICES 6821 NOTICES Presentation 6821 15:44 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Australian Grape and Wine Authority Amendment (Wine Australia) Bill 2017, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings. I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have this statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows— Purpose of the Bill The bill will amend the Australian Grape and Wine Authority Act 2013 to broaden the Australian Grape and Wine Authority's (AGWA) functions and powers to implement the Export and Regional Wine Support Package and the Wine Tourism and Cellar Door grant. It will also change the name of the authority to Wine Australia. The Export and Regional Wine Support Package comprises $50 million budget funding over four years for AGWA to fund a range of initiatives to promote Australian wine and Australian wine tourism, both domestically and overseas. AGWA is currently able to implement components of the package relating to domestic and international wine promotion. However, amendments are required to allow AGWA to: assist small wine producers and exporters to access new or improved international markets promote wine,tourism to Australian wine regions by both domestic and international tourists administer grant programs in relation to wine and wine regions (for both the package and the grant) change its name to Wine Australia. Reasons for Urgency In the 2016-17 budget, the government allocated $50 million over four years to AGWA to deliver the Export and Regional Wine Support Package. AGWA has developed a business plan to support implementation of the package. AGWA has been allocated $48.3 million over 2017-18 to 2019-20, with $16 million to be spent in 2017-18. The amendments need to be in place prior to 1 January 2018 to allow AGWA to utilise the funds allocated in the 2017-18 financial year and beyond. AGWA was allocated $1.7 million in 2016-17, to develop the business plan on how to spend the $50 million and to start implementing the plan. BUSINESS 6825 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 6825 15:45 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That the following bills be considered at the time for private senators' bills on Thursday, 14 September 2017: Lands Acquisition Amendment (Public Purpose) Bill 2017 (subject to introduction) No. 39 Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Full Face Coverings in Public Places) Bill 2017. Question agreed to. Leave of Absence 6825 15:46 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Ruston for today, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. 15:46 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator O'Neill for today, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. NOTICES 6825 NOTICES Postponement 6825 COMMITTEES 6826 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 6826 Finance and Public Administration References Committee 6826 Reference 6826 15:48 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I, and on behalf of Senators Rice, Hinch, Lambie and Kakoschke-Moore, move: That the following matter be referred to the Finance and Public Administration References Committee for inquiry and report by 14 November 2017: The delivery of National Outcome 4 of the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Their Children 2010-2022, 'Services meet the needs of women and their children experiencing violence,' insofar as that Outcome is given effect by the 1800 RESPECT Domestic and Sexual Violence National Counselling Service ("the service"), with particular reference to: (a) the adequacy and quality of counselling provided, including:    (i) the funding made available for counselling,    (ii) the counselling model and associated counselling practices,    (iii) the protection of privacy and confidentiality for those who use the service,    (iv) the efficacy and appropriateness of the triage model adopted in relation to the service in 2016, and    (v) the infrastructure required for the provision of the service; (b) the procurement arrangements for the service, including contractual and tender arrangements; (c) the engagement of staff and contractors, including:    (i) their qualifications and working conditions,    (ii) the professional standards and ethical obligations applicable to those providing the service, and    (iii) the oversight and quality assurance undertaken in relation to those providing the service; (d) evaluation arrangements for the service; (e) best practice for domestic and sexual violence counselling; and (f) any other related matters. 15:48 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 supports 1800RESPECT and is providing an extra $5 million per year to the service to ensure it continues to provide world-class support to victims of sexual assault and family and domestic violence. The government is pleased that three highly experienced not-for-profit domestic violence organisations, DV Connect in Queensland, Safe Steps in Victoria and Women's Safety Services in South Australia, have agreed to the contract arrangements and will now provide the specialist trauma counselling component of the 1800RESPECT service as part of a new panel model. Rape and Domestic Violence Services Australia were invited to be part of the model but declined the offer to participate. The government also notes the ongoing workloads of committees and committee secretariats and expresses its concern at additional references. Question agreed to. BILLS 6827 BILLS Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2017 6827

Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2017

First Reading 6827 15:49 Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE 265982 South Australia At the request of Senator Xenophon, I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Customs Act 1901, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE 265982 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 6827 15:50 Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE 265982 South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum and to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2017 (the bill) responds in part to a recommendation made by the Senate Economics References Committee in its inquiry into non-conforming building products. The bill amends the Customs Act 1901 to expressly ban the importation of polyethylene (PE) core aluminium composite panels (ACPs). The cladding issue is a most serious public safety issue that requires urgent action. The issue was brought to the public's attention in November 2015 when the Lacrosse building in Docklands Melbourne caught fire. Since that time governments, both Federal and State, have failed to adequately respond. The Lacrosse incident was the trigger for the Senate inquiry. The Lacrosse apartment block in Docklands, Melbourne, had aluminium cladding fixed to its exterior. Flames raced up several floors and it was only through sheer luck that no lives were lost. Builders who consciously choose to cut costs using the non-compliant panels save only about $3 per square metre, putting profit ahead of lives. Evidence given to the inquiry revealed PE and ACPs are so hazardous that in the event of a fire, one kilogram of polyethylene will release the same amount of energy as one and a half litres of burning petrol. Unless the States act with a greater sense of urgency, the only way is to legislate to stop bringing this potentially lethal product into the country. We cannot under any circumstances, bear the tragedy that occurred in London. We must prevent any risk of that happening here. There needs to be urgent action from the Commonwealth and the States to complete audits of all suspect buildings and houses so remediation can be carried out; so that people can work and live safely in them. It is unacceptable that some States, including my home State of South Australia, have been unable to identify which buildings contained the flammable material. It is a simple test to identify whether cladding contains the cheap, flammable polyethylene or the slightly more expensive version treated with fire retardant. The Senate inquiry heard disturbing evidence that dangerous and non-compliant goods were coming into the country undetected and, in some cases, with false or forged compliance documents. The committee found greater enforcement of existing regulations was needed and recommended a national licensing system for a range of workers in the building and construction industry, along with severe penalties for non-compliance of the National Construction Code. In light of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, there cannot be legitimate use of PE core ACPs on any building type. The committee found that as there are safe non-flammable and fire retardant alternatives available there is no place for PE core ACPs in the Australian market. While Australian Border Force and suppliers of Aluminium Composite Material are currently unable to determine whether an imported building product will be used in a compliant manner, a ban on importation is necessary to prevent any disasters such as the Grenfell Tower tragedy occurring in Australia. I commend the bill to the Senate and urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to support it. Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE 265982 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. MOTIONS 6828 MOTIONS Aboriginal Deaths in Custody 6828 15:51 Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE 265982 South Australia I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 479 standing in the names of Senators Griff and Xenophon and in my name relating to Aboriginal deaths in custody. Leave granted. Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE 265982 I, and also on behalf of Senators Griff and Xenophon, move the motion as amended: That the Senate— (a)   notes that: (i)   on 22 August 2017, Mr Kunmanara Gibson, a 47-year-old Aboriginal man for whom English was a second language, died in custody after being found unconscious in his cell at Adelaide’s city watch house, (ii)   an Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement (ALRM) duty officer was advised of Mr Gibson’s arrest, however, the South Australian Aboriginal Visitor’s Scheme, operated by the ALRM, was not informed of Mr Gibson’s arrest until after he died, (iii)   one of the key recommendations of the 1991 Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody was that all states notify a custody notification service whenever an Indigenous person is arrested to offer support, language and legal services, (iv)   recommendation 224 states: 'in jurisdictions where legislation, standing orders or instructions do not already so provide, appropriate steps be taken to make it mandatory for Aboriginal Legal Services to be notified upon the arrest or detention of any Aboriginal person other than such arrests or detentions for which it is agreed between the Aboriginal Legal Services and the Police Services that notification is not required', (v)   in October last year, the Minister for Indigenous Affairs announced that the Coalition Government had written to all state and territory governments offering to fund a national roll-out of the Custody Notification Service (CNS) – similar to the scheme that currently operates in New South Wales, and credited with saving the lives of Aboriginal people in custody – the three year funding offer was to be contingent on the jurisdictions mandating the use of the CNS and agreeing to fund it after the three-year introductory period, (vi)   to date, ALRM has been operating a limited Custody Notification Service in South Australia, however, it does not satisfy requirements of a best practice model, as exemplified by the NSW scheme, (vii)   Mr Gibson’s death is the second Aboriginal death in police custody in the last three months nationally, and the fourth in South Australia in the past year, (viii)   last year marked the 25th anniversary of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, and (ix)   according to figures obtained from the Australian Institute of Criminology, between 1987 and 1991, while the Royal Commission was underway, there were 23 Indigenous deaths in prison custody and 28 in police custody – from 2009 to 2013 there were a further 41 Indigenous deaths in prison custody and 19 in police custody; and (b)   calls on: (i)   the Coalition Government to urgently negotiate a solution with those jurisdictions that have yet to implement a Custody Notification Service consistent with the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, and (ii)   those state and territory governments that have yet to implement a Custody Notification Service consistent with the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody to do so. 15:51 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 supports the implementation of custody notification services in each state and territory to ensure an Aboriginal Legal Service is contacted when an Indigenous person is taken into custody. That is why the government offered funding and support to the states and territories to legislate and take up their responsibility for this recommendation of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. This government has put the offer on the table. It is now up to the state and territory governments to do the right thing and introduce this support for Indigenous Australians. Question agreed to. Homeless Aged-Care Funding 6830 15:53 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I, and also on behalf of Senator Hinch, move: That the Senate— (a) notes that the aged care homeless supplement was introduced to assist specialist homeless aged care providers to remain financially viable in order to enable them to continue to provide aged care services to older Australians with a history of, or at risk of, homelessness; (b) acknowledges that:    (i) unlike mainstream providers, specialist homeless aged care providers have a reduced ability to recover costs from residents, as they do not have the capacity to pay, and    (ii) the financial viability of specialist homeless aged care services is again at risk as the funding gap between mainstream providers and these specialist providers has once again grown; and (c) calls on the Government to urgently review the funding situation of these specialist homeless aged care providers and address the funding gap. 15:53 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave for one minute is granted. Senator McGRATH 217241 The Commonwealth government directly supports aged-care providers who specialise in supporting the homeless. We provide a homeless supplement of $15.94 per day per resident, plus a viability supplement payment under the 2017 scheme of $13.75 per day per resident, which are available to providers. Once a service has been determined as eligible for the supplements, they are paid for all residents in the facility, not just the homeless. For example, an eligible 50-bed facility could receive additional supplements of over half a million dollars per year under the scheme. Additionally, under the Commonwealth Home Support program the government provides assistance to access housing and other support services specifically targeted to address homelessness. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 6830 COMMITTEES Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers 6830 Reporting Date 6830 15:54 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers be extended to 29 November 2017. I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave is granted for one minute. Senator ROBERTS 266524 The reason for this extension is the committee's extraordinary success to date as a result of Labor, Liberal, National and One Nation members working very collaboratively together to understand what is happening to farming and primary production. We've seen extensive hurt to many farmers across the country and we have become aware of the damaging impact of receivers, in particular, and some banking practices. The committee—and I particularly note Senator John Williams—have been shocked by what we've witnessed. We need to have a much more comprehensive approach and, in accordance with the terms of reference, need to extend the time so that we can fully investigate receivers who have been causing so much damage. We need to continue the bilateral approach. I recommend this motion to the chamber. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 6831 MOTIONS Energy 6831 15:56 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I move: That the Senate supports the closure of the Liddell power station in 2022, as currently planned, and calls on the Government to: (a) abandon any attempts to extend the life of this aging coal-fired power station; (b) address any issues of security of supply through means identified by the Australian Energy Market Operator, such as dispatchable renewables, storage and demand management; and (c) develop a plan for the orderly retirement of coal-fired power stations in Australia. Question agreed to. 15:56 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 coalition government notes the expert advice of the Australian Energy Market Operator on the importance of base-load power. The coalition government does not support the forced removal of base-load power that may result in higher prices. The coalition government strongly supports coal as a cheap, reliable and affordable supplier of base load energy for the long-term future. 15:57 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING The opposition won't be supporting this motion. We recognise the timing of the future closure of the Liddell power station is a commercial decision for the operator, but all Australians know that power prices are going up right now. The opposition believes that the Prime Minister should be fixing the energy crisis, not blaming others and saying what he might do in five or 10 years. If Mr Turnbull were serious about fixing the energy price he would do three things right now: intervene in the gas market so that more gas stays in Australia for Australians at lower prices; end the war on renewables and implement a clean energy target, which would drive new investment and jobs in energy; and stop the blackouts this summer by developing a strategic energy reserve so that there is enough power when we really need it. 15:57 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DI NATALE 53369 The Australian Greens also note the report from the regulator, which makes it very clear that any shortfall could be met through increased renewables—solar and wind—and a combination of demand management, efficiency, investment in the grid and smart software, rather than extending the life of this polluting, belching climate-destroying guzzler of a coal-fired power plant. It is absolutely remarkable that the business community is fleeing coal-fired power because they see it as a bad investment, yet here we have the government—the champions of free market economics—criticising the opposition for wanting to intervene in the marketplace, when here they are adopting some of the most interventionist, backward looking, retrograde policies in the energy area that one could imagine. What hypocrisy! Solar and wind are the answer, not coal. 15:58 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave not granted. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP The question is that general business notice of motion No. 476, standing in the name of Senator Di Natale, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16.03]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

 7 AYES Di Natale, R Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS 44 NOES Abetz, E Bernardi, C Bilyk, CL Brockman, S Brown, CL Burston, B Bushby, DC Cash, MC Collins, JMA Duniam, J Farrell, D Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Georgiou, P Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S Ketter, CR Lambie, J Leyonhjelm, DE Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M McGrath, J McKenzie, B Moore, CM Nash, F O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Payne, MA Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Roberts, M Scullion, NG Smith, D Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Williams, JR Xenophon, N 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 6833 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Energy 6833 16:06 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0V I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, two proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by a lot. As a result I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Gallagher: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: Investment in renewable energy, which makes economic and environmental sense. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0V I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. 16:07 Senator SINGH M0R Tasmania I rise to speak on this MPI on investment in renewable energy which, indeed, does make economic and environmental sense. Unfortunately, the energy crisis that we're facing has come about because of this government's energy policy paralysis. This paralysis has been going on now for years and years because of an ideological split within the Liberal government—we had it first with the Abbott government and now with the Turnbull government—against investment in renewable energy. This investment is occurring right across the world to ensure that a number of nations, including ours, meet the Paris climate agreement that we signed on to. Let's have a look at what's occurred under this government's watch. Under this government's watch we have lost one in three renewable energy jobs, and yet we hear nothing from the Turnbull government senators about those jobs at all. What else have we seen? We've seen wholesale power prices double. We've seen carbon pollution consistently rising, with the most recent data showing an annual increase of 1.4 per cent. We have this ridiculous internal division within the Turnbull government and their bizarre ideological obsession to stop investment in renewables. We should be ensuring that we put in place good energy policy for not only Australia but our region. The clean energy target, which has been proposed by the Chief Scientist, Dr Finkel, is designed to get investment flowing—we know investment means economic growth; it means jobs—to ensure reliable and affordable electricity is guaranteed for Australian households and Australian businesses. Inevitably, those old, outdated coal-fired power stations will therefore start shutting down, just as we have seen in other parts of the world. There is nothing new here about Australia tackling its energy policy. It is the same story the world over. But what did we have on the weekend? On the weekend, the National Party sought to veto the consideration of the Chief Scientist's report, which the government itself commissioned, remember—this is the government-commissioned, Chief Scientist's report introducing a clean energy target. They voted to reject it—let's just make that very clear: the National Party, which helps form government in this country, voted to reject Dr Finkel's clean energy target of 42 per cent of renewables by 2030. That is the kind of division and the kind of farce that is going on. But, unfortunately, it does not just stop there. We now have the CEO of AGL stating that the company is getting out of coal in the next five years—he has said it way ahead of time, with plenty of time for transitioning—and yet what does the government do? The government wants AGL—and is meeting them today, and urging them—to keep this old, coal-fired power station open beyond these five years. In a tweet last week the CEO of AGL, Mr Vesey, rightly pointed out: Keeping old coal plants open won't deliver the reliable, affordable energy our customers need He knows exactly the industry he's playing in, because he's the CEO of AGL. He hasn't got politics on his mind—he has the interests of his shareholders, of the company and of the customers on his mind. And yet what does this government come along and do? It wants to play politics, because it can't get the support from the National Party for a clean energy target for an investment in renewable energy. And in turn, it will add to the diminution of renewable energy jobs that has been going on for years now under this government's watch. This is driven by a baseless ideology. It is stupid political opportunism, where the Nationals want to tear down this one piece of bipartisan energy policy that is providing new generation into the system, rather than support renewable energy. I thought that the coalition was a coalition that supported market forces, that actually responded to the economics of policy. And yet we've had so many economists come out in support of carbon pricing, an emissions trading scheme, clean energy targets—action on climate change in an economically modelled sense—and this government has turned every single one of them down. But let's not forget that this is the same Prime Minister who once supported these things. This is the Prime Minister who once supported a CPRS. Just as we almost moved towards it, of course, he lost his leadership and the rest is history—and now he's completely changed his tack on things and doesn't even know what he believes anymore, but he is hiding the fact that he was an environment minister and someone that supported a CPRS. The conservative elements in the coalition are insistent, not just on the current arrangements of old, coal-fired power stations staying open beyond the next five years, like AGL's—they probably would have preferred Hazelwood's to have stayed open as well—but, no, they actually also want new coal-fired power stations. You know, it is just beyond belief where this government is leading our nation, at a time when there are countries like China that are putting hundreds of their coal-fired power plants on hold. Today, I met with a number of really concerned citizens about what this government is doing. I met with them to hear what their views are—the views of people living out there who really want their government to take some action to invest in renewable energy. The group is named the Citizens' Climate Lobby and they want to look at the implications of climate change on Australia's national security. Indeed, they're a group of volunteer citizens who advocate for us to address global warming in the most transparent and equitable way. I had a really good chat to them, and I've had a chat to a number of community groups and NGOs in the field who made it very clear that this is not the way that they want their government headed—to be keeping dirty, coal-fired power stations open. They want their government to be investing in renewables. I look at my own home state, where we have a government owned electricity system based on hydropower and added to with wind power. These are the kinds of investments they want because they know they're a part of the clean energy future. But, instead, what we have is a government continuing their war on renewable energy. I say to the government senators opposite: if you were really serious about fixing the energy crisis, instead of meeting Mr Vesey from AGL and demanding or urging him to keep open a dirty, coal-fired power station that, in five years, he as CEO has said his company wants to close because of the fact that it, as he said, won't deliver the reliable, affordable energy their customers need, you could, indeed right now, do three things. You could intervene in the gas market so that more gas can stay in Australia for Australians and, therefore, at lower prices. You could end this ridiculous war on renewables—this ridiculous war on solar plants, wind turbines, hydro; all of this is just ridiculous. By doing that, you could implement the clean energy target that Mr Finkel, the Chief Scientist in this country—who submitted a report that the government commissioned—said should be introduced, which would drive new investment and jobs in energy. You could stop the blackouts this summer by developing a strategic energy reserve so that there is enough power when we really need it. Stop playing politics, Mr Turnbull. (Time expired) 16:17 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I rise today to speak in response to the matter of public importance submitted to the Senate by Senator Gallagher, our parliamentary colleague from the ACT. Senator Gallagher would like this chamber to discuss investment in renewable energy which makes economic and environmental sense. It gives me great pleasure to speak on this issue because it gives me a chance to inform both Senator Gallagher and the Senate of all the good work that the Turnbull coalition government has been doing with regard to energy policy. As Minister Frydenberg and the Prime Minister have said many times, this government is committed to solving the trilemma which is energy affordability, reliability and meeting our international obligations for emissions reductions. Importantly, this is a government that is technology agnostic when it comes to how we go about actually achieving those goals. Rather than pursuing this ideologically driven, single-minded agenda of non-commercially-sustainable wind- and solar-energy production, I think it's incredibly important to understand the vernacular of this debate. Renewable energy and clean energy are not interchangeable, but they, in fact, walk hand in hand. This is a government that is pursuing clean energy alternatives without the ideology. Instead, its policies are based on economics and on engineering. Of course, one of those clean energy policies that could be considered as part of this clean energy mix is, in fact, clean coal. Clean coal is a technology that exists right now which renders coal-fired power stations as secure, reliable and, importantly, clean sources of energy. Clean coal technology is not something to be derided; it's not something to be mocked. It is one potential way that this government could ensure that Australian households are able to keep the lights on without paying exorbitant energy prices while also meeting those international obligations for emissions reductions. To remove conversations about clean energy sources from the debate, purely because you are ideologically opposed to them, is essentially economic vandalism. Those on this side of the chamber know very well that one of the most fundamental and important responsibilities of government, when it comes to energy, is ensuring that the lights stay on and that prices stay low for Australian households and Australian businesses. Where once the opposition were more interested in pursuing sensible policy outcomes for the betterment of all Australians, they're now more interested in safeguarding those inner-city seats against the growing popularity of the Australian Greens. Now, perhaps it can be said that middle- to high-income earners, residents of those gentrified suburbs—those inner city suburbs, where the Greens are encroaching on Labor heartland—may not find electricity prices of particular concern. They have the luxury of being able to take an ideological approach towards energy policy. However, for ordinary Australians, that is simply not the case. For ordinary Australians, there is an ever-increasing proportion of household budget spent on electricity, and this is of huge concern. It's not just the direct effect of high electricity bills and it's not just the bills that land on the kitchen table; it's also the bills that we see in the accounts payable ledger. Electricity prices have an indirect effect on the cost of living as well as a direct effect. Senator Gallagher has phrased her matter of public importance in such a way as to make a claim about both the environmental and the economic rationale for investment in renewable energy. Fortunately, on this particular matter, the Turnbull government quite agrees with Senator Gallagher. Indeed, for many forms of renewable energy sources, there is a very sound economic rationale. This is one of the reasons that the Turnbull government has committed to an investment in an upgrade of the snowy hydro scheme—colloquially, and of course affectionately, known and referred to as 'Snowy 2.0.' There is hardly a better example of the government's commitment to energy security, affordability and a reduction in emissions than Snowy 2.0—an enormous infrastructure project that will allow for the kinetic storage of energy through a pumped hydro scheme. Snowy 2.0 allows us to pump water to higher altitudes during off-peak times and use that pumped water during the peak periods. This allows for a very efficient use of energy in Australia for Australian households, and it stands as a shining example of public infrastructure spending by Australian governments. Once again, this evidences the Turnbull government's commitment to solving the energy trilemma of security, affordability and reduced emissions. The Finkel review developed a range of options to maintain the security, reliability and affordability of the national energy market and the coalition, along with state governments, has agreed already to 49 of the 50 recommendations. Many of these recommendations are aimed at ensuring the affordability and reliability of the energy market, but there is a need to safeguard base load power in Australia. We need to make sure that we have enough power to meet future needs, and that base load power is required to anchor our electricity system. AEMO's analysis recently showed that there is heightened risk of shortages during the summer peaks and, without targeted action to provide additional firming capability, that threat will become real. The reckless policy of state Labor in Victoria and South Australia—of course, contributing to the closure of Hazelwood in Victoria and the Northern Power Station in South Australia—has seen the need for AEMO to take these quite dramatic steps. The government therefore stands in quite stark contrast to the ideologically driven peddlers of the myths of the panacea of renewable energy that is the calling card of those opposite and also of their party colleagues at a state level. I thank Senator Gallagher for bringing this very important matter to the attention of the Senate. It is an honour to speak on behalf of the Turnbull government on this issue. (Time expired) 16:24 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I need to start by saying that this MPI is yet another MPI about trust, and it shows that the Labor-Greens alliance, destroying energy, cannot be trusted. The dictionary defines investment as 'the investing of money or capital in order to gain profitable returns as interest, income or appreciation of value'. Investment in intermittent energy sources is a waste of money. It is not an investment; it is a scandal. Let me illustrate by quoting from an exercise on Greg Combet, who was Labor's and environment and climate change minister in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. Journalist James Delingpole, on 3 May 2012, identified what he claims is a scandal involving wind farms and guaranteed government subsidies: At the heart of this scandal are the union superannuation funds that are using the wind farm scam as a kind of government-endorsed Ponzi scheme to fill their coffers at public expense. One of the biggest wind farm developers, Pacific Hydro— Remember that name, Pacific Hydro— is owned by the union superfund Members Equity Bank. To meet its carbon reduction quotas, we're told— by then Labor ministers— Australia needs to build about 10,000 new wind turbines like the ones that have destroyed Waterloo (and dozens of communities like it from NSW to South Australia). The figures are mind-boggling. Each of those turbines will cost about $3 million, which means $30 billion even before you've started building the power lines. And where's this money coming from? The consumer, of course—mostly via tariffs whacked on to the price of conventional, fossil-fuel energy prices, in the form of payouts called Renewable Energy Certificates. Note that wind turbines produce very little power. Because wind is intermittent, they operate at between one-fifth and one-third of their capacity, meaning they are erratic, unreliable and have to be fully backed up by conventional 'black' (mostly coal-fuelled) power. Where the money is to be made is through the REC subsidy. A 3MW wind turbine that generates (at most) $150,000 worth of electricity a year is eligible for guaranteed subsidies of $500,000 a year. A ridgeline hosting 20 or 30 turbines generates very little power—but an awful lot of free cash for those lucky enough to get their snouts in the trough. If the unions were merely exploiting government environmental legislation to milk the taxpayer it would be bad enough … Industry Super Holdings Pty Ltd's annual report for 2007 states that Greg Combet was Director of Industry Super Holdings Pty Ltd until the middle of 2007, the year he was parachuted into parliament. It owned Members Equity Bank and Pacific Hydro. He shovelled tens of millions of dollars into this scam. That's why we're going to be standing up, beside the people of Lakeland on Cape York—where we met with them under the poinciana trees—a people concerned about these bird chopper eyesores, the hurt energy supply and the health risks that are well documented by the Waubra Foundation and any number of peer-reviewed medical and scientific papers. This is a scam! 16:27 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I also rise to contribute to the debate on renewable energy, a debate that, under Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's watch, has got out of control. This weekend the party that wants to take everything out of our bush capital, The Nationals, held its annual conference here in Canberra, but that act of hypocrisy has nothing on one particular motion that was passed at their conference on renewable energy this weekend. The Nationals passed a motion which calls on the federal government, of which they are a key junior partner, to eliminate subsidies for renewable energy. This is a party of government calling for an end of support for the renewable energy industry! I note that the Nationals, through their leader in the Senate, have continued this argument in the chamber today. Instead of proposing positive ideas to address our nation's energy crisis, instead of embracing job-creating opportunities of renewable energy, the Nationals are seeking to tear down the piece of bipartisan energy policy that is providing new generation into the system. Rather than propose positive ideas to address our nation's energy crisis, the Nationals are driven by baseless ideology and political opportunism. This is the same political party that regularly travels across regional Australia promoting the use of renewable energy, cutting the ribbons on renewable products and praising the jobs and investment created in regional communities, that then comes to Canberra, holds a national conference and stabs the people who work in renewable energy in the back. For the Liberals and Nationals, it's always about politics. They're so hopelessly behind on the energy debate that they've jumped even further into the abyss. It is clear that the current energy policy paralysis is the fault of the government, through its ridiculous move in the last parliament to repeal the Clean Energy Future package, with nothing in its place. Instead of trying to fix the problem, we had the National Party trying to blow up the one piece of bipartisan energy policy. Instead of embracing sensible solutions for our current and future energy needs, we had the National Party, with former Minister Canavan and the member for Dawson, supporting the extreme position of simply ending all government support for renewable energy. It's important to note that there has always been government support across the energy sector regardless of generation type. It is a core business of government to provide the energy needs for householders and businesses. There is government support for poles and wires. There was government support for building the coal- and gas-fired power stations in the first place, and that was a good thing. The provision of reliable energy is absolutely the role of government. The one-eyed approach that the Prime Minister is appeasing—the one-eyed approach that we must hark back to the good old days—will just not cut it. Holding the ridiculous ideological positions of one generation type over another is not going to improve the reliability, is not going to put downward pressure on prices and is not going to do anything for the environment. I note that Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce said, in response to the motion passed at his party's conference, that Australia must comply with its international obligations. Mr Joyce went on to say that we must not abscond from the reality of our economics. Our international obligations include the Paris agreement. The world's first comprehensive climate agreement has three aims: holding the increase in temperatures below two degrees, increasing our ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and improving financing pathways for low greenhouse gas emission energy development. Mr Joyce would be well advised to consider that our economics are intractably linked to our international obligations and that investment in renewable energy makes sense for both the economics and the environment. Even still, the reality of our economics is that, regardless of government intervention, the price per unit for renewable energy is on a downward trajectory and the banks are refusing to finance new coal-powered generation. The reality of our economics is that, under a business-as-usual situation, prices will continue to rise but, with a sector-wide approach through a clean energy target, prices will fall and reliability will increase. It's time for Mr Turnbull to show some leadership on energy. Labor has offered and is still offering to work with the government to find middle ground and set a place for a credible, low-carbon energy policy that will take us into the future in Australia. 16:32 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The Attorney-General has very coyly referred to the coalition as having 'differing opinions' on renewables. It almost makes it sound like his colleagues aren't tearing each other to bits the moment the subject comes up. 'Differing opinions' makes it sound a little bit more like the Oxford debating society, but, based on the weekend reporting, one suspects that the situation is a bit more like Game of Thrones. If we're very honest about it, differing opinions don't generally induce the total policy paralysis that we are seeing from the government on energy. So let's call it what it actually is. We have full-throated disagreement between half-hearted environmentalists over in the moderates and the vociferous climate denialists of the hard Right. It is becoming very clear that the job of the Prime Minister and the energy minister, Mr Frydenberg, of getting a clean energy target through the coalition party room is becoming more and more difficult every day. An anonymous source told the newspaper after the first coalition party room meeting on this that Finkel was dead. Unfortunately, it looks like he might be right. Unfortunately, for all of the boosters over there who would like to return to a 1970s version of Australian industry policy, the problem is that none of the participants in Australian industry are investing in coal. And there is a really good reason for that. It is because the numbers simply don't add up. The world has moved on and technology has moved on. Oliver Yates, the CEO of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, told a Senate committee that I sat on that he wouldn't invest in ultra-supercritical coal plants because it wouldn't be a good use of taxpayer funds. AIG wrote in February: … new-for-old replacement of our coal fleet does not look like a good solution for price, reliability or the environment… And, critically, they said this: Electricity sector investors are unlikely to finance a new coal-fired power station in Australia again. If coal was truly clean or cost effective, industry would back it. But the problem is: it isn't. Bloomberg, recognised as a global authority on these questions, provide a range of costs, but, for the levelised cost of electricity for wind in terms of dollars per megawatt hour, they say wind comes in at $118 per megawatt hour; solar comes in at $140; gas is still only $90 a megawatt hour. But ultra-supercritical coal, the preferred technology of many of the people on the other side, comes in at $203 per megawatt hour. And if you add carbon capture and storage to that, which you must do if you have any hope of reaching Australia's threadbare emissions targets, it comes out at $352 a megawatt hour. Once you do that, once you add in carbon capture and storage, coal is not the cheapest technology on the market. It is absolutely the most expensive. It is just under three times as much per megawatt hour as the most expensive estimates that are available for wind power. The thing is: because of the enormous global expenditure on R&D in renewables and in storage technology, renewables are going to become cheaper and more effective in the coming years. Over the past seven years the cost of wind has dropped over 50 per cent and solar PV costs have dropped by 80 per cent. The technology is in transition. We have an enormous opportunity to adjust our arrangements in the national electricity market to respond to that, to use these technologies and to build a resilient system that can cope with the future. But all we get, instead, is a kind of hankering for an old-style of energy generation that doesn't make sense to business and doesn't make sense for the country. If we have a problem, it's not actually that businesses are unwilling to finance coal. The problem is, instead, this: businesses lack the certainty to invest in any of the other options that would make sense. The business community has been crying out for certainty for years, and that has intensified since late last year. It's a cry that's reinforced in the report from Dr Finkel. It's also reinforced in the two reports from AEMO that have come through in the last seven or eight days. In their report on electricity forecasting insights, they note that energy system is going through a significant transition. I'm going to quote them. They say: There is an important opportunity— And there's that word again, 'opportunity', because it is our big opportunity— for new market and regulatory arrangements, improved system planning, and new market, network, and non-network solutions, to support an orderly transition… I am a former public servant and I'm fluent in public sector language. I can translate this for the benefit of senators and anyone else who might be listening. When you put it simply, AEMO are simply saying we need to adjust the market rules to make the market work so that we can benefit from new technologies. But what's more important is what they don't say. They don't say in their report that the solution is for government to get in and get its hands dirty in managing just one asset. They don't say the government should buy the Liddell power station. They do note in their advice to the Commonwealth government that, prior to the closure of Liddell, additional resources will be required, but they're very clear that 'most stakeholders see changes to market rules as the most economically efficient way to remedy this deficiency'. Wouldn't you think that the idea that the market might be the way to respond to a shortfall in supply might get a little bit of traction from the Liberal Party? But there's no interest in that conversation. There's no interest at all because, presumably, the last sensible people in the Liberal Party are so tied up dealing with Mr Christensen, Senator Canavan and Mr Joyce and their obsession with returning to coal and managing that problem that they can't see what's right in front of them—that there are market solutions for this and there is an industry ready to invest, but there needs to be serious reform of the National Electricity Market to do so. I know that coalition senators frequently come into this place and point to China. They like to point to China's reliance on fossil fuels and say: 'Look how big China is. Look how dependent it is on thermal generation. See how pointless it would be for Australia to participate in any kind of emissions reduction activity.' I want to point to recent reports coming out of China, because, unlike us, the Chinese are embracing the technologies that are emerging. China is ramping up its investment in renewable energy, planning for the future and planning to meet the growing demands on its electricity system through investment in new technologies. In the first half of 2017, renewable sources—wind, solar, water—made up almost 70 per cent of new capacity in China's electricity system. I don't pretend that they're not coming off a low base. They have an electricity system highly reliant on thermal generation. But the new investment is overwhelmingly in renewables. That is because the Chinese government can see the writing on the wall and they know that they need to make the transition. They are going to do that as part of a commitment to a global solution for climate change. Colleagues, we have an enormous opportunity to get out in front of the herd, to make change before change is foisted upon us and to build an electricity system at this point in time when new investment is required to build the technologies of the future, not stick our heads in the sand and stare longingly at the past. 16:42 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales It's quite amazing to hear the other side talking about economic and affordable electricity. Amazingly, Senator McAllister talked about China. Acting Deputy President Bernardi, you come from South Australia. I know that. I was born there. I didn't know you in my younger days, but I'm very familiar with your state. What has South Australia done? There has been a huge reliance on wind generation and selling electricity cheap because of the huge subsidies on wind turbines. Mr Acting Deputy President, do you realise that an average wind turbine at three megawatts per hour, running for eight hours a day, 365 days a year will attract around $700,000? One turbine equals $700,000 in renewable energy certificates a year. That's a pretty good subsidy to get from the people and the businesses who use electricity, from anyone who is hooked to the network, from anyone who has 240 volt to the house. That is most Australians. They are paying for that: $700,000 for one wind turbine. That means that the coal-fired generators can't compete. What happened to Port Augusta's privatised coal-fired power station? They shut it down. No money in that. They blew it up, literally. It is amazing that Senator McAllister talked about how the Chinese are doing a great job with their renewables. Let me make this point. As I speak to you now, 621 units of coal-fired generation are being constructed around the world. You might ask: what's a unit? If you go to the Hunter Valley and visit Liddell or Bayswater power stations: they are both four-unit generating plants. You will see the four big cement cooling towers. Often the Greens and those opposite will say you can see the pollution coming out of the top of those big cement towers. It's actually water vapour, the same as clouds. It's not pollution at all. I visited Liddell a few years ago. They put in a solar thermal plant—I think it was about $16 million—to assist the coal, to reduce their carbon emissions. Well, between the two stations, it reduced their carbon emissions by one-sixteenth of one per cent, which is not much at all for $16 million. Anyway, I was in Tonga just recently, talking to a bloke who designed and was a key player in putting the solar thermal in there, and he said that now it's been mothballed; it no longer exists. When I was there, the big risk they had was cleaning the top of the plant all the time. The dust was settling on it. If a hailstorm was coming over the hill, they had to turn all the panels upside down so the hail wouldn't break them. Here we are talking about reliable and economic supply of electricity, and of course the best thing to do that is coal, as we've had all my lifetime. China is now constructing 299 new units of coal-fired generation, as I speak. Those 299 units will produce 677 million tonnes of CO2 a year. That 677 million tonnes extra is more than the whole of Australia produces. Just by their additional 299 units of coal-fired generation—adding to some 2,100 units they already have in place and operating—they are going to put out more CO2 than the whole of Australia. Mr Acting Deputy President, I'm going to give you a curly question. What do you think they're going to burn in these coal-fired generation plants? They're going to burn coal. Believe it or not, they'll burn coal Where will they get the coal from? They have the choice of getting much cleaner black coal from Australia, unless we shut down our coalmines, as the Greens and many in the Labor Party want to see. I don't know why the CFMEU finances and backs the Greens and Labor Party when they're trying to shut all those CFMEU workers out of a job. China is going to buy our clean coal or go to Indonesia. Even China itself has huge production of coal. China a few years ago was a net exporter of coal. One year it imported 32 million tonnes and exported 33 million tonnes. Its coal is nowhere near the quality of Australian coal, but it is going to use it. India is building 132 new units of coal-fired generation, alongside China's 299. That will produce an extra 288 million tonnes of CO2. But we're going to change the world from Australia here, you see! We've got just 73 units of coal-fired generation. Those opposite want to wind them down, shut them down, get rid of them and basically spread the problems of South Australia Australia wide. That is what the Andrews government wants to do in Victoria, with a 50 per cent renewable target. Queensland is talking the same. 'Let's make electricity expensive'—a $700,000 subsidy. I'm amazed about the people who are saying the renewable energy certificate market is going to come down. I've been looking all my life for people who can tell me where markets are going. It's just a fact of genius to know where the markets are going in the future. I want to know where the Australian dollar is going—to help our exports if it's going down or harm our exports if it's going up. I want to know where the ASX will be in couple of years time, because I've got my super invested and I've got to retire in a couple of years time. And those opposite know where the markets are going. That is simply amazing! That is dreaming. That is just not right. The markets will go where demand and supply take them. If we want electricity prices to go down, we need good base supply so that, when the hot weather is on around much of Australia, in January-February, people—especially our elderly and those in our aged-care facilities—can turn their air conditioners them on and afford to turn them on, and likewise with their heaters in wintertime, in the freezing cold. I, like you, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, know what it's like in South Australia with that cold south-easterly coming off the South Pole—it can get pretty fresh at times. That's when you need to have the heaters on and to be able to afford to put those heaters on. Quite amazingly, there is this whole story about renewables being the only economic way to go, the best way to go. Hydro is a great way of generating electricity. As the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Joyce, has said, we want to build new dams. When those dams are built, no doubt they will have hydroelectricity generators at the base of those dams. But watch the Greens. As soon as the site is picked to build a dam, in come the Greens: 'No, there's a frog there. You can't build the dam there. It'll destroy the habitat of the frog,' even though it'll be storing more water, as we have to do in this country, especially as the population grows, and for industry and agriculture. But the protesters will be out there: 'You can't build a dam here.' The response will be: 'But we're going to put hydroelectricity at the base of it.' They will say: 'No, you can't do that. You'll upset the habitat of the frog.' We've seen it all before—these people with their green religion. This is what their green religion says: 'Come follow me and I will lead you to the land of poverty.' That is what their green religion is: make everything expensive, have our businesses not able to compete overseas and make electricity prices go up. The reason those opposite want to see this clean energy target set is for their politics. It means that when they go to the next election they will not have to promote their carbon tax again—as they have promised to bring back in the carbon tax that most of Australia despises. They will put up the electricity prices even more and change the planet while all these coal-fired generation units are being constructed around the world. They'll say, 'We're going to change the planet from here.' Unless we get a big tent over this country, we're not going to do that. Here's the situation: we need affordable, reliable electricity, and coal will be a major source of that for decades to come. In Australia we are swimming in coal and gas, and in our nuclear efficiencies and capability. We have probably more energy per capita than any other country in the world, and our energy prices are going up because of that green religion—that 'Come follow me and I will lead you to the land of poverty.' That's what it means. 16:51 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to participate in this debate today on renewable energy. Of course, this is an issue as vitally important to my home state of South Australia as it is for the rest of the country—and, indeed, the globe—because we are confronted with the very real consequences of global warming. We are confronted every day by the fact that too much pollution is creating changes in weather patterns, such as the hurricane that we have seen devastate the Americas only in the last few days. We know that unless we get a handle on dangerous global warming, things are only going to get worse. What we have from the government is just more desire to flog coal. Let me put it here clearly today: coal is dead; finished. It is time to get your head out of the sand and start investing in the energy of the future, energy that is here already, systems and technologies that are ready to go. The fact that this government wants to keep spending billions of taxpayer dollars propping up the failed coal industry and making climate change worse, making severe weather events worse, is absolutely criminal. We all know that one of the best things we can do to reduce carbon emissions, reduce the negative impact of climate change, is to fund clean, renewable energy sources. And we could be doing that today by investing in battery storage. One of the things that the Prime Minister could do right now is change the settlement periods for the spot price in the energy market from 30 minutes to five. Electricity prices would drop instantly—that's what the market regulator and the commissions say. Don't wait 3½ years to do it. Get it done now and stop funding the lunacy that is the coal industry. Taxpayer money should not be spent keeping coal-fired power stations open or exporting more coal overseas to burn the planet. 16:54 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, I have noticed, on occasion, a wry smile pass your face during this debate, indicating you have enjoyed the debate so far this afternoon. I hope you enjoy my contribution as much as you have enjoyed the previous contributions. We are here today debating this MPI because on the weekend a grassroots political party, our valued coalition partner, the National Party, engaged in a grassroots political debate about a weighty policy issue facing Australia. Unlike others who have spoken in the debate so far, I'm not going to condemn the National Party for confronting these issues; I'm not going to condemn branch members from the National Party for raising these issues. They are doing exactly what they should do as active citizens in our democracy, helping their political party to deliberate on these very weighty and difficult issues. I congratulate them for tackling this issue, for proposing a solution, and for debating it in such a constructive way. I also want to congratulate my colleague Senator Williams for his excellent contribution to this debate. I particularly want to single out his fact-filled response to Senator McAllister's claims about China. In a sense, Senator McAllister is right: China is investing at a record level in renewable energy. But Senator Williams is also right: it is also investing at a record level in coal. It is investing in coal by building new coal-fired power stations, and by retrofitting existing coal-fired power stations to make them more efficient and to extend their life. China is investing in all forms of energy on a massive scale, because they are a country with massive energy needs and they need to increase their energy. They have taken what you could perhaps call an energy-agnostic approach, or an 'all of the above' approach, and they are investing in every form of energy available. Curiously, that's similar to the approach that this government has taken. This government adopt an 'all of the above' energy policy approach, where we are willing to invest in and support all technologies that can help meet Australia's energy needs. So it was curious to see Senator McAllister raising China as an example contrary to the direction the Australian government is taking. The statement of the MPI listed for debate today is really a statement of the obvious. Is there anybody who opposes the statement: 'Investment in renewable energy, which makes economic and environmental sense? In fact, is 'renewable' even a necessary word to have in that sentence? We all support investment in energy which makes economic and environmental sense, or at least we should. The sad fact is that some participants in this debate don't support the investment in energy which makes environmental and economic sense if it clashes with their ideological opposition to and hatred of traditional sources of thermal energy, including coal and gas. We saw a very good example of that earlier from Senator Hanson-Young. Of course, I suspect what the Labor Party are getting at in their motion is not really that we should all support investment in renewable energy which makes economic and environmental sense; I suspect what they are really getting at is that we should support investment in renewable energy whether it makes economic sense or not. It all depends, of course, what we mean by economic and environmental sense. For the record, I should say that I'm excited by the technological developments and evolution in renewable technology. I think there's been some fantastic progress already made, and there's no doubt that there have been significant improvements in the efficiency of renewable energy, and that is a really positive thing. As a sidenote, there have been improvements in the generation of energy not only in the renewable space but also in the traditional forms of energy production. That is why we have seen the advent of so called high-efficiency, low-emissions, ultrasupercritical coal-fired power stations, which generate energy far more efficiently, far more effectively, and with a lower environmental burden than their predecessors did. But although there have been some exciting developments in renewable technology, and although there no doubt will be more in the future, I think we also have to acknowledge that there are some limitations to renewable energy today. We should be honest and confront that. One of those limitations is their inability to provide reliable, consistent baseload energy, and we have seen this most powerfully in South Australia. As we all know, on a great day—a windy day—the South Australian wind farms can produce up to 120 per cent of South Australia's energy needs and export its energy elsewhere. But we also know that, on a bad day—a day that's not windy enough, or too windy—South Australia's wind-energy generators provide no energy at all to South Australia, and put it in a very perilous state indeed. Until we can figure out how we can efficiently and, crucially, affordably store energy generated by renewable energy power forms on a large scale, then it can never supply all of our baseload power needs. Obviously, the government is taking a really important and bold step in this direction by supporting the further development of the Snowy hydro scheme, which will allow it to store more energy and supply it at times of critical need. But we all admit that that's not going to be a silver bullet and, on its own, won't solve this problem. The reality is that renewable energy today, as we know it, is intermittent and unreliable. It doesn't provide that traditional and reliable baseload power that only thermal power like coal and gas does. So, if we're talking about the economic sense that we need to justify an investment in energy, there is always going to be, and there will be for some time, a big role to play for traditional power sources, I think, for the foreseeable future. I think it's also important that we consider cost. There's a very common refrain in this debate—and we saw it a bit from Senator McAllister earlier—that renewables are cost-competitive or sometimes even, they claim, cheaper than traditional forms of electricity. And, if that were the case, that would be a wonderful thing. But the same people who say that renewable energy is cost-competitive or, indeed, cost-advantageous compared to traditional forms of energy also say—whenever anybody suggests that perhaps we should look at the generous subsidies that the renewable energy industry has received in recent years in Australia—that, if we touch it in any way, let alone scrap it, the sky will fall in and the renewable energy industry, as we know it, will collapse. Now, those two ideas are contradictory: they cannot both be true. If renewable energy was competitive or indeed cheaper than traditional forms of energy, it would need no support through subsidies or government mandates and it would exist healthily and on its own perfectly fine, if they were removed. The truth is: we know that renewable energy does require a lot of assistance in order to be competitive and, hopefully, with technological development and change in the future, it will be able to stand on its own two feet. But it is false to say that it is able to do so now. Another very common refrain in this debate is that what we lack today is certainty and, if we provided certainty for energy industry investors, these problems would be solved. The truth is that we do have certainty for some energy industry investors and we have a lack of certainty for others. The energy industry investors, who have certainty, are those who want to invest in renewable energy, and that's why billions of dollars are being invested in renewable energy in this country year after year after year. At the moment, it's at record levels. They've got the certainty of knowing that, if they make an investment in renewable energy, they will be in part protected by the government to ensure that they get a good return on their investment. Those subsidies and protections in the form of policies, like the renewable energy target, ensure that they've got their certainty. So there has been no shortage of investment in renewable energy. There has, however, been a shortage of investment in traditional forms of energy generation, and that's why, for about a decade, no new coal-fired or gas-fired power stations have been built in Australia. They lack certainty because they know there is a great risk that in the future there will be a Labor government and that that Labor government will hit them with a carbon tax, an emissions trading scheme or an emissions intensity scheme. They know at some point that that will come and, when they have to get a return on their investment over 30 years, that's a very serious prospect indeed. So these are the people who have lacked the certainty to invest, these are the people who have been absent from the market. It is telling that even South Australia's Labor Premier Jay Weatherill recognises this problem and, in order to get around it, has proposed the extraordinary step of effectively renationalising the electricity industry in his home state by building a government-funded, gas-fired power station. So the idea that, if we provide even more certainty than already exists for renewable energy investors, this problem will somehow be solved, that prices will come down and that we'll have the reliability we need, is a total furphy. If you want to get prices down, you need to provide certainty for everyone, and that includes our traditional forms of power generation. 17:03 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Imagine how the men and women in what used to be Holden's factory in South Australia feel watching the debate around coal and renewable energy. I'm glad I don't have to explain why Holden closed its factories after the coalition government refused to support them with taxpayers' money. They've been watching the government falling over itself to change the rules to subsidise coalmines and power plants, wondering why it's one set of rules for one industry and another set for another. Obviously, I need to ask the question: didn't Holden give enough political donations? We set up rules for how the energy market will operate and then we ask people to invest based on those rules. Then we change the rules and wonder why nobody wants to invest. It's not the fault of the renewable energy target that nobody wants to invest in new coal-fired power stations—and, when I say nobody, I mean nobody outside the Nationals party room. Blaming the success of one technology for the decline of another makes no sense when what's needed is a mix of all of the above. Renewables and coal have to coexist. This isn't like the rise of CDs, marking the decline of cassettes. We need all of the above. Any government with foresight would have seen the problems we're experiencing today coming a mile away. Instead of shoring up Australia's energy security, governments on both sides have preferred to play the leadership version of musical chairs. For a party obsessed with opinion polls, they've done a shocking job of listening to the polls telling them the price of electricity is one of the biggest issues concerning all Australians. If you really want to help with electricity prices, stop fighting and arguing and start working together. Energy policy needs to be bipartisan, and, as long as it is not, there will be question marks over its future, let alone its investment. The higher the uncertainty, the higher of price. Stop blaming renewables for your failure to reach consensus. The problem isn't your subsidies; it is your party room. 17:05 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria The reality is that coal is dead. We have Engie closing Hazelwood. They don't see any future in coal. We have AGL, whose stated aim is to get out of coal. They have absolutely committed to closing down Liddell, that old clunker of a power station, because they understand that coal is dead. And yet here we have a government trying to conjure up some sort of spell, like a medieval wizard trying to bring coal back to life. The reality is that coal has no long-term future. Today, we learnt that the government, through Efic, a finance body, is going to throw good money after bad to try to continue to fund fossil fuel projects. They're doing what they can to pressure AGL into keeping Liddell open. The reality is that we are seeing the decline of an industry, a whole sector in transition, and this government doing everything it can to stop that transition. They don't have a national energy policy; they've got some slogans. Their policy is to try to keep these old clunkers going for a few more years in an effort to win a few votes and try to wedge the Labor Party. This is instead of acknowledging the reality that any comprehensive energy policy needs to recognise that there has to be more investment in renewables like solar and wind. There has to be an investment in storage like battery technology. Batteries are a game-changer, and yet here we have a government sticking their heads in the sand. They have a go at the mob over here, calling him 'Red Bill', with allusions to the Labor Party being socialists. Well, the mob over there is prepared to throw taxpayer money at keeping this old clunker of a coal-fired power station open—unbelievable! It is absolutely remarkable that we are seeing a Liberal-National Party government that are a wholly owned subsidiary of the coal lobby. They have been captured by the coal lobby. Their energy policy is written and authorised by the coal lobby, thanks to those billion-dollar donations. The reality is we need to shut down coal in an orderly way and bring in more solar and wind. It is about energy efficiency and demand management, and that's how we make the transition to a clean, renewable economy. Debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 6847 DOCUMENTS Consideration 6847 COMMITTEES 6847 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 6847 Report 6847 17:08 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia I present the second interim report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References committee on the impact of defence training activities and facilities on rural and regional communities. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator GALLACHER 204953 by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to have the tabling statement incorporated in Hansard and to make some additional comments. Leave granted. The document read as follows— I rise as Chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee to speak on the second interim report for the committee's inquiry into the impact of Defence training activities and facilities on rural and regional communities. The committee has decided to table interim reports after regional hearings so local communities don't have to wait until the final report from the committee for the issues in their area to be highlighted. This report covers public hearings in Rockhampton and Townsville. The committee was pleased with the level of engagement by the Department of Defence during these hearings and the willingness of officers to acknowledge that there is room for improvement in their engagement with local communities. Policy framework The 2016 Defence White Paper sets out a number of investment projects in QLD particularly upgrading the Shoalwater Bay Training Area, redeveloping the Townsville Field Training Area and upgrading facilities at RAAF Base Townsville and Lavarack Barracks. In addition, there is the investment from Singapore of up to $2.25 billion in the expansion of the Shoalwater Bay and Townsville Training Areas. Government ministers have emphasised the new investment in Defence will create jobs across the regions and bring benefits to local businesses and communities. These policies and statements from the government have generated expectations that regional Australia will be able to benefit directly and indirectly through the participation of local businesses, particularly SMEs, in building defence capability. Focus of the committee The focus of the committee has been to investigate whether regions, local communities and businesses have sufficient awareness of and effective access to information about the plans to upgrade training facilities so that they can be in a position to offer goods and services. The committee also explored communication by Defence with stakeholders in the local communities who will be affected by upgrades or expansion as well as communication about existing training activities. In addition to looking at channels of communication the committee spoke with businesses currently working with Defence in an effort to provide guidance for other businesses looking to engage. Rockhampton hearing The committee held a hearing in Rockhampton on 12 July 2017. The Shoalwater Bay Training Area is a category 1 training area with Rockhampton as the closet regional centre. Exercise Talisman Sabre is a biennial Australia and US training activity conducted at Shoalwater Bay and other sites in the NT. The committee was pleased to hear the overall message that the Defence presence is welcomed and supported. The committee would like to see Defence capitalise on this goodwill as well as the local knowledge, experience and skills. The committee recognises that Defence cannot source everything it needs locally as do the local communities. However, the clear message from the hearing was that local businesses wish to have the opportunity to be fairly considered when Defence is sourcing goods and services. Communications mechanisms The committee heard about a number of regional forums such as Capricorn Enterprise which engages with Defence and provides information and workshops to develop local capacity. In order to look specifically at opportunities in relation to the Singaporean investment the Capricornia Business Advisory Alliance has been established. The committee was pleased to hear that Defence is open to being more involved in localised processes. Exercises A key issue raised with the committee was communication regarding exercises. It was explained to the committee that it is crucial for landowners to be notified of exercises conducted in airspace as some graziers have light aircraft or helicopters, or engage contractors, for mustering. In addition, there was a call for better consultation for noise and plane activities over animals, especially cattle at weaning time. Defence acknowledged the impact of aircraft noise on the local community and outlined the steps being undertaken to address the issue. Land acquisition A key issue for the Rockhampton community was communication about the proposed expansion of training areas and land acquisition. The community was profoundly disappointed about the processes undertaken and level of consultation by Defence. Witnesses were also concerned that Defence engagement had only been with the landowners, and local business which would be potentially affected by the expansion plans, were not considered to be stakeholders. Defence indicated that they have learnt from the process and advised that a local community engagement officer has now been appointed who will be based in Townsville. Land management Land management of training areas was another issues raised with the committee. Defence confirmed that two people used to be based locally in order to deal with issues around the Rockhampton estate. They were relocated to Townsville around 2 years ago but are still available to be contacted about issues. However, Defence indicated that they will review the arrangements going forward in light of Talisman sabre exercises and the partnership with the Singaporeans. Indigenous business The committee heard about limited engagement with Indigenous businesses and that the size of the businesses could be a factor affecting the level of engagement with Defence. Defence noted the growth in Defence Indigenous procurement in the last two years and spoke about recent initiatives. Townsville hearing The committee held a hearing in Townsville on 14 July 2017. Townsville is a major base for defence facilities and hosts four major Defence establishments. The message was that Townsville was proud of its historical and current military role and there is strong support to sustain and expand Townsville's capability as a base for ADF operations and personnel. Communication mechanisms The committee heard about some communication mechanisms in place which are working well to facilitate local business engagement with Defence and planned arrangements designed to enhance engagement. In particular, the Townsville City deal will improve visibility for local businesses about defence industry investment in Townsville and encourage local business involvement. A Townsville Defence Liaison Officer position has been created and the council is in the process of appointing someone to that position. The committee was told about a Defence community stakeholder group where there may be an opportunity to strengthen the agenda beyond relationship building. The committee was please to hear that Defence has no issues being involved in localised communication processes. Business experience The committee heard from some larger companies which had secured contracts with Defence and were utilising local businesses where possible. These companies generally indicated that they have had positive interactions with Defence. However, smaller businesses advised the committee of the challenges they face in getting information about opportunities and navigating Defence's procurement processes. Engaging with Singapore A cross departmental group involving all levels of government has been set up to discuss preparation for capturing opportunities from the Australia-Singapore Military Training Initiative. This is a semi formal operational level group convened by AusIndustry in partnership with Defence representatives. It looks at providing and sharing information, raising issues about how to get companies Defence ready, how to capture the opportunities and how to manage expectations. Rates While the contribution of Defence was acknowledged Defence does not pay rates. The loss of rateable land due to the presence of a Defence establishment and the impact this has on council's income base was raised. This effect would be exacerbated by any further uptake of land by Defence, noting the burden placed on smaller councils. In particular, the burden placed on local government managing large road networks which are impacted by the size and volume of equipment operated by Defence was mentioned. It was noted that this will only increase with an enhanced presence. Land acquisition Land acquisition was also raised with the committee in Townsville by a number of graziers affected by the proposed expansion. All were highly critical of the failure of Defence to adequately consult with the local community on the proposal which resulted in a high level of stress and anxiety. Defence acknowledged the evidence from the graziers and confirmed that there would be no acquisition of land unless the seller is willing. The broader economic and social impacts on the region from the proposed land acquisition were also raised. Defence indicated that there was no automatic process for compensation but it would be open to anyone to make a claim. Recommendations The committee has made recommendations: to ensure the most efficient communication mechanisms are in place for the most effective flow of information which may generate potential business opportunities; to ensure as much information about upcoming training exercises is being disseminated; to provide a contact point regarding local exercises on an ongoing basis; to make information available to local communities about Defence expenditure in the area; to commission an independent economic impact assessment of the loss of rateable land which would result from the proposed expansion plans. The committee has welcomed the recent announcement by the Minister for Defence of the Local Industry Capability Plan pilot which aims to provide local industry with more opportunity to participate in major Defence infrastructure projects. Two of the three pilot projects are in QLD: the Shoalwater Bay Training Area Redevelopment and the Townsville Field Training Area Mid-Term refresh. The committee looks forward to seeing the outcomes of this new approach. Once again I thank committee members for the bipartisan approach to this inquiry. In August the committee held hearings in Darwin and Katherine and there will be a separate interim report to cover those hearings. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator GALLACHER 204953 This report originated out of some representations from the Upper Spencer Gulf mayors who came to Canberra and said: 'We have a great disposition towards Defence. We love them in our community, and they do bring some economic activity, and we would like to see it improve.' Out of that sort of conversation, and given that Cultana was on the expansion footing, so to speak, we sought the Senate's leave to do a report. And how we've been conducting the report is quite straightforward and simple. We are producing an interim report at the end of each series of visits and/or hearings. So we produced a report in the Upper Spencer Gulf. This report is in relation to Townsville and Rockhampton. We followed a very similar framework and format. Basically, there is good policy here. Right at the minister and the Prime Minister level, there are good, transparent statements about what should happen. There are clear, unequivocal, concise statements about the effect investment in regional economies and regional communities should have—a net positive outcome. We thought that we would find plenty of evidence that this is true. Disturbingly, the evidence isn't quite as clear. The evidence is that the money has been spent, but the evidence that we're seeing is that it's not sticking, for want of a better description, to the local economies and/or communities. We're making some abundant and clear recommendations in respect to this. I think it's really important to put on the public record that the Minister for Defence has got onto the front foot, particularly in the statement she made in the Northern Territory recently, with smaller packages of work and a better effort to get all of the opportunities from competitive tension from good local businesses into the equation. I think that is very good work. The simple and clear recommendations we're making here is that the most efficient communication mechanism should be in place. There should be an effective flow of communication between the respective entities, which will generate potential business opportunities. We need to ensure as much information about training exercises is disseminated as possible. We need a contact point for local communities and local businesses, with either economic opportunities to pursue, environmental concerns to pursue or just some general information. They need to be abundant and clear, and easy to find and easy to contact. I think, importantly, in the Rockhampton area there's a need for an independent economic impact assessment of the loss of rateable land which may occur, if the huge expansion that is proposed there goes ahead in the format that it is in. The evidence is really clear that the local communities are very, very supportive of Defence. They are keen to take opportunities economically and in all areas of value. But it's not quite happening. It isn't quite happening. The transparency that's required is not there. The tier 1 contractors rarely win the work. The job of engaging the local community actually goes to the tier 1 contractor. It is not coming to fruition. I wasn't going to be at all political about this particular inquiry because I think it's very useful work done by a bipartisan committee that is delivering good, effective review processes. But I read in Adelaide's The Advertiser today that the Department of Defence is deserting regional SA—it is from no less than the member for Grey, Mr Rowan Ramsey. He is quoted in the paper as saying: REGIONAL Australian businesses, particularly those based in South Australia’s Upper Spencer Gulf, are being "ripped off on a regular basis" when it comes to securing Department of Defence work… That's what he is reported as saying. I'm not used to seeing Mr Ramsey use such language myself, but he's reported as saying we've got a real problem. Suffice to say the evidence we are collecting is widespread. The concerns are widely held and deeply felt. We need to do a better job here. The investment is critical to Australia's defence and Australia's economic future. To get regional businesses more in tune with the opportunities in Defence is good for regional employment, it's good for all of the tier 1 sectors that we're looking at and, I think, it's in tune with the Prime Minister and the defence minister's policies. We look forward to pursuing this inquiry through to its fruition, so to speak. We look to having, along the way, actually achieved some regional impacts in the economy, environment and the social cohesion around the Defence networks. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted. PARLIAMENTARY ZONE 6852 PARLIAMENTARY ZONE Proposal for Works 6852 17:15 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales In accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Act 1974, I present proposals for works within the Parliamentary Zone relating to the development of the kiosk adjoining The Lobby restaurant in Parkes. I seek leave to give a notice of motion in relation to the proposals. Leave granted. Senator PAYNE M56 I give notice that, on Thursday, 14 September 2017, I shall move: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Senate approves the proposal by the National Capital Authority for capital works within the Parliamentary Zone, relating to the demolition of the kiosk adjoining the Lobby restaurant in Parkes. DOCUMENTS 6852 DOCUMENTS Asylum Seekers 6852 Order for the Production of Documents 6852 17:15 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I table documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the resettlement of asylum seekers and refugees. BILLS 6852 BILLS Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017, Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, Privacy Amendment (Re-identification Offence) Bill 2016 6852

Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017

Privacy Amendment (Re-identification Offence) Bill 2016

Explanatory Memorandum 6852 17:15 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I table addenda to explanatory memoranda relating to the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Requirements for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2017, the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 and the Privacy Amendment (Re-identification Offence) Bill 2016. Two of these addenda respond to concerns raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. COMMITTEES 6853 COMMITTEES Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations 6853 Membership 6853 17:16 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D The President has received a letter requesting changes in the membership of a committee. 17:16 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales by leave—I move: That Senators Brockman and O’Sullivan be appointed to the Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations, and Senators Abetz, Bushby, Duniam, Fawcett, Hume, Macdonald, McKenzie, Paterson, Reynolds, Smith and Williams be appointed as participating members. Question agreed to. BILLS 6853 BILLS Migration Amendment (Validation of Decisions) Bill 2017 6853

Migration Amendment (Validation of Decisions) Bill 2017

Assent 6853 Corporations Amendment (Modernisation of Members Registration) Bill 2017 6853

Corporations Amendment (Modernisation of Members Registration) Bill 2017

Report 6853 17:17 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia On behalf of the Chair of the Economics Legislation Committee (Senator Hume), I present the report of the committee on the Corporations Amendment (Modernisation of Members Registration) Bill 2017, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. 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 6853

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

Second Reading 6853 In Committee 6853 17:19 The TEMPORARY CHAIR G0D For the benefit of the Senate, the great frustration is that I have an amendment to move. Perhaps someone would like to stand up and make a contribution in the interim. Senator Leyonhjelm is on his way. Senator Leyonhjelm, the committee is considering the Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017. We haven't had any amendments moved. 17:19 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales by leave—I move Liberal Democrats amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8238: (1) Clause 3, page 2 (lines 17 to 22), omit paragraph (b) (including the note), substitute: (b) in doing so, to contribute to improving air quality in Australia in order to deliver associated health and environmental benefits. (2) Clause 7, page 4 (lines 10 to 22), omit the definition of Climate Change Conventions (including the note). Amendment (1) limits the objective of this scheme to the improvement of air quality, rather than the improvement of air quality or contributing to the Australian government meeting its obligations under climate change conventions. Amendment (2) is consequential to this in that it removes the redundant definition of 'Climate change conventions'. As I outlined in my contribution in the second reading debate, it may on occasion be appropriate to ban a product because of its detriment to air quality, but products should not be banned just to reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions. Until other major emitters, like China, Russia, India and Brazil, which emit more emissions in a day than Australia emits in a year, are prepared to act to reduce their emissions and not just talk about them, it amounts to economic suicide for Australia to go down this path. No matter what you believe about climate change, economic suicide is just plain dumb. 17:21 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I just want to place the opposition's opposition to these amendments on record. We believe that the amendments moved by Senator Leyonhjelm run counter to the purpose of the bill and, indeed, remove its legal powers. We are opposing them. 17:21 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I also want noted that the Australian Greens will not be supporting the amendments of Senator Leyonhjelm. This bill is taking a small step forward in terms of reducing pollution from the technologies that it covers. Senator Leyonhjelm's amendments would, in fact, take us a long way backwards, rather than taking a small step forward. 17:22 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Senator Leyonhjelm, thank you for your amendments. I understand the intent of your amendments, and I note in some ways the intent of your amendments is not dissimilar to some of the comments that Senator Roberts made in his contribution, highlighting what the actual focus of the bill is. But, in relation to the particular provisions that you seek to omit from the legislation, it is the government's view that, because they provide part of the basis for the constitutional underpinning of this bill—namely, the external affairs power—it is important that the provisions remain as printed. 17:23 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia It is my intention and the intention of the Australian Conservatives to support the amendments moved by Senator Leyonhjelm. I put that on the record. I also understand, Senator Leyonhjelm, that you would like to call a division on this. That being the case, I will lend my voice to the division should it be required. 17:23 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Bernardi for his contribution. As I was indicating, I did note in the concluding speeches at the second reading stage that Senator Roberts made a contribution that particularly highlighted the types of matters that are sought to be regulated under the Production Emissions Standards Bill. This related to particulates that can clearly be harmful to human health under certain circumstances. They are particulates that we do seek to regulate in other ways. The overwhelming priority and objective of this bill is absolutely to ensure that those particulates, carbon monoxide and others, are controlled in a safe and appropriate way to create a circumstance in which we can have confidence that, whether it be motor vehicles or small petrol engines, which were the subject of some of the discussion, we have standards to ensure their quality and the safety of Australians. Of course, like all legislation passed through this place, it is important that there also be clear constitutional underpinning for such legislation. In this case, one of the powers upon which the legislation stands is the external affairs power as a constitutional basis for the bill. As a result of that, the government has cited in clause 7, lines 10 to 22 of page 4, definitions of some of the conventions through which that external affairs power is sourced, whilst, of course, also then identifying, within the objects of the bill, the reference to some of those conventions. The circumstances that we have here are such that the government believes the bill needs to stand as printed. (Quorum formed) The TEMPORARY CHAIR 195565 The question is that the amendments moved by Senator Leyonhjelm on sheet 8238 be agreed to.

The committee divided. [17:33]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Whish-Wilson)

 7 AYES Bernardi, C Burston, B Georgiou, P Hanson, P Lambie, J Leyonhjelm, DE (teller) Roberts, M 32 NOES Abetz, E Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Bushby, DC Cameron, DN Dastyari, S (teller) Di Natale, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fifield, MP Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McKim, NJ Moore, CM Nash, F O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Payne, MA Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Rhiannon, L Rice, J Scullion, NG Siewert, R Smith, D Whish-Wilson, PS Xenophon, N 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 17:36 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia by leave—I move Australian Conservatives amendments (1), (2) and (3) together on sheet 8249: (1) Clause 7, page 5 (after line 4), after the definition of mark, insert:    motor vehicle:    (a) means a vehicle that uses, or is designed to use, volatile spirit, gas, oil, electricity or any other power (not being human or animal power) as the principal means of compulsion; and    (b) includes a vehicle not designed for use on public roads or not permitted to be used on public roads. (2) Clause 7, page 5 (lines 7 to 10), omit the definition of product, substitute:    product has the meaning given by subsection (5). (3) Clause 7, page 6 (after line 4), at the end of the clause, add: (5) Subject to subsection (6), a product means a thing (including a substance or mixture of substances) that is:    (a) manufactured; or    (b) prescribed by the rules for the purposes of this definition. (6) A product does not include a motor vehicle. Note: For the regulation of emissions in relation to road motor vehicles, see the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989. I won't delay the Senate unnecessarily. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure the government is true to its word in only intending to apply the scope of this bill to whipper-snippers, lawnmowers, outboard motors and other areas it has expressly identified, but expressly excluding vehicles. Vehicles are the highest source of emissions, but the government has sworn off regulating vehicle emission during this term of government. This amendment is to find out whether those are weasel words or a carved-in-stone position for both the government and the opposition. If the coalition are so clear there is not going to be a carbon tax on cars, despite their consultation underway on noxious emissions, they can support this amendment. Similarly, colleagues in the Labor Party who attacked the government in July for proposing a carbon tax on cars can join the Australian Conservatives today in putting that concern to bed. Similarly, I would say to the Nick Xenophon Team: the auto industry is also advocating for certainty. What better certainty than contractual certainty? That is what we will help. I'm well aware that the Motor Vehicle Standard Act relates to road vehicles. This is the proper place, therefore, should the government wish so, to regulate emissions from on-road vehicles. Due to the act not concerning off-road vehicles, be they tractors, earth-moving equipment, mining equipment and the forklifts prolific throughout warehouses in Australia, they're not necessarily captured by the Motor Vehicle Standard Act. We want to make it absolutely clear that this act that we're debating today cannot be applied to them either. In short, the Australian Conservatives do not trust a government, this one or an alternative government, responsibly using the minister's power to impose regulations on low-cost goods that might have health-effecting emissions. The government might say that the proper course is disallowance. Well, by its rhetoric in June, when they invoked the ghost of the king of pop Elvis Presley, the only way to ensure a carbon tax on cars is dead, buried and cremated, or the closest thing to it, is to put it in law—that it will not be coming through in this regime. We cannot allow carbon taxation or emissions regulation by stealth, given how hotly contested the political space has been on this topic. 17:38 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia As the government has been clear in the explanatory memoranda and in all the explanations to this, this legislation is to apply to non-road spark ignition engines and products, as defined. There is separate legislation that applies exclusively to motor vehicles in the transport portfolio. This legislation is very clearly only to apply to the non-road spark ignition engines and equipment, as outlined in the explanatory memoranda and elsewhere. Therefore, the government believes this amendment is not necessary and is saddened by Senator Bernardi's lack of trust. 17:39 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I'm pleased that the minister has had a chance to put the government's position on record. That is a helpful contribution with which we agree. And we also oppose the amendments. 17:39 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia I seek the minister's advice. He said that this bill applies to non-road spark engines—or however you described it. But, Minister, does that specifically prohibit the extension of the regulations to non-road-going vehicles, such as tractors, farm vehicles, off-terrain vehicles or unregistered vehicles? If I recall, Minister Frydenberg said that there was more chance of Elvis coming back than a carbon tax on cars. This would appear to me to be an opportunity for you to impose what is effectively a carbon tax, an emissions standards scheme, on non-road vehicles, which you have specifically said does fall within the gambit of this. Are you with Minister Frydenberg in saying that Elvis Presley is not coming back, or do I hear the warblings of the great man in this chamber? 17:40 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I'm pleased to advise Senator Bernardi and all senators that you won't be hearing my warblings. That is the last thing you would want to hear. I'm not so pleased to advise, but I am happy to make a ministerial confirmation, that Elvis is dead. Senator Smith interjecting— Senator Dastyari interjecting— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I'm sorry to disappoint Senator Dastyari. I think Senator Smith quietly behind me just made reference to 'Suspicious Minds'. Perhaps there are some suspicious minds at play in relation to the intent behind this legislation or indeed Elvis's existence or otherwise. Senator Bernardi, I can be very clear that the government will not extend any provisions under this legislation—should there even be any scope to do so, which I don't necessarily believe there is—to the types of vehicles that you have outlined in your question. 17:41 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia I thank the minister for his assurance and the element of doubt about whether the scope is there to do that. However, to ensure the Australian people can be completely satisfied that there is not going to be an increase in regulation and a carbon tax by stealth and to prevent a more enthusiastic carbon-taxer than Minister Frydenberg and yourself—if that's possible, Senator Birmingham—from assuming the ministerial benches and imposing this by regulation, why is it that the government won't support these amendments, which at the very least will do no harm? 17:43 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Senator Bernardi, as I outlined, we don't believe that your amendments are necessary. There are quite tight prescriptions within the bill in terms of comebacks to the chamber or to the parliament should there be any attempt to extend the scope or reach of the legislation in any particular way, and we don't see the need to further delay passage of the legislation through adopting unnecessary amendments. 17:43 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I'm just a little concerned, because you yourselves don't seem to know. So why don't we put a safety net in here? Why don't you support Senator Bernardi's amendments? You are over there tap-dancing all over the show, and it is quite embarrassing for you that you don't know your own bill. When it comes to what you don't know, you are certainly not assuring me or anybody else here or the Australian people. So let's go back to the amendments and put them through? 17:44 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales I indicate that the Liberal Democrats support Senator Bernardi's amendments. Governments can't be trusted. A 'trust me' statement is only as good as today, and governments do change over time. In terms of proof, can I indicate that Elvis might be dead but 'Halal Elvis' is alive! I saw his picture just recently. So you really cannot believe anything that you hear from anybody. 17:44 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria The Australian Greens will not be supporting Senator Bernardi's amendments. Very sadly, Elvis is a very, very long way from the building. In fact, we would like him to be rather closer because I think in terms of vehicle emissions, the government is not currently proceeding at the rate that the Australian community would like it to proceed in order to have cleaner vehicles, but it is clear that they are not covered by this legislation. This is the leaf blower and lawnmower legislation essentially, and I think that it's not realistic of Senator Bernardi to claim that it is. 17:45 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia I ask the minister whether he can categorically rule out that this legislation will be used in its current form, at any stage, to impose an emissions standard on, say, farm tractors? 17:46 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia On behalf of the government, I am happy to give that categorical assurance. 17:46 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia Let me just confirm that, Minister. Your categorical assurance is that this legislation cannot be used by this government or successive governments to impose regulations on emissions for farm tractors? Not that this government's not going to, but just that this legislation does not allow it to happen. 17:46 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My categorical assurance is that the government would not ever seek to do so, Senator Bernardi. In relation to what future governments may seek to do, that is a matter for future governments. Of course, there are powers and opportunities for the Senate to deny future governments the potential to do so, were they ever to seek to do so. 17:46 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia What I think we've just experienced is one simple example whereby the minister is prepared to offer an assurance for this government, but not that this legislation cannot be used to impose these emissions standards, or the carbon tax by stealth, outside of the leaf blowers, the whipper-snippers and the outboard motors that have been mentioned. This legislation is in essence a carbon tax opportunity for governments. They can impose additional standards and additional costs on a whole range of vehicles because they are not protected under this act. Our amendments will simply provide some certainty and some surety and, if the government has the confidence in its own statements that it will not be applied to off-road motor vehicles and other vehicles that I've identified, then they need to support these amendments. If they won't, it means their words are as hollow as the words they've said in the last five or six years. They are as hollow as the words the Labor Party said when they were in government: 'There will be no carbon tax in the government that I lead.' 'There will be no carbon tax on cars,' as the rhetorical flourish from Minister Frydenberg said. This is an opportunity for the government to impose the equivalent of a carbon tax on vehicles that are not road registered. If the Australian people have any doubt that that is what it is, they have to look at what the minister has said in refusing to rule it out categorically, that this legislation can be used in that manner. And it is a flaw in the legislation, it is a flaw in the bill. But, if the government wants to close that door and say, 'We're not even opening it up,' they will support these amendments. If they fail to support these amendments, not only are they betraying farm communities and off-road enthusiasts, the motor drag racers and a whole range of other people who might cross the green gods in pursuit of enjoyment or economic benefit, but they will be opening themselves up to another headline of the carbon tax by stealth. The carbon tax is coming for your vehicles. They will open themselves up to the accusation in every regional electorate of Australia that the government is going to start taxing their fuel, their vehicles and their recreational vehicles. I have never said it before, but I wish Ricky Muir were here today. Former Senator Muir would be cheering this amendment on because he understands the importance of recreational vehicles for off-road use. This is— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator BERNARDI G0D Yes, with all apologies to Senator Hinch. We could have both of you perhaps. Minister, it's as simple as providing assurances that this is not some sort of secretive stealth deal which you're going to expand; they come for the whipper snippers today and next time they come for something better—an all-terrain vehicle—or they come for something broader like a farm tractor. Senator Di Natale 53369 Could be a chainsaw. Senator BERNARDI G0D Support the chainsaws! We've mentioned the chainsaws already, Senator Di Natale. And, Chair, I would say to you that a chainsaw is a life-saving tool for various people because it allows them to clear debris, protect their homes in high-bushfire-risk areas, cut firewood and do a whole range of different things. Yet how do we know the government is not going to levy what is effectively a carbon tax on chainsaws next? It is done simply by regulation, and for the minister to hide behind the fact that you can just move a disallowance of the regulation or something else is to suggest that they have deliberately left this door wide open. I think it is an indictment upon the government that they so strongly rule out a carbon tax by stealth on vehicles in the public domain when it is exposed in the Daily Telegraph. Then we have the opposition cheered on by their condemnation of the government's plans, which were revealed by the Daily Telegraph. Yet, once that political benefit is done, they're prepared to walk away from those commitments and not support this very prudent and sensible amendment. The only thing it does is seek to hold the government and the opposition to what their public statements have been. But, of course, they don't want that. They don't want that, because to do so would limit their ability to encroach upon the lives of so many Australians. It would limit their ability to foist a new tax, a new cost, onto everyday Australians. It would limit their ability to put some new regulations on imports and on businesses about what they can sell and the manner in which they can sell. This is just mind-numbingly foolish, so I'll be disappointed if the government won't change their mind. I think they should be persuaded. I know the minister has been listening intently, but he has a smile on his face, and I suspect that means he's going to disappoint me. Nonetheless, I do believe we have an obligation to hold the government and the opposition to what they've said, and the only way to do that is to see how they vote on these very sensible amendments. 17:53 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I am sorry to disappoint Senator Bernardi. I understand his arguments. As I did particularly in relation to Senator Leyonhjelm's amendment, I again point out the contribution from Senator Roberts, which highlighted that this is not legislation that seeks to regulate emissions related to climate change matters. It is about emissions related to air particulates. In that instance, it deals with a range of other types of emissions that are clearly and directly harmful to human health, which is why the legislation has attracted broad support across the chamber. Whether it relates to chainsaws, leaf blowers, whipper snippers or tractors, it is in no way about a carbon tax on CO2 emissions. It is about ensuring that carbon monoxide, other chemicals and particle emissions dangerous to human health are regulated in a sensible and consistent way across different categories. The government has been very clear that the intended application for this legislation is in relation to, particularly, non-road spark-ignition engines and equipment. That is what the government will bring forward in the rules which are made by legislative instrument—that is, disallowable instrument—in this chamber. I refer you to section 51 of the primary legislation, the Product Emissions Standards Bill 2017, which makes it clear that the rules are by legislative instrument, and therefore are disallowable by this chamber. The government has been express in the explanatory memoranda, in the various speeches given, and elsewhere in this legislation about the limits of the application of this legislation. I have been very clear, as I believe has Minister Frydenberg, that the government has absolutely no intention to extend the legislation to tractors or other vehicles. And of course, were anybody to seek to do so at any point in the future, this chamber would be fully within its rights to disallow that. I have absolutely every confidence that, were that to occur, the Liberal Party and the National Party would be proposing and supporting such disallowance. The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 8249, as moved by Senator Bernardi, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [18:00]
(Temporary Chair—Senator Lines)

 7 AYES Bernardi, C (teller) Burston, B Georgiou, P Hanson, P Lambie, J Leyonhjelm, DE Roberts, M 39 NOES Abetz, E Bilyk, CL Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Bushby, DC Chisholm, A Dastyari, S (teller) Di Natale, R Duniam, J Farrell, D Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S Ketter, CR Lines, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McKim, NJ Moore, CM Nash, F O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Rhiannon, L Rice, J Scullion, NG Siewert, R Smith, D Urquhart, AE Whish-Wilson, PS Xenophon, N 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bills agreed to.
Bills reported without amendments; report adopted.

 Third Reading 6861 18:03 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That these bills be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017 6862

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017

Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017

Second Reading 6862 18:04 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 is an important bill relating to broadcasting and communication reform. As other speakers have mentioned, the key elements of this package are the abolition of broadcasting licence fees, introduction of a price for use of spectrum, protecting children by banning gambling advertising during sports broadcasts, amendments to anti-siphoning, and a broad-ranging, comprehensive review of Australian and children's content. But the element of the reform that I want to initially concentrate on, before getting back to the broader parts of the bill, is the part of the bill which provides a $30 million funding package for subscription television to support the broadcasting of women's and niche sports. As Australians, we have a wide range of views on what sports we want to watch on television; however, many of the sports that occupy a central place in the Australian sporting landscape and enjoy high levels of participation across the community struggle to secure any consistent broadcast coverage. Coverage is increasingly important for sporting organisations, and the absence of broadcast and other media revenue constrains the ability of these organisations to develop and grow their sport. That is why the government, as part of this package, is providing some $30 million over four years to go to Fox Sports to broadcast sports that don't usually attract the free-to-air channels, or other interests at times, to help promote the sport and provide coverage for people particularly interested in those sports. I am particularly interested in this part of the package to ensure that women's sports, in all of its glory and in all of its breadth, is able to get proper coverage on the television channels. I particularly mention the Townsville Fire, which is the only Woman's National Basketball League team outside of the southern capitals and the near-Melbourne area. I will repeat that. The Women's National Basketball League comprises seven or eight teams. Several of them are around Melbourne, others are in the major capital cities, and there is only one team in the competition in Queensland. That is a team based in Townsville, and it's called Townsville Fire. It's the only team in the whole of northern Australia that is part of the Women's National Basketball League. But it seems that television broadcast arrangements have been made between Basketball Australia and Fox Sports that do not reflect Fire's position in the competition. For those in this chamber who follow women's basketball, they'll know that Townsville Fire have been the most successful team in the Women's National Basketball League. Apparently, the agreement between Basketball Australia and Fox Sports has each of the other seven teams in the competition having two home games televised live during the season. So there are eight teams and seven of them in the southern capitals have their two home games broadcast on television by arrangement between Basketball Australia and Fox Sports. But the most successful team—the one that is best supported and has the best audience participation in the whole competition—Townsville Fire, has no home games broadcast on Fox Sports. I will repeat that for those who might be listening: eight teams in the competition, seven in the southern capitals, and each of the seven in the southern capitals have two home games broadcast during a season, but the most successful team—the one that's won the competition more often than not; the one that has magnificent community support and great audience participation—gets not two home games broadcast but zero home games broadcast. How could that be fair? It is an indictment of Basketball Australia and Fox TV that this has happened today. I am told by the management of Townsville Fire that the reason given by Fox Sports is that the cost of broadcasting a professional event in Townsville would be something in the order of $50,000 more than doing it in the southern capitals. As a commercial operation, I guess Fox Sports are not prepared to spend that money. I understand $50,000 is not the total cost, but it would cost $50,000 more to broadcast it in Townsville, according to Fox Sports, than the production of such a broadcast in the southern capitals. It seems to me that the money being provided for niche and women's and unrepresented sports in this package of measures is what this is all about—for example, the $50,000 extra that Fox Sports say is needed to produce coverage of the two home games in Townsville. They are not prepared to do it, but this $30 million seems to me ideal for that purpose, and that seems to me to be what this package is all about. I have written to the minister on behalf of Townsville Fire to make these arguments not all that long ago; I have to say I haven't heard back from the minister yet. But this would be a great way to spend that $30 million. It is what it is all about in principle, and it is very important for women's sports generally, and for the code, to have the best team, the most popular team, the best community-supported team receive this sort of coverage on national TV through Fox Sports. Fox Sports do a great job, but they are a commercial organisation, they are there to make money, and if they don't see the production costs as helping their overall bottom-line budget, I can understand why they have not proceeded with these broadcasts up until now. But this new package of measures is one that I would certainly hope that Fox Sports can avail themselves of, and I hope that there will then be fair and appropriate coverage for the Women's National Basketball League. Providing funding to Fox Sports to televise two Townsville Fire home games would meet the government's underlying commitment to promote women in sport, and it would also promote another part of the government's program—that is, its vision for northern Australia. To me as a person representing some of the more remote parts of Australia and particularly northern Australia, it seems that this is typical of what happens across the board. The southern capitals, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and I think Perth, have these basketball teams—not very good teams, by the standard of the Townsville Fire—and they get this coverage on Fox Sports. But the best team—the one that has won, I think, seven out of the last eight games—is not broadcast. That just doesn't seem to me to be sensible in promoting women's basketball. Can you imagine what would happen, Madam Acting Deputy President, if television stations around Australia didn't publish the grand final of the National Rugby League because the winning team happened to come from Townsville, as it may well do again this year? Of course, there would be outrage. But, because women's basketball doesn't have quite the same pull or influence as the National Rugby League, it seems that the best team—the team that wins more often than not—is not getting appropriate support from the television stations. As I say, that is what this package of reforms is all about. I think it's important for women's sport generally, and for women's basketball in particular, that all of the teams in the competition be treated equally. That is one of the reasons I'm particularly pleased to support this overall package of media reforms. Moving onto the wider issues involved, the Turnbull government has proposed this landmark reform to protect children from gambling advertising, to modernise and assist the broadcasting sector and to recognise changing consumer viewing patterns for high-quality Australian content. These reforms, put forward by the Turnbull government and the communications minister Senator Fifield, demonstrate that the government is listening to community concerns on things like gambling advertising and that the government is determined to act to protect children, whilst at the same time fostering a vibrant, competitive and sustainable media industry. The reforms that the government is proposing enjoy fairly unanimous support from the Australian media industry itself. We all know that free-to-air broadcasters play an important role in providing access to high-quality Australian content such as sporting events, current affairs, drama and children's programs, and they provide them to all Australians. However, they are operating in an increasingly competitive and challenging environment due to the entry of online service providers. Audiences now have viewing opportunities across more platforms than ever before. Audiences are increasingly fragmented, and advertising revenue for commercial broadcasting is falling as competition in the sector increases. That's a good thing. Competition is good. It's what our government is built upon; it's in our DNA. But it's important that, where there is competition, it's competition on an even playing field. Our broadcast and content reform package will modernise regulation and help position the sector to deal with these existing and future challenges more effectively. This particular program of media reforms is just another part of the very significant work that the Turnbull government is doing. As I often say, I've been around this parliament for a long time now. I've seen a lot of governments come and go. Can I say that the Turnbull government—and this package is an example of it—is doing a wonderful job. It is a very good government. I say that perhaps in a partisan way, but I say it also in a very non-partisan way. This is a government that is actually doing things. Unfortunately, the Australian public doesn't get to hear about that. All the Australian public hears about at the moment is same-sex marriage, climate change, migrants who illegally enter the country, claiming they're being badly done by, or all of the many left-wing commentators simply criticising the Turnbull government. But, if you were to look beyond the commentators and what some of the popular press are dealing with, you would find that this is a government that is doing many good things right across the board. One of the areas in this media package reform where I don't think the government has gone far enough is in doing something about the ABC, or, as I now call it, the Ultimo Broadcasting Corporation. It used to be called the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, but clearly it's no longer a corporation that deals with facts. It deals mainly with the opinions of those who are running the show in Ultimo. I have to make a qualification here. I find regional radio and regional ABC very balanced. They don't always agree with me—they rarely do—but they are balanced. Similarly, in this building, the ABC in the parliamentary press gallery is reasonably balanced. But if you go down to Ultimo in Sydney, where all the power and money congregate, where all of the decisions are made and where all of the current affairs programs happen, you find that it's not the ABC anymore; it's the UBC. You can read that either as the Ultimo Broadcasting Corporation or the Union Broadcasting Corporation. On rare occasions I listen to the 'UBC'. I do that in the mornings when I ride my bike, because my earphones are locked onto the ABC and I don't know how to change them. So I do hear the ABC every now and again. I heard the ABC the other morning when I was riding about. In a half-hour program we had three items favourable to the ABC, with ABC spokesmen on it, and then we had an eight-minute address by Mr Bill Shorten telling everyone about his new tax proposal on trusts. In that half hour and the half hour that followed there was not one balancing comment to any of that. Just as recently as this morning, when I was again riding my bike around, in the half hour I was on my bike we had a story from migrants saying they weren't getting enough money out of the Australian government. These were people who had illegally entered Australia. We had the normal same-sex marriage argument, which was not even balanced; it's always just one side. We had the usual climate change report by the ABC, and then we had a so-called independent commentator making some commentary on the political situation. The independent commentators are always either an ABC commentator or one from the Fairfax group; there is never any serious political commentator. So, by any standards, the UBC—that is, the Ultimo Broadcasting Corporation—is unbalanced. When the ABC was set up it was an organisation that was there to report facts. It was there not to report the opinions of individual journalists but to report facts. That way, the facts having been reported, the people of Australia could then make up their minds on what life was about, what the issues were, how things should happen. But you will find these days that the ABC is continually about the promotion of individual views of single people. I just get very envious. I'm elected by a couple of million Queenslanders. I would love to have the opportunity of giving my views on every subject, as some of these ABC reporters do out of Ultimo every day of the week. They are elected by no-one. But they do try and succeed—credit where it's due; they have been very successful on a number of major issues—in the way that they can mould Australian opinion, because, very often, in many parts of the country, they are the only ones that have sway in the national footprint. So, while this is a great package of measures, I do think it needs to go further in relation to our national broadcaster. The ABC needs to be brought back to its charter. That's not going to happen with this bill, but I do commend the bill and congratulate the minister on the great work he's doing on media reform. 18:24 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia Australian Conservatives broadly support the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 and Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017 and will support their second reading. The caveat is we don't know how they are going to be modified by the crossbench during the committee phase. Ultimately we want to make sure that these bills act as a mechanism to enhance our broadcasting mediums and to ensure they are sustainable and viable going into the future, rather than subsidised basket cases, as some would seek them to be. But, of course, Senator Macdonald has talked about the elephant in the room. The great disruptor in the space of broadcasting in this country is the government funded broadcasters, the ABC and SBS. They are the gorilla and the elephant in the room, if I can say that. They get well over $1 billion. There is no financial accountability for it. There is no ratings ability for it. They are a law, effectively, unto themselves. That's why the Australian Conservatives believe they need significant reform. They are not only disrupting the viability of commercial operations. We see it in the case in point that Fairfax is laying off journalists, yet, principally, the same editorial line that has been taken by the ABC is being run, and ABC continues to receive more and more money. The ABC does fulfil a very important role in sections of Australia. I'm a supporter of the ABC. I recognise it has some very talented and capable people. It is just too big. But it is important to many, particularly in regional and rural areas of Australia, where there is sometimes a breakdown in the market economy and market forces. But, if you are serious about reform in this space, in broadcasting reform, you have to address the ABC and SBS. The Australian Conservatives have some very clear and considered policies in this space. Firstly, we would merge the ABC and SBS into a single consolidated broadcaster. We would reduce the joint budget to save the taxpayers around $1 billion every year, which should be directed to the intergenerational debt that has been accrued by successive governments. We would give the consolidated broadcaster a greater rural and regional focus, which is where the market breakdown is happening. It is where people don't often have access to very fast broadband internet to access online services or streaming services and where they, sometimes, don't have all of the commercial networks available to them. We would ensure that the consolidated broadcaster is truly impartial and unbiased, and presents a diversity of views. I think there is little challenge to the fact that the ABC and SBS are cheerleaders in a space. Most notably, Managing Director Michelle Guthrie had to send out a memo warning her journalists and editorial staff not to be cheerleaders in the marriage debate. I understand they may feel strongly about that, but, as a taxpayer funded entity, they shouldn't be cheerleaders. They should present the facts impartially. We also believe that, because of the sheer size of it, if you want to save some money, does ABC and SBS need eight television stations between them? I think the simple answer to that is 'no'. I think they could easily provide two television stations that would adequately serve the Australian community. There should be an additional focus on local content, and that should cover news and current affairs, and drama and entertainment. There seem to be some sacred cows in this space. We saw the ABC and SBS both bidding for the World Cup soccer rights. It cost an additional $700,000 or $800,000 because two taxpayer funded entities were bidding against each other. That's just foolish. It has squandered hundreds of thousands of dollars, and you wonder why. I could say the same about ABC Radio stations. There are myriad stations around the country. They have a national reach, but let's just say there are five stations that have a national presence. My question is: why? What's the purpose of that? I was asked on ABC Radio whether I supported K-pop being on the radio. That's Korean pop music. I don't think we need a Korean pop show on the ABC broadcaster. You could easily cut that and people could watch it on Channel Ten on a Sunday morning, which I have done on occasion. We want to also see the ABC limited in its provision in the online services as there is a migration out of print onto the online services. The ABC has never been in the print media, except for its commercial operations. It's never been in the commercial printing industry, so why should it be encroaching into what are the newspapers of 21st century? If it wants to compete in that space, it shouldn't cannibalise the existing markets. Let it compete on commercial terms and let it charge for the content that it's generating in that space. But I don't advocate that necessarily. I'm saying it should be limited. A merged broadcaster should have two television stations and two national radio networks. That is adequate. It will support diversity in our media landscape and the profitability and viability of existing operators. Sitting suspended from 18 : 30 to 19 : 30 19:30 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I move: That the debate be now adjourned. The PRESIDENT e5v The question is that the debate be now adjourned.

The Senate Divided. [19:35]
(The President—Senator Parry)

 32 AYES Abetz, E Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Cash, MC Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID McGrath, J McKenzie, B Nash, F O'Sullivan, B Parry, S Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Roberts, M Sinodinos, A Smith, D (teller) Williams, JR Xenophon, N 30 NOES Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Dastyari, S Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Hanson-Young, SC Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lambie, J Lines, S McAllister, J (teller) McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Sterle, G Urquhart, AE Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Debate adjourned.

 19:37 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I move: That resumption of the debate be made an order of the day the next sitting day. The PRESIDENT e5v The question is that the motion moved by the minister be agreed to. Senator Wong, if you wish to speak to this motion, you can. 19:37 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I do wish to speak to this debatable motion. I wish to make this point: generally, an opposition does accept the government's right to rearrange its business, but, seriously, look at the mess. At 6.32, two minutes after the dinner break, we find out that the debate on the media laws has been deferred yet again, side-lined yet again. This is a bill that has been debated in one form or another for some 18 months, and it has never in this place been put to a vote—not once. This is Monday, so the government should know what it can do. This was fifth, behind four pieces of non-controversial legislation, yet the government has got to it and wants to filibuster. Before Senator Xenophon leaves the chamber, I would say this to the crossbench: if you need more time to do a deal, we understand that, but could you be up-front, rather than having the government filibuster and rearranging business again? If you're going to agree to another all-night sitting to get a deal done in the last minutes of this session, perhaps you could let us all know that. This bill has been pushed off, with a short period of notice, so that we can bring something else on and the minister, who's been unable to get the numbers on this debate, can have a few more hours to cut a deal that he's been trying to cut since March last year. Senator Fifield D2I Come and join us! Come and support the bill! Senator WONG 00AOU Let's remember: this minister brought this bill, or a substantially similar bill, in in March 2016. Guess how many times that bill has been listed for debate? That bill has been listed for debate on no less than 10 occasions—and there's still no vote. They couldn't get the numbers on it and couldn't get a deal. So he then went away and put substantially the same content into a new bill, called the broadcasting reform bill—the core of which, in terms of media ownership, is substantially the same—and added a couple of new measures. On how many occasions has that bill been listed for debate in the House or the Senate? On no less than 10 occasions also. This is the Manager of Government Business in the Senate. That is how he's running his legislative agenda. Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU I could give a speech, and I'm sure we could all have a discussion about media reform, but Labor has made its position very clear. What I am saying is that this government is unable to manage its program. At 6.32 pm we had another change in the program for a bill that, as I said, has been before the House or the Senate and debated 10 times—and, before that, the preceding bill, with substantially the same content, was also debated some 10 times. So what happens? We get a filibuster. When they send Senator Macdonald in, you can always tell that the filibuster is on. He gets rolled out and there's a big neon sign: 'Senator Ian Macdonald is on his feet, so therefore the filibuster is on.' But now they've decided that even that is too embarrassing. They didn't want to get further into the second reading debate and decided that, after the dinner break, they'd rock up and rearrange the order of business, because they haven't got the numbers. This is no way to run the Senate. I say to the Manager of Government Business in the Senate that, if he comes in here tomorrow or Wednesday— Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Macdonald, you're not in your seat, so I'm raising a point of order about you maybe wanting to get into your seat before you want to interrupt me again. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0V Order on my right and left! Direct your comments through me, Senator Wong. Continue, Senator Wong. Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0V Order, Senator Macdonald! Continue, Senator Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU Mr Acting Deputy President, you are required to get him to sit in his seat if he is going to interject. I know you don't want to do it, Mr Acting Deputy President, but you are required to do that if he is going to interject. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0V Continue, Senator Wong. He's in his seat. Senator WONG 00AOU Thank you. I'm glad he's now in his seat, so that we can at least— Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 'What've you got against women's basketball?' Senator WONG 00AOU There are so many things that I could respond with. It is so tempting, but I'm really not going to respond to Senator Macdonald, other than to say that, when Senator Fifield, the minister, has to resort to sending this backbencher out to filibuster, we all know there's a problem. The problem here is twofold. The first problem is that this minister seems to be unable to negotiate an agreement, and the second problem is that this is no way to run this chamber. If you come in here tomorrow or the day after demanding that we continue to sit until you've finally got a deal, it will really demonstrate the contempt with which the government and some other senators hold other senators in this place. I would also make the point—and this is a substantive point—and place on record again that, if this government does a dirty deal with One Nation to attack the ABC, as the price of its media reform, this government will demonstrate that it has no shame. To use the public broadcaster that Australians all over this nation rely on, including in regional Australia, as a political football to cover up this minister's inability to negotiate a deal is not only incompetent; it is shameful. When the minister gets to his feet to respond to me, he should say: 'We rule out doing anything negative to the ABC and SBS. We rule out cutting their funding because we need Senator Hanson's vote on this media bill'—a media bill that he's clearly so attached to. So, as I said at the outset, this is a fine mess—and it is a mess of the government's making. Ordinarily, the opposition would simply accede to the government's right to rearrange its business. But, given the number of times that this bill has been on and off and on and off and given the lack of notice on this occasion, we are not going to do so. 19:44 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria It doesn't look as though there are any other colleagues who wish to contribute to this debate, so I might close it with the will of my colleagues around this place, and I'm very pleased to do so. Usually, when it comes to procedural motions, I'm a stickler for focusing on the fact that it is purely a procedural motion, but, given the latitude of Senator Wong, I might speak a little more broadly than I usually do on procedural debates. The first point to make is that Senator Wong spoke to the history of media reform legislation. She's quite right that we did introduce into the last parliament a package of legislation that sought to remove the two-out-of-three rule and the 75 per cent audience reach rule. There is an extremely good reason why we did not get to vote on that, and it's twofold. Let me tell you the first element of it: the Australian Labor Party referred that legislation to a Senate committee of many, many months duration. As all colleagues know, when something is before a committee of the Senate, this chamber is unable to touch it. What happened shortly thereafter was an election was called. We all know what happens to legislation that is on the books during a double-dissolution election. Not surprisingly, because getting rid of 75 per cent audience reach and two-out-of-three was our policy, when we won the election we reintroduced the legislation. There are no prizes for guessing what happened next. The Australian Labor Party referred that legislation to a committee for many, many months. During the time that that legislation was before a committee of the Senate, talking to the media industry, I thought, 'Let's come forward with a proposal that not only has those two elements—getting rid of the 75 per cent audience reach and the two-out-of-three rule—but also has industry consensus on media reform.' And so the government set about coming up with a media reform package that benefited the entire media industry: print, radio and TV. As you know, Mr Acting Deputy President Williams—particularly from your role representing people in regional New South Wales—regional media, like metropolitan media, is under great pressure because there is massive competition from online platforms and over-the-top platforms, which wasn't previously conceived at the time when radio, print and TV were essentially the only forms of media. I'm very pleased, as colleagues on this side know, that we were able to reach agreement on a media reform package which is supported by Seven, Nine, Ten, WIN, Prime, Southern Cross Austereo, Fairfax, News Ltd, Free TV, Commercial Radio Australia, Foxtel and ASTRA, which is the subscription TV representative body. Now, for one, I thought it was a good thing that we had the entire Australian media industry on the one page. That is something that historically has not happened. I commend the leaders of Australia's media organisations who were able to look beyond their own legitimate organisational interests to the wider interests of Australian media. We, on this side of the chamber and a number of crossbenchers, want to see strong Australian media voices. That is what our package is all about—strong Australian media voices. We have a number of elements to the package. Regional TV, in particular, is calling for the abolition of the 75 per cent audience reach rule. Commercial radio stations, which are small, medium and large, want to see licence fee reductions. Commercial TV, both metropolitan and regional, want to see licence fee reductions. We also want to free up some of the media ownership laws which were created in the 1980s before the internet existed. Australian media companies want the opportunity to configure themselves in ways that best support their viability. So that is what we're seeking to do, and Senator Wong is quite right: we are endeavouring to get in this place 50 per cent plus one. That's the way this place works and that's the way every political forum works. It's 50 per cent plus one. So that is our objective, which will secure the passage of this legislation. I want to pay credit to the crossbenchers, who have been very positive in their engagement. It is not for me to speak for individual Senate crossbenchers. They declare their own positions, and a number have done so, but I want to acknowledge that they have been prepared to positively engage. The one group in this place which hasn't been prepared to positively engage is the Australian Labor Party. Ms Rowland from the other place, when interviewed by Kieran Gilbert on Sky News, answered a question of his. Kieran said to Ms Rowland, 'Why aren't you prepared to support this package? This is a package which has the support of Seven, Nine, Ten, WIN, Prime, Southern Cross Austereo, Fairfax, News Limited, Commercial Radio Australia, Free TV, Foxtel and Astra. Surely that says to you that this must be something that's in the interests of Australian news organisations.' Ms Rowland's response to Kieran Gilbert was, 'Australia's media organisations are only supporting this package because there's something in it for all of them.' Precisely. There is something in this for all of them. But, for the Australian Labor Party, that's a reason not to support something. Labor doesn't want to support a package that has the universal support of the industry, that will be to the benefit of strong Australian media voices and that will see journalists continue to be employed. None of us in this chamber necessarily likes what our friends in the media gallery will print, broadcast, write, blog or post. But, putting that aside, we all recognise that they, and their scrutiny, are one of the important underpinnings of a democracy, and we want to see good, strong Australian media organisations. I can't help but touch briefly on Senator Wong's raising of the issue of the ABC. I can give all colleagues a guarantee that the government won't support anything that is to the detriment of the ABC. In fact, those things that we have reached agreement on with some crossbench colleagues are all intended to support and enhance the work that the ABC does. In particular, I want to point out some of the measures proposed by Senator McKenzie, which include a guarantee that there will always be two members of the ABC board from regional and rural Australia. Through the appointments that we have made to the ABC board, we've already done that without legislation, but we're very happy for that to be legislated. We're also very happy to put before this chamber that rural and regional matters be specifically recognised in the charter of the ABC. We think that's a good thing. We also think it's a good thing that there be constituted an ABC regional advisory committee, which would have to be consulted on any decisions that the ABC took that had a material effect on rural and regional Australia. We think that's a good thing. We also think that it's a good and positive thing to include in the ABC Act the words 'fair' and 'balanced'. I know there were some who got quite excited by that, but let me provide reassurance to you. Chapter 4 of the ABC's own editorial guidelines, which talks about the existing legislative requirement to be impartial and accurate, state words to the effect that the ABC should be fair and balanced in its news and current affairs. It talks about balance in terms of the weight of evidence. So, if we don't have an issue with the current ABC editorial guidelines talking about being fair and balanced, we shouldn't have any issue with that being legislated. Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 How can you enforce it? Senator FIFIELD D2I Senator Macdonald says, 'How can you enforce it?' If it's in legislation, then it must be followed. If it's good enough to have it in the editorial guidelines of the ABC, it should be good enough to have it in legislation. I still see a raised eyebrow, Mr Acting Deputy President, so let me try and provide further reassurance to you and colleagues. The Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance Journalist Code of Ethics mentions fairness on no less than six occasions. So, if it's good enough for the MEAA and the Journalist Code of Ethics and good enough for the ABC's current editorial guidelines, it's good enough for me. I wanted to provide that reassurance that we are only endeavouring to do things to support the ABC. Senator Wong also spoke of the management of the chamber. Yes, we do have a different approach to those opposite—and Senator Macdonald will correct me—it might have been something like 65 bills guillotined without any debate. Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 Actually, I've got it here. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator FIFIELD D2I That's true. That's not something that you see here. I hope that contribution is helpful to colleagues' understanding. I look forward to the rest of the evening. The PRESIDENT e5v The question is that the motion moved by the Manager of Government Business to rearrange the order of business be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [19:59]
(The President—Senator Parry)

 32 AYES Abetz, E Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Cash, MC Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID McGrath, J McKenzie, B Nash, F O'Sullivan, B Parry, S Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Roberts, M Sinodinos, A Smith, D (teller) Williams, JR Xenophon, N 30 NOES Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Collins, JMA Dastyari, S Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Hanson-Young, SC Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lambie, J Lines, S McAllister, J (teller) McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Sterle, G Urquhart, AE Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 6873

Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017

Second Reading 6873 20:02 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017. Labor supported passage of this bill in the other place, but in doing so, and in the speeches that my colleagues gave, we indicated that we would reserve our final position for debate in the Senate following further inquiries. Labor have looked closely at this bill. We have listened to stakeholders, consulted further and, indeed, consulted with the government. We have determined through these discussions that we will move amendments to strengthen part 1 of schedule 1 of the bill, namely the new safe harbour provisions for directors in relation to insolvent trading. These amendments broadly align with the Productivity Commission's 2015 recommendations for how the safe harbour should operate. Australia's insolvent-trading laws impose a duty on company directors to prevent a company from trading whilst insolvent. Directors who breach this duty can be personally liable for the company's debts if, at the time the debt is incurred, there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the company is insolvent. Part 1 of schedule 1 to this bill creates a new exception to these rules by creating a safe harbour for directors from personal liability for insolvent trading. The safe harbour applies if the directors take a course of action that is reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome for the company than the immediate appointment of an administrator or liquidator. According to the government, Australia's laws against insolvent trading currently push directors to prematurely enter a formal insolvency, even where the company may be viable in the longer term. The stated aim for this part of the bill is to encourage directors to: keep control of their company, engage early with possible insolvency and take reasonable risks to facilitate the company's recovery instead of simply placing the company prematurely into voluntary administration or liquidation. This new safe harbour shifts risks that are presently borne by directors onto creditors. It creates additional situations in which directors can oversee the incurring of debts that create a situation of insolvency for the firm for which they can escape personal liability. Where this leads to firms being able to trade out of trouble without going into voluntary administration or liquidation, then that is a good thing. If there is less loss overall, then that is a good thing. As the member for McMahon said in the other place: As a matter of principle, everybody in this House would want to see as few companies as possible getting into such a situation that they could no longer trade. If there is a sensible situation in which companies that are technically insolvent can be continuing to trade with all the necessary protections in place for creditors and for employees, that is something which should be very seriously examined by the House and the Senate. Overall we think the government's aim is good, but we think that the current bill goes too far and weakens protections against insolvent trading. We are concerned that the new safe harbour in the bill may be too easy for directors to access and that there are inadequate safeguards to stop it from being misused. We think that the bill at the moment weakens Australia's rules against insolvent trading and shifts the balance too far in favour of directors and against creditors, including employees. Instead of having the desired effect of reducing the amount of loss overall, it risks going further and transferring losses from directors to creditors. As such, we will be moving two amendments to strengthen the safe harbour. We believe that these amendments strike a better balance. We believe our amendments will allow the safe harbour to operate in genuine situations where the directors remaining in control will allow for a better outcome for all concerned, while making sure that it can't be relied on by directors doing the wrong thing. In drafting these amendments, we've been informed by the Productivity Commission's 2015 recommendation about how the safe harbour should look. We have drafted the amendments to broadly align with recommendation 14.2 of the Productivity Commission in their 2015 report Business set-up, transfer and closure. Under our amendments, it will be up to the director to prove that they are entitled to the safe harbour. The amendments would mean that the director who wants to access the safe harbour bears the legal burden of proof in showing that they are genuinely taking a reasonable course of action to turn the company around. This is consistent with other existing defences to our rules against trading whilst insolvent. The government's bill places a weaker burden on directors. Once directors point to or bring some evidence to satisfy an evidentiary burden, the burden of proof or the legal burden then falls onto the persons bringing proceedings to prove that the director is not entitled to the safe harbour. All directors have to do is bring evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that the relevant matters exist or do not exist. The key matter is a course of action reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome for the company. Once they have discharged this low burden, it is up to ASIC or the liquidator to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the directors are not entitled to the safe harbour. We think that the directors should bear the full legal burden to prove that they are entitled to the safe harbour, because they have the information and knowledge about what action they have taken and why. Placing the burden of proof on directors will also mean that they are more likely to take proper care and diligence when trying to turn around an insolvent company. Indeed, our amendments are consistent with the PC recommendation for how the safe harbour should work. This is because the Productivity Commission recommended that the new safe harbour should operate as a defence. There are existing defences to the insolvent trading provisions. With the existing defences, it's up to the director to prove that they meet the elements of the defence. It is currently a defence to liability for insolvent trading that the director had reasonable grounds to expect, and did expect, that the company was solvent. It's also a currently a defence that the director was not taking part in the management of the company because of illness or some other good reason. A key point about these defences is that it is up to the director to prove that they apply, and the Productivity Commission recommended that this new safe harbour operate as a new defence. The bill departs from the Productivity Commission's recommendation because the safe harbour does not operate as a defence; it operates as a carve-out. Instead of putting the full burden onto the director to demonstrate the safe harbour applies, it imposes a less stringent burden, an evidentiary burden. Our amendments would also mean that the director must meet five reasonable requirements—the five factors—to get the benefit of the safe harbour. Again, under our amendment, the director must be doing all of the following: properly informing themselves of the company's financial position; taking appropriate steps to prevent misconduct by officers or employees of the company that could affect the company's ability to pay its debts; taking appropriate steps to ensure that the company is keeping appropriate financial records; obtaining advice from an appropriately qualified entity, who is given sufficient information to give appropriate advice; and developing or implementing a plan for restructuring the company to improve its financial position. The government's bill includes these five factors, but they are framed as things that the court may take into account in working out whether the director has acted appropriately. Labor believes that each of these factors should be non-negotiable if directors want access to the safe harbour. Indeed, the Productivity Commission explicitly recommended that having a turnaround plan and an appropriate adviser and keeping proper financial records should be mandatory requirements. These five criteria are good tests. They go to whether the director is genuinely implementing a plan to turn the business around. However, the government's bill does not require the directors to do them; they are merely five indicia—five things that the court can have regard to. This means that a director who is not doing all five of these things could still access the safe harbour. We believe that a director should have to satisfy all five of these areas. The bill currently says that doing these things is a 'nice-to-have' that a court may consider in working out whether the safe harbour is available. But we are saying that these should be criteria that directors must satisfy. The first criteria should be mandatory. Why should a director who is not properly informing themselves of the company's financial position be entitled to the safe harbour? The second criteria should be mandatory. Why should a director who fails to take appropriate steps to prevent misconduct that could adversely affect the company's ability to pay its debts have the provision of a safe harbour? The third criteria, again, should be mandatory. Why should a director who fails to take steps to ensure that the company is keeping appropriate financial records enjoy protection? This criteria explicitly talks about appropriate financial records that are consistent with the size and nature of the company. It is not some onerous red-tape requirement. It just says that, if you want to trade while insolvent because you say you've got a plan to get out of trouble, you should keep the appropriate financial records. The fourth criteria, also, should be mandatory. The director should have to obtain advice from an appropriately qualified entity and should give that person sufficient information. Once again, this requirement isn't a one-size-fits-all. It recognises that companies are different in size and in the advice they might need. It just says that, if you want to trade while insolvent because you say you've got a plan to get out of trouble, you should get appropriate advice. The fifth criteria is also one that should be mandatory. The director should be developing or implementing a plan for restructuring the company to improve its financial position to get the benefit of the safe harbour. As the explanatory memorandum correctly points out, hope is not a strategy. Indeed, in its submission to the Senate committee, ASIC recommended that directors should document proposed restructuring plans for a number of reasons: to support and assist the director to adduce evidence that the course of action developed and taken is reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome for the company; to promote market confidence and mitigate against inappropriate access to a safe harbour—that is, when achieving a genuine restructure or better outcome for the company is unlikely; and to assist liquidators and creditors to determine when the safe-harbour period commences and to decide the merits of prosecuting a claim of insolvent trading. The important thing about a defence, as recommended by the Productivity Commission, is that it places the legal burden of proof onto the directors. It would require the directors to bear the burden of proving that they had a legitimate, well-considered plan for getting a better outcome for the company. In this bill, the government has departed from this model by proposing a safe harbour that operates not by way of defence but by way of carve-out. What this means is that the government has gone further than the Productivity Commission's recommendation and has reduced the proof that directors are required to show to prove they've acted properly. Our amendments will broadly bring the bill back into line with the Productivity Commission's recommendation that the safe harbour operate as a defence. We think that the Productivity Commission's recommendation did strike the right balance in giving honest directors scope to come up with a considered plan for recovery. At the same time, the Productivity Commission's model protected creditors by requiring the directors to prove that they'd acted reasonably and were entitled to the benefit of the safe harbour. This is as it should be. Information proving that the directors should be entitled to the benefit of safe harbour is far easier for the directors to produce. Placing the burden on them ensures that they are encouraged to make sure they go through a robust process in working out their recovery plan. We also think that each of the five factors in the bill are good, but they should be non-negotiable requirements to access the safe harbour. There should be no doubt that directors in this situation must be informing themselves of the company's financial position, taking appropriate steps to prevent misconduct of the company's employees or officers, ensuring that the company is keeping appropriate records, obtaining appropriate advice and developing or implementing a restructuring plan. We will be watching the impact of the director's safe harbour legislation closely, particularly if it passes the Senate tonight or later this week. To this end, we will also move an amendment to require the minister to initiate a review of the safe harbour by an independent panel two years after it commences. This is an opportunity to make sure the safe harbour is not having unintended consequences. In particular, we will be watching to make sure that it does not have a negative effect on workers being paid their entitlements. We know the bill has provisions that aim to prevent directors who fail to pay employee entitlements from getting the benefit of the safe harbour, and we will watch closely whether these are effective. The government needs to make sure and accept responsibility for making sure that safe harbour is not used to avoid workers being paid. If evidence comes to light that safe harbour is having the effect of employees missing out on entitlements, then Labor will move to make further changes. Let me turn now briefly to part 2 of the bill, which Labor supports. Part 2 of the bill sets out new provisions to stop the enforcement of ipso facto clauses that are triggered when a company enters administration. An ipso facto clause creates a contractual right that allows one party to terminate or modify the operation of a contract upon the occurrence of a specific event. Currently, such rights may allow one party to terminate a contract just because of the financial position of the company, even though the company is still meeting its obligations under the contract. For example, if a company has a short-term lack of liquidity which leads the directors to appoint a voluntary administrator, an ipso facto clause might still allow a major supplier to cancel their contract. This may, in turn, deprive the business of the chance to continue to trade while they restructure, even though there has not otherwise been a breach of contract with a negative impact on the business, its employees and other creditors. The operation of such clauses may destroy the ability of the business to restructure and destroy the value of a business, and it prevent the sale of the business as a going concern. This amendment will not stop parties from terminating a contract with the company for any other reason, such as a breach involving non-payment or non-performance. Labor supports this part of the bill, and we will also watch the impact of it closely. In conclusion, we acknowledge the intent of this legislation to ensure that directors who honestly and diligently seek to turn around a business are not penalised from doing so. Where a struggling business is successfully turned around, this is good for everyone involved, including employees, suppliers and customers. But, on the other hand, we have provisions that make directors personally liable for trading whilst insolvent for a reason. Trading whilst insolvent puts Australians at risk of providing goods, services and labour that they do not get paid for and can have a devastating effect. Our amendments will ensure that there is a review of the safe harbour in two years to make sure it's not having any undesirable effects. Our amendments to the safe harbour will mean that directors have to show more proof that they've done the right thing and will have to meet those reasonable requirements. We believe they strike a balance between allowing honest and diligent directors the opportunity to work the company out of trouble whilst making sure there are adequate safeguards to protect creditors. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0V Senator Macdonald, could I congratulate you? It's 27 years today since your maiden speech to the Senate. 20:18 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President Williams. I appreciate that. I can barely remember that long ago, but they were interesting times. The Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017 relates to an amendment of Australia's insolvency laws. It tries to redress the current insolvency laws which put too much focus on stigmatising and penalising failure. The reforms in this bill will help remove some of that stigma, promoting a culture of entrepreneurship and innovation, driving business growth and saving jobs. I have some interest in this bill, which I will speak about shortly, but I do hope that Senator Wong, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, is listening to me, because clearly she didn't listen to my last speech on the communications package, where I spent most of my speech advocating for the National Women's Basketball League to make sure that they got proper recognition from pay TV. Part of the package is to put $30 million into the promotion of unique sports, sports that aren't as regularly seen, particularly women's sports, and I was very keen to speak about that. But, for some reason, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Penny Wong, criticised me for that and accused me of filibustering. If I was filibustering in supporting Townsville Fire, the best National Women's Basketball League team ever, then can I please do that all the time? It had nothing to do with filibustering, Senator Wong—if I may, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, respond to Senator Wong's ungracious attack on me. I was trying to promote women's basketball in Australia. I'm just wondering what Senator Wong has against women's basketball in Australia and what she has against the leading team in the National Women's Basketball League. To accuse me in my speech on the Townsville Fire as simply filibustering is not only something that I resent, but I am sure the people of Townsville and particularly those associated with the Townsville Fire, the most successful national women's basketball team in the national competition ever, will also be offended by Senator Wong's baseless accusation. Senator Wong also obviously didn't listen to me when I was talking about the ABC. I was delighted to hear Senator Fifield say that the legislation will include legislation requiring what I call the UBC, the Ultimo broadcasting corporation, which used to be the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, to have fairness in their approach to the presentations they make. That is slightly off subject, Mr Acting Deputy President, but I do hope Senator Wong is listening to me on this bill because, quite clearly, she didn't listen to me during my last speech when she accused me of filibustering when all I was doing was promoting women's basketball in Australia. I cannot understand why Senator Wong would be opposing that or criticising me for highlighting what a wonderful sport it is and how the communications package will actually help women's basketball in Australia and will bring about fairness, which we all thought was part of the charter of the old Australian Broadcasting Commission, now the Ultimo broadcasting corporation. But, Mr Acting Deputy President, I digress only slightly from the bill before us, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017. Part (1) of this bill will create a safe harbour for honest and diligent company directors from personal liability for insolvent trading if they're pursuing a restructure outside formal insolvency. I listened with some intent to Senator Gallagher's presentation on behalf of the Labor Party, and I'll be interested in some of the amendments that they're proposing. The two-year review seems to have some merit to it. So I will watch that debate carefully. The Labor Party talked about workers' entitlements, and I'm hoping that none of the amendments will in any way support Clive Palmer, who indirectly is responsible for the Labor Party receiving the vote it received at the last federal election. You will remember that Mr Palmer was the director of Queensland Nickel Industries, QNI, which had its nickel refinery up in Townsville, and left the refinery owing some $80-odd million in workers' entitlements, which the Turnbull government has paid out, thanks to legislation that the Liberal-National government under Mr Howard introduced to make sure that workers would not be the losers and that, if something like the QNI collapse happened, the workers would not miss out. The taxpayers, through the federal government of Mr Howard, originally, and now Mr Turnbull, will make sure those workers receive their just entitlements. Of course I remember how Mr Palmer was the card in the pack that completely mistook the 2013 election. I remember how the Labor Party and their allies, including Mr Katter in Kennedy, were only elected because of the preferences of Mr Palmer. I well remember that Mr Palmer's money, which he apparently—I shouldn't say this because I understand it is before the court. But let me say that some people allege Mr Palmer siphoned money out of QNI into his political party that not only elected him; it elected Senator Jacqui Lambie and former senator Glenn Lazarus to this parliament. So the workers of Townsville, and ultimately the Townsville taxpayers, by the transfer of that money from QNI to the Palmer United Party, saw Senator Lambie elected to this parliament from Tasmania. Nobody knew her. She was only elected because of Clive Palmer's money and the particular notoriety he had at that time. He stood for election and got himself elected. He got Senator Lambie elected and also the thankfully former senator Glenn Lazarus. Neither of them, I might say, showed any loyalty to Mr Palmer once they got in on his millions. They left his party and left poor old Clive floundering in the dark. I'm hoping none of the Labor amendments to this bill dealing with workers' entitlements would in any way support the sorts of activities that Mr Palmer engaged in a few years ago. By contrast, a long time ago, before I was in this chamber, I was a solicitor in practice in a small country town. I occasionally had clients who ran wonderful businesses and employed a lot of people. But, because of some banking arrangements at the time, the business that for years had been the leading business in my hometown had run into some financial difficulties. It was not that they were in a situation of not being able to get out of it, but the bank at the time—and I don't want to mention the name of the bank, because it's a bank that I have criticised in other areas in recent times in the Senate—insisted on putting this group of companies into liquidation. I wasn't this man's solicitor at the time; I was actually in parliament at the time and I had severed my connection with the legal practice that was this person's legal adviser. But I do know that this person wanted to trade out of the difficulties. I know, because it was my town and my community that I had worked in for years, that he could have done that. He could have arranged to get his group of companies out of the difficulties. It would have taken a little bit of time and a little bit of readjustment, and the best person to do that was the managing director. He and his family owned the company, but he and his family would have been able, given some latitude from the bank, to get the company out of the difficulties. I always thought how stupid it was at the time that the bank, using the law that it did at the time and the law being what it was at the time, made it impossible for this person to trade the company out of difficulties. As a result, the bank lost a lot of money; the Australian Taxation Office lost a lot of money. I have to say most of the other creditors in the local community were paid out one way or another. So it achieved nothing. I'm hopeful that this bill that will create a safe harbour for honest and diligent company directors to save them from personal liability for insolvent trading would have been appropriate had it been in place 30 or so years ago. If they were pursuing a restructure outside of formal insolvency, then this bill, had it been in place then, would have protected directors from personal liability for insolvent trading. With the introduction of the safe harbour, directors will be able to remain in control of the company. And, as I've just mentioned, they are probably the best ones to be in control of the company because they know what it's about. Particularly in a small country town, if you bring in outside liquidators and managers, they, of course, have no idea of the particular business or how it works. So this legislation will allow directors to remain in control of the company and to take proactive steps to restructure a company when that is reasonably likely to deliver a better outcome for creditors, employees and shareholders. If that's what this legislation does, it is very good. I only lament that it wasn't like this years ago. I mentioned one instance but I was aware of other instances where allowing directors to remain in control of the company and to take proactive steps to restructure a company, when that would have been reasonably likely to deliver a better outcome for creditors, employees and shareholders, would have been appropriate. It would have been better for everyone had this law been in place 30 or so years ago. The safe harbour provisions contain safeguards to deter illegal phoenixing. For example, a safe harbour would not be available to a director of a company which failed to pay its employees' entitlements, did not fulfil its tax reporting obligations or kept information or financial records from an insolvency practitioner during any formal insolvency that occurred after the attempted restructure. So this bill has safeguards and it moves in what, I think, is a long overdue direction. Part 2 of the bill will also make ipso facto clauses unenforceable during and after certain formal insolvency procedures. An ipso facto clause in a contract can allow the contract to be terminated for the sole reason that one party is, or might become, insolvent. This could happen even if all other contractual obligations are met—for example, even if payments are still being made on schedule. I wasn't a practitioner in insolvency, but clients of mine in the old days fell into situations where this clause, as amended, would have been very useful to them in being able to trade out of their difficulties and making sure that the fewest people suffered from any collapse of the business. The stay of ipso facto clauses in part 2 will create a breathing space for a company to continue to trade through formal insolvency and improve its chances of being turned around. It will protect asset values for the benefit of the company, and that's particularly important. Too often, when liquidators come in, they sell assets for whatever is the easiest to get and whatever is the easiest to put money in the pocket of the insolvency expert, I might say. This clause will protect the asset value for the benefit of a company and its employees and its creditors, and it will remove a deterrent to entrepreneurs who might otherwise invest to turn that particular company around. Broadly, the safe harbour and ipso facto measures encourage Australians to take a risk, to leave behind the fear of failure and to be more innovative and ambitious. More often than not, entrepreneurs will fail several times before they experience success and will usually learn a great deal throughout the process. Helping these entrepreneurs succeed requires both a legislative and a cultural shift. These sorts of laws, I think, are long overdue. They can make sure, where a business is failing, that it has the very best chance to continue to operate in such a way that if it eventually fails, the least people possible suffer. They can make sure that directors who know the business, who are the best ones to understand what's happening and to understand the local market, are left in charge without fear of breaching the insolvency laws. So this amendment bill can only be positive. As I say, I look forward to hearing more about the Labor Party's amendments. Some of them seem to be appropriate, but it is a bill that I think does deserve the support of the Senate. 20:36 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I too am very pleased to rise tonight to contribute to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017. It is always a pleasure to follow my friend and learned colleague Senator Macdonald, who drew on his deep well of experience as a lawyer to make a very erudite contribution to this debate. I hope I don't cover too much of the same ground that he did, but it was such a valuable contribution, there is a risk it might happen. There are four things I would like to do in this debate tonight—a couple of things initially to set up the bill, and then I'll talk about the bill. Firstly, I want to talk about why entrepreneurship and business innovation is important and why it's worthy of encouragement. Secondly, I want to talk a little bit about what the recent data shows about entrepreneurship in Australia, and there are some interesting facts and figures about the trends in rates of new business creation that are worth commenting on and observing. Thirdly, I want to address how we in government, in a very general sense of the word, can help this process and also how we can impede this process and the way we should avoid impeding this process. Finally, I will turn to the bill itself. Firstly, I think it is generally assumed by anyone who has heard of the concept of entrepreneurship or business innovation that it's just a logical and good thing to support and a good thing that should happen. I think it is important that we understand why it's an important part of our economy and why government should want to see more of it and not less of it. It is important that we understand why government has a role in promoting it and what government's role is in promoting it. There are obvious social benefits to entrepreneurship and business innovation. As citizens, we all benefit from new businesses which come into being that offer new ways of doing things, new products or services, new technology, more efficient ways of doing things and different ways of thinking about doing things. Standing here today in 2017, all of us have vastly more choices available to us in our lives as consumers than our parents ever did, and certainly more than our grandparents or great-grandparents ever did. One of the reasons that is the case is entrepreneurship and business innovation. People have come up with new ways and new ideas. They have tested those ideas. They have brought them to market, and we as consumers are the ultimate beneficiaries of that. There are lots of really good practical examples of that, and some of them are technological in nature. But some of them are not about technology and are just about better and more efficient processes in the ways of doing things. That is one of the reasons why we live in a more prosperous economy than anyone before us and why we enjoy the fruits of that prosperity today. It is something we should be grateful for. That is obvious in and of itself, in terms of the benefits we have as individual citizens. But it is also important to reflect on why entrepreneurship is important to economic theory and why it's important to economic growth. It turns out that entrepreneurship plays a very central role in driving economic growth. Societies or nations which have higher rates of entrepreneurship also have higher rates of growth and are more materially prosperous, and that is a really positive thing. Logically, this makes some intuitive sense. A small new business, which is a start-up, entering into the market for the first time, is often going to try and do things differently to the way that existing players in a sector might, particularly large existing players, because it has really powerful incentives to do so. If the new business wants to enter into a market where there are existing players, in order to compete they will have to do things in a different way. Otherwise, they run the very great risk that they will just be replicating what an existing business does, they will likely be no more efficient than the existing business in doing it and they will find it very difficult to compete. Particularly if the existing business has, over time, accrued market power or market dominance, it would be very difficult for a new business to enter the market and compete. A new, innovative start-up business has the incentive to experiment and to try things differently and not just do things the same way that existing players in the market do, and so we find that often they are more willing to be innovative and experiment and do things in different ways. Those ideas do not always succeed; in fact, often they fail, and that is part of the process of creative destruction that occurs in our economy: people take risks and they fail, but often we learn a great deal from that failure and we are the beneficiaries of it. I'm not saying that large existing businesses don't do innovation. There are a lot of really good examples of large businesses in Australia that are very innovative, that do push the boundaries with technology, that do try new ways of doing things and that have a good internal culture of floating and trying new ideas. But there's something in the very nature of a small, new start-up business that means that they are more nimble and that they are forced to explore new and different ways of doing things, and that leads to entrepreneurship. Sometimes they happen upon a really good idea and a really different way of doing things which completely reshapes the industry that they are in, and the existing larger players have to adapt to it and follow. That is a really positive part of our free-market economy and part of the capitalist economy. I should point out that this entrepreneurship and innovation doesn't only occur for the benefit of profit-seeking, although that is certainly a very powerful motivator and, in my view, a very worthy motivator of entrepreneurship. But many entrepreneurs start out because they want to solve a social problem or an environmental problem, or they want to cater to a need in their community that isn't being met by either government or existing corporate players. So there are lots of positive reasons why government should have an interest in promoting entrepreneurship. I would like to turn now to what the recent data shows about entrepreneurship in Australia, because, although it's not overwhelmingly negative, there are certainly some sobering statistics that I think we should be mindful of in this debate. To assist me in doing that, I'm going to quote from the recent Productivity Commission report into business start-ups, Business set-up, transfer and closure, specifically from the second chapter: 'Recent trends in business set-up, transfer and closure'. It is the report on which this legislation is partly based—that is, the government's response to this report is this legislation. It's a very informative tool. To start with some basic facts, there are about 2.65 million businesses in Australia and the overwhelming majority of those, numerically, are small—97.6 per cent of them are small; 2.2 per cent of them are medium; and 0.2 per cent of them are large, according to some ABS statistics that the Productivity Commission has identified. When we are talking about business entries, it follows logically that most of the new businesses that are entering into the market are smaller businesses. It is pretty hard to enter the market as a big business, although from time to time, in some circumstances, that does occur, particularly if you have a significant amount of start-up capital behind you that allows you to enter the market. You will find that 99.3 per cent of business entries are in the 'small' category, which is above the existing representation of small businesses; 0.6 per cent of start-ups are in the 'medium-sized' category; and only 0.1 per cent are in the 'large' category. If you are a new business in the 'large' category, I would hazard a guess that you probably came about as the result of a merger, for example, of an existing business. When we talk about business exits, which is an equally important piece of evidence when calculating entrepreneurship, the results are similar. Most businesses which leave the market, which have ceased operating, are also small. I guess this makes intuitive sense as well: if you have made it to being a medium-size business or a large size business, your prospects for longer term survival are strong. Of the business exits that take place each year, 99.1 per cent are in the small-business category, only 0.8 per cent are in the medium-size category and 0.1 per cent are in the large-size category. It should be said at the outset that businesses entering and exiting trading is a normal part of the economy. We certainly wouldn't want an economy where there were no businesses exiting, because some businesses do fail; that is just a part of a capitalist economy. We shouldn't necessarily seek to prevent businesses from failing. Certainly, if they're failing as a result of government policy, we have a great deal of interest in that, but, if they're failing because their business model didn't work or their business idea didn't work, it is not the role of government to intervene. The number of businesses did increase in 2013-14. There was an uptick in that financial year, which was a really positive trend identified by the Productivity Commission. As a general observation, over the last decade the proportion of business entries has declined. What you can see—I can't show you, because it's a graph, but I will represent it—is a declining rate of entry of new businesses and a fairly flat rate of exit. What that effectively means is that there are fewer new businesses starting up and entering the economy. This is something that as a government and as a society we should be concerned about. As I mentioned before, the majority of those are small businesses. It's also interesting to reflect on what the relationship is between rates of entrepreneurship or business entries minus business exits and the overall health of the economy. It would follow logically in some ways that, if the economy is growing, more businesses would be entering and, if the economy is weak, more businesses would be exiting. But that doesn't always hold; it's not always strictly true. There's not a direct relationship between those two things. Certainly, a prosperous, growing economy, generally speaking, is better for entrepreneurship and starting a new business, and a declining economy, you would think, is a difficult environment, but the overall trend of declining business entries that we've seen in recent years has occurred despite the fact that the economy has been growing, and that is worrying. Generally speaking, more businesses being created is a good thing, and you would hope that would in turn drive economic growth. It would logically flow that population growth would also facilitate new business entry. They're issues that the Productivity Commission has looked at. I think it's worth comparing Australia to our international competitors to see how they're performing. I think it would be fair to say that we are about middle of the pack in terms of rates of entrepreneurship. There are countries that do it better than us and have higher rates than us. Particularly noticeable in recent years has been Israel, which is at a very high rate of entrepreneurship. Korea is another country with a very high rate of entrepreneurship. Generally speaking, around the world we have seen a holistic trend applying to all countries of declining business entry rates and declining entrepreneurship. This is not a problem which Australia is tackling in isolation. That points to the fact that it is not just a question of public policy and not just a question of what we here in government can do to help; there are wider cultural factors that are driving these things. What is it that causes people, in a cultural sense, to engage in entrepreneurial activity—to take risks and to start businesses? I now turn to how we in government can help this process of entrepreneurship and business creation and also the risk that we impede and limit in that process. We do have a role to play here. Governments can, by putting good settings in place, really facilitate an environment where entrepreneurship is valued, where risk-taking is valued and where starting a new business is an easy thing to do. One of the best international comparisons is how many days it takes to register a business. In Australia, in a technical, legal sense, it's very easy. We're one of the quickest countries in the world in which to register a business. You can go to business.gov.au and get an ABN very quickly—in fact, you can get it in 24 hours. In some countries, that can take a month or six months, depending on the type of business you want to start and how you want to start it. In a technical sense, we do that quite well. We should always be very mindful in this place, particularly when we're considering new regulations in whatever area, that that is a barrier to entrepreneurship and new business creation. We should remember that it is often the case that incumbent businesses, particularly large ones, in a perverse way benefit from regulation because it increases the barriers to entry. A small new business starting out in whichever sector, which has to contend with extensive and complex government regulation, is going to struggle to do so much more than a large existing business. That is obviously because, generally speaking, complying with government regulation is a fixed cost. If it's a fixed cost, then your incentive is to get as large as possible as quickly as possible so you can spread that fixed cost over as many customers and clients as possible. If you are a small business and you have to meet that same fixed cost that an existing large player has to meet, then you are going to find it very difficult. In a general sense, we should avoid, where absolutely possible, any red tape regulation that is unnecessary because it is a disincentive to starting a new business. I want to refer to an article that demonstrates an even more concrete way that regulation has sometimes impeded innovation. In the interests of full disclosure, it was an article that I edited in my previous life as editor of the IPA Review at the Institute of Public Affairs, and it was written by Richard Allsop in the August edition of the magazine. Richard took us through the fascinating history of technological adoption in Australia, and there are some extraordinary examples of how, intended or unintended, governments delay the introduction of new technology and business start-ups. One particularly memorable example he gave was how delayed the introduction of FM radio was in Australia compared to the rest of the world. As Richard pointed out: It was developed in the United States in the 1930s and was first used on an experimental basis in Australia in 1947. However, it was then effectively banned until 1974. So certain was everyone that the frequency and number of radio stations was set in concrete that Baby Boomers grew up listening to radios where the names of stations were printed on the radios. If the possibility of new AM stations was so unlikely, then FM seemed a world away. Eventually, FM was allowed to be used by community classical music stations in Sydney and Melbourne, followed by an ABC station and finally, in 1980, by commercial radio. So, for more than 30 years, Australian radio listeners had been denied the opportunity to listen to music sounding better than it did on the traditional AM band. There are lots of other examples like this—colour television is one, pay television is another—where government regulation actually prevented the introduction of new technology and new businesses. I think that the recent experience Australia has had with Uber versus taxi cartels is another pretty powerful example of where many other countries have had this service legalised far more quickly and for longer than Australia has, and Australian consumers are only now starting to benefit from it. Finally, I want to turn to the bill that is before us—the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill. As Senator Macdonald very articulately outlined in his contribution to the debate, this is about encouraging a culture of entrepreneurship. This is about encouraging risk taking and saying that it is acceptable for a business to start and sometimes even fail. We certainly hope that all new business start-ups are a success, but we know the reality is that that's not going to be the case, and so we have to design laws which are fit for purpose and which allow that experimentation and failure to happen without it coming at too great a cost. This bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 to improve our corporate insolvency system. No. 1, and most importantly, it will create a safe harbour for honest, diligent and competent company directors from personal liability for insolvent trading, if they are pursuing a restructure outside formal insolvency. Secondly, ipso facto clauses, which may allow the termination or variation of contracts based on a company's financial position or the commencement of certain insolvency proceedings, will become unenforceable during and after certain formal insolvency procedures. I think it's fair to say that our current insolvency laws put far too much focus on penalising and stigmatising failure. As I mentioned, the Productivity Commission released their report in 2015, entitled Business Set-up, Transfer and Closure, which identified that Australia's broader insolvency regime generally works well but it could be enhanced by targeted reform. These insolvency reforms reflect two of those recommendations from the Productivity Commission. The report identified that Australia's insolvent trading laws, combined with inherent uncertainty of determining the precise moment of insolvency, have been a driver behind companies entering into voluntary administration prematurely. Fear of personal liability deters angel investors from stepping in where they might otherwise help save a business. In response, the Productivity Commission recommended that a safe harbour defence for insolvent trading should be legislated. The report argued that: … a properly constructed safe harbour defence is the best approach to both encourage good corporate governance and improve genuine opportunities for restructure. The Productivity Commission also identified that the operation of ipso facto clauses can reduce the scope for a successful restructure or prevent the sale of a business as a going concern. Many countries restrict the use of such terms. Therefore, the Productivity Commission report recommended that insolvency related ipso facto clauses should be made unenforceable if the company is in voluntary administration or in the process of forming a scheme of arrangement. Australia's insolvency system is often compared to the United States chapter 11 regime, and some people regard the chapter 11 regime in a positive way. In the US, if a company enters into a chapter 11 process, creditor rights are frozen and the court is then empowered to oversee the proceedings. In the Productivity Commission's view, in the Australian context increasing the role of the courts is unlikely to improve the speed and cost-effectiveness of external administration, and therefore the Productivity Commission doesn't recommend Australia going with the chapter 11 model, because it is potentially unwarranted and certainly undesirable. Broadly, these measures are intended to encourage Australians to take risks, leave behind a fear of failure and be more innovative and ambitious. More often than not, as I said before, entrepreneurs will fail several times before they experience success, and they will generally learn very valuable lessons during that process. To help these entrepreneurs succeed requires a cultural shift. That is something that government can help with, and that is something that I think this bill goes some way to addressing. I commend it to the Senate. 20:56 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Not much good comes out of companies going bankrupt. From my experience, the liquidation process generally doesn't have much to hand out to creditors and stakeholders. Companies go bankrupt for a lot of reasons—sometimes it's poor management; sometimes it's taking on excessive debt. We could probably do a whole speech just on why companies go to the wall, figuratively speaking. But not much good comes out of the process. Often the creditors and the shareholders, the debtors, get very, very little back—a few cents in the dollar in some cases. Certainly other stakeholders, such as suppliers and workers, often lose out of the process. So it's not something that we like to see. I accept the premise behind this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017—the concept that we should look at an opportunity of giving company directors a second chance to see if they can turn the ship around before it goes under, to try and avoid the kinds of complications and the heartache and the issues that we see with the liquidation process or with receivership. I know from experience, not just here in the Senate but personal experience—I was a director of a small company for well over a decade—that the only people who do well out of the liquidation and receiver process are the liquidators and the receivers themselves. In fact, I can think of some Senate inquiries that I have been on, around forestry managed investment schemes, where the receivers themselves have got up to 30 or 40 per cent of the value of the assets, charged in fees over a long period of time. I have had a lot of people knocking at my door to complain about the behaviour of receivers or liquidators. So I'm not necessarily a big fan of liquidators per se, and I accept the logic and the intent of this bill, which is to look at options that allow another path to be explored before companies go to the wall. Let's think about companies making bad decisions and why companies end up being put into liquidation and ultimately go bankrupt—and 'bankrupt', technically speaking, is a personal term that applies to US law, but I do like to use it figuratively. Companies go bankrupt for lots of reasons. We need good directors. A good board of directors with good experience, good skill sets, good perspective and good balance is necessary to prevent companies going down that road in the first place. Healthy companies make profits but they employ people, and that is important for our society. If we want to have healthy companies that are able to survive—and it's cut-throat and competitive in a lot of businesses; let's be completely honest—then we need good people on boards of directors. I know people, even friends of mine, who've recently done the Australian Institute of Company Directors course. It's very difficult; it's not easy. There are a lot of requirements on directors these days if they're going to take up a position on a company board. In saying that, we need to be very careful that something like a safe-harbour clause doesn't end up becoming a bottom-of-the-harbour clause where we see abuses or potential abuses of a process that we're going to put in place here today. As Senator Gallagher said, we need to watch that very, very carefully. The government's intent on this bill reads: … this Bill will create a safe harbour for company directors from personal liability for insolvent trading if the company is undertaking a restructure outside formal insolvency. It's almost a binary choice. If your company reaches a point of technical insolvency—and this relates to your debts and your ability to service that debt—you have two choices: you can continue trading insolvent, which is illegal and which, potentially, levies heavy fines on the directors of that company, or you can put yourself into liquidation and see a receiver. This provides for a process, a restructure of the company, outside of this formal insolvency process. The government believes this will drive cultural change amongst company directors by encouraging them to keep control of their company, engage early with possible insolvency and take reasonable risks to facilitate the company's recovery, instead of simply placing the company prematurely into voluntary administration or liquidation. I've met with many stakeholders who've told me that it's easier for company directors, based on current laws, to put companies prematurely into insolvency rather than face the personal risk that being a company director entails. Under section 588G of the Corporations Act, a director of a company may be personally liable for debts incurred by the company if they are a director of a company at the time when the company incurs the debt; the company is insolvent at that time, or becomes insolvent by incurring that debt; and, at the same time, there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the company is insolvent or would become insolvent. As I said earlier, boards of companies are always trying to attract good people, and that's important for companies. If the risks are skewed so that company directors are actually protecting their own back pocket—in the sense that they might be liable for payment of potential debts—then, human nature being what it is, they would put the company into receivership, rather than allowing it to trade. We also don't want to see companies trading insolvent, and there is a reason why we have insolvency laws. The longer a company trades insolvent, the more the snowball moves and, potentially, we see more damage as stakeholders get drawn into this process—such as businesses who may have contracts with the company, suppliers who have contracts with the companies, shareholders, workers—so we need to be very careful of the fact that providing safe harbour is a good concept in principle when we're talking about company directors who want to do the right thing. Such company directors want to try and turn a company around, to save jobs for the workers and protect suppliers and other contractors. That's a good principle. Unfortunately, my experience of life is that not all people will necessarily behave the right way, and so we need to have some safeguards in place to make sure that we don't see unethical or illegal behaviour. We also need to ensure that this process isn't an indefinite process where new suppliers and new stakeholders are brought in, and they might be put at risk by—for example, long-term, three- or five-year restructure, which might count as a safe harbour. So I accept there are concerns over inadvertent breaches of insolvent trading laws and I know these are frequently cited as a reason that early-stage or angel investors and professional directors are reluctant to become involved in start-ups. I was talking to my colleague Senator McKim earlier about implications of innovation of this bill and he said he met with a number of stakeholders who wanted the Greens to support this bill. I'll talk a little bit about the amendments that we've got before us in a second. But I think as a principle this is a good one, if it actually helps solve a problem and means that fewer companies go into liquidation and that creditors and other stakeholders, such as workers, are better protected. In relation to Labor's amendments—and I presume we will go into the committee stage; so I won't go through it in a lot of detail—we certainly have some sympathy with Labor's third amendment that the minister be required to commission a review of the safe harbour amendment legislation before us today, with an independent panel after it has been in place for two years. My concern—and maybe we can go into this in more detail in committee—is about exactly how that's going to work. I understand from speaking to the minister's office tonight—and I must say that we haven't had a lot of time to speak to them; we didn't know this was going to be on tonight—that there's no plan at this stage for any kind of disclosure if corporations or companies have decided to opt for the safe harbour process or the safe harbour route, and that concerns me. I understand why a public disclosure to, for example, shareholders or other stakeholders such as suppliers would be problematic, given the ipso facto clause and the potential for this to be counterproductive, but I do believe that, if we are going to have an effective review after a couple of years, we actually need some data or some set of data, so that we can actually see how often these safe harbour clauses are taken up by company directors and how well they pan out. My understanding at this stage, and I admit that it may be fairly limited, is that the only way we'll find out if companies have opted to go down the safe harbour route is if a company goes into liquidation and that liquidation process then explores whether a company has gone into the safe harbour process, and we won't know for two years how many companies will have gone through liquidation. From my personal understanding, liquidation takes a long time; it can take many, many years. I have a suggestion, which off the top of the hat, is: why wouldn't ASIC, for example, be required to keep a database or a register of companies that have opted for or directors who have opted to go down the safe harbour route? That way we can collate that information and have it available. Of course, companies may go down the safe harbour route and successfully trade out of trouble—it may take years or it may take a short period of time—and we'll never know whether they've opted to go down this road, because the data won't be available. That could help us decide whether this was a good piece of legislation, and that would reinforce whether we want to keep it in place with not too many changes. So I like the idea of Labor's third amendment, to have a review, but, if we can't measure how many companies have gone down this road, then I'm not sure how effective that is going to be. So I would like to receive some information from the minister on that when we explore that amendment. I do have concerns about the length of time that companies could opt to go down the safe harbour route. Restructuring of businesses can take some time. It may take many, many years to turn a business around. Nevertheless, I'm prepared to see what a review would show in that respect. There is another thing I would like to get more information: if a company or directors go down the safe harbour route and enter into a restructuring process, are there any restrictions on those directors, for example, selling equity in their businesses over that period of time? With continuous disclosure laws, if they are a public company listed on the stock market, I would hope that that kind of thing would be transparent. I have raised with the minister's office that if private companies do sell equity in their businesses—and I know from personal experience that they do—and certain directors are aware of problems, but there is no requirement for them to flag a sale of equity or even raise new equity, and I think that presents some risks where the business is currently trading in safe harbour. Certainly it presents risks to new investors and new stakeholders in the company. I hate to say it, but, yes, I do assume some cynicism with human behaviour on these matters and I would like to see some safeguards in that respect. Of course, if the companies rise out of that restructuring process successfully and go on, that's great, but I've seen too many rats leave sinking ships in the past. So there are a couple of things there that I think would be important to note and provide some information on during the committee stage. I would like to talk now a little bit more about Labor's amendments. I can see some merits in what the Labor Party is suggesting with these amendments. In their first amendment, at (a), it would be up to the director to prove that they're entitled to the safe harbour, rather than the other way around. At the moment the government's bill has that, once directors point to some evidence—that is, satisfy an evidentiary burden—it is up to the creditor to then prove that the director is not entitled to the safe harbour. I think Labor is proposing that liquidators or receivers be approached to provide essentially a tick of approval for a company before they go down the safe harbour road. I just don't know how that's going to work. Liquidators and receivers have a specific role and, if they do that, then essentially they are going to be corporate consultants or corporate doctors. It is a different role to what they play now, and I see a conflict of interest if a liquidator provides that tick of approval to go down the safe harbour road, it doesn't work and the company goes into liquidation. What if it is the same liquidator that is actually liquidating the company that provided that advice? Is there liability attached to providing advice to a company? Even if it's extended to go into corporate consultants like Arthur Andersen or other experts, is there any liability attached to providing that advice that Labor has set out in (1)(a)? I'm not sure that that would be workable, but I would be happy to talk to the Labor Party about that further. In (1)(b), to be entitled to the safe harbour, the director must satisfy all five factors. Those five factors are very important. Labor is suggesting that upfront a director must meet the five reasonable requirements to get the benefit of the safe harbour. They include properly informing themselves of the company's financial position, taking appropriate steps to prevent misconduct by officers or employees of the company that could affect the company's ability to pay its debts, taking appropriate steps to ensure that the company is keeping appropriate financial records, obtaining advice through an appropriately qualified entity who is given sufficient information to give appropriate advice and, lastly, developing or implementing a plan for restructuring the company to improve its financial position. It would be very useful for companies to go through their own internal processes to tick those boxes to make sure that that has been done. I don't know how getting essentially certification of those issues would work. I'm not sure how workable that would be either. Who's capable of providing that independent advice? Once again would there be legal liability attached to the provision of that advice by an independent third party? I'm not sure how that would work. Possibly it could be ASIC or another body that is set up to do this. That's a possibility, but with little time and the complications in rewriting that out in legislation, perhaps that's something that could be looked at in a review in two years time. Certainly it would be useful to have companies which go through this process of choosing not to go into liquidation but opting for a safe harbour registered—privately, if that has to be—with someone like the regulator so that we have that data and we have a record that that company is in that situation. Like Senator Gallagher, I will be watching very closely to see how this unfolds and to see whether company directors use this in ways that would be counterproductive to the intent of the bill. I will just quickly summarise in the last minute or so that I've got left. While there are the concerns which I've outlined here tonight, these concerns could be addressed in terms of regulation around the legislation, in some detail—and they are the kinds of things that could potentially be addressed once we have a dataset, once we see how this has unfolded in a couple of years time. I personally believe that avoiding companies going into liquidation and receivership is important. I don't think it benefits anyone really, except the liquidators and receivers. They tend to do very well out of the process, thank you very much. It's not necessarily good for the workers, the small business suppliers, the shareholders or the other stakeholders, so, if we can find a way forward that helps avoid more frequent liquidation or companies becoming bankrupt, then that's something we should look at. I have met over the last couple of years with the Institute of Company Directors and other stakeholders, and they've made this point clear. I think it's rational, but I think we need to be very careful that we're not giving cover or protection to company directors who may do the wrong thing. The intent of this bill is that they will do the right thing. My experience in life is that that is not necessarily the case. It's great while we get good people on boards that are set up to help revive a company and support workers. We just need to make sure there are some safeguards put in place to make sure that the bill is not counterproductive. 21:16 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank all senators who have contributed to this debate and I commend this bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 6891 21:17 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (20) on sheet GZ221 together. (1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 10 (lines 8 to 31), omit subsection 415D(1), substitute: Stay on enforcing rights (1) A right cannot be enforced against a body for: (a) the reason that the body, if it is a disclosing entity, has publicly announced that it will be making an application under section 411 for the purpose of avoiding being wound up in insolvency; or (b) the reason that the body is the subject of an application under section 411; or (c) the reason that the body is the subject of a compromise or arrangement approved under this Part as a result of an application under section 411; or (d) the body's financial position, if the body is the subject of such an announcement, application, compromise or arrangement; or (e) a reason, prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph, that relates to:    (i) the making, or possible making, of such an announcement, application, compromise or arrangement about the body; or    (ii) the body's financial position; if such an announcement, application, compromise or arrangement is later made about the body; or (f) a reason that, in substance, is contrary to this subsection; if the right arises for that reason by express provision (however described) of a contract, agreement or arrangement. Note: This result is subject to subsections (5), (6) and (8), and to any order under section 415E. Example: A right to terminate a contract will not be enforceable to the extent that those rights are triggered by the body becoming the subject of such an announcement, application, compromise or arrangement. (2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 12 (line 6), at the end of subsection 415D(4), add: ; or (d) is a reason referred to in paragraph (1)(e) or (f). (3) Schedule 1, item 7, page 13 (lines 1 to 5), omit subsection 415D(8), substitute: (8) If the application under section 411 results in the approval under this Part of a compromise or arrangement, subsection (1) does not apply to the right to the extent that: (a) the person appointed to administer the compromise or arrangement; or (b) if a liquidator of the body is appointed after the start of the stay period—the liquidator; has consented in writing to the enforcement of the right. (4) Schedule 1, item 7, page 14 (lines 19 and 20), omit "a reason referred to in paragraphs 415D(1)(a) to (d)", substitute "one or more reasons referred to in paragraphs 415D(1)(a) to (f)". (5) Schedule 1, item 7, page 15 (after line 15), after section 415F, insert: 415FA Self ‑executing provisions (1) The object of subsection (2) is to ensure that a self‑executing provision: (a) cannot start to apply against a body for certain reasons; and (b) can be the subject of a Court order providing that the provision can only start to apply against a body with the leave of the Court, and in accordance with such terms (if any) as the Court imposes. (2) Sections 415D to 415F also apply in relation to a self‑executing provision in a corresponding way to the way they apply in relation to a right. For this purpose, assume those sections apply with such modifications as are necessary, including any prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection. Note 1: This subsection achieves the object in subsection (1) by extending the application of all of the outcomes, exceptions and powers in sections 415D to 415F. Note 2: These modifications include, for example, treating: (a) a reference that a right cannot be enforced (however described) as including a reference that a self‑executing provision cannot start to apply; and (b) the words "if the right arises for that reason by express provision (however described) of a contract, agreement or arrangement" as being omitted from subsection 415D(1); and (c) a reference that one or more rights are enforceable as including a reference that one or more self‑executing provisions can start to apply; and (d) paragraph 415F(2)(b) as alternatively providing that the Court is satisfied that one or more reasons referred to in paragraphs 415D(1)(a) to (f) can cause the self‑executing provisions to start to apply. (3) In this section: self ‑executing provision means a provision of a contract, agreement or arrangement that can start to apply automatically: (a) for one or more reasons; and (b) without any party to the contract, agreement or arrangement making a decision that the provision should start to apply. (6) Schedule 1, item 7, page 15 (line 17), omit "415F", substitute "415FA". (7) Schedule 1, item 8, page 15 (line 27) to page 16 (line 17), omit subsection 434J(1), substitute: Stay on enforcing rights (1) A right cannot be enforced against a corporation for: (a) the reason of the appointment or existence of a managing controller of the whole or substantially the whole of the corporation's property; or (b) the corporation's financial position, if there is a managing controller of the whole or substantially the whole of the corporation's property; or (c) a reason, prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph, that relates to:    (i) the appointing, or possible appointing, of a managing controller of the whole or substantially the whole of the corporation's property; or    (ii) the corporation's financial position; if such an appointment is later made for the whole or substantially the whole of the corporation's property; or (d) a reason that, in substance, is contrary to this subsection; if the right arises for that reason by express provision (however described) of a contract, agreement or arrangement. Note: This result is subject to subsections (5) and (7), and to any order under section 434K. Example: A right to terminate a contract will not be enforceable to the extent that those rights are triggered by the appointment of a managing controller. (8) Schedule 1, item 8, page 17 (line 13), at the end of subsection 434J(4), add: ; or (d) is a reason referred to in paragraph (1)(c) or (d). (9) Schedule 1, item 8, page 19 (line 16), omit "a reason referred to in paragraph 434J(1)(a) or (b)", substitute "one or more reasons referred to in paragraphs 434J(1)(a) to (d)". (10) Schedule 1, item 8, page 20 (after line 3), after section 434L, insert: 434LA Self ‑executing provisions (1) The object of subsection (2) is to ensure that a self‑executing provision: (a) cannot start to apply against a corporation for certain reasons; and (b) can be the subject of a Court order providing that the provision can only start to apply against a corporation with the leave of the Court, and in accordance with such terms (if any) as the Court imposes. (2) Sections 434J to 434L also apply in relation to a self‑executing provision in a corresponding way to the way they apply in relation to a right. For this purpose, assume those sections apply with such modifications as are necessary, including any prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection. Note 1: This subsection achieves the object in subsection (1) by extending the application of all of the outcomes, exceptions and powers in sections 434J to 434L. Note 2: These modifications include, for example, treating: (a) a reference that a right cannot be enforced (however described) as including a reference that a self‑executing provision cannot start to apply; and (b) the words "if the right arises for that reason by express provision (however described) of a contract, agreement or arrangement" as being omitted from subsection 434J(1); and (c) a reference that one or more rights are enforceable as including a reference that one or more self‑executing provisions can start to apply; and (d) paragraph 434L(2)(b) as alternatively providing that the Court is satisfied that one or more reasons referred to in paragraphs 434J(1)(a) to (d) can cause the self‑executing provisions to start to apply. (3) In this section: self ‑executing provision means a provision of a contract, agreement or arrangement that can start to apply automatically: (a) for one or more reasons; and (b) without any party to the contract, agreement or arrangement making a decision that the provision should start to apply. (11) Schedule 1, item 8, page 20 (line 5), omit "434L", substitute "434LA". (12) Schedule 1, item 14, page 21 (lines 3 to 19), omit subsection 451E(1), substitute: Stay on enforcing rights (1) A right cannot be enforced against a company for: (a) the reason that the company has come or is under administration; or (b) the company's financial position, if the company is under administration; or (c) a reason, prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph, that relates to:    (i) the company coming, or possibly coming, under administration; or    (ii) the company's financial position; if the company later comes under administration; or (d) a reason that, in substance, is contrary to this subsection; if the right arises for that reason by express provision (however described) of a contract, agreement or arrangement. Note: This result is subject to subsections (5) and (7), and to any order under section 451F. Example: A right to terminate a contract will not be enforceable to the extent that those rights are triggered by the company coming under administration. (13) Schedule 1, item 14, page 22 (line 18), at the end of subsection 451E(4), add: ; or (d) is a reason referred to in paragraph (1)(c) or (d). (14) Schedule 1, item 14, page 23 (lines 7 to 9), omit subsection 451E(7), substitute: (7) Subsection (1) does not apply to the right to the extent that: (a) the administrator of the company; or (b) if a liquidator of the company is appointed after the administration ends—the liquidator; has consented in writing to the enforcement of the right. (15) Schedule 1, item 14, page 24 (lines 7 and 8), omit "a reason referred to in paragraph 451E(1)(a) or (b)", substitute "one or more reasons referred to in paragraphs 451E(1)(a) to (d)". (16) Schedule 1, item 14, page 24 (after line 26), after section 451G, insert: 451GA Self ‑executing provisions (1) The object of subsection (2) is to ensure that a self‑executing provision: (a) cannot start to apply against a company for certain reasons; and (b) can be the subject of a Court order providing that the provision can only start to apply against a company with the leave of the Court, and in accordance with such terms (if any) as the Court imposes. (2) Sections 451E to 451G also apply in relation to a self‑executing provision in a corresponding way to the way they apply in relation to a right. For this purpose, assume those sections apply with such modifications as are necessary, including any prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection. Note 1: This subsection achieves the object in subsection (1) by extending the application of all of the outcomes, exceptions and powers in sections 451E to 451G. Note 2: These modifications include, for example, treating: (a) a reference that a right cannot be enforced (however described) as including a reference that a self‑executing provision cannot start to apply; and (b) the words "if the right arises for that reason by express provision (however described) of a contract, agreement or arrangement" as being omitted from subsection 451E(1); and (c) a reference that one or more rights are enforceable as including a reference that one or more self‑executing provisions can start to apply; and (d) paragraph 451G(2)(b) as alternatively providing that the Court is satisfied that one or more reasons referred to in paragraphs 451E(1)(a) to (d) can cause the self‑executing provisions to start to apply. (3) In this section: self ‑executing provision means a provision of a contract, agreement or arrangement that can start to apply automatically: (a) for one or more reasons; and (b) without any party to the contract, agreement or arrangement making a decision that the provision should start to apply. (17) Schedule 1, item 14, page 24 (line 28), omit "451G", substitute "451GA". (18) Schedule 1, item 15, page 25 (line 4), omit "415D to 415F, 434J to 434L,", substitute "415D to 415FA, 434J to 434LA,". (19) Schedule 1, item 16, page 25 (line 7), omit "451E to 451G,", substitute "451E to 451GA,". (20) Schedule 1, item 17, page 25 (line 10), after "under", insert ", or self‑executing provisions of,". I also table an explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments I have moved to this bill. The government is moving these amendments in response to submissions received during the Senate committee's review of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Enterprise Incentives No. 2) Bill 2017. I would like to thank all those who contributed to the Senate committee process and note that the committee recommended that the bill be passed. However, the government considers that certain technical amendments are warranted to ensure the bill operates as intended. These amendments apply only to the operation of the stay on ipso facto clauses in part 2, schedule 1, of the bill. That part provides for stay against the enforcement of rights that it amend or terminate an agreement because of a formal restructure. The amendments amend the application of the stay on the enforcement of applicable rights under an ipso facto clause to (1) strengthen the anti-avoidance mechanisms to ensure that parties cannot contract around the stay, (2) extend the right to consent in writing to an enforcement of a stay to a liquidator who is subsequently appointed following an administration or scheme of arrangements and (3) clarify that the stay also applies to self-executing ipso facto clauses. The anti-avoidance mechanism has been strengthened by adding an additional integrity provision and clarifying that regulations can be used to address other attempts to circumvent the operation of the stay. The bill already provides for an administrator and a person administering a compromise arrangement to be able to consent in writing to lift the stay on the enforcement of rights under applicable ipso facto clauses. These amendments extend that right to a liquidator who is subsequently appointed to the company should the company be wound up. This prevents an illogical and unintended outcome where an administrator has agreed to the operation of an ipso facto clause, only to have the arrangement fall away on the appointment of a liquidator. When the stay operates, it prevents the enforcement of contractual rights against a company undertaking a formal restructure. In some cases, an ipso facto clause will operate automatically on the occurrence of a certain event, without a decision by a party to the contract being made to enforce that right. For example, the entire contract will automatically terminate if one party enters into external administration. This results in all of the restructuring company's rights being extinguished and, thus, negatively impacts on the prospects of a successful restructure or sale of the business as a going concern. The amendments clarify that such self-executing clauses will also be caught by the stay on ipso facto clauses, as originally intended. This is a bill that promotes a culture of entrepreneurship and innovation to drive business growth, global success and help save local jobs. These amendments are necessary to ensure that the provisions in the bill operate as they were intended to operate. I've already tabled the explanatory memorandum. 21:20 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The opposition will be supporting the government's amendments. We acknowledge and thank Minister O'Dwyer for briefing my office on Friday on these amendments, but the briefing was arranged at quite short notice. So we have only had the weekend, really, to understand the oral briefing, and I think the amendments were provided and circulated quite late as well. With that as a preface to my comments, we take the government at its word that these amendments are necessary to fix some gaps that came to the attention of the government during the course of the Senate inquiry, particularly in relation to part 2 of the bill, which sets out new provisions to stop the enforcement of ipso facto clauses that are triggered when a company enters administration. As I said in the second reading speech, we certainly support part 2 of the bill. An ipso facto clause creates a contractual right that allows one party to terminate or modify the operation of a contract upon the occurrence of some specific event. Currently, such rights may allow one party to terminate a contract just because of the financial position of the company, even though the company is still meeting its obligations under the contract. Our understanding of the government's amendments is that they will address the following gaps. The current bill, unamended, may not cover self-executing ipso facto clauses and may only be limited to the regular ipso facto clauses, which require a party to elect to rely on the ipso facto clause. The amendment will fix this to make clear that the self-executing, or automatically operating, ipso facto clauses can also be covered. Also, the bill, as drafted, allows for an administrator to release a party from the stay on the ipso facto clauses that the bill contains. However, if the company goes into liquidation, the current bill does not allow for the liquidator to release a party from the stay on the cause. The amendment will fix this so that the liquidator can also have this power. Labor will be supporting the amendments. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 244247 The question is that amendments (1) to (20), moved together by leave, on sheet GZ221, be agreed to. Question agreed to. 21:23 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (15) on sheet 8224, circulated in my name, together. (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 7 to 13), omit all the words from and including "evidence" to the end of subsection 588E(8A), substitute: it has been proved that: (a) subsection 588GA(1) applies in relation to a person and a debt; or (b) subsection 588WA(1) applies in relation to a corporation and a debt; it must be presumed that the relevant subsection applies in relation to the person or the corporation and the debt. (2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 16), after "harbour", insert "defence". (3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 19 and 20), omit "Subsection 588G(2) does not apply in relation to a person and a debt if", substitute "In any proceedings against a person under subsection 588G(2), it is a defence if the person proves, in relation to a debt, that". (4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 7), omit "an evidential", substitute "a legal". (5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 13 to 15), omit all the words from and including "For" to "whether", substitute "For the purposes of subsection (1), a course of action is reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome for the company only if". (6) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 18), omit "or", substitute "and". (7) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 21), omit "or", substitute "and". (8) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 24), omit "or", substitute "and". (9) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 27), omit "or", substitute "and". (10) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 31 and 32), omit "an evidential", substitute "a legal". (11) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (lines 4 to 6), omit the definition of evidential burden in subsection 588GA(7), substitute: legal burden, in relation to a matter, means the burden of proving the existence of the matter. (12) Schedule 1, item 4, page 8 (line 15), after "harbour", insert "defence". (13) Schedule 1, item 4, page 8 (lines 17 and 18), omit all words from and including "Subsection" to "debt, if", substitute "In any proceedings against a corporation under section 588W, it is a defence if". (14) Schedule 1, item 4, page 8 (lines 27 and 28), omit "an evidential", substitute "a legal". (15) Schedule 1, item 4, page 9 (lines 1 to 3), omit the definition of evidential burden in subsection 588WA(3), substitute: legal burden, in relation to a matter, means the burden of proving the existence of the matter. I did go into this in some detail in the second reading stage, but just for the benefit of senators I will cover it off again. With the way the government's bill is drafted, the directors don't have to prove that they have the benefit of the defence. Instead, once directors bring evidence that satisfies an evidentiary burden that suggests a reasonable possibility that the matters exist or do not exist in that they are entitled to the safe harbour, the burden of proof or the legal burden falls on the party bringing proceedings to prove that the director is not entitled to the safe harbour. Our amendments on sheet 8224 would mean that directors who want to access the safe harbour bear the burden of proof in showing that they are genuinely taking a reasonable course of action to turn the company around. This is consistent with other existing defences to liability for insolvent trading. An evidential burden in relation to a matter means the burden of adducing, or pointing to, evidence that suggests a reasonable possibility that the matter exists or does not exist, whereas a legal burden in relation to a matter means the burden of proving the existence of the matter. In civil proceedings, this is required to be on the balance of probabilities. Under the government's bill, once directors point to some evidence—that is, they satisfy an evidentiary burden—the burden of proof then falls onto the person bringing proceedings to prove that the director is not entitled to the safe harbour. We think that directors should bear the full legal burden of proof because they are in the position to have the information and knowledge about what action they've taken and why. Placing the burden of proof on directors will also mean they are more likely to take proper care and show diligence when trying to turn around an insolvent company. Through these amendments, we are also tightening the safeguards to make sure that directors are doing proper due diligence when they put into place a plan of action to trade out of insolvency. Currently the bill contains five sensible things that the court may have regard to in determining whether the safe harbour is available. We think that each of the five factors in the bill are good but that they should be non-negotiable. Our amendments will change these from being indicia—that a court may have regard to—to being five mandatory requirements. There should be no doubt that directors in this situation must be informing themselves of the company's financial position, taking appropriate steps to prevent misconduct by the company's employees or officers, ensuring that the company is keeping appropriate records, obtaining appropriate advice, and developing or implementing a restructuring plan. I hope the Senate can support these amendments. 21:26 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The government will not be supporting these amendments. By way of background, under the current bill as proposed, a safe harbour is framed as a carve-out from or exception to liability, which means that the starting point is that liability for insolvent trading does not arise, and a director will only be liable if the company is subsequently wound up and the liquidator brings a court action and proves to the civil standard of proof that the conditions for safe harbour were not met. The amendment as proposed frames the safe harbour as a defence to liability. This would mean that every director who tries to run insolvent in an attempt to restructure or turn the company around will end up in court and will be personally liable for insolvent trading under section 588G of the Corporations Act, unless he or she can prove—to the civil standard of proof—a safe harbour defence. The current bill is based on extensive consultations over a period of two years, which favoured a carve-out from insolvent trading liability over defence to liability. This is primarily as a result of concerns that a defence would not provide directors of small businesses and start-ups with sufficient comfort to not place a company into administration prematurely so as to avoid the risk of personal liability. The position of stakeholders is supported by the fact that the act currently, in section 588H, provides a defence to insolvent trading liability where a director was provided with information—advice—on the company's current and future state of solvency. This defence has been rarely used, confirming it does not provide directors with the necessary comfort to avoid putting a company into administration prematurely. The proposed changes that the opposition have put forward would therefore defeat the policy intent behind the measure. Without a carve-out, the threat of litigation is generally sufficient to force directors to settle with a liquidator, rather than risk costly and time-consuming litigation. The Australian Institute of Company Directors has said that the defence model would be counter to the bill's primary objectives: In the context of a safe harbour designed to facilitate genuine business turnarounds and restructures, this approach is neither appropriate, constructive, nor in accordance with common sense lawmaking. Placing the legal burden on directors would perpetuate the overly strict legislative approach for which our insolvency regime is currently criticised … The Turnaround Management Association said a traditional defence 'would be a cold comfort to directors', and pointed out that such a model would likely result in under-utilisation of the safe harbour protections. The law firm Ashurst said: A defence would mean that directors continued to have prima facie liability for insolvent trading in the specified circumstances, subject to their being able to establish the elements of the defence. By contrast, a carve-out would mean that a director would not be liable for insolvent trading unless the liquidator or other person taking action could establish that the director had failed to satisfy the safe harbour prerequisites. Public consultation on the exposure draft of the legislation occurred between 28 March and 24 April 2017 and 45 submissions were received. A strong majority of submissions supported the proposed safe harbour carve-out model including ARITA, the Law Council, the Australian Institute of Company Directors, the Turnaround Management Association, AVCAL, the Governance Institute, and the ABA. Only three submitters did not support a safe harbour in principle: the Australian Credit Forum, Narrow Road Capital and SV Partners. 21:29 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia I can indicate that I and my colleagues do not support the amendments on sheet 8224. We have concerns that the prescriptive approach doesn't achieve the policy intent of the bill, and I believe there will be some significant unintended consequences with these amendments. Given the significant consultations over some 18 months and broad support for the carve-out model rather than a defence model, I and my colleagues think it is reasonable to support this model but to have the review as proposed by the opposition. Throughout the consultation process, Treasury has created a safe harbour approach that is workable, imposed a test on which directors' actions will be judged objectively and contains robust safeguards, including for employee entitlements and tax obligations. The Senate Economics Legislation Committee report on this made the point at 2.15, in part, that 'requiring that a director meet an evidential burden in order to be entitled to a safe harbour', rather than a defence, was the preferred approach. The report says: Most submitters expressed support for this approach and argued that it is in line with the bill's objective of facilitating successful restructures outside of formal insolvency. In its submission— and I think Senator Cormann made reference to this— Ashurst noted that the carve-out model would provide 'an extra level of protection for directors who are making honest and diligent attempts to restore a company to solvency'— And I emphasise 'honest and diligent attempts'— Ashurst also explained the operation of a defence versus carve-out safe harbour model: A defence would mean that directors continued to have prima facie liability for insolvent trading in the specified circumstances, subject to their being able to establish the elements of the defence. By contrast, a carve-out would mean that a director would not be liable for insolvent trading unless the liquidator or other person taking action could establish that the director had failed to satisfy the safe harbour prerequisites. And I think that sums up the policy very neatly. The report goes on: TMA Australia submitted that a traditional defence 'would be a cold-comfort to directors' and pointed out that such a model would likely result in under-utilisation of the safe harbour protections. They are important reasons for keeping it as is. I do not begrudge the opposition for putting up this amendment. I understand what they are trying to achieve, but I think there are a number of serious unintended consequences. It is important that we put on the record that the 2013 report of Singapore's Insolvency Law Review Committee had the following to say: The Australian provisions are considered to be some of the strictest provisions amongst the major jurisdictions, in the sense that they effectively prohibit trading once there are 'reasonable grounds for suspecting' that a company is insolvent … A wide notional cessation of trading even prior to the commencement of insolvency proceedings may further endanger a financially-troubled company's ability to trade through a period of crisis, and thus worsen the company's financial difficulties. It does not strike the best balance between the interest in protecting creditors against the reckless or unreasonable incurring of debts by an insolvent company, and the interest in allowing the directors of a distressed company a fair opportunity to take reasonable steps to avoid the company's financial ruin. There should be more latitude afforded to a director to continue to trade in the reasonable expectation that, although the company is insolvent, it is most likely to be able to trade out of its present difficulties. Can I say: they are important considerations for companies that are struggling to stay open. They do so in good faith, and they have the benefit of the safe harbour provisions, and that has huge implications for the employees of that company, where those directors are doing all they can to keep that company going. This amendment would go against that. I think the government's approach is appropriate. I think that the opposition's proposal for a thorough review of this is welcome, and I support that. We cannot support this particular amendment, but we do strongly support the review proposed on sheet 8239, and look forward to the results of that report. 21:34 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I want to reiterate that, while we accept Senator Cormann's explanation and Senator Xenophon's explanation about this amendment cutting across the intent of the bill, the key reason we're opposing it is that we're not sure that it is workable. It's actually set out that Labor proposes to turn the safe harbour carve-out into a defence and require the appointment of a registered liquidator to provide restructuring advice to the directors in order to prove that defence. Then, if you go on to the next part of the amendment, in order to prove the defence to the civil standard of proof, a director will need to provide evidence that he or she obtained advice from an appropriately qualified entity labelled as a registered liquidator and insolvency practitioner. I will just go back to what I said earlier. I'm not sure why liquidators and insolvency practitioners would be entering into the corporate restructuring game as corporate doctors. It wouldn't necessarily be in their interests to do so, because they want to liquidate companies and make lots of money over a long period of time. I would be very suspicious of getting advice from a liquidator about how to restructure my company and trade out of trouble, because they actually are good at liquidating assets when companies go bankrupt. I don't support the amendment at this stage because we haven't had the information we need to see how this is workable. I reiterate that the Greens won't be supporting these amendments but we will be supporting Labor's next amendment, on sheet 8239. The CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) to (15) on sheet 8224, moved by Senator Gallagher, be agreed to.  

The committee divided [21:40]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)

 20 AYES Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Collins, JMA Dastyari, S Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Hinch, D Ketter, CR Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M Moore, CM Polley, H Pratt, LC Singh, LM Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M 36 NOES Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Cash, MC Cormann, M Di Natale, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Griff, S Hanson, P Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID McGrath, J McKim, NJ O'Sullivan, B Parry, S Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Rhiannon, L Rice, J Roberts, M Scullion, NG Siewert, R Sinodinos, A Smith, D (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS Williams, JR Xenophon, N 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 21:43 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 8239. (1) Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 12), after item 3, insert: 3A At the end of Division 3 of Part 5.7B Add:     588HA Review relating to safe harbour    (1) The Minister must cause an independent review of the following matters to be undertaken as soon as practicable after the last day of the 2 year period commencing on the commencement of this section:    (a) the impact of the availability of the safe harbour to directors of companies on:       (i) the conduct of directors; and       (ii) the interests of creditors and employees of those companies;       (b) any other matters the Minister considers relevant.    (2) The review must be undertaken by 3 persons who, in the Minister's opinion, possess appropriate qualifications to undertake the review.    (3) The persons who undertake the review must give the Minister a written report of the review.    (4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the report is given to the Minister.    (5) The report is not a legislative instrument. This amendment introduces a requirement for the minister to initiate a review of the safe harbour provisions by an independent panel two years after it commences. It is an opportunity to make sure the safe harbour is not having any unintended consequences. It is fair to say that Labor does have concerns with how the safe harbour provisions will be utilised. We would have liked them to have been tougher than they are presently going to be. This amendment would allow a three-person independent panel to review and look at the impact of the availability of safe harbour on the conduct of directors and the interests of creditors and employees of those companies and any other relevant matter. In the interests of time, I commend the amendment to the Senate. 21:44 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The government will not be opposing these amendments. We are confident that a review will confirm the government's view that this legislation will significantly improve the current insolvency regime to encourage more investment in Australian businesses. The reason for that confidence is because of the extensive process of consultation that we've gone through to put this bill together. We will not be opposing these amendments. 21:45 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I wanted to reiterate my concern earlier: we support this amendment and it is good the government is supporting it, but I don't think there's been a lot of thought gone into how we are going to track the use of safe harbour in the next two years before this review is up. I wanted the government to take on board that we need a process of notification. If it has to be done privately, that's fine. But there needs to be a way that we can actually track this and no-one yet has been able to tell me how that's going to happen. 21:45 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I have heard Senator Whish-Wilson's comments. We are taking that on board and are going to give that some consideration as to how that can best and most sensibility be done. The CHAIR: The question is that opposition amendment (1) on sheet 8239 as moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 6902 21:46 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. ADJOURNMENT 6903 ADJOURNMENT Ballarat Basketball Association 6903 21:47 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I rise this evening to congratulate the outstanding efforts of the Ballarat Basketball Association for their recent efforts in obtaining $10 million in federal funding for the expansion of the Ballarat Sports and Events Centre. While this was undoubtedly a team effort, there is one person in particular who I feel must be specifically congratulated. The substantial expansion project would not have received federal government funding if it hadn't been for the persistent, hard work of Mr Peter Eddy, and Peter Eddy's team at the Ballarat Basketball Association. This expansion project has been a long-held dream in the Ballarat community, and the countless hours of consultation, meetings and forums held by Mr Eddy and his team were instrumental in proving the case for the centre's proposed upgrade. Mr Eddy and his terrific leadership team have devoted themselves to this worthy cause of civic engagement and have been duly rewarded. Peter, you have my sincerest congratulations. It is also incumbent upon me to offer my congratulations to the two major basketball teams in Ballarat, the Ballarat Miners and the Rush, who will undoubtedly be celebrating this wonderful announcement for federal funding. A special mention must go to the head coach of the Miners, Eric Hayes, and assistant coaches, Justin Fraser and Nathan Cooper-Brown, as well as team manager Brett Robinson; and head coach of the Rush, David Flint, and assistant coach Rob Baker, for their tremendous commitment in not only leading their teams but also supporting Peter and Basketball Ballarat in obtaining the funds. It has been a successful year for the club. Not only did they receive this very impressive grant; they were named the South East Australian Basketball League Club of the Year. With the necessary funds now in the bank, the expansion project will see the construction of six new sports courts and a dramatic increase in audience capacity. This upgrade will lead to growth in participation in not only local, regional and state basketball but also netball, volleyball and badminton. The expanded facilities will support 222 weekly games, with a capacity to host more than 4,000 participants. The sports and events centre in Ballarat will allow Ballarat to retain large-scale tournaments and become the centrepiece of regional sporting competitions. What an excellent way to bring the community together to foster a healthy lifestyle and to instil the values of teamwork and sportsmanship for young Australians. Not only will the community in Ballarat thrive but so will the local and regional economy. The Building Better Regions Fund ensures that vital public funds are directed towards stimulating regional economies in a prudent and effective way. This expansion project is just one such project. The social and material benefits will add to Ballarat's character and to Ballarat's wealth, making it one of Victoria's premier regional cities. We all know that what is good for our regions is good for our state. I would now like to extend my thanks to my parliamentary colleagues who assisted Ballarat Basketball during this journey. First of all, I would like to thank the Special Minister of State, the Hon. Scott Ryan, for the consultative work that he undertook for many, many years with the Ballarat Basketball Association. Before I was even elected to parliament, Minister Ryan was heavily involved in the Ballarat community and I know that he welcomes this very successful outcome. Alongside Minister Ryan, a very good friend of mine who not only represented Ballarat in the House of Representatives but also sat in this very chamber, the Hon. Michael Ronaldson, also deserves congratulations. Former Senator Ronaldson—Ronno—is one of Victoria's greatest advocates for regional communities and for a fit and healthy lifestyle. His support of the Ballarat Basketball Association and his unwavering promotion to provide the community of Ballarat with access to state-of-the-art sporting facilities has paid off. His vocal support to ensure that our regions get a fair share of the nation's wealth is to be commended. This is a terrific time for Ronno. Not only is his home town receiving a boost to its local economy; it is receiving this boost through one of his greatest passions, which is, of course, sport. I look forward to watching Ballarat's sporting community grow into the future as it harnesses the opportunities that the upgraded sports and events centre provides. This is a great step forward for Australian sport, for Ballarat and for Victoria. I commend the project to you all and I thank the chamber for its time. Yemen 6904 21:53 Senator SINGH M0R Tasmania I rise to draw to the Senate's attention to a massive humanitarian crisis whose consequences have for two years ricocheted across the Middle East. Since March 2015, Yemen, the second largest country in the Arabian Peninsula and home to some 28 million people, has been ravaged by civil war. Protracted conflict between the Houthi rebels and a coalition of forces supporting the recognised president, Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, has riven the nation, tearing families and livelihoods to pieces. Three million Yemenis have been internally displaced and forced to flee their homes, and over 8,400—or even, perhaps, 10,000—have been killed. At least 5,100 were civilians and almost 1,200 of those were children. Even before the conflict, the situation in Yemen was dire. The national general acute malnutrition rate was 16 per cent for children under the age of five and the severe acute malnutrition rate was 5.2 per cent—both above emergency levels. The UN has estimated that two-thirds of the Yemeni population now faces shortages of food and clean water. Four million Yemenis, including 462,000 children, are currently suffering from acute malnutrition. That's close to the equivalent of the entire population of my home state of Tasmania. On top of all of this, the population's lack of access to food and clean, safe drinking water has caused more than half a million people to contract cholera, making Yemen the site of the world's largest and fastest-growing cholera epidemic. When treated, cholera has a 99 per cent recovery rate, but in Yemen, without the supplies or the facilities required for treatment, more than 2,000 of the disease's victims have died so far. The ideals and the goals of international humanitarian law and international human rights law have been ignored and completely breached in Yemen. The International Committee of the Red Cross describes Yemen as 'the world's single largest humanitarian crisis': The situation in Yemen is dire, with less than half of the hospitals and clinics still open. Medical staff and Yemen Red Crescent staff and volunteers continue to carry out their tasks as best they can despite acute shortages on all fronts. So tonight I want to pay tribute to the efforts of the Red Cross, but I particularly want to acknowledge the recent sad news about the death of Dr Abdulah Alkhamesi, the founder of the Yemen Red Crescent Society and its leader for nearly three decades. The death of Dr Alkhamesi was hastened by a lack of essential medical supplies—a direct consequence of the conflict and of the debilitating restrictions on imports such as much-needed drugs and medical supplies into Yemen. As The Washington Post recently highlighted: The conflict in Yemen, the Arab world's most impoverished nation, is a calamity by any measure. …   …   … Yemenis are confronted by a brutal war, conducted by a patchwork of opportunistic factions, and the simultaneous collapse of the country's long-fragile state. …   …   … The lack of a political solution has exacted a hideous cost … How can this be allowed to continue? I do acknowledge the Australian government's commitment of $10 million in assistance, announced in April, in response to this worsening humanitarian situation in Yemen. But this alone is not enough. Indeed, our capacity to meaningfully contribute to the international response to humanitarian crises, providing vital assistance to those most in need across the globe, has been curtailed by this government's relentless determination, since 2013, to reduce Australia's aid budget. Since coming to power, both the Abbott and the Turnbull governments have relentlessly hacked at our aid budget, abandoning Australia's bipartisan commitment of GNI growth and overseeing a 24.2 per cent cut to the development budget since 2013. This has taken Australia to its lowest level of spending in overseas aid as a proportion of GNI since records were first kept. The 2017-18 budget further weakened Australia's overseas aid spending, with the Turnbull government cutting an additional $303 million over the forward estimates. Over the next decade, our aid program will continue to weaken, and the Turnbull government has set on a course for an ever-diminishing contribution of our national income to development assistance. This is simply unacceptable. We as Australians are incredibly lucky to live in a prosperous and peaceful country where we enjoy steady and sustainable economic growth. Our lives and our families will not be torn apart by war. I call on the Turnbull government to commit to the reversal of cuts to our aid and development budget, because we can and we must do more to ensure that the work of agencies which provide critical assistance to the world's most vulnerable people, like those in Yemen, is supported, promoted and made visible. Indeed, just last month, I had the pleasure of relaunching the Parliamentary Friends of UNICEF group with my co-chair, Andrew Broad MP. UNICEF of course works in more than 190 countries to promote and protect the rights of children. But it was when I was seconded to the UN last year that I had the opportunity to engage closely with UNICEF at its headquarters. I learnt that, in the conjunction with the World Health Organization, they have provided aid to 3.5 million people across Yemen, Africa and the Middle East as this crisis has unfolded. By July this year, UNICEF had vaccinated some 4.8 million children in Yemen against polio and treated nearly 82,000 children for severe acute malnutrition. Nearly 2.2 million people gained access to water through UNICEF's rehabilitation and support for operation of systems, while its hygiene kits reached over 170,000 people. But UNICEF's work in Yemen is not finished. It will deliver life-saving health, nutrition, WASH, education, child protection and social protection services to nearly 17.3 million people, including 9.9 million girls and boys. Some 8.1 million children will gain sustained access to education through UNICEF's rehabilitation of schools, establishment of temporary learning spaces and distribution of school materials. To achieve this, UNICEF has revised its appeal from US$236.6 million to US$339 million. As of 4 July this year, it has received US$170.3 million. It's important to recall that UNICEF does not receive any funding from the UN. It relies on voluntary contributions from individuals, foundations, governments and businesses. Therefore, I call on all Australians to remember the crucial importance of international aid and cooperation and to strive for a safe and harmonious community for all people by supporting organisations like UNICEF and their Change for Good program, a program we all know if we often travel on international and even domestic Qantas flights. I also call on the Turnbull coalition government to commit to the reversal of these relentless cuts to Australia's international aid budget, which is predicted to fall to its lowest level in history by this time next year, and for them to work closely with other donors, countries in the region and humanitarian partners to ensure the safe passage of aid to the most vulnerable people on this planet. Finally, I urge all parties in Yemen to remove the barriers that are preventing the importation and distribution of food and medical supplies to civilians. Indeed, I hope for an end to this tragic humanitarian crisis. Senate adjourned at 22 :03 DOCUMENTS 6906 DOCUMENTS Tabling 6906 Tabling 6907 Tabling 6907