DOCUMENTS

2017-09-14 45 1 4 Senate 0 0

Thursday, 14 September 2017

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

DOCUMENTS 7281 DOCUMENTS Tabling 7281 COMMITTEES 7281 COMMITTEES Meeting 7281 09:31 The PRESIDENT e5v Does any senator wish to have the question put on either of those? If not, we will proceed with other business. STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT 7281 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry 7281 09:31 The PRESIDENT e5v In accordance with the statement I made after question time on Monday, I table the class A and class B records of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry into the conduct of the late Justice Lionel Keith Murphy. These records will be published under the authority of standing order 167 and be available on the Australian Parliament House website. BILLS 7281 BILLS Lands Acquisition Amendment (Public Purpose) Bill 2017 7281

Lands Acquisition Amendment (Public Purpose) Bill 2017

Second Reading 7281 09:32 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I introduced the Lands Acquisition (Public Purpose) Bill 2017 in response to the recent actions of the government in issuing declarations of intent to acquire land from Australian farmers in both the Rockhampton and Charters Towers regions of Queensland. The federal government's statement, as contained in correspondence to landholders, was that the land acquired would be owned by the Department of Defence and allow for expanded training exercises by the Australian Army, as well as facilitating an increase in use by the Singaporean army from 6,000 troops for periods of six weeks to 14,000 troops for up to 18 weeks. The Army had only sent out the correspondence in regard to these acquisitions following an inspection by the Singaporean army. The Singaporean army had stated that it wanted the land for its future training purposes, as indicated in the department's correspondence about the land in question. At public meetings held with the landowners by the Army, it was clearly stated that the primary purpose of the land acquisition was that the land was being acquired not for the purposes of the Australian Army but for the use and training of the Singaporean army. The government referred in their correspondence to the Australia-Singapore Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, which included a general arrangement pursuant to the Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The SAFTA refers only to cooperation between the two countries in a number of areas, including the military as well as technology and agriculture cooperation areas of interest. It does not place an obligation on Australia or Singapore. The Army has a land area in the Shoalwater Bay training complex of approximately one million acres, yet the Australian Army stated this was not sufficient. There was no consideration of the interests held by the Australian landowners—where exactly was the 'public purpose' required by the legislation? I would just like to expand on this. The Australian Army has quite extensive land in the Shoalwater Bay area, and yet it was wanting to allow the Singaporean army to buy up more land around that area—prime agricultural land—from farmers. What has happened to the Australian land is that over the years they've said, 'We can't use this land.' Why? Because of the overgrowth, because of the number of trees on it. Over that period they have not been able to clear the land because of the environmental laws of the Queensland government. So, here we have the situation of, 'Oh, we can't use this land, so we'll just let it sit there, but we'll go and acquire some great agricultural land that is producing thousands of head of cattle,' which were being sent to market, providing jobs in abattoirs and in the ongoing businesses in the whole area. But they're ready to say, 'No, we just need to acquire some more land,' as if you can pick up prime agricultural land anywhere in Australia. It is not the case. That land is so valuable, and it's so necessary to keep it as that. So, public purpose—the whole intent of this bill: where was the public purpose as required by the legislation? There was absolutely no public support for this acquisition, nor was there any purpose behind it that benefitted the Australian public. People I spoke to when I went up to Charters Towers—and we're talking about between 50 and 60 farming families looking down the barrel of a gun at losing their properties—they said no-one was listening to them. These are properties that have been handed down through several generations and that people had bought and worked extremely hard to improve. This is where they want to live, and naturally they want to hand their properties down to their children. And this was all so that Singaporean army personnel could come out here and train for a few weeks a year. We're talking about more land than the size of Singapore itself, land that they are wanting to buy up. The Army had stated that the public would benefit from this acquisition. Well, I beg to differ. No benefit could be demonstrated, but significant detriment could clearly be demonstrated, not only to the landholders who were directly affected but to the entire regions of Rockhampton and Charters Towers. They were saying that the Singaporeans were going to come and increase tourism in the area. But the tourism was actually going to destroy a small country town called Marlborough. It's not a tourist area, but the businesses there would have been affected, because they would no longer have the trade from the farming families living there and going into town to use the post office or go to the local pub. The Singaporeans would be going to Townsville, buying up the accommodation there. They had plans as to where they wanted to go during their time off. The loss to Australia was approximately 800 acres of prime grazing country and over 90,000 head of cattle that would have been going to local abattoirs, with the inevitable closure and the loss of employment in both regions—as I said, the loss of over $90 million in cattle sales, and twice that figure after the processing of the cattle from sales by the abattoirs. We have seen our state of Queensland go through dire straits with droughts, and farmers can't even keep the cattle on their property. Yet here we are taking another 90,000 to 100,000 head of cattle out of the marketplace, I heard. So, on top of the drought we're putting ourselves in the dire situation in which we won't even have enough cattle in Australia for our own needs, let alone for export. Yet the government—or anyone—had no concerns about the impact this would have on Australia. At the briefings to the affected landholders, the Army representative stated that the local community would be providing food, hospitality and transport, to name a few. However, it was then found that the Singapore government had already sought expressions of interest from offshore companies for the transportation of food and ordnances into the area, supplied directly from Singapore—not from one Australian company. We were told that the Singaporeans were going to bring $2.5 billion into the country, and we were going to make so much money out of this and it was going to be great for the country. No, it wasn't. It was the worst deal that was going to happen. And, as I said, they had lined up Australian shipping companies to bring in their food and ordnance from overseas. This was not a good deal for us. The government stated it was supporting rural communities, but here it was destroying two communities, offering no compensation to businesses other than the landowners, who didn't want to sell. Only a couple of people sold, because they were issued enormous amounts of money for their properties—the hope being that if one fell over then the others would. But the majority of farmers that I spoke to didn't want to sell their properties. They were being forced into it. Additionally, in the Charters Towers region, Infrastructure Australia and the Prime Minister of Australia had listed the Hells Gate Dam project as a high-priority project, which the Prime Minister did—it was in his election promises, and in the first meeting I had with him I spoke about going ahead with Hells Gate Dam. But the very land that could benefit from the dam was the very land the army had stated it was interested in acquiring. So what is going to happen? Are we going to build the Hells Gate Dam and then just hand the property over to the Singaporean army? It doesn't make sense to me. When I raised the issue at a briefing, the army representative stated he was unaware of this priority infrastructure, as did the department's representative. So, was the right hand talking to the left hand, or does no-one know what the hell is going on? Yet the farmers up there were so distraught because they didn't know what was happening with them. It was a clear case of a compulsory acquisition not having a direct public purpose, as required by the act, but instead appearing to benefit a third party. So I ask the question: where was the public purpose? The Australian Army only sent out correspondence in regard to this acquisition following an inspection by the Singapore Army. Its statement specified that it wanted the land, as indicated in the correspondence, as 'land of interest'. So it's up to the Singapore Army. They went out and said, 'Mate, this is what we want.' The term 'public purpose' is more than the vague legal definition of the act referring, as it does, to those legislative areas for which the parliament has power to make laws. The key element in the land acquisition proposal by the Australian Defence Force was the definition of 'public purpose'. An information guide published by the Department of Finance and Deregulation in May 2011, titled The Commonwealth and You: Compulsory Acquisition of Land, states: The Minister issues a document to affected landowners, which states that the Minister is considering the acquisition by the Commonwealth land for a public purpose. This document is a pre-acquisition declaration. It tells you which Commonwealth authority wants to acquire the land; It describes the land fully; It states that the Minister thinks the land appears to be suitable for a public purpose; It states the public purpose the land has been chosen for; and It explains why the Minister considers the land suitable for the intended use. But there is no clarity on the meaning of the term 'public purpose'. In general Australians understand that, because the country has grown, we need infrastructure. They may not like it, but they understand if their land has to be acquired for maybe putting in a dam or maybe for roadworks, a motorway, a hospital or for some other reason that is of a general benefit to the public. They don't like it, but they will actually accept it if they're paid the right compensation for it. But I understand, and this is why the farming families have my total support, that when it came to this they were going to lose their properties—for what? So that Singaporeans can come out here for six weeks or 18 weeks a year and train, when we have so much land in Australia and when there are other training areas? They should have been going to Western Australia or even up to the Northern Territory, but, no, they wanted prime agricultural land in Australia and their hands were tied. They were having meetings with the Defence Force. They were having meetings with other people. No-one was listening to them. It was well attended by people in the area at public meetings. The second reading speech on the introduction of the Land Acquisition Act 1989 adds little to the meaning of the words other than referring to section 31 of the act. However, the following sentence is relevant as it gives the tenor of the purpose of the words within the meaning of the act: This Government is concerned by the need to strike a balance between the rights of private property on the one hand and the legitimate needs of society for land for public purposes on the other. This sentence within the second reading speech clearly delineates that the acquisition is for the benefit of society. There was no substantive debate on what the phrase 'public purpose' meant. The reason why one has to revert to external explanations is due to the vagueness of the definition within section 6 of the act, which states as follows: … public purpose means a purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws and includes, in relation to land in a Territory, any purpose in relation to the Territory. In judgements on which the issue has been raised, the acquisition must be for the primary benefit of the community and Australia generally. Well, that certainly wasn't the case when it came to destroying our prime agricultural farming land, displacing Australians for the Singaporean army to train out here. I ask the question: What deals were done? We cannot allow this to happen. I feel for the Australian people. I know what it's like to work hard to own your own land, to love the land that you're on and then to have someone come and say, 'Oh, no, you've got to give it up because we want Singaporeans to train here with no benefit to this country whatsoever.' This is especially so when, as I stated, there is other land they could train on in this country. It's about time that members in this place and the other place started listening to the Australian people and their pain and what they're going through, not listening to the bureaucrats and those others that have no idea. It is the grassroots Australians that are being forgotten. There has been very little case law on the meaning of the words 'public purpose', particularly in the context of like cases of acquisition for the primary purpose of land for the training of a foreign army. Irrespective of the wide ambit of the definition of the words 'public purpose' within the Land Acquisitions Act of 1989, it is evident from case law that such an acquisition must be shown to actually be for the benefit of the public. The bill, which I seek the support of all parties for, clarifies the meaning of those important words 'public purpose'. It is important for all Australians that they know their land and their heritage will never be compulsorily acquired for the benefit of an unrelated third party and, as far as I'm concerned, especially for a foreign third party. Before any declaration is made by any department to acquire an interest in land, the bill will require that department to demonstrate the purpose of using that interest or for its need for that interest to provide services. The acquiring authority must show that the need will be for the direct benefit of the Australian public or for the provision to the Australian public of necessary services. The bill does not alter the intent of the original act. It clarifies the meaning and intent of the act so that the Australian public will never again be subject to months of upset and costs in trying to protect their interest for the ongoing benefit of their families. I hope both sides of this chamber and the minor political parties clearly look at what I'm putting forward here if they truly want to represent the people of Australia. If they saw the faces of these farming families and what's going to happen to them, they would understand. They could be our sons, our daughters, our brothers, our aunts, our cousins—our families. These people are clearly looking to us to stand up and fight and represent them. It is not up to the bureaucrats to make these decisions. It is not up to these foreign interests who say, 'We want this,' or 'We want that.' It's up to us to make the right decisions on behalf of the people who are relying on us to fight for them and stand up for their rights. As I said to you earlier, I've got no problems with acquiring land for the right reasons, because this country is growing rapidly. But when we are asking people to give up the land that they love, people who have seen their families fight in the past for their land and for freedom for their way of life in this country, and we are prepared to allow it to be sold to a foreign power—to the Singaporean army, so that they can do their training—that's not good enough, as far as I'm concerned. All I'm asking for in this bill is that if anyone's going to acquire land then we should make sure it is in the best interests of the Australian people, not of a foreign power. Give the Australian people some stability so they know that the decisions being made are right for them and for future generations. This bill overcomes the vagueness of the existing definition but gives clarity to the meaning of the term 'public purpose' without the need for future litigation. The bill does not apply to acquisitions by consent. As I've said and will say again, because One Nation has been fighting for this matter—and I know there were some on the government side who disagreed with the compulsory acquisition of the land for the Singaporean army, and I do appreciate their support on this— (Time expired) 09:52 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland I rise to make a contribution to the debate on the Lands Acquisition Amendment (Public Purpose) Bill 2017 presented by Senator Hanson. I must say, I have empathy around the arguments made by Senator Hanson with respect to the processes for the compulsory acquisition of land, particularly where those acquisitions affect not just the land of an individual but, in many cases, our constituents in provincial, rural, remote Australia—describe it as you will—for whom this land also happen to be the foundation asset of their businesses, their livelihood. We've all known of circumstances in which a compulsory acquisition of land has occurred in metropolitan areas for the building of highways, for the development of public utilities generally, for rail lines and for port expansions. An equal degree of anxiety exists amongst the owners of that land, as may be the case particularly with the cited example of the acquisition of land in Central and north Central Queensland. But there is a distinct difference, which I think Senator Hanson has touched on, and that is that these acquisitions can impact on land that is also the primary source of the livelihood of the people who operate that land. In this case it was almost exclusively in areas that were involved in beef production. Being a beef producer myself, I understand the conflict that would confront many of the landowners in this particular case. Unlike with other businesses, the business plans that are developed for many properties have a long intention. It can be a plan to develop your property that might take you 10 to 20 years. In the course of that, there are various stages where you are developing your asset for the purposes of your livelihood, where in effect you are partially through developing the land. At that stage, that may impact negatively on the value of the property as opposed to positively, and Senator Williams would be well aware of the things I'm referring to. You may have purchased a property because it appealed to you, in that it may have had rundown assets and facilities, so you've set about to develop it. In many cases this is the life's work of people. When they come onto a property they may have a 10-year plan to fence it and, in the case of cattle, to replace cattle yards and cattle handling facilities; to improve the waters; and to improve the pasture, which could involve land clearing and pasture production. If you're at the wrong stage in the development phases of your asset, it can have less appeal, might I say, in the marketplace, for others who might not have the same strong will to develop the property. But it is about connection to the land. Many of the people who are in the grazing and pastoral communities are multigenerational. Many of these properties have been in the hands of their parents or in some other form of family partnership. And so there is an enormous attachment. Their life's work is there, on that land. They may well be in an age bracket or in circumstances that prevent them from starting again. This might not be something that is understood by many in this place, but I can tell you from personal experience that, when you're on the land, if you've undertaken a significant campaign to improve pasture, fence it, put in proper water facilities, reticulating water through a particular area—these are big expansive properties; the greater Canberra city would be the horse paddock. People have put decades into these properties. I was recently with one of these graziers in Casino, not more than a month ago, and I reminded this pastoralist that we had known each other 35 years ago, when he was a miner in a mining community in Central Queensland and when I was the local detective. He informed me—and I knew it at that time—that he had bought a property in the Marlborough district and was affected by this. He was one of the main protagonists against these acquisitions. He filled me in on the fact that he had been 35 years developing this property, and it was not yet where he wanted it to be. People don't quite understand that, for example, when your cattle become acclimatised to a particular area, if there is massive disruption in their lives—if they're taken to other pasture types, if they're moved, particularly in the coastal areas, to more marginal country—the value of those cattle can be significantly impacted upon. Senator Williams I0V They will lose weight. Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 They will lose weight, as they precondition them. Sometimes it's actually only their progeny that become acclimatised to the country and perform better. So I do understand this nexus between the people and the land, particularly in rural areas. The genesis of this for Senator Hanson was obviously the issues around Central Queensland and North Queensland. I've got to say—and I'll probably get a call from the headmaster after this—that this was not well managed. Despite the pleas that there had been public consultation and engagement with the communities that were impacted by this, that wasn't 100 per cent correct in all of the cases. I made the point at the time that, had our government engaged with some of us representatives of government who have an affinity with the people in these regions, we might have made more progress or been able to establish exactly where we were with these communities before this all fell to pieces. Senator Hanson, I understand completely the spirit of the proposal being made here with the amendments in this legislation, but I'm inclined to think—using this as a case study—that we can make all the rules we like around this but, unless culturally the people in the bureaucracy, and in this case the Department of Defence, approach this in a more compassionate manner, we're going to end up with the same set of circumstances again and again, notwithstanding what rules, regulations or framework of operation we put in place. I think that this was, in large part, a poor effort at the front end of engagement with these communities in these particular cases. I know that Senator Hanson played a very active role, as did a number of us. Fortunately on this occasion the Deputy Prime Minister took an interest in it. Had he been commissioned to take an interest in it at a date sooner than was the case, we might have had some resolution at an earlier time. But the Deputy Prime Minister did visit the area, on 3 February, and had meetings with local people who were affected and, indeed, other stakeholders in the community, not just those who might have been the subject of the acquisition. It is a matter of record that, the following day, the government made the commitment that no-one would be forced to sell their land against their will. There was a division of thought in the area. There were some landowners who were willing to part with their land, on just terms—if I can make reference to my favourite movie, The Castle. In fact, there were landowners who engaged contractually with the government and did sell their land. So we had the willing sellers. But then equally we had—and I suspect there were more of them—the people that I have mentioned here in this contribution today, the people who had put a lifetime of blood, sweat and tears into their land, who were at some stage within a development program for their property and for whom an acquisition at that time would not have realised the great potential that their property might have had. They might have been wanting to upgrade their circumstances, perhaps because of retirement, and, given some more time, they might have had their land more adequately valued. A great example of that—I touched on this earlier—is that you might purchase a large area of land that requires 200 kilometres of fencing to be done. No matter how energetic you are, that will take you a long period of time. It will have a serious investment impact from a money quantum point of view. If you haven't started that program or you're early into that program but it is not completed, and your property is valued, it won't matter what value is put on it; only one in 100 buyers will show interest in it. If the program has been finished and all the facilities are upgraded and in a functioning form, you will find that 90 per cent of potential buyers capable of buying that property will be engaged. These are serious challenges. I say to Senator Hanson, we talked about this and explored where there may have been other communities where these facilities could have gone, but I suspect, not knowing, that if the process were not managed properly we would get resistance in those other areas as well. Central Queensland, and particularly the Shoalwater area, has been devoted to defence activities, but I want to make a point, Senator Hanson: the intent of these acquisitions was to try and get some land where particular operations could occur. This was to do with visibility and engagement. Right next-door to the areas to be acquired, through the barbed wire fence, there were massive tracts of land owned by the defence department—hundreds and hundreds of thousands of acres. But they couldn't clear the land, to make it look like the land through the fence, because of impacts on the environment. It was a most ridiculous situation. We wouldn't even have had to confront these challenges with this community. It will be a long time before society realises just what impact the Greens and their policies, with the support of their coalition partners, Labor, have had in our rural communities. But one day, when people are sitting naked and hungry— Senator Siewert e5z You're right! It will take you a long time—a long time to fix your impacts on the environment. Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 I can hardly hear myself think, Chair—please provide me with some protection from that shrill noise! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0V Interjections are disorderly. Please continue, Senator O'Sullivan. Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Here sit our colleagues in their cotton and their wool, with their leather shoes, sitting on a leather chair, with a timber desk, yet they would resist at every opportunity the ability of people in rural Australia to produce those commodities. As I have said before, Senator Hanson, my friends over here in this little corner have something you and I haven't got. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0V Senator O'Sullivan, you are directing your comments to the chair, of course? Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Yes, I am. They have these fairies, Mr Acting Deputy President, with magic knitting needles and as soon as these knitting needles touch they generate all the energy you need for your house and out the end of them, just as we see with spiders and beautiful silk, come cotton and leather and wool— Senator Dastyari 225099 That sounds awesome! Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 It is. If Senator Dastyari were to join the Greens—and I believe membership, depending on which cult part of the Greens you go to, is not very expensive; if you're a bit short, Sam, I'll throw a couple of bob your way. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0V Senator O'Sullivan, will you please refer to senators by their correct title. Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 My apologies—it was a lapse and I apologise for it, Mr Acting Deputy President. In any event, that was one of the other challenges that occurred up in the Shoalwater Bay area. We had the land. When you can't confront those challenges, when there are other commonsense, practical solutions to these things, the government of the day—it won't matter who is on the leather, it won't matter who's in government, whether it is colleagues on the other side in coalition with the Greens—has to acquire land to broaden highways and byways and to run railways. We are about to embark on that massive generational signature project, Inland Rail—brought on, might I say, very proudly by members of the National Party in coalition with their colleagues; a transformational project that of course has been on the books for so many years but is now being delivered by this government. We will confront these same challenges again on land acquisition. In closing, my contribution would be that I don't see any problem with calling for a review, and I do not mean some inquiry—I just mean the government of the day has to be involved in these matters. Our government should look carefully at how we go about it. Public engagement, as pointed out by Senator Hanson, is absolutely essential, and, if done properly—these are clever people—they will understand. These are dedicated Australians who understand that, from time to time, there is a need to acquire land as we expand the facilities and infrastructure of our nation, as with Defence's relations with another country. By sitting with them, speaking rationally and hearing what they have to say, we can, on occasion, dismantle some of the concerns that they have and some of the pressures that these things bring into their lives. If they are willing to transition from their land to some other point and if the transactions happen on just terms, as we have heard both in The Castle and in the reading of the Constitution, I don't think we'll be confronted as frequently with the circumstances we found ourselves in around Shoalwater Bay in Central Queensland. I do support the development of the defence training industry on any terms up in that part of the world. It is a big industry. It employs a lot of people, and billions of dollars are invested in Central Queensland. So there are stakeholders in decisions like this beyond the landowners in Shoalwater Bay, even though, in my view, they are the most important in the consultation process. There are businesses in Townsville, Charters Towers and Rockhampton that rely significantly on the activities around defence training in particular in that part of the world. Given that the Greens and the opposition are determined to shut down the black coal industry in that region of my home state, we need to continue to look at development and investment that will offset and mitigate the impacts of their poor public policy. I agree with the spirit of the amendment. I don't think it's necessary. I think a review of how we approach these things culturally is more important. (Time expired) 10:12 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I rise to speak on the Lands Acquisition Amendment (Public Purpose) Bill 2017, which has been presented to the Senate by Pauline Hanson's One Nation. As Senator O'Sullivan just said, we understand why this bill has been put forward for consideration by the party. It's a reaction to the events that occurred earlier this year surrounding the Department of Defence's flawed process to acquire land to enable the expansion of two training areas in North Queensland—the Townsville Field Training Area and the Shoalwater Bay Training Area. The department wrote letters to property owners outlining Defence's needs for land and how acquisition of their property, properly compensated, would assist in meeting these needs. The community was of course outraged, as you would understand, Acting Deputy President Williams. Prime agricultural land was being eyed off for military training use, forcing families to leave their land, which, in some cases, had been held by them for generations. After enough pressure from Labor, the Minister for Defence finally stepped in. I think it would be worthwhile commenting on the role of shadow minister Fitzgibbon in this area, because he did some terrific work on behalf of property owners in Queensland to bring the issue into the public arena and put that pressure on the Minister for Defence. Finally, a statement was made that there would be no compulsory acquisition of properties surrounding the existing training areas. When asked about Defence's processes for land acquisition at estimates in February, the minister's response to a question on notice was: Compulsory land acquisition was considered as one option during initial planning. It was always the preference to purchase land from willing sellers off the open market, and as announced in February 2017 land will only be purchased from willing sellers. That was question No. 60 from April 2017. The minister eventually made a decision in this case regarding land acquisition to only acquire land from willing sellers. That avoids the need to consider compulsory acquisition and the public purpose test. It is not clear how the proposed changes to the definition of 'public purpose' would assist in these types of considerations where ministers are required to consider the overall public benefit and purpose in every decision they make. Senator Hanson, while the defence minister certainly made a mess of the acquisition of land, we do not believe at this stage that the implications of this bill have been thought through. It was introduced yesterday afternoon, and we understand there has not been consultation at this stage with the Australian Government Solicitor and, of course, with a broad range of stakeholders and a broad section of landholders across this country. We are of the belief at this point that those are the sorts of things that ought to occur before a full consideration of this legislation. There are significant judicial precedents regarding land acquisition. The act that Senator Hanson is seeking to amend is almost 30 years old, and there are a number of precedents of Commonwealth over-reach that have been successfully challenged in the courts. Labor believe we need to be conscious of those precedents which allow the Commonwealth to acquire land where it is necessary and to provide appropriate compensation. This bill would complicate all of those former precedents and, for that reason, at this stage, the Labor Party cannot support this legislation. Question negatived. Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Full Face Coverings in Public Places) Bill 2017 7291

Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Full Face Coverings in Public Places) Bill 2017

Second Reading 7291 10:18 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I rise today to speak on this Senate private member's bill, the Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Full Face Coverings in Public Places) Bill 2017. It was only a matter of weeks ago that I actually entered the chamber wearing a burqa, and it was basically to say, 'This is not the place to wear full face coverings, in this chamber.' There are people in this place who are totally against full face coverings and there are also people who are supporting full face coverings on the streets of Australia, based on the fact that they say it is a person's right to wear whatever they wish. In a lot of cases, yes, I do support that and I do agree with that. But, then again, we have societies and cultures that are not reflective, like many other countries around the world that accept seeing women completely covered, in full face coverings, because it's oppressive to them and controlling of women and it is basically saying, 'You cannot be seen out in public with any part of your body, your face'—your face, mind you—'showing, because it is basically putting out a message to men that you're on the meat market.' That's basically what it is saying: 'These men can't control themselves, so you need to cover yourself up so that you are not tempting these men.' Heaven help us if that were ever made compulsory in Australia. We wouldn't have bikinis, we wouldn't have bathing suits, we wouldn't have our lifestyle in Australia. The whole fact is: this is a debate that this country needs to have because that is what the Australian people want. My reasoning for wearing the burqa into this chamber was seen as a stunt. Call it what you want; I really don't care, because the whole fact is that it has got Australians talking, and Australians feel now they have a voice. It's created debate. But another reason I wore the burqa into this chamber was because there is no dress code for this chamber. When we actually sit down here to vote, the bells ring, we come into the chamber and we sit down. We have people go to either side and they recognise us by our faces as to who is voting and how they are voting. We are crossed off that way. I would love to know what the Greens would do in this matter if you had half-a-dozen people in this chamber wearing burqas. What are you going to say? 'Show your face so we can get your vote'? I don't think so. Because they will not show their face. If everyone's the same, covering their face, how is a vote going to be taken? So I am pleased to know now that it is going to be discussed, debated and brought back to the chamber. I hope that common sense prevails in this chamber. Everyone in this House must agree a full-face covering could never, ever be worn in this chamber purely for that fact. This is the heart of our democracy. Now, I want to go back to the National Party conference on the weekend. It was quite interesting that it was a close vote—51 to 55 votes. The National Party is, clearly, very divided on this. For Barnaby Joyce, the Deputy Prime Minister of this country, actually came out and said he doesn't support banning of the burqa, and I think he said 'because we have a relationship with Indonesia and Saudi Arabia'. Well, Indonesia basically has the niqab, which is the scarf. They don't sort of promote or have the full-face covering. Saudi Arabia do. They like to control the women and they like to tell the women what to do. Women can't even go out of their house and they can't even leave their premises without having a male with them, even a male child. So they are totally controlled. 'But that's all right; we've got to change our culture and our way of life because we deal with these other countries.' It's not because we have a good product, not because it's at the right price, not because they want everything here in this country; it's because we actually need to appease them. So we are actually in control. And that's where our Deputy Prime Minister's head is at, instead of being a leader. Instead of listening to what they want, how about listening to what the Australian people want? This is why I hear from so many people that say, 'We don't go to certain areas now,' especially in Sydney. If you look around Lakemba and Bankstown, these areas are no longer Australian. They don't know the person they are walking past in the street. This is so un-Australian. And it has grown more and more. The fact is there are women being paid to wear the burqa. There are people who are pushing their own agenda, their political ideology, which is Islam. And they're using our laws against us. That is what is happening in our country. Full-face covering offends a lot of people. They find it offensive and they find it confronting, as two of our former prime ministers have said—Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard. I find it terribly confronting. When I walked into this chamber here in the burqa, the number of people who got a jolt from it—and they said, 'Oh, it's terrible.' They didn't like it, and that's the fact of the matter. But we bury our true feelings and how we really need to look at the whole fact of where we are headed. We have separate laws in this country for some people and not for others. I hear it all the time from people who have a bike helmet. When they get off their bike there is no way in the wide world they can walk into some government areas or into banks if they have a bike helmet on. There is no way in the wide world they can go in with a balaclava on. So why are there different rules for one and not the other? Again, are we appeasing the Muslim population in this country that is now growing at a rapid rate? Is it because the Labor Party have 15 lower house seats that are dominated by the Muslim vote? 'Oh, let's look after those people and forget about the rest of Australians and not look at what is logical!' Where do we want to go with this country? Every time someone stands up and says something, you want to shut them down. You want to call them a racist or a bigot without having a clear debate on this. So people feel that they are totally suppressed by this whole debate, this whole argument. It needs to be discussed. I refer to a book that I have read—and I think it's a very good read—called Now They Call Me Infidel. It's by Nonie Darwish. She grew up in Gaza. Her father was in the military. She said at that time Egypt was a country where they wore Western dress. She moved to America. She has married an American. She has a couple of kids. She says that now, in America, other women that she grew up with are donning the full burqa when they never, ever wore it in Egypt. Now they're doing it in America and they are criticising her because she's accepted the Western way of life. She has been shunned. She has not been treated the same because they are trying to impose the burqa on her to wear. She said, 'This is not what I want my life to be.' She said she has been intimidated by their whole attitude towards her. She goes back to Egypt and she says that it is not the country she grew up in. It is now being heavily dominated by Islam, by Muslims. She said, 'That's not my country.' She can see the same thing happening in America. We need to realise and understand that this is what is happening here in Australia. We are having things in this country because of their beliefs, their culture. Let me make this quite clear, as everyone talks about it: the burqa full-face covering is not a religious requirement. It does not have to be protected under section 116 of the Australian Constitution. This is an impact on our culture and our way of life, and it is growing quite rapidly. I know that they actually want to take over and form an Islamic state in this country. We are allowing that to happen, without standing up for our values and who we are as a nation. I will go back to Nonie Darwish. It's not only her. There are other books written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. She was a Muslim. She was born in Somalia. She ended up in the Dutch parliament. She fought against the Islamisation of the Western countries of the world. She is trying to warn us, and yet no-one wants to take any notice of this. We have seen it happen in other countries around the world. Let me just state this: the burqa has been banned in many countries around the world, even Muslim countries! We've got Congo, Tunisia and Turkey. We've got other countries as well that are not Muslim dominated that have banned the burqa. You have Spain, France and Germany, to name just a few. Why have they banned it? We are so far behind them in so many ways, but we don't look at what is happening around the world to implement it here and change our ways here before we become basket cases like other countries around the world. We have to actually allow the public to have a debate on this. If you're quite happy to have a plebiscite on same-sex marriage, then, if you haven't got the guts to bring in legislation here, I suggest we have a plebiscite and let the people have a say at the next election on whether they want full-face coverings in this country. Common sense tells you to treat everyone equally and the same. If you are not allowed to wear a helmet or even, in some cases, a hat into a bank, then you shouldn't allow full-face coverings and burqas. Jacqui Lambie wanted to bring in an amendment to the Criminal Code Act for full-face coverings to be banned at times of national terrorist threat to the country. What are you going to do then? That is not going to solve the problem. That's not the way to go with this. I will tell you something that I hear from the public. You think that it only goes one way and that we are critical of these women who are wearing full-face coverings. I've sat beside these women in doctor's surgeries and I've passed them in shopping centres, and they are rude to Australians. Their comments are rude. Their attitudes stinks. They feel they can say and do whatever they want to; no-one knows who they are because they're hiding under a full-face covering. It is not a religious requirement. It is a debate that we need to have. We need to make the decision—and it needs to start here in this parliament—to stop full-face coverings, based on the fact that we need facial recognition here. We also need to ensure that they are banned in government buildings. We also need to say that they should not be worn in hospitals. If a nurse who is wearing full-face covering comes up to give you an injection or to do training on you, how do you know who she is—or he? We don't know the gender. So should we allow full-face coverings in hospitals? I don't think so. Why are we allowing full-face coverings for people driving cars? How can you have proper vision if you can't see? And I can tell you that you can't, because I wore one. You're flat out seeing what's going on around you. Are we that pathetic as a nation that we would give up our values and who we truly are because we're worried about hurting someone's feelings? I've seen a lot of people get their feelings hurt in this country. I'm getting fed up with the fact that we stand up for these Muslim who stand up and protest. We've got the Greens and others who stand up and say, 'Good on you. You've got your rights,' but we forget about the rights of Australians—ordinary citizens—who are howled down. If you oppose the whole situation, if you speak up and have an opinion in this country, you're shut down, because those who are left leaning want to shut you down completely. I know you're just going to say, 'No, we can't.' I'm sure that if this issue eventually goes to a vote everyone is going to vote against One Nation. We might get support from a couple of members in this house, but I know we won't get anyone from the coalition government, we won't have anyone from the Labor government, we won't have anyone from the Nick Xenophon Team, we won't have anyone from the Greens, and I doubt whether we'll actually get Lambie backing this, and we won't get Hinch. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0V I just want to make a point. Refer to those in this and the other place by their correct titles please, Senator Hanson. Senator HANSON BK6 I do apologise—or Senator Hinch. I'm sure they won't support me on this issue, because I don't believe they have the intestinal fortitude to stand up for what they truly believe and represent the Australian people. If you're going to have some say in this, put up the facts and debate them. Let the people be heard and have their say before we lose our country. The problems that I can see in the future are huge, and they need to be debated now. We need to discuss them now, here on the floor of parliament. Stop burying them. Stop thinking that we don't have a problem out there. As we see more Muslims coming into this country, especially those with full-face coverings, we need this legislation so that we have full facial recognition. They need to assimilate and integrate into our society, which they are not. That is the problem with the whole lot. We are seeing from that they are bringing in their other views with genital mutilation. We've seen the problems that is causing in our hospitals, reversal of these—they're not operations—for these young girls and women. Is this a culture that we really want here? We think about the Muslims, and people say, 'They're not all bad.' No, they're not, and I totally agree with that. I've spoken to some, a taxi driver, and he said, 'You are so right.' We need to stop the Islamisation of Australia. We do need to ban it. He said, 'I was a Muslim. I am no longer, but my uncles told my father he must murder me because I've left the religion.' So these people are crying out also. There are women out there, I'm sure, who would like to see the burqa banned, then they can discard the garment. Who knows, their men, maybe their fathers, their brothers, their husbands may say, 'Well, you can't come outside the house.' These poor women! We have fought for women's rights in this country. We have fought for women to have the vote. We have fought for women's rights. Yet you're not prepared to stand up and fight for the rights of these women, who are probably made to wear these garments? You men have no idea. It's not going to impact on you. You can do and say whatever you want to do, but what about the women's rights out there? Have you considered that? Some of these women say, 'I've got no problem with the hijab, the scarf.' That's fair enough; a lot of countries wear it; but let's look at the whole fact. Let the people have their say on this and stop shutting down debate and having a go at people because they might put up some commonsense points about this whole thing. And look at the book. I will say it again if anyone wants to read it: read Now They Call Me Infidelby Nonie Darwish. Or read Ayaan Hirsi Ali's book Infidel. Listen to these women who have been controlled by Islam and are no longer with it. They are trying to warn us. Listen to what they have to say. I commend the bill to the house. 10:37 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia I rise to support the Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Full Face Coverings in Public Places) Bill 2017. I'm mindful of some words that were given to me when I first started in the financial markets. An experienced gentleman said, 'In order to preserve your financial balance sheet, you're always better to be six months too early than one day too late.' It has some parallels with this debate about our national security, and particularly, specifically, about the burqa. I first raised this issue in May 2010—more than seven years ago. I didn't find a single supporter in this place. Very few in the public sphere publicly came out and made noise in support of what I said at the time. But it seems that we are getting to a point where people are recognising the prescience of the warnings that were sounded. For the benefit of Hansard, I wrote this on 6 May 2010: In my mind, the burka has no place in Australian society. I would go as far as to say it is un-Australian. To me, the burka represents the repressive domination of men over women which has no place in our society and compromises some of the most important aspects of human communication. It also establishes a different set of rules and societal expectations in our hitherto homogenous society. … … … The same can be said for any number of areas where photographic identification is required. How many of us would ask for the veil to be dropped so we can compare the photo with the burka wearer's face? I suspect the fear of being called bigoted, racist, Islamaphobic or insensitive would prevent many from doing what they would not think twice about under normal circumstances. … … … Equality of women is one of the key values in our secular society and any culture that believes only women should be covered in such a repressive manner is not consistent with the Australian culture and values … New arrivals to this country should not come here to recreate the living environment they have just left. They should come here for a better life based on the freedoms and values that have built our great nation. The burka isolates some Australians from others. Its symbolic barrier is far greater than the measure of cloth it is created from. For safety and for society, the burka needs to be banned in Australia. Those words today cause almost no reaction. People will, of course, disagree with them, but they cause almost no reaction because people know they're right. But, at the time, the abuse and the criticism came from all fields. In May 2010, when Mr Kevin Rudd was Prime Minister, it was reported: Mr Rudd suggested yesterday Senator Bernardi was engaged in ''populist politics''— well, that's worked pretty well for me so far, so he was wrong there— and that Australians took a sensible approach to traditional dress. A sensible approach, Mr Rudd, is not to cover your face while you're walking around the streets of Australia. He went on to say: 'The worst thing we can do is actually start ganging up on particular groups within our country. No-one is ganging up on anyone. We're saying this is completely inappropriate and it shouldn't be here. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has never missed an opportunity to jump on a minority bandwagon. She said: If people want to start banning items of apparel, perhaps we could start with budgie-smugglers? May I make this point with respect to that: there are items of clothing that are inappropriate to wear in certain circumstances and, if anyone thinks it's okay to wear budgie smugglers or any other bathing attire into the Senate chamber, for example, they're barking mad. I would say it is the same for anyone who thinks it's okay to turn up in a court of law for a judicial appearance in some bathing attire or budgie smugglers. There is a time and a place for those sorts of things. Society renders those verdicts and expects others to abide by them. But let me tell you, I don't know a time and a place for anyone to walk around with the sack of anonymity over their heads in Australian society. It is a cultural export from the women-hating regime in Saudi Arabia, where they cover their women like chattels and export their extremist ideology to Afghanistan and other Wahhabist Islamic nations. We are in the country of Australia, a homogenous country, a country where we believe in giving people a fair go and you judge someone basically by the smile on their face and the glint in their eye. The burqa prevents that from happening. Of course, it wasn't just Senator Hanson-Young and Mr Rudd. My old friend Keysar Trad, the guy who was found by a court to be an anti-Semite, a person who incites violence, steers people to jihadi websites and so forth—a really terrible person—said it's 'totally uncalled for to bring these phobias into Australia'. Sticking up for your own culture, sticking up for your way of life is, according to Mr Trad, a phobia, and this is a guy with a track record that I've just outlined. He also tried to take over AFIC and was booted out of that because one set of crooks couldn't get through another set of crooks. These are the sorts of judgements, and the media report these people as being credible. Western Australian MPs were surveyed: 'A survey of state MPs found all who responded disagreed with a call by Senator Bernardi for burqas to be banned.' So all West Australian MPs disagreed with my call at the time. In September, this was reported: Muslims Australia president Ikebal Patell said that while the burqa was "confronting", it was nonsense to suggest it was being used as a disguise to commit crimes— notwithstanding the evidence to the contrary— to use this as an excuse to ban the burqa, I would like to think Cory Bernardi has asked for helmets, balaclavas and other face coverings to be banned ... In fact, it's not appropriate for someone to walk down the street with a balaclava on either, unless you're in the ski fields or somewhere like that. If someone walked into this place with a balaclava on, people would be alarmed. It is about a time and a place. If you want to wear your burqa in your backyard or your special fete or something like that, maybe it's appropriate there, but it's not appropriate in Australian society and culture. Mr Abbott—I was his parliamentary secretary at the time—walked away from it and said they were my personal views rather than coalition policy, but he did acknowledge: There is understandable concern in the community about what former prime minister John Howard called a 'confronting' form of attire. It wasn't long after that that the reality hit some of those people. There was a case in the New South Wales police where a woman wearing a burqa, or a niqab, in fact, was pulled over by the police and questioned for not having P-plates and various other things on. She made a number of allegations against the police officer—that he was a rapist, that he had touched her inappropriately and all of these sorts of accusations. Fortunately, for this police officer, he had his dash cam on, and it demonstrated comprehensively that whomever was hiding under that burqa—because they hadn't been identified—wasn't telling the truth. They then sought to prosecute the individual because they had signed a statutory declaration making these allegations against the police. But, of course, the person taking the statutory declaration didn't ask to see the face of the person signing it, so they couldn't verify that it was actually the individual. So the prosecution of the person for making a false statement failed because they had the niqab on and society—and individuals involved—was too scared and too ashamed to ask them to show their face for fear of being called an Islamophobic. Shortly thereafter the New South Wales government, to their credit, changed the law. We could go on and on and on. There are cases after cases after cases, here and internationally, where people have chosen to hide themselves behind the Islamic veil and refuse to take it off in a court of law, so much so that in Western Australia they were considering allowing people to give their evidence via video because they didn't want to offend them by insisting they show their face in the courtroom. These are the sorts of accommodations we're making for a subsection of the community which is so small, so minor and yet are so inextricably linked to fundamentalist Islam that the burqa could be called the flag of fundamentalism. No moderate Muslim wears the burqa. No secular Muslim wears the burqa. They are fundamentalists. Every time you see a terror raid—and we saw one, and I tweeted this actually a couple of years ago, once again to much more abuse, when a family was raided for terror offences. Subsequently, one of the individuals was found guilty. We saw a number of people, individuals, walk out with a niqab and their faces covered. And I made the tweet, 'Well, there's the flag of fundamentalism.' If you want to identify where the radical threats are in your society, look for the individual wearing the burqa. Some may say, 'Well, that's good, we should keep it there so we know where the nests of extremism are residing.' But it's worse than that. It sends a message to every Australian, 'I do not want to be part of you.' It says, 'I am unemployable,' because no-one would rightfully give a job to someone who insisted upon hiding their face from everyone else. I can't imagine the circumstances where they were—maybe in a burqa modelling agency or something. I can't imagine. But this is nonsensical. The defenders of this are the same people who have sold out our culture and our values in so many areas. It is this cultural relativism that if we dismantle what we've got here, which is something precious and something unique, it will all be okay. But by some quirk of fate, Australia has become the best country in the world. We risk dismantling it every time we surrender our values and our principles at the altar of political correctness. I've only got through 2010 there, of course. I must compliment Senator Cash, who is actually in the chamber, because Senator Cash did say in April of 2011, 'It is inconsistent with our culture and values, and I truly believe that women should not do it.' So congratulations, Senator Cash. But very few other people came out and expressed any support. In fact, they would often lay traps so that when a visiting dignitary would come here they would say, 'Oh, the nutjobs want to ban the burqa,' or words to that effect. 'What do you think about that?' They fronted my old pal Hillary Clinton—I think you will get sarcasm for that. In November of 2010, on the day after my birthday—it must have been a gift from Hillary—an enterprising journalist said, 'The right-wing want to ban the burqa. What do you think about that on security issues?' She said: Well I am aware of the difference between a head scarf and a burka and hijab— most people in this place, aren't, by the way— and I think that there is a difference. I think that a head scarf is a very appropriate manifestation of a woman's choice, so long as it is her choice, which is a premise of my answer. But I think we have to face the reality that in a society where there is a legitimate threat of terrorism, not being able to see one's face, not being able to have some sense of communication in that way is for many societies a challenge. So I understand the dilemma and I think it is a legitimate dilemma. So you had the left-wing cheerleader, who is beloved by so many—and I reckon 90 per cent of the people in the Senate and the House of Representatives were cheering her on for President last year; I wasn't one of them—prepared to say, 'Yes, it's inappropriate to have someone's face covered because of the security issues attached to it.' I could go on. Councils, governments and building owners are spending millions upon millions of dollars on security cameras to identify the people in their area for security reasons alone. Yet if you've got a group of people covering their faces, it doesn't set off any alarm bells. If you saw a bunch of people in motorcycle helmets, you would raise questions. If you saw a bunch of people in balaclavas walking down the street, you would raise questions. But, for some reason, we are meant to suspend belief and reality and say that a bunch of people covering their face in the name of religious piety is okay. It represents exactly the same security threat, perhaps even more so, because it is so irregular in this country. If you can't identify the individual under that facial veil, how do you know which one of them has committed the crime? It was brought home very starkly here in the parliament. When I was walking through the public gallery there were five or six women wearing niqabs. I went to security and asked, 'Did you ask to check their face when they were coming through?' Their answer was, 'No, we're not allowed to.' I said, 'What if they had balaclavas on?' 'Yes, we'd have to check their face.' The principle is exactly the same, which prompted me to write to the then presiding officers and ask: 'What's the story? Why is it that some people are asked to show their face and others aren't? If one of that group of burqa-clad individuals damaged or defaced one of the paintings, how would you know which one it was when they all look the same?' These are legitimate questions in this place. It was raised on ABC radio. I raised in 2010-11 that, if we had a vote and we had multiple people here wearing niqabs or burqas, you wouldn't know who it was. That is the exact point that Senator Hanson herself made just the other day. They are very valid and legitimate points. Somehow we're not allowed to have a rational and sensible discussion about it because the snowflakes worry we're going to upset or offend a group of people. Well, I'm over that. I don't care about upsetting or offending a group of people. I get upset and offended because people are prepared to dismantle and destroy our culture, our values and our way of life to indulge the desires of a tiny minority. It's about time that we confronted the sorts of threats that are in our society. I'm convinced that the reason people wear burqas is to directly challenge us, to say: 'No, I will not conform to your laws. I will not conform to your requirements.' We even had the inane circumstance in South Australia where the then prisons minister said it was okay for women to wear burqas in prison. What sort of mindless, mind-numbing stupidity is that? Fortunately, she lost her seat at the next election. But that's the sort of blinkered understanding or ideology that is behind some of the appeasement processes. Appeasement simply doesn't work. It doesn't work. Sticking up for your values and defending your principles is what the Australian people want. They want it from this place. They want it from people in their own communities. I regret to say that every time we sweep these things under the rug. People say it is just a racist, Islamophobic rant; it's not. This is about genuine issues—about cultural assimilation and integration, about national security and about the type of country we want to see for ourselves. I'd hazard a guess that the women of Saudi Arabia and the women of Afghanistan would welcome this sort of debate and discussion in their parliament, because they want to be free of this cloak of anonymity, this flag of fundamentalism, this dehumanising garment that reduces a woman to the property of her husband. That's exactly what it does. Yet the vitriol and the abuse spewed at those of us who are concerned not only about the welfare of the individual but also about the welfare and wellbeing of our nation is extraordinary. Senator Hanson BK6 Where are the feminists? Senator BERNARDI G0D Senator Hanson asks: where are the feminists? That's crickets chirping you can hear, because they're nowhere to be seen. Virginia Haussegger, an ABC News presenter here in Canberra, once made the point that she thought the burqa should be banned, and she remarked to me once that the vitriol and the abuse that she received in response was unbelievable. So why is it that so many in our country are prepared to surrender our rights, our history, our values, our societal expectations and our cultural heritage in favour of several dozen—maybe several hundred or maybe several thousand—people who want to directly challenge it? That is what I cannot come to terms with. Senator McKim JKM It's not about telling people how to dress. Senator BERNARDI G0D Senator McKim says it's not about telling people how to dress. But the big problem with Senator McKim and his rhetoric is that he's blinded by his own ideology. The big deal here is that Senator McKim is prepared to surrender our values and our culture at the altar of political correctness. He is a sell-out. He is the Neville Chamberlain of the Australian debate: 'Appease everyone, and it will be okay. We can be in some great global environment.' Senator McKim interjecting— Senator BERNARDI G0D What I would suggest to you is that if the Greens voters, led by Senator McKim, decided to go and perch themselves in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia for a little while, let's see how far their discussion gets. That's the reality of it. We've got to defend our culture. (Time expired) 10:57 Senator DASTYARI 225099 New South Wales The burqa ban again! I am not going to take up any more of the Senate's important time having this ridiculous debate time and time again. We all get paid a lot of money to be parliamentarians, and we all have a lot of things to do. But I do want to leave with these immortal words that were left by Senator Hanson to us today. Ignore the advice of security agencies and ignore every expert in the field—it's okay, because Senator Hanson got up today and said, 'I spoke to a taxi driver about it once.' Oh, Senator, you met a Muslim in the wild. It must have been an exciting experience! Debate adjourned. NOTICES 7300 NOTICES Presentation 7300 COMMITTEES 7300 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 7300 Report 7300 10:58 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania I present the 11th report of 2017 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 11 OF 2017 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 13 September 2017 at 7.15pm. 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the provisions of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 October 2017 (see appendices 1 and 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); (b) the provisions of the Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill 2017 be referredimmediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 November 2017 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral); (c) the provisions of the Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017 be referredimmediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 14 November 2017 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral); (d) contingent upon introduction in the Senate, the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Strengthening Trustee Arrangements) Bill 2017 be referredimmediately to the Economics Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendices 5 and 6 for a statement of reasons for referral); (e) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 2) Bill 2017 be referredimmediately to the Economics Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendices 7 and 8 for a statement of reasons for referral); and (f) contingent upon introduction in the Senate, the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Bill 2017 be referredimmediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 October 2017 (see appendices 9 and 10 for a statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees: Australian Grape and Wine Authority Amendment (Wine Australia) Bill 2017 Lands Acquisition Amendment (Public Purpose) Bill 2017 Medicinal Cannabis Legislation Amendment (Securing Patient Access) Bill 2017 Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Tax Integrity) Bill 2017 Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment (Vacancy Fees) Bill 2017 Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 First Home Super Saver Tax Bill 2017. 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Australian Broadcasting Corporation Amendment (Regional Australia) Bill 2017 Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Carbon Capture and Storage) Bill 2017 Coastal Trading (Revitalising Australian Shipping) Amendment Bill 2017 Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding for Proprietary Companies) Bill 2017 Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Measures) Bill 2017 Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2017 Customs Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 Customs Tariff Amendment (Singapore-Australia Free Trade Agreement Amendment Implementation) Bill 2017 Defence Legislation Amendment (Instrument Making) Bill 2017 Family Assistance and Child Support Legislation Amendment (Protecting Children) Bill 2017 Investigation and Prosecution Measures Bill 2017 Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2017 Parliamentary Business Resources Amendment (Voluntary Opt-out) Bill 2017 Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017 Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017 Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2017 Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 5) Bill 2017 ASIC Supervisory Cost Recovery Levy Amendment Bill 2017 Treasury Laws Amendment (2017 Measures No. 6) Bill 2017. (David Bushby) Chair 14 September 2017 Appendix 1 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Investigate how the Bill works to protect vulnerable children and the community from child sex offenders. Possible submissions or evidence from: Australian Federal Police Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): To be determined by Committee Possible reporting date: 8 November (signed) Senator Mitch Fifield Appendix 2 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: This bill deals with the protection of children from the dangers of child sexual abuse. The bill targets all aspects of the child sex offender cycle from the commission of an offence, to bail, sentencing and post-imprisonment. Given the importance of the subject matter, the complexity of some of the bill's provisions and the broad scope of the bill, it would be appropriate to refer the Bill to committee for consideration. Possible submissions or evidence from: Attorney-General's Department, CDPP, Office of the eSafety Commissioner, the Australian Federal Police, Law Council of Australia, State and Territory Law Associations (e.g. Law Institute of Victoria), State and Territory Bar Associations, Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission, Alannah and Madeline Foundation, State and Territory police forces, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, State, Territory and Federal Government Departments responsible for child protection, major internet service providers (e.g. Telstra, Optus, iiNet, Internode, TPG Internet) Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): To be determined by the committee Possible reporting date: 16 October 2017 (signed) Senator Anne Urquhart Appendix 3 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Criminal Code Amendment (Impersonating a Commonwealth Body) Bill 2017 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: This is legislation which proposes changes to the criminal law. The criminal law has a significant impact on the rights and obligations of the Australian people, including potentially the ability to see them deprived of their liberty. It is appropriate and responsible for the Senate to properly examine the impact of proposed criminal laws. Possible submissions or evidence from: Attorney-General's Department Australian Federal Police Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Australian Human Rights Commission Law Council of Australia Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Legal & Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): N/A Possible reporting date: 13 November 2017 (signed) Senator Anne Urquhart Appendix 4 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: The Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017 (the Bill) amends the Migration Act 1958 (Migration Act) to allow the Minister to determine a thing as prohibited. This a significant change to the operation of Immigration Detention Centres. There is a level of concern among stakeholders about the proposed amendments that suggests that further examination of the bill is necessary. Possible submissions or evidence from: Refugee Council of Australia, Refugee Legal, Asylum Seeker Resource Centre Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal & Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): Possible reporting date: 14th November 2017 (signed) Senator Rachel Siewert Appendix 5 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2017; and Superannuation Laws Amendment (Strengthening Trustee Arrangements) Bill 2017 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 - Investigate how the Bill will work to protect superannuation members' money and interests through a strong, transparent and more accountable superannuation system with a strong prudential regulator Superannuation Laws Amendment (Strengthening Trustee Arrangements) Bill 2017 Investigate how the Bill will work to strengthen the superannuation system and improve conflict management across all superannuation funds Superannuation Laws Amendment (Strengthening Trustee Arrangements) Bill 2017 was considered by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee in the last Parliament over a period of approximately seven weeks. The name of the Bill in the last parliament was Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Trustee Governance) 8111 2015. Possible submissions or evidence from: The Committee should be granted access to evidence provided during the previous inquiry conducted in the 44th Parliament. Possible submitters could include: - Superannuation industry participants including associations and individual superannuation funds Consumer representatives Corporate Governance and legal experts - Trade unions Employer associations Small and large business associations Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Economics Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): To be determined by the Committee Possible reporting date: 4 October 2017 (signed) Senator Mitch Fifield Appendix 6 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bills: Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 Superannuation Laws Amendment (Strengthening Trustee Arrangements) Bill 2017 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Detailed scrutiny of the provisions of the Bill and their implications Possible submissions or evidence from: Industry and community stakeholders, relevant government departments Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Economics Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): TBD by Committee Possible reporting date: 27 November 2017 (signed) Senator Anne Urquhart Appendix 7 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 2) Bill 2017 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Investigate how the Bill will operate to enable an additional one million people to choose their own superannuation fund; and how it will ensure that workers who make salary sacrifice contributions to superannuation are not short-changed and receive their full superannuation guarantee entitlements Possible submissions or evidence from: Superannuation industry participants including associations and individual superannuation funds Consumer representatives Trade unions Employer associations Small and large business associations Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Economics Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): To be determined by the Committee Possible reporting date(s): 11 October 2017 (signed) Senator Mitch Fifield Appendix 8 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 2) Bill 2017 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Detailed scrutiny of the provisions of the Bill and their implications Possible submissions or evidence from: Industry and community stakeholders, relevant government departments Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Economics Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): TBD by Committee Possible reporting date: 27 November 2017 (signed) Senator Anne Urquhart Appendix 9 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First - Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Bill 2017 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Investigate how the Bill will improve access to redress, for both consumers and small businesses, in respect of their disputes with financial institutions. Possible submissions or evidence from: Financial Ombudsman Services Superannuation Complaints Tribunal Credit and Investment Ombudsman Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman ASIC Consumer Action Law Centre, and associated entities. CHOICE Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Economics Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): To be determined by the Committee Possible reporting date: 1 November 2017 (signed) Senator Mitch Fifield Appendix 10 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First — Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Bill 2017 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Detailed scrutiny of the provisions of the Bill and their implications Possible submissions or evidence from: Consumer groups, industry and community stakeholders, relevant agencies and organisations Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Economics Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): TBD by Committee Possible reporting date: 17 October 2017 (signed) Senator Anne Urquhart Senator BUSHBY HLL I move: That the report be adopted. 10:58 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I move the following amendment: At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of: (a) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 and the Superannuation Laws Amendment (Strengthening Trustee Arrangements) Bill 2017; and (b) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 2) Bill 2017, the Economics Legislation Committee report by 23 October 2017". Senator GALLAGHER ING I move an amendment to Senator Fifield's amendment: Omit "23 October 2017", substitute "27 November 2017". This amendment would simply extend the reporting date from 23 October 2017 to 27 November 2017. There has been a similar amendment circulated in the chamber with the actual date, but I acknowledge that this is now an amendment to Minister Fifield's amendment. The simple argument on this is that this is a significant package of bills. The Economics Legislation Committee is a busy committee. These are contested changes; we already know that. There will be the need for hearings and submissions for these bills. We believe that a November reporting date is a much more realistic timetable for inquiry into these superannuation bills and report back to the Senate. I hope the Senate can support my amendment. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP The question is that the amendment, as moved by Senator Gallagher, to Senator Fifield's amendment be agreed to. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT : (11:08) The question is that the amendment, as moved by Senator Fifield, be agreed to. Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:06]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

29 AYES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Dastyari, S (teller) Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallagher, KR Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lambie, J McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, DM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Sterle, G Urquhart, AE Whish-Wilson, PS 31 NOES Abetz, E Bernardi, C Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC (teller) Cash, MC Cormann, M Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID McGrath, J McKenzie, B O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Payne, MA Roberts, M Ruston, A Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Sinodinos, A Smith, D Williams, JR Xenophon, N 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:09 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move: At the end of the motion, add, "and, in respect of the Customs Amendment (Anti-Dumping Measures) Bill 2017, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 6 October 2017." Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. BUSINESS 7309 BUSINESS Rearrangement 7309 11:10 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I move: That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows: (a) general business notice of motion no. 501 standing in the name of Senator Gallagher relating to public broadcasting; and (b) orders of the day relating to documents. Question agreed to. NOTICES 7309 NOTICES Postponement 7309 11:11 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. I shall now proceed. PARLIAMENTARY ZONE 7310 PARLIAMENTARY ZONE Approval of Works 7310 11:11 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland At the request of the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne, I 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. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP The question is that the motion moved by Senator McGrath be agreed to. Those of that opinion say aye. The ayes have it. Senator Siewert e5z Madam Deputy President, I may have misheard you or didn't hear you call for the noes. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP I called the ayes have it. Senator Siewert e5z You called for the ayes but you didn't call for the noes, at least as I heard it, and I want to be able to call no. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP I will put government business notice of motion No. 1 again, the motion as moved by Senator McGrath. Those of that opinion say aye and against say no. The ayes have it. Question agreed to. BILLS 7310 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2017, Superannuation Laws Amendment (Strengthening Trustee Arrangements) Bill 2017 7310

Treasury Laws Amendment (Improving Accountability and Member Outcomes in Superannuation Measures No. 1) Bill 2017

Superannuation Laws Amendment (Strengthening Trustee Arrangements) Bill 2017

First Reading 7310 11:13 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland At the request of the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann, I move: That the following bills be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to superannuation, and for related purposes. A Bill for an Act to amend the law in relation to superannuation, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator McGRATH 217241 I present the bills and move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 7310 11:15 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I table the explanatory memoranda and I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (IMPROVING ACCOUNTABILITY AND MEMBER OUTCOMES IN SUPERANNUATION MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2017 This bill amends the Corporations Act 2001, the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993, and the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001 to give every day Australians more power over their superannuation providers and a stronger prudential framework to deliver a more transparent and accountable compulsory retirement savings system. The measures in this bill are part of a broader package of Government reforms that are squarely focused on protecting members' money and members' interests. It is a comprehensive package that will help deliver all Australians a strong and modern superannuation system with a stronger prudential regulator that is solely focused on delivering outcomes for all Australians who rely on these funds to secure their retirement. 2017 marks 25 years since the introduction of compulsory superannuation in Australia. In that time, the system has grown from around $136 billion in 1992 to over $2.3 trillion today. APRA regulated superannuation funds manage around $1.4 trillion of the hard earned deferred wages on behalf of Australian workers. The Turnbull Government believes that given the compulsory nature of superannuation, Australians rightly expect the industry to be held to the highest standards of transparency and accountability. The reforms in this bill and the broader package of member-focused reforms will ensure the superannuation system has a strong foundation today and into the future. Australia's compulsory superannuation system must at all times prioritise the financial interests of members above vested interests in the industry whether government, bank executives, shareholders, directors, employers or trade unions. And, the legislative and regulatory framework underpinning the system must facilitate this in practice. Many of the measures in this bill have been recommended by past reviews into superannuation, commissioned by both Coalition and Labor governments. These are sensible reforms that are already being embedded in the practices of high performing funds. The package has been broadly welcomed by industry and consumers groups alike. CHOICE Head of Campaigns and Policy, Erin Turner said, "the superannuation system needs a shake-up and it's why we welcome the Federal Government's announcement that it's taking a consumer-first approach to reform." Outcomes test Under the law, MySuper is defined as a simple, standardised 'no frills' superannuation product with regulated fees. Individuals who do not actively choose their own fund or investment option must be defaulted into a MySuper product. This means that typically, MySuper members are younger and not proactively engaging with their superannuation. For this reason trustees of MySuper products are subject to additional obligations, including the need to ensure that they promote the financial interests of members. The current law includes a 'scale test' under which MySuper trustees must consider whether a fund has sufficient size to operate efficiently. This bill will replace the 'scale test' with a broader 'outcomes test'. It will strengthen all default MySuper products offered by superannuation funds across the industry as at June 2016 including: 46 MySuper products offered by retail funds; 43 MySuper products offered by industry funds; 15 MySuper products offered by corporate funds; and 11 MySuper products offered by public sector funds. It will achieve this by introducing a requirement for trustees to undertake a stronger, broader annual assessment of their MySuper product outcomes to ensure they are promoting the financial interests of MySuper members with almost 15 million accounts across the system. Under the new outcomes test, trustees will have to consider all aspects of their MySuper offering for example consideration will need to be given to ensuring returns, fees, investment and insurance strategies – including whether insurance premiums are inappropriately eroding retirement savings – as well as the scale of the fund promote the financial interests of members. They will also have to compare the performance of their MySuper offering with other comparable MySuper products. Trustees will have to do this annually. Importantly, to ensure the new outcomes test delivers greater transparency, trustees will also be required to publicly release their determination of whether or not they are promoting the financial interests of members and a summary of the assessment and comparisons that lead to the determination. These changes will ensure that trustees, who have a fiduciary obligation to regularly assess the quality of their MySuper offering; the findings are transparent and address any weaknesses that they identify. To be clear, the 'outcomes test' will not weaken or lessen a trustee's primary obligation to promote the financial interests of their MySuper members, including through net returns -it will strengthen it. The new outcomes test will also enhance APRA's ability to assess how trustees are working to improve the quality of MySuper products and meeting their stated strategic objectives. It will also give APRA stronger grounds for engagement with trustees where it has concerns. Outside of MySuper, there are a diversity of products that are not subject to standardisation under the law. A member who has made an active choice about their superannuation product typically chooses their investment strategy on the advice of their financial adviser. These are referred to as 'choice members'. During consultation, some stakeholders said that the outcomes test should be extended to all superannuation choice products, not just default MySuper products. There are fundamental legal differences between the default MySuper sector and the 'choice' sector. On 11 August this year, APRA wrote to all RSE licensees to advise that it intends to consult on a proposal to apply an outcomes test to all products, not just default MySuper products. As with the MySuper outcomes test, this would include consideration of net investment returns, expenses and costs, insurance, and other benefits and services provided to choice members. The Government believes this is an efficient means through which the choice sector can be strengthened for the benefit of members and agrees with APRA's proposal and expects it to be implemented. This will ensure that quality outcomes are being delivered and the financial interests of all members are promoted across all superannuation products. MySuper Authorisation There are currently 115 MySuper products on the market today. These MySuper products offer a wide range of returns and charge a wide range of fees. As a result, there are concerns that the current MySuper authorisation process is not ensuring that all MySuper products are of sufficient quality. This bill will amend the law to give APRA more discretion over the authorisation and cancellation of authority to offer a MySuper product. Given the additional obligations that apply to MySuper trustees, we want to ensure that APRA will only authorise a trustee if it has confidence they are likely to comply with these obligations. We also want to ensure that APRA has the power to cancel a trustee's authorisation if it has reason to believe that the trustee will no longer comply with their obligations. These changes to the MySuper authorisation process will give APRA the power to protect the interests of the millions of disengaged members, or members who have not made an active choice about how their savings are invested. Direction Powers In a compulsory system of the size and significance of our superannuation system, it is critical that the prudential regulator has a strong regulatory toolkit to protect the interests of fund members. To date, APRA has largely had to rely on powers of 'moral-suasion' to protect the interests of superannuation fund members. The Government believes that in order to ensure confidence in the system, APRA should have the capacity to take quick and decisive action to safeguard members' interests where it has significant concerns about a fund's operation. It also needs appropriate powers to step in and ensure that trustees are meeting their fiduciary obligations. A strong regulator is crucial for ensuring confidence in the $2.3 trillion superannuation system. This bill will give APRA the ability to take preventative or corrective action where it has prudential concerns about a superannuation fund or if it is concerned that a fund is not acting in the best interests of members. For example, if APRA were to have serious concerns with the operations of a subsidiary company wholly owned by a superannuation fund that provides services to members, APRA can direct the subsidiary entity to undertake a particular course of action to protect members' interests. Similarly, if APRA were to have serious concerns about the actions of a particular trustee director which could impact member outcomes, these directions powers will enable APRA to intervene and direct the board to remove a trustee director. This is clearly in the best interests of fund members. Ownership and Control This bill will also give APRA the power to reject a change in the ownership of a corporate trustee. Sadly, we can still remember the collapse of Trio Capital in 2009 and the significant impact it had on the lives of many Australians, including thousands of members of APRA-regulated superannuation funds. The collapse of Trio Capital, described as the largest superannuation fraud in Australian history, highlighted the consequences of not having appropriate people in control of superannuation savings. That is why, given the potential detrimental outcomes that may arise through the mismanagement of funds, we believe that no one should be able to own or control a trustee without APRA's approval. Director Penalties This bill will also strengthen the accountability of trustee directors by making them subject to civil and criminal penalties for breaches of their fiduciary duties. This was a recommendation of the Financial System Inquiry which the Government accepted in 2015. It is anomalous that trustees do not currently face civil or criminal penalties for breaching their duties. These penalties include a maximum five years' jail for serious criminal conduct, for example, fraud; and up to $420,000 in civil penalties per director. Annual Member Meetings The law today imposes no legal requirement upon funds, who are the custodians of members' compulsory retirement savings to be subject to questioning from members about how their money is invested, the performance of the fund, how their money is spent on marketing or sponsorships. We believe that it is time for this to change. And we are not alone. Australian Institute of Superannuation Trustees, Eva Scheerlinck has said, "Providing a means for members to engage with the people managing their hard earned superannuation is a good way to identify those issues which are of most interest to members." As such, this bill will require trustees to hold annual member meetings where members have the opportunity to ask questions and get answers, not just of trustees but also of fund executives, auditors and actuaries. To provide flexibility and minimise compliance costs, trustees will have the option to hold annual members' meetings electronically. Annual General Meetings are a longstanding feature of Australia's publically listed companies in which superannuation funds invest their members' money. Reporting Standards A compulsory superannuation system must be transparent and accountable for the way in which it spends members' money. APRA currently has the power to make reporting standards to capture fund expenses relating to investments more granular and transparent. However, it is unable to require funds to report the same detailed information about other expenses including for example, detailed information about financial arrangements with related parties, sponsorships, marketing and other expenditure. All fund expenses ultimately impact their members' eventual retirement income and all expenses should be required to be transparently disclosed. As such, the measures in this bill will enable APRA to make reporting standards that require funds to provide detailed expense information in relation to their operations and management. This will introduce much needed transparency and give members and the regulator much fuller understanding of how funds are spending members' money and whether this is consistent with their fiduciary obligation to act in the best interests of members. Sally Loane, the CEO of the Financial Services Council, welcomed the package of reforms and in particular, noted that, "The FSC strongly supports all proposals which give consumers more power and greater transparency over one of their most important assets – their superannuation savings." Portfolio Holdings Disclosure Finally, this bill will also boost transparency by giving members more information about fund investments. These changes will also improve confidence in the system by ensuring members can see where their funds are being invested and that they are being invested in their best interests. It will do this by introducing a workable arrangement for portfolio holdings disclosure. Under the changes in this bill, funds will be required to disclose portfolio holdings in respect to assets held directly and through associated entities, including initial investments made into non-associated entities. This approach will significantly reduce the complexity of the current law – which was introduced by the former Labor Government in 2012 but has never commenced operation. Australia's superannuation system is often regarded as one of the world's leading retirement savings systems. However, out of 25 markets surveyed by international market financial analysts Morningstar, Australia is the only one that has not implemented some form of portfolio holdings disclosure. The portfolio holdings disclosure measure in this bill will ensure Australia's superannuation system remains consistent with international best practice. Conclusion Once again I want to make it clear that Government is focused on ensuring Australia's superannuation system delivers outcomes for members first and foremost rather than protecting the vested interests of the industry. That is, a system that encourages people to participate actively, that ensures transparency to facilitate informed decisions, and one that gives people the confidence that their retirement savings are invested wisely. And, most importantly, we must have a superannuation system with a strong regulatory framework that protects members' money and members' interests. I'm confident the measures in this bill will achieve these outcomes. Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. SUPERANNUATION LAWS AMENDMENT (STRENGTHENING TRUSTEE ARRANGEMENTS) BILL 2017 This bill amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act1993 to modernise and strengthen the foundations of Australia's compulsory superannuation system. It achieves this by introducing a strong and consistent definition of independence and a consistent minimum legal requirement for at least one third independent directors with an independent chair, across all superannuation funds regulated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA). This bill is part of a broader package of Government reforms that are squarely focused on protecting members' money and members' interests. These are important changes that will ensure all Australians, regardless of the fund they are in, can have confidence that the people entrusted to manage their hard-earned wages have the appropriate mix of skills and expertise to protect and grow their retirement savings solely in the interests of members. This bill also amends the Governance of Australian Government Superannuation Schemes Act 2011 to ensure that the Australian Government's main civilian and military superannuation schemes are also subject to the same high standards through complying with the new independence requirements. It has been a quarter of a century since the introduction of compulsory superannuation in Australia. In that time, the size and significance of the system has changed enormously – both for individuals and the economy more broadly. For individuals, superannuation is now most Australians' second largest asset after the family home. The total size of funds under management has grown from around $136 billion in 1992 to over $2.3 trillion today – in excess of a 1,500% percent increase over that time. Incredibly, that figure is projected to double to $4 trillion in just over a decade. Make no mistake about it, Australia's superannuation system has grown into what it is today largely by virtue of successive government policy to compel individuals to defer a portion of their wages – today, 9.5% - for their future retirement income. It is always important to remind ourselves that this money is the property of each and every hard working Australian superannuation fund member. Not the government; not the industry; not the bank executives; not the shareholders; not the employers; and not the trade unions. During the past 25 years the nature of the superannuation industry and the funds themselves has changed markedly. Superannuation funds regulated by APRA now hold around $1.4 trillion in assets on behalf of the hard working Australian people. Significant industry consolidation has occurred and funds have grown much larger and more complex. It is appropriate that the foundations underpinning the system are updated to reflect this change. The previous Labor Government commissioned a 'Super System Review' that considered the governance arrangements in the superannuation system. This review, led by Jeremy Cooper recommended that, at the very least, equal representation trustee boards should have a minimum one-third 'non‑associated' directors, although a requirement for a majority of independent directors was preferred. In forming this recommendation, the Panel noted in its Final Report that, "it had come to the view that changes in the industry over time and certain implementation practices mean that equal representation no longer seems to achieve its original stated objective." The Cooper Review Panel made the case for its recommendation on the basis of a number of key structural changes that have taken place in the system since the equal representation governance structure was established in the SIS Act in 1993. These included: 1. The substantial shift away from single-employer defined benefit funds that were dominant in 1993 and the introduction of fund choice and prevalence of defined contribution schemes. This materially changed, and in many cases, severed the once close relationship between an employer and super fund. 2. The fact that most 'employer' and 'employee' representatives are nominated by third party organisations such as employer associations and trade unions. It noted the implications of this included the perception of democracy that equal representation appears to embed is not always the reality. Further, it creates at least the perception that individual directors are required to answer to, or are dictated to by, the organisation that appointed them. 3. The potential for the large numbers of employer and employee organisations with interests in a fund can lead to larger than necessary board sizes. 4. Equal representation leaves significant groups 'unrepresented'. In particular, it highlighted pensioners, future post-retirement members and members' who have exercised choice. The most recent Intergenerational Report, published in 2015 bears this out showing that by 2055, the number of Australians aged 65 and over is projected to more than double. There is a further compelling argument for the need to introduce a minimum requirement for independent directors on superannuation fund boards – that is to ensure a board can be comprised of a sufficiently diverse, skilled and experienced set of directors. There can be no argument that members of superannuation funds, the hardworking Australian people, deserve the best and brightest minds sitting around the board tables of Australia's superannuation funds. A second review, the 2014 Financial System Inquiry led by David Murray, initiated under a Coalition Government, agreed that there should be a change to the governance arrangements that apply to the superannuation industry. However, the FSI recommended that all public offer funds should have a majority of independent directors, including an independent chair. While the Government agrees with both of these review findings, that a majority of independent directors would be preferable, we recognise that having a consistent minimum standard of one-third independent directors on trustee boards represents an important step forward and is better than continuing with none. Some for-profit retail funds, that do not follow the equal representation model under the law, comply with a Financial Services Council industry standard requiring its members to have a majority of independent directors and an independent chair. The not for profit sector has also developed a governance code. Some might suggest that this means there is no need for this legislation. However, there is no guarantee every participant in the system will be covered. Treasury analysis suggests that in 2016, the percentage of funds not covered by any industry body was 44 per cent. The Government believes that all superannuation members have a right to expect high standards of governance, enshrined in the law, including independent thinking and judgement that is free from conflict of interest underpinning how their money is managed. To ensure the bill delivers on its objective, it empowers APRA to make determinations about whether a person satisfies the new definition of independence. A trustee will be able to apply to APRA for a determination that a potential director is able to exercise independent judgement if they may not meet the strict definition in the law. This bill provides a three-year transitional period for trustee boards to have at least one-third independent directors. It will also ensure that the new requirements are enforceable by APRA. At its heart, the case for a consistent minimum standard across all types of superannuation fund boards for independent directors is simple. Independent directors will strengthen corporate governance in the superannuation sector, especially in relation to conflicts management, and related party transactions including, choice of investments, arrangements with service providers, directors' fees, sponsorships, marketing activities, advertising and payments to nominating bodies. The proposed requirements for independent trustee directors are less than what some industry superannuation funds themselves expect of the entities in which they invest members' money. For example, the Governance Guidelines of the Australian Council of Superannuation Investors highlight the importance of company directors exercising independent judgement, not just in relation to management but also into relation to related parties and other affiliates. Under this bill, it will be a matter for trustees to determine how the remaining two‑thirds of the board is comprised. Boards will be able to choose to have the remaining directors split between sponsoring organisation representatives if they consider it appropriate. It will ensure our compulsory superannuation system is well-equipped for the next quarter of a century and beyond. This bill does not favour one part of the industry over another – it applies equally to industry funds, corporate funds, retail funds and public sector funds. It is about lifting governance standards across the entire industry in the interests of members. Members of all funds deserve to have their interests placed first. This bill will help to ensure that this happens in future. There is too much at stake to allow these sensible reforms to be delayed by industry self-interest any longer. Full details about the amendments are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111. Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Bill 2017 7318

Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Consumers First—Establishment of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority) Bill 2017

First Reading 7318 11:15 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland At the request of the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann, I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Corporations Act 2001and repeal the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator McGRATH 217241 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 7318 11:16 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I present the explanatory memorandum and I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— This bill amends the Corporations Act 2001 and other related legislation to radically overhaul the financial system dispute resolution framework by establishing a new one-stop-shop dispute resolution body — the Australian Financial Complaints Authority — to ensure that consumers and small businesses have access to free, fast and binding dispute resolution. The bill forms part of the Government' s broader commitment to ensuring that the banks and other financial institutions are held to account when they fail to meet community expectations. The financial sector plays a vital role in the Australian economy by meeting the needs of its users, including consumers and small businesses. Its role in the economy and the lives of all Australians continues to grow and evolve. Given the crucial role of the financial sector, Australians expect high standards from financial institutions. Where these expectations are not met and consumers wrongfully suffer a loss, it is critical that those who have been wronged have access to redress in a timely manner. External dispute resolution (EDR) plays a critical role in providing consumers and small businesses with access to an alternative, out-of-court, dispute resolution service, to hear and determine their complaints about financial firms. The Government is committed to having a world class financial dispute resolution system. That is why in April 2016 the Government commissioned an independent comprehensive review of the dispute resolution framework (the Ramsay Review), which was led by an expert panel comprising Professor Ian Ramsay, Julie Abramson and Alan Kirkland. The Ramsay Review undertook a rigorous consultation process and received 187 submissions in response to its Issues Paper and Interim Report. The Ramsay Review found that the current dispute resolution framework is a product of history rather than design and, in significant areas, reform is needed. The Review made eleven recommendations to strengthen and future-proof the dispute resolution framework, all of which the Government has accepted. The Review' s central recommendation was to establish a new one-stop-shop dispute resolution body for all financial disputes, including superannuation disputes. In line with this recommendation, the Government committed to establishing the Australian Financial Complaints Authority, or AFCA, which will be based on an industry ombudsman model, with additional statutory powers where required. This approach combines the strengths of both a statutory tribunal and an industry ombudsman scheme. AFCA will replace the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), the Credit and Investments Ombudsman (CIO) and the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal (SCT), and will reduce the unnecessary duplication and consumer confusion that has been characteristic of the current framework. This simplification of the system has been welcomed by Gerard Brody, CEO of Consumer Action Law Centre who has commented that "Currently if you have a problem with a bank or finance provider, it is incredibly confusing to fix the problem. The people who call our services just want to get their lives back on track – the Government can help them by simplifying the system and giving it teeth." Choice likewise welcomed the announcement of AFCA, stating "it will provide consumers with a single, accessible complaints resolution service when something goes wrong". AFCA will have higher monetary limits and compensation caps than those of FOS and CIO, and will maintain the SCT' s unlimited monetary jurisdiction for superannuation complaints. The new monetary limits and compensation caps are double and, in the case of small business credit facility disputes, almost triple the limits and caps currently in place. This will significantly improve access to justice for consumers and small businesses. The creation of AFCA will also address recommendations of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics' Review of the four major banks (also known as the Coleman Report) and the Carnell Inquiry into small business loans. The Coleman Report recommended that the Government replace the three existing EDR schemes with a ' one stop' Banking and Financial Services Tribunal. The report noted that it would: reduce confusion for consumers; enhance small businesses' EDR scheme coverage; help ensure consistent outcomes for complainants; and eliminate unnecessary duplication. The AFCA will fulfil all of these requirements. The Carnell Report likewise recommended the establishment of an industry funded external dispute resolution one-stop-shop with appropriate small business expertise to hear disputes relating to credit facilities of up to $5 million. The AFCA will meet this recommendation by significantly expanding small business access to redress, through monetary limits and compensation caps that are almost triple the existing limits and caps. Small Business has welcomed the establishment of AFCA. Peter Strong, CEO of the Council of Small Business Australia (COSBOA) commented that "too often, small business owners are shafted by the actions of big banks and these business owners have little option but to take their medicine in the face of the overwhelming power of the big banks. But this new Authority will provide business owners with a clear mechanism to seek redress where they have been unfairly done by". The bill introduces a new legislative framework which sets out the standards that AFCA must adhere to. Under the legislative framework, AFCA will be accessible to consumers and small businesses, who will be able to have their disputes with financial firms heard and determined by AFCA for free. All financial firms, including superannuation funds, will be required by law to be members of AFCA. AFCA will be a not-for-profit company governed by a board comprised of an independent chair and equal numbers of directors with industry and consumer backgrounds. It will be funded by industry. The legislation will ensure that AFCA will provide fair, efficient, timely and independent dispute resolution services and that it has the relevant expertise to resolve the disputes it hears. The legislation also includes a number of statutory provisions to ensure that AFCA has the necessary powers to effectively resolve superannuation disputes. Additional statutory provisions are required because of the complex nature of some superannuation disputes that involve third parties, such as death benefit disputes. AFCA will have the power to join third parties to a dispute, require parties to attend conciliation and require the production of documents. The statutory provisions available to AFCA will allow timely decisions to be made, to enable prompt payment of death benefit amounts by superannuation funds, to those who may be in need. The framework does not dictate the way in which AFCA should deal with complaints. This will enable AFCA to adapt to change and to be flexible and innovative in its approach to resolving disputes. To ensure that AFCA meets community expectations for free, fast and binding dispute resolution, it will be subject to a comprehensive accountability regime. First, the AFCA scheme will be authorised by the Government. The responsible Minister will not authorise the AFCA scheme unless satisfied that it has robust systems and processes to meet community expectations and the rigorous standards set out in the legislation. And where the scheme, once authorised, fails to meet these standards, the Minister will have the ability to revoke authorisation. In addition, the responsible Minister will have the ability to impose conditions on authorisation. This ability to set conditions will allow the Government to ensure that AFCA is accountable to both consumers and member firms, for example, through specifying the frequency of independent reviews of the scheme' s operations and procedures or requiring AFCA to report and provide reasons to the Government on an annual basis in respect of any changes AFCA makes to its membership fees. The ability to set conditions will ensure that AFCA is appropriately transparent, for example, by ensuring that any recommendations for improvement that are made as part of an independent review of AFCA be made publicly available. The AFCA board will be comprised of an independent chair and equal numbers of directors with consumer and industry backgrounds. At the establishment of AFCA the responsible Minister will make a one-time appointment of the minority of AFCA' s board, including the independent chair, to ensure that it has an appropriate mix of skills and experience. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission, or ASIC, will be responsible for ensuring that the AFCA meets the standards set out in the legislation on an ongoing basis. To fulfil this role, the bill provides ASIC with the ability to set regulatory requirements that AFCA must adhere to and also provides ASIC with a general directions power to compel AFCA to comply with the standards set out in the legislation. The enhanced accountability that AFCA will be subject to under the new regime represents a significant improvement over the existing regime, under which ASIC had limited powers to require dispute resolution bodies to improve their practices. The bill also introduces a new internal dispute resolution reporting regime. Internal dispute resolution is a financial firm' s internal dispute resolution process that involves the firm' s initial response to a complaint. An effective internal dispute resolution process plays an important role in enabling financial firms to quickly resolve genuine complaints, without an EDR or court process. To provide firms with an incentive to have best practice internal dispute resolution procedures, the Government is implementing a new internal dispute resolution reporting regime. Under the new regime, ASIC will be empowered to create a legislative instrument that will determine the internal dispute resolution data that financial firms will need to report to the regulator. ASIC will then have the ability to publish this data at both the aggregate and firm level. Publishing internal dispute resolution data will drive financial firms to improve their internal dispute resolution practices, by providing industry benchmarks on how long it takes to resolve disputes and highlighting poor performing firms. Given the significance of these reforms, the Government understands the importance of having a smooth transition from the existing dispute resolution bodies to AFCA. That is why the Government has created a transition team, led by Dr Malcolm Edey, a former Assistant Governor of the Reserve Bank, to drive the establishment of the AFCA. Recognising the importance of seeking consumer and small business feedback on AFCA, as well as drawing on the expertise of the three existing dispute resolution bodies, Dr Edey has established a representative expert reference panel to assist his transition team. The transition team will advise the Government on AFCA' s terms of reference, governance and funding arrangements. It will also make recommendations on the transitional arrangements required to appropriately resolve legacy disputes of the three existing schemes. Following feedback from the Treasury consultation paper on the proposed competitive selection process for authorisation of AFCA, the Government understands such a process was not considered by a number of industry or consumer stakeholders to be the best way to deliver AFCA. A competitive selection process will not therefore be pursued. The bill also provides for the winding down of the SCT, which will cease to accept new complaints once AFCA commences operations. It will continue to work through its backlog of disputes until 1 July 2020. The new EDR regime will result in significant benefits for consumers and small businesses, with less confusion, increased access to redress and greater accountability for financial firms. As the Consumer Action Law Centre stated "Australians need one, high quality service to resolve their disputes against financial institutions quickly and fairly. The one-stop-shop announced today is a sensible move that can help Australians get justice". This bill achieves this outcome and ensures Australian consumers and small businesses get free, fast and binding access to redress and compensation. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111. MOTIONS 7322 MOTIONS R U OK? Day 7322 11:17 Senator KAKOSCHKE-MOORE 265982 South Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that in Australia: (i) suicide is the leading cause of death for men and women between the ages of 15 to 44, (ii) suicide is the second-leading cause of death for men and women between the ages of 45 to 54, (iii) suicide accounts for one-third of all deaths of people aged 15 to 24, (iv) more than 3 000 Australians die by suicide every year, and (v) for every death by suicide, it is estimated that as many as 30 people attempt suicide; (b) recognises that social connection and peer support is enormously important to those who are struggling with thoughts of suicide or self-harm; (c) acknowledges that 14 September 2017 is R U OK? Day, a national day of action encouraging people to reach out to friends, family and peers and check-in on their mental health; and (d) urges all members and senators to lead by example by starting conversations with their peers and encouraging others to take the time to ask "are you ok?". 11:17 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 Preventing suicide is an issue of national importance. The coalition government has made mental health a priority and is leading a transformation in the way mental health and suicide prevention services are delivered in Australia. The government has been supporting R U OK? Day since it started. Question agreed to. R U OK? Day 7322 R U OK? Day 7322 11:18 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I, and also on behalf of Senator Rice, move: That the Senate— (a) recognises that today is R U OK? Day, dedicated to reminding people to ask family, friends and colleagues in a meaningful way "R U OK?"; (b) acknowledges that: (i) the National Mental Health Commission has warned that the LGBTIQ community will experience worsened negative mental health impacts during the marriage equality postal survey debate, due to increased scrutiny, judgement and discrimination, and (ii) concurrently, there is a significant deficiency in mental health services, particularly for LGBTIQ communities, with essential services, like Living Proud, being defunded; and (c) calls on the Government to: (i) encourage the public to reach out to the LGBTIQ community and ask R U OK?, and (ii) ensure sufficient mental health services for the LGBTIQ community following expert advice that the marriage equality postal survey will result in increased negative mental health outcomes. 11:18 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 We urge all Australians to show respect for each other and, equally, we respect to right of all Australians to have their say. The coalition government has made mental health a priority and is investing over $4 billion this year on mental health services. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 7323 DOCUMENTS Community Affairs References Committee: Government Response to Report 7323 Order for the Production of Documents 7323 11:19 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia I move: (1) That the Senate notes that: (a) the report of the Community Affairs References Committee, Price regulation associated with the Prostheses List Framework, was tabled in the Senate on 11 May 2017; (b) the price of devices on the Prostheses List has a material impact on health insurance premiums, which have increased by approximately 5.6% each year over the past ten years; (c) prostheses account for 14% of the cost of hospital cover reimbursements, with a flow-on effect to the cost of premiums, as provided in evidence to the inquiry; (d) private health insurers indicated to the inquiry that savings on prostheses would be passed to members through lowered health insurance costs; (e) in February next year, the Minister for Health will announce the average increase in private health insurance premiums, which will take effect in April, based on the applications made by insurers this year; (f) the Government's response to the 16 recommendations made in the report of the Community Affairs References Committee, combined with the prostheses price reductions it has already mandated this year, will help provide direction to private health insurers that may influence the level of premium increase they decide to seek for 2018; and (g) the deadline for private health insurers to make an application to the Minister for Health for the 2018 private health insurance premium round is 10 November 2017. (2) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Health, by no later than 16 October 2017, the Government's response to the recommendations of the report of the Community Affairs References Committee, Price regulation associated with the Prostheses List Framework. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 7323 COMMITTEES Corporations and Financial Services Committee 7323 Reporting Date 7323 11:20 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of Senator O'Neill, I move: That the time for the presentation of the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services on its inquiry into the life insurance industry be extended to 7 December 2017. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 7324 MOTIONS World Mosquito Program 7324 11:20 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of Senator Moore, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the Australian-led Eliminate Dengue Program, from Monash University, has just become the World Mosquito Program – this global health initiative has been working towards protecting the global community from mosquito-borne diseases, including Dengue and the Zika virus, which threaten the lives and livelihoods of over 40% of the world's population, many of whom are living in poor, vulnerable communities, with struggling health systems, (ii) Dengue infects over a million people around the world each day, yet there is no effective treatment or cure, and conventional control methods, such as the spraying of insecticides, are proving less effective, (iii) a world-leading Australian innovation in the World Mosquito Program's use of a naturally occurring bacteria (Wolbachia) is a safe, natural and effective way to combat the threat of disease – this self-sustaining method protects communities without posing a risk to natural ecosystems, and (iv) the program to reduce the threat of mosquito-borne diseases was pioneered by Australian researchers, starting as a small research project in Cairns in January 2011, with the support received from the Queensland community – it has now become a major global health collaboration operating in 10 countries, including Australia, Kiribati, Fiji, Vanuatu, Sri Lanka, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Brazil and Colombia; (b) acknowledges: (i) the significant contribution made by the people of Far North Queensland who embraced this research, including thousands of householders, school students and teachers, small business owners and community groups, who volunteered to actively participate in the field trials – this enthusiastic local support has resulted in tens of thousands of people around the world now being protected and the program rapidly expanding across the Asia-Pacific and the Americas, and the method used has also been recommended by the World Health Organization for further pilot deployments, and (ii) the funding support from the Australian and Queensland Governments and generous philanthropists; and (c) calls on the Australian Government to consider ongoing support to enable a Queensland-born, community-driven, Australian innovation to develop, expand and ultimately protect millions of at risk people around the world. 11:21 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The Australian government through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade currently supports a global mosquito program pilot in our region and throughout the Pacific. This program has committed $8.7 million to enable expansion of its work in Vanuatu, Kiribati, Fiji and Sri Lanka. The Australian government also provides funding support to the Queensland government to assist with mosquito control programs within the Torres Strait. The Minister for Health will write to the Queensland Minister for Health on this issue, as the delivery of such a program will ultimately be within the remit of that state Question agreed to. Australian Citizenship Day 7325 11:22 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) 17 September 2017 marks Australian Citizenship Day, (ii) citizenship is a privilege and bestows a valuable sense of belonging, as reflected on by former refugee and 2016 NSW Australian of the Year, Mr Deng Adut, in his Australia Day address, (iii) Citizenship Day provides a timely reminder of the contribution of current and past migrants who have helped build and shape our cohesive nation, and (iv) all Australians, whether by birth or by choice, will hopefully be inspired to use this day to celebrate and reflect on the meaning and importance of being a citizen of our great nation; and (b) encourages all senators to take the opportunity to actively participate in citizenship ceremonies in their communities, if they do not already do so. Question agreed to. International Day of Peace 7325 11:22 Senator SINGH M0R Tasmania I move: That the Senate— (a) notes: (i) that 21 September 2017 is the International Day of Peace, (ii) that the United Nations General Assembly has declared that this day should be devoted to strengthening the ideals of peace, both within and among all nations and peoples, and (iii) all the events in Australia celebrating this day, including the Sixth Annual Brisbane Peace Lecture at St John's Cathedral in Brisbane, the International Day of Peace Address in Sydney, and the Melbourne Interfaith Centre's 'Walking Together for Inner and Outer Peace'; (b) recognises: (i) the need to end the suffering caused by armed conflicts around the world, many of which are continuing to escalate, (ii) the fundamental importance of building shared communities, combating discrimination and emphasising the human rights of all peoples in order to prevent violence in the first place, and (iii) the increasing challenges, including climate change and its subsequent displacements of people, that are compounding the root causes of many conflicts; (c) acknowledges: (i) the ties that bind people together, irrespective of their faith or country of origin, and (ii) highlights the exceptional contribution that migrants and refugees fleeing conflicts have made to the shared benefits that we have built and enjoy in Australia; (d) encourages all Australians to reflect upon: (i) the importance of supporting diversity, non-discrimination and the acceptance of migrants and refugees who remind us of our common humanity, (ii) the tireless efforts of the United Nations Association of Australia and its volunteers throughout the community working to bring people together and transform fear into hope, as part of a broader global partnership, (iii) the fact that discrimination diminishes us all and prevents societies from achieving their full potential, and (iv) the essential role of the United Nations in maintaining a rules-based international order; and (e) commits to the promotion, implementation and provision of resources for the promotion of peace wherever possible, including through Australia's continuing support of the United Nations. Question agreed to. Burma 7326 11:23 Senator SINGH M0R Tasmania I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 506 standing in my name and the name of Senator Watt, relating to the Rohingya people of Myanmar. I would like to add Senator McKim for today, before asking that it be taken as a formal motion. Leave granted. Senator SINGH M0R I, and also on behalf of Senators Watt and McKim, move: That the Senate— (a) notes with grave concern that, since 25 August 2017, conflict between Rohingya Muslims and armed forces in Myanmar's Rakhine State has: (i) caused the death and suffering of many people, almost all of them minorities in Rakhine State, (ii) forced around 370 000 members of minorities in Rakhine State to flee to Bangladesh since 25 August, (iii) led to extensive damage to Rakhine State villages, and (iv) prevented United Nations aid agencies from delivering crucial supplies of food, water and medicine to the region; (b) further notes: (i) that Myanmar's Rakhine State is home to more than 1.1 million Rohingya and other minorities, some of whom live in tented camps and rely on United Nations aid for survival, (ii) the deeply concerning United Nations report of 3 February 2017 documenting atrocities, such as mass killings, rapes and beatings committed against Rohingya and other minorities in Rakhine State, and (iii) that up to half a million people from minorities in Rakhine State are already living in Bangladesh, which itself is home to widespread poverty and inequality; (c) echoes: (i) the Minister for Foreign Affairs' (Ms Bishop) expressions of deep concern regarding the ongoing tensions between minorities in Rakhine State and Myanmar's security forces, and (ii) the United Nations Secretary-General's, Mr Antonio Guterres, condemnation of violence in Rakhine State, and his calls for all communities in the region to choose a path of peace; (d) urgently calls upon the Government of Myanmar to recommit to the pursuit of peace and national reconciliation; and (e) urges the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs to do everything in her power to help alleviate the suffering in Rakhine State. 11:24 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 foreign minister has registered Australia's deep concerns about the violence in Rakhine state, including the targeting of civilians. Those responsible for atrocities must be held to account. The foreign minister has called for restraint by Myanmar authorities, the protection of civilians and unfettered access for humanitarian workers. The Australian government welcomes Myanmar's commitment to implement the recommendations of the Kofi Annan-led advisory commission. Full humanitarian access must be granted promptly. Australia has provided up to $5 million to help respond to the crisis, bringing Australia's assistance for Rohingya and affected communities in Myanmar and Bangladesh to over $50 million since 2012. 11:24 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McKIM JKM What is happening in Myanmar now is absolutely devastating and is a textbook example of ethnic cleansing. The Rohingya people have lived in Myanmar for many, many generations and are now being run out of that country by the Myanmar government and the Myanmar military. Nearly 400,000 people have fled their homes into Bangladesh since 25 August and many more are still hiding in the mountains. Aid agencies are warning of a humanitarian crisis. The Australian people want our government to act. There has been a petition signed by many thousands of people delivered today. On Saturday, over 1,000 people in Melbourne rallied for the Rohingya people. We must publicly call on Aung San Suu Kyi to speak out against the persecution of the Rohingya people and allow access to independent monitors, and Australia must take extra Rohingya refugees. Question agreed to. Deputy Leader of the Nationals 7327 11:26 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of Senator Chisholm, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that the Senate has referred a question as to the eligibility of the Minister for Regional Development (Senator Nash) to serve as a senator to the Court of Disputed Returns for resolution; and (b) resolves that until that question of eligibility has been resolved, Senator Nash shall not exercise the following procedural rights provided to executive senators by the standing orders: (i) move a motion connected with the conduct of the business of the Senate at any time without notice, (ii) move that a bill be declared urgent and, if the motion is agreed to, move further motions concerning the time allocated for consideration of the bill, (iii) move at any time that the Senate adjourn, (iv) move for the adjournment of debate, having spoken in the debate, (v) move that the question be now put on more than one occasion, and after having spoken in the debate, and (vi) present documents. 11:26 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 opposes the motion. The motion flagrantly disregards the basic principle that a person declared elected and sworn into parliament is entitled to all the rights, privileges and powers of a parliamentarian unless and until the Court of Disputed Returns declares otherwise. The Labor Party had 40 days after return of the writs at the last election to challenge Senator Nash's eligibility. It did not do so. Now Labor illegitimately seeks to pre-empt a decision of the Court of Disputed Returns on a reference made as a result of Senator Nash's own honesty in bringing her circumstances to the Senate's attention. 11:27 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria I seek permission to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave is granted for one minute. Senator HINCH 2O4 I support some of the opposition's motion on this affair, but I can't vote with it. I believe that Senator Nash and the Deputy Prime Minister—Barnaby Joyce, the member for New England—should have been stood down by the Prime Minister in the way that Senator Canavan morally and ethically stood down. Senator Canavan had the Attorney-General standing alongside him as he took that proper action. I think what the government has done and is doing, maintaining the Deputy Prime Minister and Senator Nash in their positions, is wrong. But while they are there, it should now be left for the High Court to decide. 11:28 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave is granted for one minute. Senator XENOPHON 8IV NXT will not be supporting this motion. Senator Nash has been declared elected. She has an obligation to her New South Wales constituents to perform her duties as a senator for New South Wales and any other higher office that she has been appointed to. Until some competent authority decides that Senator Nash is ineligible to hold office as a senator or minister, she should continue to hold those offices. In supporting the referrals of questions about a number of senators' eligibility to the High Court, the Senate has acknowledged it is not a competent authority and we should not double-guess the learned justices who sit on the bench of that court. She should continue to carry out her Senate and ministerial duties, supported by the de facto offices doctrine that essentially says that, in the event that the High Court does make a decision of ineligibility, her decisions cannot be challenged on the basis of ineligibility, only on merit—as is the case for any other minister. 11:29 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I request leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave is granted for one minute. Senator LAMBIE 250026 I won't be supporting this motion. I simply believe it is now in the court's hands and it is up to the court process to determine who is in and who is out. I can tell you now that there is enough instability in parliament, and we cannot afford a situation where the Deputy Prime Minister or another minister is put on the sidelines. That is not going to help with business confidence or anything else in this country. So I will not be supporting this motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP The question is that general business notice of motion No. 482, standing in the name of Senator Chisholm, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:34]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

DOCUMENTS 7330 DOCUMENTS Future Frigate Program 7330 Order for the Production of Documents 7330 11:37 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia I move: (1) That the Senate notes that: (a) the Government has embarked on a $35 billion program to provide nine Future Frigates to the Royal Australian Navy; (b) on 31 March 2017, a Request for Tender (RFT) was released by the Department of Defence to three foreign companies which stated that it was the Commonwealth's intention that the successful tenderer will directly manage and supervise the workforce undertaking the shipbuilding work, and that the responsibility for build management and supervision should not be subcontracted in its entirety to a third party entity; (c) the effect of these RFT terms is that Australian shipbuilders ASC Pty Ltd and Austal have been locked out of priming the Frigate Program project and this current plan places Australian shipbuilders in the shadows of new invitee foreign shipyards; noting ASC Shipbuilding has no work on its order books beyond 2019, the Government's approach could have significant impact on the future prospects of the company, and Austal will survive but certainly will not thrive; (d) the current RFT will not serve to create a sovereign shipbuilding capability, but rather have the opposite effect; (e) the Minister for Defence Industry has been quoted in the media stating that advice from the Department of Defence is that changing the RFT to mandate a particular shipbuilder would result in a delay of at least two years; and (f) it is implausible that permitting the fully-established, world-class, Australian shipbuilders ASC Pty Ltd and Austal and their experienced workforce and proven track records would slow down a program that would otherwise require the setting up, from scratch, of a foreign shipbuilder with no current workforce. (2) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Industry, by the close of business on 14 September 2017, a detailed statement from the Minister for Defence Industry justifying his claim made to the media. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 7330 MOTIONS Climate Science 7330 11:37 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 509 standing in my name for today relating to climate science. Leave granted. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I move the motion as amended: That the Senate— (a) notes: (i) that accurate climate and meteorological forecasting prior to, and during, the recent Atlantic hurricanes allowed for evacuations and emergency management that saved lives, (ii) a recent article in The Economist which stated that while the number of extreme climate and weather-related emergencies have increased due to climate change, the fall in the number of fatalities is partly attributable to improved climate and weather forecasting, (iii) that the Trump Administration has proposed cuts to agencies responsible for climate and meteorological forecasting, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and (iv) that Australia has a world-class climate science and meteorological community; (b) nevertheless, notes that the Australian Academy of Science's 2017 Climate Science Capability Review found that climate science and meteorological efforts are under-resourced, poorly coordinated and subject to short-term funding cycles; (c) further notes that various climate agencies in Australia, including the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, have faced ongoing funding pressure; (d) commends the work of Australia's climate agencies and researchers; and (e) notes the recommendations of Australian Academy of Science's 2017 Climate Science Capability Review, particularly funding an additional 77 climate science researchers, and ensuring continued capability in the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre. 11:38 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave of one minute is granted. Senator McGRATH 217241 The coalition government is committed to ensuring that our investment in climate science is appropriate and well targeted. We are investing strongly in our institutions and fundamental research infrastructure, including $24 million for the Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub and $49.8 million to provide continued year-round support for priority science and long-term monitoring on Macquarie Island. CSIRO will invest $37 million over 10 years to create a decadal climate forecasting capability within the new CSIRO Climate Science Centre. The government has also established the independent National Climate Science Advisory Committee to inform the future direction of Australia's climate science capability and research priorities. 11:39 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave of one minute is granted. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I cannot believe that you sat there and laughed throughout that statement about climate change and the importance of climate science. This motion before the Australian Senate recognises the importance— Honourable senators interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Order! The senator has the right to be heard in silence. Senator Bernardi? Senator Bernardi G0D Madam Deputy President, I have a point of order. It wasn't Senator McGrath laughing; it was me. I think Senator Whish-Wilson should correct the record. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Thank you, Senator Bernardi. Senator Whish-Wilson. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 What a ship of fools; seriously! This motion before the Australian Senate today recognises the importance of climate science— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator Whish-Wilson, please resume your seat. Senator Macdonald? Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 Madam Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The President just recently made it very, very clear that statements given by leave for one minute at this time of day were to state the party or the person's own position but were certainly not to debate it or enter into argument, which this clearly is. He made that ruling just a couple of days ago. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Thank you, Senator Macdonald. Senator Whish-Wilson, what are you seeking to do? Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I am seeking to finish my bloody statement, and I would like the clock reversed so I can start again. They've nothing but— Honourable senators interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator Whish-Wilson, resume your seat. I ask that all senators listen to the debate in respectful silence. I remind senators of the President's ruling in relation to one-minute statements. You have 31 seconds, Senator Whish-Wilson. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Could I ask, as a point of order, Deputy President, considering I have been continually interrupted, deliberately interrupted—this government will go to any lengths not to talk about climate science—can I have my time again, please? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP There is no point of order. You have time to finish your remarks. I believe we started on 31 seconds. I would ask once again for senators to listen in respectful silence. Senator Bernardi interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Thank you, Senator Bernardi. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 What a ship of fools! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Please set the clock at 31 seconds. Yes, Minister? Senator Cormann HDA I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy President. Senator Whish-Wilson is now abusing the privileges and courtesies extended to him when the Senate gave him leave to make a brief statement. He is not making a brief statement; he is giving a spray. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator Cormann, I already ruled on that, and I asked Senator Whish-Wilson to be mindful of the President's statement. Senator Whish-Wilson. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 What a ship of fools! We will not be stranded on the shoals of history by this ship of fools— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator Whish-Wilson, please resume your seat. Minister? Senator Cormann HDA I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy President. Honourable senators interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Just a moment, Minister; I can't hear. Please resume your seat. Order on my left! Senator O'Sullivan interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Thank you, Senator O'Sullivan. I ask that you respect that people have the right to be heard in silence. Senator O'Sullivan interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator O'Sullivan, are you dissenting from my request that you listen in respectful silence? Minister. Senator Cormann HDA Point of order, Madam Deputy President: Senator Whish-Wilson is now defying your ruling. He is acting in breach of the courtesies that have been extended to him by the Senate giving him leave for a brief statement. He is continuing and persisting in his spray, and that is not consistent with the President's ruling. I ask you to draw Senator Whish-Wilson's attention to how he has to conduct himself in making a brief statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP As I said in relation to your previous point of order, Minister, I have drawn Senator Whish-Wilson's attention to the President's statement. Senator Whish-Wilson had just restarted before you rose to object, so I really don't know where he was intending to go. Senator Bernardi? Senator Bernardi G0D Madam Deputy President, I ask you to ask Senator Whish-Wilson to withdraw the bad language he chose, which is unparliamentary, because we have children in the gallery and it sets a very poor example for them in their own lives. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP The President has made statements in relation to being given leave to speak, and that is that they should be statements and not debates. However, the President has not sat people down for making other than a statement, and, further to that, leave was granted to Senator Whish-Wilson to make a statement for one minute. Before Senator Whish-Wilson resumes his one minute, I would ask that people listen in respectful silence. Senator Bernardi? Senator Bernardi G0D Madam Deputy President, I've asked you to ask Senator Whish-Wilson to withdraw. You haven't responded to that point of order. It is a very legitimate one. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP I didn't hear anything, but I am more than happy to review the tape and come back. Senator Bernardi, please resume your seat— Senator Bernardi interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator Bernardi, I did not hear that. Senator Bernardi G0D You weren't listening then. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP I beg your pardon, Senator Bernardi! Senator Bernardi G0D You weren't! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP You are now disrespecting the chair. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I have a point of order. Senator Bernardi and Senator Cormann are not only disrespecting you; they are challenging your authority here today. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson, but I am well able to take care of myself. Please continue your 22 seconds. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 After eight spurious points of order, what I was going to say is: I am putting this motion here today for these children here in the gallery, for future generations of Australians, and to recognise our climate scientists and the good work they do and the need to keep funding them. They save lives; they are a big part of my Tasmanian community, and it is about time they were recognised. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP The question is that the motion as moved and amended by Senator Whish-Wilson be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:48]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

31 AYES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Dastyari, S Di Natale, R Dodson, P Gallagher, KR Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Kakoschke-Moore, S Ketter, CR Kitching, K McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS Xenophon, N 26 NOES Abetz, E Bernardi, C Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC (teller) Cash, MC Cormann, M Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Hanson, P Hume, J Lambie, J Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID McGrath, J McKenzie, B Nash, F O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Roberts, M Ruston, A Seselja, Z Sinodinos, A Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

Higher Education 7334 11:51 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the Senate notes the recent PhD thesis by Dr Greg Pazmandy, from the University of Technology Sydney, who found that: (a) there is no association between Australian University rankings and the levels of, and changes, to Vice-Chancellor compensation; (b) there is no association between financial performance measures of Government Business Enterprises and the levels of, and changes to, CEO compensation, even after controlling for their community service obligations; and (c) the only explanatory variable associated with compensation for Vice-Chancellors and Chief Executive Officers is the size of the organisation. 11:52 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave is granted for one minute. Senator LAMBIE 250026 All of us watching can see why Senator Hanson wants to talk about this obscure PhD thesis today of all days. My hope is the university sector is watching as well. If you are, here's my message: I'm against the cuts you're being asked to absorb by Minister Birmingham and the Turnbull government, but you are not making it easy for some of us to do this. Every time people see those seven-figure vice-chancellor pay cheques, they assume universities have money to burn. I know that you don't, but it's hard to cry poor when your pay is so rich. I'll keep fighting for you, but you need to help us out a little bit. You are going to have to show some pure sincerity here and think about a pay freeze or pay cut. Doing so wouldn't mean you're not good value for money. Think of it as a way to show you're committed to giving students even greater value for money into the future. You do that and I'll help you to continue to keep fighting for the students and the money that you receive from the governments. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:54]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

NOTICES 7336 NOTICES Presentation 7336 11:57 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—At the request of Senator Chisholm, I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, he will move: That the Senate— (a) notes the comments of Senator O'Sullivan to The Australian on 13 September 2017 that he "is considering making a statement to the Senate" in connection with his links to Newlands Civil Construction Pty Ltd, which has received contracts funded by the Commonwealth; (b) calls on Senator O'Sullivan to attend the Senate at 12.30 pm on 17 October 2017 so that, prior to government business being called on, any senator may ask for a statement to be made; and (c) resolves that: (i) in the event that Senator O'Sullivan makes a statement, any senator may, at the conclusion of the statement, move without notice—That the Senate take note of the statement, or (ii) in the event that Senator O'Sullivan does not make a statement, any senator may, without notice, move a motion with regard to Senator O'Sullivan's failure to make a statement, and (iii) any motion to take note under paragraphs (c) (i) or (ii) have precedence over all other government business until determined. BUSINESS 7336 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 7336 11:57 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Marshall from 11 to 14 September 2017, on account of parliamentary business; and (b) Senator Watt for 13 and 14 September 2017, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 7336 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 11:58 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator CAMERON AI6 Yesterday, in answer to a question from Senator Paterson, the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash, claimed that in a supplementary budget estimates hearing on 23 October 2014 I asked questions with the intention of defending the conduct of Mr Luke Collier and defending criminals. The minister misrepresented the purpose of my questions on that day. To the best of my knowledge, I have never met Mr Collier. His conduct has been reprehensible. I have never defended Mr Collier or his conduct, and I never will. I have never defended criminals, and my record in public life demonstrates this. The questions I asked in the estimates hearing were not about Mr Collier's conduct but whether or not Fair Work Building and Construction and its director, Mr Hadgkiss, had breached their obligations under the Privacy Act by publishing Mr Collier's criminal history in a media release on 8 October 2014. No matter who they are and what their personal history may be, citizens of this country have a right to the protection of the law. That includes the protections provided under the Privacy Act 1988. If it appears that a Commonwealth agency has trampled illegal protections to which a person is entitled, then it is my duty as a senator to ensure that the agency is held to account. Following what I consider to be an unsatisfactory answer given by Mr Hadgkiss at the estimates hearing and on notice, I wrote to the Privacy Commissioner on 5 February 2015 asking that he investigate Fair Work Building and Construction's personal information handling practices and whether the publication of Mr Collier's personal information in a media release was for an authorised purpose. In a letter dated 20 February 2015, the Privacy Commissioner advised me that he would not open a commissioner initiated investigation or conduct an assessment of the matter, but he did indicate: It appears likely that the disclosure in the media release was for a secondary purpose. Whether the secondary purpose was authorised by the law would depend on the facts of the particular case and whether the disclosure was authorised by the Fair Work Building and Construction legislation. In order for the matter to be taken any further, it would be up to Mr Collier to take it further. I don't care one way or the other whether he does so. Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 Madam Deputy President, as I heard, this was a personal explanation under standing order 190, for which Senator Cameron sought leave to make the personal explanation. Standing order 190 says: By leave of the Senate, a senator may explain matters of a personal nature ... There's no way in the world that what Senator Cameron is talking about—other people—has anything to do with him. They don't mention him at all. Perhaps in the first part of his explanation, he did say a couple of words about his own position, but certainly all that he is now putting on the record has nothing to do with matters of a personal nature. I ask you to bring the senator to order under standing order 190. Senator CAMERON AI6 On the point of order, this is a matter that goes directly to the position that was put by Minister Cash yesterday, and that goes to my position in relation to allegations of defending Mr Luke Collier and defending criminals. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Thank you, Senator Cameron. Senator Macdonald, Senator Cameron is in order and I ask him to continue. There's no point of order. Senator CAMERON AI6 Thank you. My concern is that Commonwealth agencies comply with the law. Given recent developments in relation to a reckless breach of the law by Mr Nigel Hadgkiss, I believe that my concerns about his agency's compliance with the law in 2014 were justified, just as they are now. I seek leave to table the correspondence between myself and the Privacy Commissioner. Leave granted. COMMITTEES 7338 COMMITTEES Membership 7338 12:03 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Order! The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees. 12:04 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Georgiou Education and Employment Legislation Committee— Appointed—Substitute member: Senator Collins to replace Senator Marshall for the committee’s consideration of the 2017-18 supplementary Budget estimates from 23 October to 26 October 2017 Finance and Public Administration References Committee— Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Rice to replace Senator Rhiannon for the committee’s inquiry into 1800 RESPECT Domestic and Sexual Violence National Counselling Service Participating member: Senator Rhiannon Question agreed to. BILLS 7338 BILLS Defence Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017, Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2017 7338

Defence Legislation Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017

Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2017

First Reading 7338 12:04 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 7338 12:05 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— DEFENCE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (2017 MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2017 The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 will make some small but significant changes to Defence's practice and operations. Some stem from recommendations to Government and some deliver on election commitments. These are covered in the four schedules to this Bill. The first Schedule amends the Defence Act 1903 to apply common sense to Defence prohibited substance testing. It will enable a policy framework to broaden and expand the conditions under which a prohibited substance positive test result must be disregarded, including in circumstances relating to appropriate usage of over the counter medication or substances administered or dispensed by authorised persons. Under the current arrangements, a positive test result may be disallowed with the direction or recommendation of a legally qualified medical practitioner. The Bill will allow a positive test to be disregarded under certain circumstances specified in the relevant Defence Instruction issued by the Secretary and Chief of the Defence Force jointly under Section 11 of the Defence Act 1903. This broadening of the circumstances is necessary to ensure that over the counter medication and other legitimate circumstances can be considered where a positive test result is returned. For example, it will mean that Defence will be able to ignore instances where a positive test result has been caused by a dose of generic cold and flu medication rather than something more significant. The Bill will also simplify the termination provisions to align with the new Defence Regulation 2016 which prescribes procedural fairness, notice to show cause and warning provisions in relation to adverse administrative decisions. Schedule 2 amends the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Act 2001 to put in place greater protections for Reserve members. This is a Coalition election commitment and I am happy to be bringing these measures forward in this Bill. The Defence Reserve Service Protection Act provides for the protection of Reserve members in their employment and education, to facilitate their return to civilian life after rendering defence service, and for related purposes. It sets out entitlements and prohibitions that apply in relation to people who at any time serve as members of the Reserves. The Act mitigates some of the employment and financial disadvantages Reserve members may face when rendering defence service and facilitates their availability to undertake defence service, and will enhance Defence capability. It is the view of the Government that no one should be disadvantaged by choosing to wear a reserve uniform. A review of the Act in 2008 (the Protection Review) concluded that, overall, the Act was working well and achieving its objectives. However, the Protection Review recommended a number of enhancements to the Act. The amendments in Schedule 2 implement many of these recommendations. In particular the Bill will address the application of the employment, partnership and education protections in Parts 5, 6 and 7 of the Act to extend to all types of Reserve service. Previously, voluntary continuous full time service (which is the type of Reserve service that is typically used when a Reserve member deploys on operations) was only protected if the CDF (or delegate) had requested the member to undertake the service on that basis. This requirement resulted in confusion for Reservists and their employers as to whether the protections applied in any given case. This will no longer be an issue, as all defence service will be protected from now on. The Bill will also extend the application of the financial liability and bankruptcy protections in Parts 8 and 9 of the Act to continuous full time service that is operational service. Previously, the service was only protected if it was continuous full time service following a call-out under the Defence Act 1903. A civil penalty regime is also established to supplement the criminal offence provisions throughout the Act, including provisions dealing with discrimination in employment and education. The provisions in Part 4 of the Act dealing with discrimination are enhanced to improve the clarity and consistency of these provisions, and to deal with harassment of Reserve members because of their defence service. The employment protections in Part 5 of the Act are clarified, by stating when the protected period begins and ends, and by replacing the concept of suspending an employment contract with an entitlement to be absent from employment while absent on defence service. The education protections in Part 7 of the Act are amended to provide a general obligation on education institutions to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate a member's defence service. Schedule 3 will implement a recommendation of the 2015 First Principles Review of Defence. It will amend the Intelligence Services Act 2001 (ISA), the Navigation Act 2012 and the Telecommunications Act 1997 in order to transfer the hydrographic, meteorological and oceanographic functions from the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) to the Australia Geospatial Organisation (AGO). In conjunction, the Australian Hydrographic Office (AHO) will be transferred out of the RAN and into AGO. This recommendation will be met in order to have all geospatial related information functions consolidated within the AGO. The transfer of these functions is expected to realise synergies in the exploitation of imagery and other data to produce intelligence and non-intelligence geospatial related information in support of Australia's defence interests and other national objectives. The amendments to the ISA will permit AGO to provide its non-intelligence products and related assistance to an expanded range of entities in accordance with Australia's legal obligations and national interests. Among other things, this will ensure that AGO can, through the AHO, continue to effectively and efficiently deliver high quality hydrographic, meteorological and oceanographic services to the maritime community. The minor consequential amendments to the Navigation Act 2012 and the Telecommunications Act 1997 are needed to ensure that the terminology used in those Acts aligns with new Defence organisational arrangements following transfer of those functions. Schedule 4 will amend the Australian Defence Force (ADF) Cover Act 2015 to align a small number of provisions in this new superannuation Act with other military superannuation schemes and provide clarity in definitions. The Bill will ensure that member's who resign from the ADF and later find that they could have been medically discharged will be able to apply to the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation (CSC) to have their mode of discharge circumstances reassessed. The Bill will also create a more contemporary definition to allow a child of a deceased member or invalid to become eligible at a later date, where the child currently is found ineligible at the time of the member's or invalid's death. An example of how this could occur would be where a child of the member or invalid is over 18 and ceases full-time study to become the carer or to undertake a gap year prior to the member or invalid's death, subsequently resuming full-time study after the member or invalid's death while still under the age of 25. The Bill will also remove the requirement for a child of a deceased member to be "wholly or substantially dependent" on the member or an eligible spouse. The amendment ensures that all eligible children of a deceased member are recognised regardless of where they reside and does not unintentionally exclude children who would otherwise be found eligible if there was no eligible spouse. CSC will determine who to pay a proportion of the total pension where there are multiple spouses and eligible children. As mentioned, this Bill moves to make some small but significant changes to Defence legislation. They will be significant to the operations of Defence, providing streamlining to practices and common sense to regulation. They will be significant to the members of the Defence Reserves, who will receive greater protection. They will be significant to family members of the ADF who will now benefit from the changes to superannuation. STATUTE UPDATE (SMALLER GOVERNMENT) BILL 2017 The Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2017 (the Bill) would, if enacted, repeal three Acts, make amendments to ten Acts across the Commonwealth to support the implementation of the Government's smaller government agenda by abolishing seven Commonwealth bodies: the Central Trades Committee; the Oil Stewardship Advisory Council; the Product Stewardship Advisory Group; the Advisory Group of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority; the Plant Breeder's Rights Advisory Committee; the Development Allowance Authority; and the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee. The Government is transforming the way services are delivered and how government operates to create a smaller, smarter and more productive sustainable public sector. The rationalisation phase of the smaller government agenda is now largely complete following delivery of a comprehensive package of smaller government reforms. This comprehensive package was initiated prior to the 2014-15 Budget with decisions to abolish unnecessary advisory bodies and boards, agencies and statutory bodies. This was followed by a number of successive smaller government initiatives. Consistent with the smaller government agenda the Australian Government Governance Policy came into effect on 15 December 2014. This policy was designed with the intent of preventing the creation of unnecessary bureaucratic structures and ensuring existing Government structures are streamlined further over time. This policy also requires sunset or review dates to be set for all new Commonwealth bodies. By the time of the 2017-18 Budget the smaller government agenda had announced savings of an estimated $1.5 billion through consolidating, merging and abolishing bodies. The 2017-18 Budget also focused on transforming the way services are delivered and how government operates to create a smaller, smarter and more productive, sustainable public sector, better positioned to respond to the challenges of a rapidly changing environment and the continued need for fiscal discipline. Since 2013, initiatives such as the smaller government agenda, contestability, Operation Tetris, and the efficiency dividends have generated efficiencies of around $7.6 billion in savings. The size of the General Government Sector (GGS) has also reduced. The Bill continues to deliver on the Government's comprehensive package of smaller government reforms, designed to cut waste and duplication, while improving the efficiency and focus of the Commonwealth public service. The Bill has been prepared in consultation with affected Commonwealth entities and where relevant State consultations have taken place. I commend the Bill. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017 7342

Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017

First Reading 7342 12:06 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 7342 12:06 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (A More Sustainable, Responsive and Transparent Higher Education System) Bill 2017 gives effect to decisions announced in the Budget that reform the ways in which the Australian Government supports higher education. It will support the Australian Government's goal for a stronger, more sustainable and student-focused system that preserves and expands access to education while achieving savings that are an essential contribution to Budget repair. In the lead up to this year's Budget the Prime Minister said "we call on the other parties…to support the Government in bringing the Budget back into balance. It is a responsibility that weighs heavily on the shoulders of every single member of the House and the Senate". The 2017-18 Budget contains a number of strategic decisions based on careful consideration. For higher education, the Budget story begins with the reversal of all remaining measures from the 2014-15 reforms. The road to reform in Australia's higher education system in recent years has been a bumpy one. The 2014-15 Budget reforms were ambitious and they were controversial. Some measures have been implemented while others have been abandoned. As we promised one year ago, in last year's budget, we have consulted broadly on a package of higher education reforms. The ambitions we set were that those reforms be fair, that they drive quality and excellence, and that they ensure students have choice and opportunities to succeed. We released a policy options paper: Driving Innovation, Fairness and Excellence in Australian Higher Education, which openly, prior to the last federal election, outlined a range of possible areas for reform and action. We listened to the debate that followed and now we are acting. Today, we begin with a clean slate. The first challenge is to ensure our system can respond to the impact of the tremendous expansion in student numbers. Over the last quarter of a century domestic higher education student numbers grew at more than three times the rate of the population as a whole – from 420,000 in 1989 to over a million by 2015. That is around 150 per cent growth. This growth has imposed significant costs on taxpayers. Since 2009 student funding by the taxpayer has increased by 71 per cent, twice the rate of growth we've had across the Australian economy. The astounding thirst for education has been enabled by the demand driven system in recent years. But it is driven by the reality that a post‑school qualification remains one of the best investments an individual can make. Graduates enjoy consistently higher employment and incomes than those who only complete schooling. Even so, today's graduates need more than just the piece of paper that goes with a tertiary qualification. They need to build the habits that you need to succeed in a workplace and they need to gain the technical skills demanded by a changing economy. As more people pursue tertiary studies our concept of what qualifications mean has had to evolve. On the supply side, our higher education system is exceedingly successful and has a first-rate reputation both here and overseas. Tertiary education now spans a competitive market where providers are more numerous, more diverse and more commercially oriented than ever before. Looking abroad, education is one of our most successful exports and a major source of income for our universities. In 2016 education export income reached its highest level ever, at $21.8 billion. It is through the skills and insights provided by our current and future labour force that we will prosper in an uncertain global economic and political climate and take advantage of our proximity to the world's biggest and fastest growing economies. The options paper canvassed scope for reform, with a genuine desire to hear from others how we should tackle the challenges facing our tertiary education system. Because, frankly, we are all in this together. We are all stakeholders of our education system in one way or another – as former, current or future students; as parents; as taxpayers; as educators; administrators, providers and, ultimately, as employers in businesses or service providers in every corner of Australia. The sector and its clients responded wholeheartedly. We received over 1200 submissions to the consultation process from higher education institutions, peak bodies, representative bodies from industry and professions, and individuals. Informed by both public and targeted consultation carried out over many months, this Bill contains an innovative, balanced and above all an achievable set of reforms that can position the sector for the future. Schedule 1 of the Bill rebalances the costs of higher education between the government and students by making a relatively modest adjustment to the relative shares of taxpayer and student contributions to the costs of courses. There is no fee deregulation. There will be no $100,000 degrees. Let's be absolutely clear about that. All tuition amounts are capped for Commonwealth supported students, as they have always been. However, it is reasonable that students bear a marginally greater share of the costs of their tuition. After all, it is they who will directly benefit from gaining qualifications through better job prospects and higher earnings over their lifetime. Maximum student contribution amounts will increase by 1.8 per cent per year for four years – cumulatively a 7.5 per cent increase by 2021. Commonwealth contribution amounts will be reduced by the same amount in each of those years. In addition, grants paid under the Commonwealth Grant Scheme will be subject to a modest efficiency dividend of 2.5 per cent per year in 2018 and 2019. On the first of May, the Government released a report on university costs and revenues prepared by Deloitte Access Economics titled "Cost of delivery of higher education". The Government thanks the 17 contributing universities for their participation in and cooperation with this research. Ongoing participation in this data collection will be embedded in future funding – more on this later. The report shows that the cost for universities to deliver bachelor level courses increased by 9.5 per cent between 2010 and 2015. Over the same period funding for university students increased by 15 per cent. Universities have benefited financially by enrolling increasing numbers of students through the demand‑driven system. There are efficiencies that have been gained from the scale of that growth. There are also areas that need additional support. Veterinary studies and Dental studies are two fields of education whose costs of delivery are unavoidably high. This Bill provides for additional per student loading for these disciplines, on the same basis as the existing Medical student loading. The demand-driven system for bachelor degrees at public universities is working and remains unchanged. Rather than place caps on bachelor‑level places as some have suggested over the last year, Schedule 2 of the Bill contains major reforms to improve student choice in courses that complement bachelor degrees – enabling, sub-bachelor and postgraduate courses. Today's school leavers are investing two, three, four or more years of their life into furthering their education. In most cases they will graduate with a taxpayer-funded loan to repay. Students need to be confident they are getting a quality education that will allow them to get a job and succeed in life. We all saw what happened with the VET FEE-HELP scheme that was poorly designed and poorly implemented. It was Australian taxpayers and exploited students who had to carry the can for that debacle. This Bill puts higher education students in a stronger position to realise their aspirations and turn them into reality, without running the same risks. A new system for the allocation of places for enabling courses will be introduced. These courses can be a life-changing stepping stone for students who need to bridge a skills gap before they commence university. All higher education providers will be able to bid for enabling places. A more rigorous standard of academic preparation will be required for taxpayer-funded enabling courses. Providers will now also be able to levy a student contribution amount for enabling courses, ensuring that students enrolling in these courses are committed to their studies. The amount is fixed and proportionate, at $3,271 in 2018 for an equivalent of one year's full time study; most enabling courses take much less time than this. Eligible students in enabling courses will be able to borrow their contribution amount through the Higher Education Loan Program and will continue to face no upfront fees. The current loading applied to enabling places will be removed. From 2018, approved sub-bachelor courses – diplomas, advanced diplomas and associate degrees – will become demand-driven at public universities. This move is to assist students for whom a bachelor degree may not be the best pathway. These Commonwealth supported places will be reserved for students who don't already have a degree, ensuring that places are targeted to those who need them. To be approved, sub-bachelor courses must articulate into related bachelor degrees and have been developed with a focus on industry needs. These requirements will ensure the extension of the demand driven system is sustainable and adds value to the higher education options available to students. At the postgraduate level, the Bill introduces innovation in the allocation of non-research postgraduate places, meeting a longstanding need for an up‑to‑date and more student‑centred approach. From 2019, postgraduate Commonwealth supported places will be allocated directly to students, who will then exercise choice in their provider. Higher education providers will in effect be competing for the most promising postgraduate coursework students. This will not affect the allocation of postgraduate medical Commonwealth supported places, an issue that this Government is methodically working through in a separate process involving the Department of Education and Training and the Department of Health. Further, from 1 January 2018, Schedule 2 of the Bill introduces the ability for providers to receive taxpayer contributions for units of work experience that count towards a Commonwealth supported qualification. Higher education funding will now incentivise greater links to industry. Transparency is a major theme of these reforms. From 2018, the Government is introducing a performance-based element to the Commonwealth Grant Scheme, worth 7.5 per cent of total CGS cluster funding – around $500 million annually. For the first year, 2018, providers will be required to participate in the reform of admissions information and cost of teaching and research transparency initiatives that the Government has announced. For 2019 and beyond, providers will be required to meet the above conditions, but their CGS funding will also be contingent on performance against key institutional performance metrics. The formula to determine this will be developed in close consultation with the sector over the coming year. Our performance payments will give taxpayers and public policy makers confidence that demand driven enrolments are coupled with accountability that ensures high quality admissions practices, support for completion and a focus on graduate employment outcomes. Australia's HELP scheme remains one of the most successful public policy innovations ever. Twenty-five years on, it is still the best and most generous – and effectively interest-free – loan that you can get. But its success has meant that the value of outstanding HELP debt has risen sharply in recent years. Outstanding loans are worth around $50 billion. Unless we act now, a quarter of new student loans will never likely be repaid. To address this, Schedule 3 of the Bill introduces further measures to improve the sustainability of the Higher Education Loan Program. This Government has already introduced changes to HELP that include lowering the minimum repayment threshold from 2018-19, removing the 10 per cent upfront payment discount for HECS-HELP and the 5 per cent voluntary repayment bonus, and removing the HECS-HELP benefit. Australia's HELP repayment thresholds are high compared with other income-contingent student loan schemes. Borrowers under the New Zealand student loan scheme repay 12 cents in the dollar on any income earned above the equivalent of around AUD $17,500 a year. Borrowers in England repay 9 per cent of any income earned above the equivalent of around AUD $36,000. The time has come to bring thresholds down to more realistic levels. From 2018-19, the non-repayment threshold will be lowered further to a level that will bring around 180,000 additional borrowers into the repayment stream. The new minimum income will be set at $42,000 but will be accompanied with a new and lower initial repayment rate of just one per cent. That is about $8 dollars a week. A further 18 subsequent thresholds and repayment rates will step up in small increments to reduce income clustering and to make repayment increases smoother and less noticeable as earnings rise. There are new repayment thresholds for high income earners. Now, the highest income earners will pay up to ten per cent of their repayment income towards their HELP debt. The current maximum is eight. The thresholds have also been rising relative to earnings. Relatively fewer people are now making repayments than in the past. From now on, the minimum and all subsequent thresholds will be indexed using the Consumer Price Index. This will ensure repayment requirements are adjusted in line with cost of living, and streamline indexation factors used throughout the Act. The Bill replaces Commonwealth supported places with HELP student loans for most Australian permanent residents and most New Zealand citizens. Any students already enrolled in a Commonwealth supported place will have their eligibility preserved for sufficient time to complete their course. This means that Australian permanent residents and New Zealand citizens will no longer have to pay upfront for a course that their Australian peers can defer through a student loan. Upfront payment is a barrier for many students and their families, particularly if they are still establishing themselves here. This is only possible because of the changes we introduced which commence this year and allow us to recover HELP debt from people who have moved overseas. Australian citizens and permanent humanitarian visa holders will remain eligible for both Commonwealth supported places and HELP loans. So will the special cohort of New Zealanders who arrived here as children and meet the current long term residency requirements introduced by this Government in 2016. Schedule 4 of the Bill ensures that the highly regarded Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program (HEPPP) is better targeted and is enshrined in legislation with a new, demand‑driven loading of $985 per low-SES student. In addition, annual funding amounts of $13.3 million in performance funding and $9.5 million for the National Priorities Pool will be guaranteed into the future. Finally, Schedule 5 of the Bill makes a minor amendment to the definition of higher education award to limit it to awards offered or conferred by higher education providers under the Australian qualifications framework. It also updates the names of two institutions, the University of Technology Sydney and the University of Divinity, so that the name of these providers in the Act matches their current legal entities. The measures in this Bill were designed with fairness, transparency and sustainability at their core. They were informed by a broad-ranging consultation process where every stakeholder had an opportunity to contribute ideas. No student need pay one cent upfront for their higher education. Students will no longer face the prospect of fee deregulation and universities will not face a 20 per cent cut to their funding. Where there is a financial impact on stakeholders it will be achieved in a way that is gradual, fair and appropriate. The Bill paves the way for much more student choice – in course and course provider. It supports the continuation of the best features of the current higher education system, underpins a vibrant education export industry, supports student career aspirations, and ensures industry has a skilled workforce. This Bill brings to a close a thorough period of consultation and careful redesign of support for higher education. More importantly, it brings certainty to a sector that is unanimous about the need for change and that has been left waiting long enough. These reforms ensure our high quality higher education system can grow while meeting the global challenges it will increasingly face. It ensures it is fair for students who will continue to be able to access higher education irrespective of their background or financial means. They will have more choices and the Turnbull Government will ensure greater transparency so that the focus of our higher education system is where it should be – on our students. Taxpayers, whose support means no one must pay course fees upfront, will get a better deal knowing that the Turnbull Government is looking after them, as it is looking after all Australians, fairly. I commend the Bill. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour. Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2017, Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017, Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 7347

Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation Amendment Bill 2017

Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017

Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2017

Returned from the House of Representatives 7347 Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017 7347

Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017

Assent 7347 Vaporised Nicotine Products Bill 2017 7347

Vaporised Nicotine Products Bill 2017

Report of Legislation Committee 7347 12:08 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania At the request of the chair of the committee, I present the report of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee on the Vaporised Nicotine Products Bill 2017, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Environment and Infrastructure Legislation Amendment (Stop Adani) Bill 2017 7347

Environment and Infrastructure Legislation Amendment (Stop Adani) Bill 2017

Report of Legislation Committee 7347 12:08 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania At the request of the chair of the committee, I present the report of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee on the Environment and Infrastructure Legislation Amendment (Stop Adani) Bill 2017, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. 12:08 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I seek leave to make a statement of no more than two minutes on the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Leave is granted for two minutes. Senator DI NATALE 53369 Yesterday, two weeks out of winter, it was almost 34 degrees in Sydney. Today, we've got almost 100 bushfires burning across New South Wales. This was the hottest day in the 159 years since records were kept for that time of year. We are two weeks out of winter. Now, in the Atlantic, we've watched some of the most powerful storms ever recorded, wreaking havoc right across North America and the Caribbean resulting in the tragic loss of life. Just earlier, during motions, in response to this, we saw a minister laugh his way through a question on climate science. Here we are now with a report that makes it very clear. Are we going to act to stop Adani's giant, dirty, polluting coal mine from being built? They're doing everything they can to pave the way for Adani's mine and for the dying coal industry. This is negligence. It's disgraceful, and in a few years time people will look back and condemn this parliament for allowing this mine to get off the ground. It's particularly duplicitous coming from the ALP. Federal Labor might pretend that it isn't beholden to the coal club, but we now know the truth. The truth is very, very clear. Queensland Labor is doing everything it can to get the Carmichael mine off the ground. We know that this mine wouldn't get off the ground if the Palaszczuk government refused to subsidise it, but it won't refuse to do that; in fact, it's supporting this mine. And now federal Labor doesn't have the guts to support a bill that would stop Adani. How many records need to be broken? How many lives need to be lost? Are we going to lose our Great Barrier Reef and have more bushfires and more extreme weather until we act? We have no time to delay. Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017 7348

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017

Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017

In Committee 7348 12:11 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia by leave—In respect of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8261 together: (1) Schedule 3, item 1, page 10 (line 34), omit "360", substitute "600". (2) Schedule 3, item 1, page 11 (line 1), omit "45", substitute "100". These amendments relate very simply to minimum local content programming requirements in those areas that haven't had the same requirements in the past. This has been the subject of legislation I've previously moved to ensure that there is more local content for areas, such as the Riverland and the south-east of South Australia, that weren't protected by legislation that mandated minimum local content requirements. In the event of any ownership changes or any mergers, amendment (1) would omit '360' and substitute '600' and amendment (2) would omit '45' and substitute '100'. The effect of these local programming requirements would be that there must a much higher requirement for local programming. It would translate to something like 50 minutes of local content per week—a significant increase; a doubling of the requirements. This is something I've long campaigned for. I note that Senator Ruston, from the Riverland, has been concerned about these issues. This is a significant improvement. For instance, this could mean more local stories and more local news in the Riverland and in the south-east markets. It would give the people of the south-east and the people of the Riverland an opportunity to have local news and local content to a much greater degree. It's not perfect; it's not the same as a nightly half-hour bulletin, but it would mean much more local content. I commend these amendments. 12:13 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Can I just indicate that the government supports these amendments. This is a variation on the proposition that the government has put forward, and we will be supporting it. 12:13 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Given that Senator Xenophon had the opportunity last night to speak for 20 minutes on the details of the deal that's been done in the dark, outside this chamber, but failed to bring in any scrutiny to it, I think these amendments are quite outrageous. There are two numbers that Senator Xenophon is proposing to change. This is a fig leaf on a fig leaf. These amendments have been moved so that it looks like Senator Xenophon has done something in this chamber and so people have something to look at. If we actually go to page 10 of the bill, as it stands, it comes at a section of the bill that talks about trigger events and then local programming requirements. This is important; but if this is all we are getting from Senator Xenophon in terms of an amendment, while he's out crowing about how fantastic the deal is that he's done, then this is simply an embarrassment. If we go to 61CX in the bill, we see here a comment: … 360 points in each timing period that begins after the end of the period of 6 months beginning on that day— And there's a change to the number of 600. It says this is: … a trigger event for a regional non-aggregated commercial television broadcasting licence occurs on a particular day … And it says: … the licensee must broadcast, to each local area, material of local significance in order to accumulate at least— That 600 points. That's it; that's his first big amendment. It's one minor change. I noticed in the comments that the senator put on the record today that this may lead to—this is what I heard—an increase in local coverage. That is it. That is what we get. We get 600. Then we go onto point (d) under 61CX in the legislation, where it says there are: … 45 points in each week that is included in a timing period covered by paragraph (c). It's an increase from 45 points to 100 points. Now, seriously, when you look at this as the entirety of the Xenophon amendments you have to wonder why he even bothered to bring it in. Last night we saw an amazing event here in the parliament, where the One Nation amendments that were dispatched of last night were actually documented in this place by another senator from another party and, when they came for a vote, the One Nation party didn't even show up to support what was a declaration of the known bits of the deal that they're supposed to have done with the government. After Senator Xenophon has given us chapter and verse on how fantastic the deal is that he's delivered—which, by the way, I notice is being characterised in the papers today as a 'trinkets and baubles' concession from the government, and I have to agree with that characterisation—we are now faced with this amendment. I have to say that I thought Senator Xenophon might have a whole host of other amendments that he would suddenly spring on us this morning, which might have locked down some of the supposed deal that he has constructed with the government, seeing as he has started to talk about a very significant change in the ACMA responsibility for looking after some of the changes that he mooted in his conversation last night. I wish I could be more specific, but I have got nothing to look at. I have no papers; there's nothing that has come in here for me to give the scrutiny that it deserves. What we have got is a change of the role for ACMA that is really quite significant, and that is not made clear in any way in any documentation. Instead, we have this amendment suggesting a change, under 61CX, from 360 points to 600 points to increase the coverage. The senator has told us this morning that 'may occur'—so, 100 points instead of 45—in a timing period, with regard to the capacity to keep a licence. This is an embarrassment. This is such a tiny amendment to a piece of legislation that is quite significant. This is a package that the government has been putting forward for 18 months, which it could have put through a long, long time ago if it had only had the courage to stand up for the Australian people and pull the two-out-of-three rule out. If it had, we wouldn't be in this position where we are looking at this embarrassing amendment. The reality is this amendment, at this stage, simply doesn't cut it. It simply doesn't deliver anything significant for the Australian people. It doesn't provide protection for people in the regions to actually have a view of the world around them. It doesn't increase anything. It simply provides a cover for Senator Xenophon to say that he's moved some small amendment in this place. What really concerns me is that, last night, in order to construct this deal—where we have got 600 points in each timing period and 100 points in each week as the major piece of legislative change that's going on with this bill that's before us—what got sacrificed was protection for the ABC and the SBS. Senator Xenophon, with the show that he was putting on, sought to distract us all from the fact that he's letting this ABC SBS special deal, cooked up with the minister, go ahead outside of this chamber. One of the committees that I get to participate in is the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. We have done some very good work there. Indeed, this morning I was standing up with Senator Xenophon giving a press conference on delivering a unity report around changes to whistleblower protection. Whistleblower protection is all about putting things that are going on in the dark into the light. It is about cultural practices that make the hidden transparent. This is the hypocrisy of what we've seen on offer from Senator Xenophon today—doing all of his dealing outside of this chamber, in the unlit market, if you want. There is no transparency about what's been done. He thought it was good enough to come into the chamber and deliver 20 minutes last night, with some sort of a shopping list of things that has been concocted with the government in the course of this week—one can only assume—offering up this tiny, tiny change. Two numbers—that's all that Senator Xenophon has achieved in terms of the changes in this bill. That's it in its entirety. Labor cannot support this amendment because of the construction of the whole deal and the way in which the senator has brought this to the chamber. It simply isn't substantive enough to provide adequate protection for all the things the senator says that he has achieved for the Australian people. The broadcasting reform bills and the many backdoor deals that are associated with them represent a direct assault on media diversity in Australia. They hand unprecedented media power to a very privileged few commercial operators, and, at the same time, these deals that are part of what's going on here provide for an incredible attack on Australia's national broadcasters, the ABC and the SBS. Senators in this place get around the country, and we know there is one thing that Australians have great faith in, and that is our national broadcaster. What we see in this amendment is nothing that's going to deal with the threat and the challenge presented by the other deal that has gone on here, between Pauline Hanson's One Nation and the government, also a deal done in the dark—unobservable, reported in some quarters but inadequately presented for the scrutiny of the Senate. This amendment that Senator Xenophon has moved comes in the context of one of the most concentrated media markets in the world, and yet we have seen the Turnbull government hell-bent on making it worse by repealing the two-out-of-three cross-media control rule. The Turnbull government have been trying to repeal this two-out-of-three rule for 18 months. They haven't been able to do it on merit, and that is why we're at this point, where we've got this fig leaf of an amendment coming forward from Senator Xenophon. They couldn't do it on merit, so they've gone to the back room to do a deal outside of this chamber. The One Nation party and the NXT party look like they're going to get this through. It will include a grant of $30 million to Fox Sports, plus embed an attack on the ABC and SBS. The proposal to repeal the two-out-of-three rule is contrary to the public interest, and Labor want to make that very clear today. Despite the speeches that have been made, despite the assurances that have been given, despite the shopping lists of deals that have been done with the government, we are very concerned about the loss of the two-out-of-three rule. It's a vital safeguard that continues to do the heavy lifting in our market and it maintains diversity in Australia. Those opposite argue that diversity will continue regardless. But, once this bill goes through—and it looks like they have stitched up the numbers to make it happen—we can't go back from what this government is about to give away, giving away two out of three. We know, earlier in this process, Senator Hanson was very clear that she was going to stand up for the bush and make sure they were looked after. Well, the deal got done—is it the bush or the ABC? Does she want to attack the ABC more than she wants to look after the people in the bush? Clearly, she wants to attack the ABC, and she's done her deal around that. Senator Xenophon, not to be left out of the deal-making, because that would be an upsetting experience, has dealt himself in. And he's delivered $60.4 million, and how many cadetships was that—40 or 50? Senator XENOPHON 8IV Two hundred. Senator O'NEILL 140651 Two hundred cadetships for local newspapers, supposedly in regional areas, where papers are dying. There are 4,000 journalism students in Australia already. We don't need more cadetships; we need more jobs. Once we cut diversity, one owner can say, 'Well, you can put your message out on radio and TV and print, and you can just spread it a little bit further.' It doesn't mean it will grow any jobs, and it doesn't mean we will get an increase in diversity. We know that letting the two-out-of-three rule go is a big deal. This government has had plenty of opportunities. Months and months ago, they could have had this legislation through—all of it, except for the two-out-of-three rule—but they wouldn't give. You have to wonder who has been in their ear to get them to a point where they are absolutely ready to sell the diversity of our media in this country down the river. It is not just the government; it's also the One Nation party and the NXT party. They're in cahoots with this. Once this is gone, we won't be able to get it back, and that is the reality. When people vote for a government, they set a direction, and once they set the direction and undertake legislation like that, there are things we lose. And today we have to be clear: we are losing something. Two little numerical changes in the legislation from Senator Xenophon with his amendment is not going to do anything to protect us from that. We keep hearing the Turnbull government say that this rule is out of date. But let's just look to a very recent event that just shows how vital it continues to be. We were told just before we broke, prior to the last session, that Channel Ten was in all sorts of problems and that there was no way it was going to survive. Receivership was being considered, and the pressure was on here. People were walking the corridors telling us we had to pass the legislation then. But there were enough people with enough integrity to hold out and protect this two-out-of-three rule, and instead they have caved now. Recently, we have seen that the CBS effort to acquire the Ten Network is proof that the two-out-of-three rule is a vital safeguard that continues to do the heavy lifting in maintaining diversity of the media in Australia. For the government to argue that it's out of date, even in the context of this absolutely prominent recent event, continues to show that this is an ideological commitment to just getting rid of diversity. CBS are in the midst of wanting to purchase Channel Ten, and that provides diversity. We needed to keep this rule. So, my question is: how does this amendment in any way protect the Australian people in the way the two-out-of-three rule does? 12:29 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I just want to indicate, for the record, that the Australian Labor Party have indicated that they will be voting against additional local content in the disaggregated areas. The government, in its legislation, will for first time have a minimum requirement for local content in the disaggregated areas, following a trigger event. And Senator Xenophon's amendment will see that increase even further. That is important. In terms of diversity measures, I canvassed in my second reading speech the range of diversity measures which will remain in place. 12:29 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Minister, I'm interested in why The Guardian was excluded from this deal with Senator Xenophon. 12:30 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria The arrangements that we have in terms of the Innovation Fund were aimed fairly and squarely at Australian media organisations. 12:30 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria So where did the rationale for excluding foreign ownership come from? It is not a restriction that applies across any other media formats. I'm just interested in knowing why it was specifically applied in this area. 12:30 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria The government wanted the focus of these arrangements to be on Australian media organisations. 12:30 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria But The Guardian, as I understand it, are based here. All of their journalists are based here. They research and write specifically on Australian issues. They've got independent editorial control from London, which is more than I can say for some other news outlets. It's hard to escape the fact that this was structured in a way to do anything other than deliberately exclude The Guardian and other Australian based international outfits that are, indeed, holding the government to account. These are outfits with independent editorial control. They are based here and their journalists are here and yet we have a rationale that doesn't apply across any other media format. These are organisations that hold governments to account. So it's hard to escape the conclusion that this was done for anything other than political reasons. 12:31 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria The government thought that it was important that there be a control test here. Senator Di Natale has cited one organisation. I could also cite that News Ltd is excluded. 12:32 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria The idea of tax offsets and incentives to try to get more journalists employed, particularly journalists with a focus on public interest journalism, was taken off the table. I'm interested in knowing whether it was taken off the table because specifically the organisations that it would have applied to would have been organisations that practise independent journalism. We can look at specific outlets. There is The Guardian, as we have already mentioned, but there is also BuzzFeed and the Huff Post. They've all set up here in Australia. They are new voices in the media landscape. They've been welcome additional contributors to the national debate. What other rationale could there be for excluding those voices—The Guardian, BuzzFeed, Huff Post and so on—from having access to a range of tax offsets, a range of incentives, that would have allowed them, along with other players, to employ more journalists? We know it wasn't cost, because the cost of something like this is minimal. What is your rationale for taking those off the table? 12:33 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Senator Di Natale is referring to speculation in terms of what may have been the subject of discussions with crossbench colleagues. I have always made it a point not to comment on discussions that may have occurred, regardless of the grouping. 12:33 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Can I just go back to The Guardian. Do you make a distinction for an organisation that is funded here in Australia? It might be a subsidiary of a foreign organisation, but I don't know that The Guardian describe themselves as being a foreign-owned publication. They're funded here through a range of donations. So I'm just interested in how you make that distinction. 12:34 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria There will be a primary purpose test, an Australian residents test, an independent test, a control test and a number of other requirements for eligibility. 12:34 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria In terms of the operation of the fund, who picks the recipients of these funds? Is that something that the minister does? Does the minister effectively decide how that money is spent? 12:34 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria This will be at arm's length from government, under the auspices of the ACMA with input from an advisory committee with appropriate industry representation. 12:34 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Just on that, what role does the minister have in that? Do you have the final sign-off? Are those decisions ultimately something that you have any discretion over? Can you override any decisions that are made by the ACMA? Further, in terms of the appointment of the advisory board, can you please outline how that process occurs? 12:35 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria The minister won't have a role in the decision-making. In terms of the advisory board, appropriate industry representatives will be invited. I'm thinking of organisations such as the Walkley Foundation, the Press Council and the Country Press Australia, for instance. 12:35 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Ultimately, is that something the minister approves and endorses? Are you the final arbiter in the appointment of those positions? 12:35 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Well, the government would invite organisations to provide representatives, and then it is a matter for the ACMA and that body and its recommendations. 12:36 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria You haven't really answered the question around the appointment process. Ultimately, are the appointments made by the minister? 12:36 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Yes. 12:36 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Do they report to the minister? 12:36 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria No. 12:36 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria With my final question, I'm just interested in where the funds are going to be spent. There's a question around whether some of this money is going to be spent on, for example, marketing, capital funds, training programs and so on, as opposed to sustaining continuous jobs in journalism. So I'm interested in what areas the funds can be spent on. 12:36 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Grants could be allocated, for example, to programs and initiatives, such as for the purchasing or upgrading of equipment of software, the development of apps or business activities to drive revenue, readership and training, all of which will assist in extending civic and regional journalism. The TEMPORARY CHAIR G0D How many last questions have you got, Senator Di Natale? 12:37 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria This is absolutely the last. Just finally, is it possible under this fund that all money could be expended on the areas that you outlined—maybe new technologies, equipment and so on—and that no money goes towards sustaining jobs in journalism specifically? 12:37 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria There will be no expenditure on salaries. The measures are designed to support and create an environment conducive to employing people—there are the scholarships and the cadetships. But in terms of the innovation fund, anything that supports a media organisation being a good business can only be good for and is intended to assist that organisation in being viable, and viable organisations are in a much better position to employ people. 12:38 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Can I just comment on the process that's going on here, as it concerns me. Senator Di Natale is having to ask these questions here with no papers and with no documentation. The minister is looking over his shoulder to his adviser, as if saying: 'Well, am I appointing them? Am I not appointing them? Who do they report to?' We didn't even get an answer to that question. Well, they don't report to the minister, apparently. Well, maybe they do or maybe they don't. Maybe we'll go back to look at this and find out that was wrong. Senator Fifield D2I I answered as clearly as I can in one word. Senator Hanson-Young I0U We did get an answer to the fact that no journalists are going to be employed. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order, Senator O'Neill has the call. Senator O'NEILL 140651 There is still a question on the board there from Senator Di Natale, which is: who do they report to? If they don't report to the minister, who do they report to? That's one question, for starters, that deserves an answer in the absence of papers. I will ask another couple of questions. In connection with media organisations eligible for funding, following on from Senator Di Natale's questions, can the minister confirm whether or not InDaily—which I understand to be an independent news website, based in Adelaide in Senator Xenophon's home state of South Australia—will be eligible for grants or other funding? 12:39 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I don't know because I don't have an encyclopaedic knowledge of every single media organisation in Australia, so I can't advise what their particular circumstances are and how they might be assessed according to the criteria. 12:40 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia Can I answer that, if it could be helpful to Senator O'Neill. The InDaily would clearly qualify under the criteria set here. It belongs to a media organisation with a turnover of over $300,000 and less than $30 million. It clearly is an independent publication. It will be able to spend on business activities, promotion, equipment, development of software and business activities to drive revenue and readership and training. It would also be eligible for the cadetship program. 12:40 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales That's a little breathtaking, what just happened there. Because the minister couldn't answer the question, he has outsourced it. The government is now Senator Xenophon. Thank you for the actual correct answer, Senator Xenophon, but how is it that you know the answer to the question that the government is going to be responsible for enacting, and the minister doesn't know it? With all the resources that he has, he can't answer that question. But you know that there is a paper or a newsagency called InDaily down in South Australia that is going to be getting in on the good luck that you've delivered for a certain number—$60.4 million, or $50 million, of it is going to this capacity for agencies to get it. So this is another expression of what is so concerning about what's going on here. I could ask a global question: Minister, do you actually know what's happening here? Are you going to provide any details about the criteria so that you can answer the questions rather than Senator Xenophon with regard to the detail of matters like this? 12:41 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I just think it's extraordinary that we've heard from the minister this afternoon that none of this money is going to go towards journalists' salaries. What is the money going to be spent on, Minister? Also, I would like to ask Senator Xenophon: did you know that none of this money was going to go towards employing journalists? 12:42 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I outlined the range of things which will be within the scope of the innovation fund. Salaries will not be in the scope. Commonwealth grants are not provided for salaries. That's not something that Commonwealth grant programs do. 12:42 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia I'm very happy to answer Senator Hanson-Young's question. The purpose of the fund is to assist small publishers in metropolitan areas and regional independent publishers to transition, compete and innovate more successfully in a changing media environment. Grants could be allocated, for example, to programs and issues such as the purchasing of or upgrading of equipment and software, development of apps, business activities to drive revenue and readership and training—all of which will assist the bottom line of those organisations and, in turn, assist them to maintain and expand the employment of journalists. Eligibility for the grant funding will be broad and flexible. It won't extend to salaries. But you can imagine that, in terms of capital equipment, software, training and those capital costs that form an important part of the organisation, it will help. InDaily is a very good publication based in Adelaide that is online. It breaks stories and covers a lot of local politics and news. It's an independent publication. I believe it and many others will be supported by this. I will just make two other points very briefly. What is before the committee at the moment is the amendment I moved on local content. I direct this to my colleagues in the Greens and, indeed, other crossbench colleagues and One Nation. This is about increasing local content in those non-aggregated markets in the event that there is any change in the ownership structures that would be triggered by the legislation. In the Riverland and in the south-east, it would mean that it would double the existing requirements for local content in the legislation. I believe that is a good thing. That is something that I push for in legislation. I note that the government and the opposition back then did not support that, but here is an opportunity for those not in aggregated regional markets to have more, not less, local content. In relation to the matters raised by Senator Di Natale in respect of The Guardian—a very good and important line of questioning—I can say that the negotiations were protracted. It has been my preference and the preference of my colleagues that The Guardian be included. In terms of the overall package of measures, it is an argument that I lost. Senator Di Natale 53369 You didn't lose it. You didn't lose the argument; you are the argument. Senator XENOPHON 8IV Well, I did. There is a package of other measures for small— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator XENOPHON 8IV It was the best deal, and in negotiation— Senator Di Natale interjecting— Senator Chisholm interjecting— The TEMPORARY CHAIR G0D Order! Senator Di Natale! Senator Chisholm! Senator XENOPHON 8IV This was the best negotiation we could come up with in relation to small independent publishers, including metropolitan publishers. I believe it's something that ought to be reconsidered, but, at the end of the day, The Guardian does have a parent company in the UK. The government drew the line at that, but it means that small independent metropolitan and regional publications will be able to get access to this very significant fund. 12:46 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales There has been a great deal of speculation about this deal and a lack of information about what has gone on. But what we do know from that answer is that we can't just blame the government for throwing The Guardian under the bus; Senator Xenophon has facilitated it. That's what has happened. There's so much about this deal that we don't know. Senator Bernardi was actually able to stitch together some of the declared deal that was done some time ago with Senator Hanson with regard to the ABC and the SBS. It would seem that the minister—by media release on that occasion, 16 August, for the Pauline Hanson's One Nation deal—did put some information out about what was agreed. Senator Lambie had some comments to make last night about how dangerous it is to take the government at its word, even if it puts a media release out. I think her comments were that she is still waiting on two years worth of promises of a catch-up, and she hasn't forgotten. Senator Hanson, who I note has come into the chamber, has gotten something from you, in terms of a media release about what was constructed—at least up to 16 August. But here we are, debating a suite of bills that the government says is the biggest media reform in decades, and we've got nothing—zero. Actually, we've got a change to two numbers—we can't forget that—from Senator Xenophon's amendments. We've got no detail. The minister, who can't answer the questions, is seconding Senator Xenophon to provide the details. My question is: when will the government publish information about the Nick Xenophon Team? Even in as fragile a form as a media release—as disrespectful to the Senate as that is—when is it that going to be put up? What has his department actually done to clarify this situation and record it? 12:48 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria The elements of this have been shared with the chamber. That was done at the earliest opportunity—last night—and the government will, in the usual ways, make this and further information available in the usual formats. 12:49 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Considering that Senator O'Neill has raised One Nation's input into the media reform bill, let me answer some of those questions. No grubby deals were done; that's what the Labor Party would actually love everyone in this country to think. It is as if they had never been in government and actually negotiated deals on legislation with the Greens, the crossbenchers or anyone else—and they're still trying to do their deals. As I've said, they still try to talk to us to get us to change our opinions and minds when I come into this chamber. When we look at legislation put up by the government, we look at it on its merits—will it be good for the Australian people—and that's the way it still stands. I don't do the so-called grubby deals. That's what the Labor Party is used to and that's what you've done for years and years with your union mates, with the unionists and all the rest of them. Let's put it in the right perspective of how your grubby deals have been done. Senator Chisholm 39801 It's simple: why didn’t you vote for Senator Bernardi's amendment? Senator HANSON BK6 To the chair: you see, they can't handle it. They can't handle seeing someone on the floor of parliament, with integrity and with honesty, who actually says it the way they see it and not through the grubby deals that they do with their union mates who are actually doing this. You know that this is a good deal for the media reform that's needed in this country. You know that Channel 7, Channel 10 and Channel 9 are actually struggling. You know that media outlets and also publishers—small publishers—and newspapers are shutting down. They can't compete with the internet and they can't compete with Google, and that is why they're closing down. You don't care about that. You don't care about the jobs that are going to be lost with this. Through the chair: have you taken any notice? I can tell you, a lot of journalists aren't my friends, but the whole fact is that they are Australians in employment; they have their jobs and they are losing their jobs. Senator Hanson-Young interjecting— Senator HANSON BK6 Here we have the Labor Party, who are supposed to be so job orientated— Senator Hanson-Young interjecting— Senator HANSON BK6 batting for the workers and wanting to see jobs for Australians. I have never seen a political party such as the Labor Party in all my life. They are not interested— Senator Hanson-Young interjecting— Senator O'Sullivan 247871 You're so shrill. You're like a cockatoo. Senator Hanson-Young I0U You are corrupt! The TEMPORARY CHAIR G0D Order! Senator Hanson, would you resume your seat, please. Senator Hanson-Young, I heard that. I ask you to withdraw it. Senator Hanson-Young I0U Senator Bernardi, for the sake of debate, I will withdraw suggesting that Senator O'Sullivan is corrupt. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: No, withdraw it unconditionally, please, Senator Hanson-Young. Senator Hanson-Young I0U I withdraw. Senator O'Sullivan 247871 With an apology from you. You are a weird piece of gear. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! I ask the committee to respect the right of other senators to have their say without interruption and without rancour. Senator Hanson, you have the call. Senator HANSON BK6 If it was any reference to me, it just went over the top of my head. I have thicker skin than that. It's irrelevant what some of the other people in this chamber have to say. They're so thin-skinned. It's all right to dish it out, but they don't like to take it. As I was saying, what I have seen here is that you're going to save a lot of businesses, publishers and jobs in this country with media diversity. I've spoken to organisations. They want this. They can see that they need the change in Australia if we are going to compete and if we are going to have our own media diversity in this country. All I've heard from the other side of this chamber, from Labor and the Greens, is that it's not going to improve media diversity and all the rest of it. Where's your argument? I have never heard the reasons why. They are not putting up their case. They're not putting up their case enough to convince me why it won't. I've listened to the businesses out there and they are the ones that are hurting. I've spoken to some journalists who have lost their jobs. They are concerned. The deals that Senator Xenophon— Senator Hanson-Young interjecting— Senator HANSON BK6 has done with the government, with regard to passing this bill, are very credible. I think it's very good because he's looking at traineeships for cadets and the people coming through. Senator Hanson-Young made the comment: 'Where are the wages coming from for the journalists?' It is not the government's position to pay the wages of any private business. They don't do it. It is the government's position to make it feasible for people to get jobs. It is not up to them to pay the wages for private business. If those private businesses aren't successful, no-one at all will have a job. It's not up to the government to pay for the wages of journalists out there. They talk about grubby deals but, let me say: there were no grubby deals done. If you actually have a look at what my agreement has been with the government, you will see that I'm asking for 'fair and balanced' to be in the charter of the ABC. It's part of what they are supposed to be doing anyway. So what's the problem with it? Don't we all want fair and balanced? Where's the argument there? Why would you oppose that? Senator Chisholm 39801 We saw your fair and balanced contribution yesterday. It was unhinged. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! Senator HANSON BK6 Isn't that what Australians want, fair and balanced? What I'm calling for and what I'm asking for is for those who are on $200,000 to be made public. Where's the problem there? Why don't you want accountability for the Australian people? Why do you have a big problem with that? Why do the ABC have a problem about showing what they get paid? It is Australian taxpayers' money. Our wages are out there—what we get. What is wrong with the ABC? Why do you want to be so quiet about it? Why do they fight tooth and nail against having that exposed? Is it because some their journalists are on nearly $400,000 a year for one night a week on TV? Do you think that's accountable? I don't, and neither do most of the Australian people. The other apparent grubby deal was a deal for community radio to get some assistance and help so that they can actually— Senator McAllister 121628 Do you know who is Australia's most trusted news organisation, Senator Hanson? I'll give you a clue. It starts with 'A'. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! Senator HANSON BK6 As I said, people in community radio are the leaders of their small towns. They're struggling. They are the glue that keeps their communities together, because they give up their time to go into the community radio stations. I know; I've been to a lot of them. But here we are assisting them with a few areas: with news outlets and an extension of time—the government already has an extension from two years to four years—and they're streamlined as well, which will assist them. There are a few areas. There's $12 million. That's what we are going to give to assist community radio. I think that's fair. There was a comment that we don't care about the bush. That's not the case. What we have actually said is that it's about time the ABC got out of the city areas and started looking after the bush because people out in the bush are being ignored. Only 17 per cent of ABC funding is going to rural and regional areas when they've got 35 per cent of the people there. So the ABC have lacked in their duties to people in rural and regional areas. We are saying that they have to have someone who is connected to rural and regional Australia to go onto an advisory committee and be on the directors' board. What's wrong with that? How on earth can you actually complain about that? We're actually looking after rural and regional areas. Will I accept your attitude towards grubby deals—no. Why do you make these comments? Labor and the Greens comment and say 'grubby deals' because they are trying to denigrate One Nation, or even the Xenophon Team, for these arrangements and agreements that we've come to with the government to improve a bill, because a lot of Australians have been forgotten. It's not about grubby deals; it's about really caring. If they got their heads out of the sand and stopped their playing politics in this place and started representing the people of Australia, who really want true representation, they might get a lot further. But they are so pig-headed over this whole issue. It's about making the right decisions for the people of Australia. Senator O'Neill said that I was against the two-out-of-three, and that was correct. But why I have changed my opinion is I've spoken at length with my colleagues, I've spoken to the organisations and I have listened to public opinion, and I can't be that bloody-minded not to change and say, 'I didn't get it right the first time around.' I've actually taken time to consider this. I've listened to public opinion and I've listened to the businesses, and I've come up with this decision. I wish some other people would actually listen to the facts and stop ridiculing, just purely for the basis of ridiculing. If you've got an argument, then put your facts forward and try to tell me why I shouldn't vote with the government on this bill. You haven't convinced me and I'm damn sure you're not convincing the Australian people. 12:59 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I was going to make a comment on the previous Chair and his actions last night in this chamber. He made it very clear what he was proposing to do, which was—as I understand it—to introduce into this legislation those aspects of the agreement that the government has made with the One Nation party. I fundamentally disagree with what Senator Bernardi proposed in his legislation, but you've got to give him credit for raising those issues and giving the parliament the opportunity to vote on them. We were disappointed, Senator Hanson, that you did not come in and support the agreement that you had reached with the government. I think that was a surprise to everybody. You just indicated that you have changed your view—that your original position had been that you supported the two-out-of-three rule but that you have now changed your mind. The reality is, Senator, that you do have the opportunity to change your mind again, and I would ask you to reconsider your support. You can see from the vote last night—even though you and your team were not in the chamber—that your agreement with the government will not pass this parliament. My recollection of the vote was that something like 55 senators voted against what would in due course become– The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Farrell, sorry to interrupt you, but you should make your remarks through the Chair. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you for that observation; I will make sure that all of my observations are through the Chair henceforth. We can see from last night that there is no support for those aspects of your agreement with the government that require legislative implementation. As that's the case, Chair—through you to Senator Hanson—as it's clear that this parliament will not support those aspects of your agreement with the government, why do it? Why vote with the government? Why support a proposition that is not going to get through this parliament? Why have an agreement with the government, when, plainly, as you saw last night—I assume you were watching it in your room, since you weren't in the chamber—this parliament is not going to pass that legislation? If you have an agreement with the government about this matter, that requires you and the government to agree to the matter and bring it to the parliament to be passed. Well, it isn't going to pass. That's now very clear. That's the first point I'd make, Senator Hanson—you can now reconsider your position in light of what happened last night. If you think this government intends to honour that part of the agreement that you've reached with it to support this legislation, the reality was very clear last night that the Senate will not pass that legislation. Whatever you thought you were going to get out of this deal, it's now very transparent that you're not going to get it. So I would ask you, Senator Hanson, to reconsider your position. If you do, you can stop this legislation passing. As you've said, you've done that once before. Maybe in light of last night's events, it's time to do it again. You were right the first time that you considered this legislation. You were right the first time because the purpose of the two-out-of-three rule in this country is to protect media diversity. As you say, there are lots of media that organisations that, from time to time, have a go at you. But you also get support from a variety. If you remove the two-out-of-three rule, that diversity goes out the window—we don't get the diversity. Of course, what we have seen is that Senator Xenophon from South Australia has also gone along with this. We saw what happened to your agreement with the government; it cannot be implemented, but I think we need to look at what Senator Xenophon has done as part of his agreement with the government to support this legislation. As far as we can see, there is an innovation fund of $50 million over three years for regional and small publishers. I'm a big supporter of regional and local newspapers and other media, but what is a $50 million deal worth? Well, if it is split evenly across the states and territories, it works out to about $2 million a year. Of course, when you share that out over the totality of media in the region, frankly, Senator, it's not very much money. Some of those media organisations that you might have thought would benefit by this have, of course, come out in the last 24 hours and made it very clear—but I will refer to them in a moment. It would seem that part of this $2 million that goes to the states will go to scholarships to support students who are studying journalism, with an emphasis on the regions. But, if you take away media diversity in this country by the removal of the two-out-of-three rule, they might get a scholarship to study, but the reality is there will be fewer jobs. So you are giving people a scholarship to study journalism, only to find that by taking away the two-out-of-three rule there are fewer jobs. So what's the point, Senator Xenophon? What's the point of the agreement to give young students scholarships if— Senator McAllister 121628 Who'll employ them? Senator FARRELL I0N I will take Senator McAllister's intervention, because her question is perfectly right. If there is less media diversity in this country, what's the point of giving scholarships to students who can't find a job? That's cruel for them because you're leading them up the garden path. You're making them think that you have passed some legislation which is going to benefit them and give them a job. The reality is that you have reduced media diversity in the country. This benefits not just some of the wealthiest people in this country but some of the wealthiest people on this planet. They'll do very well out of this deal, Senator Xenophon. But with the $50 million that you've got spread out over three years, spread out over all of the states and territories, I think it's misleading to the students who might take up these scholarships. The reality is they're not going to get any benefit out of it by way of employment. So I have some questions of Senator Xenophon, through you, Chair. Has the government provided you with any details of how the innovation fund and those scholarships will be shared between the states and territories? Has the government guaranteed to set a minimum share of either of those funds that will go to your home state of South Australia? 13:10 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia I thank Senator Farrell for his question. Details of this were given in the chamber last night. They were published last night. Details of how the fund would work were set out. It is $50 million for regional and small metro media that wasn't on the table 24 hours ago. It will make a significant difference. The criteria have been set out. There will be a transparent process. The additional 200 cadetships will make a big difference to many regional publications across the country. That will be broadly proportional, based on the states and territories. The regional scholarships, which are also on a proportional basis, will also make a big difference for more media opportunities. 13:11 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I want to respond to some of the comments that Senator Farrell made in relation to other issues. Firstly, the agreement with Pauline Hanson's One Nation absolutely stands and it will continue to stand. I also make the point that there have been many predictions made in this place about the fate of legislation, about what may or may not pass through this place. I will be applying myself, as I do with every piece of legislation, to what we introduce to give effect to those matters in relation to the ABC. Many times we have heard predictions made about how something will not pass the Senate only to see those predictions proven to be untrue. 13:12 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Senator Xenophon, you just said that the deal that you did with the government was published. I can't find a copy of it anywhere. Is there any way you could furnish it now? I have gone to Hansard. The Hansard record goes to only 9 pm. There is nothing written for any of us to interrogate at this point in time. That's hardly what I call transparency. I ask you sincerely: can you table what you say has been published or could you advise where it is published so that I can access it and investigate it? 13:13 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia I think at about 11.30 last night a media release went out setting out all the criteria that was agreed with the government. I'm happy to provide Senator O'Neill a copy of that. 13:13 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Is it your media release, Senator Xenophon? 13:13 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia Yes, and it faithfully reflects the agreement reached. 13:13 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales If that is the case, Senator Fifield, why have you not released a media release verifying what Senator Xenophon claims? 13:13 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I've already verified the agreement in this place. 13:13 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland No-one could accuse Minister Fifield of being a fast mover, and I think this is another example of that. One thing I've had the benefit of since coming to the Senate is being on the Senate environment and communications committees and I had the opportunity to ask questions of Senator Fifield. He very generously takes it easy on new senators, which I'm very appreciative of. I've also taken a bit of an interest in what Senator Fifield and the shadow minister, Michelle Rowland, from the other place, do. One thing that has particularly caught my attention is what the shadow minister, Michelle Rowland, has labelled the 'Fifield triangle'. This is basically where issues relating to the minister's portfolio go to die. There have been plenty of examples of this. The current legislation that we're debating is a prime example. It was first introduced 18 months ago. I think it's come before the House or the Senate, or been listed, something like 10 times without actually coming to a vote. Indeed, we've seen the debacle this week, where he's combined both jobs. We had a debate earlier in the week, then it went away and then it's come back. We sat late last night and here we are again today. I want to flesh out the Fifield triangle a bit further because I think it's interesting in the current debate. We know that the Australian Communications and Media Authority review took two years, and then sat on the minister's desk for another eight months. We also know that the Game on report, which was about the future of Australian video game development, spent 500 days in the Fifield triangle and still hasn't been released. This is something that the minister is responsible for. We also know that the Australian Communications and Media Authority have gone 18 months with an acting chair, and there is still no permanent appointment to that spot. As I said, we know that the minister has had this legislation on the table for 18 months without actually getting anywhere—such is the incompetence. But there is one issue that the minister moved really quickly on and that was to give $30 million to Foxtel. When you look at the record of this you see that there is no documentation and very few facts that he has put on the table in this regard. He made a very, very quick decision on that. He announced it as part of this package a couple of months ago. As I mentioned, I had the opportunity to ask questions of the minister at Senate estimates, and basically the best he could come up with was that this was a government decision. On 6 May, he announced that they would provide $30 million to Foxtel to increase coverage of women's and niche sports. It all goes to Foxtel; it all goes to a pay TV operator. People have to pay to actually see this when it goes on TV. When I had the opportunity to ask questions, the best he could come back with, in a lacklustre effort, was that it was a government decision. So $30 million of taxpayer money to 'so call' increase the reach and coverage of women's and niche sports all goes to Foxtel. Subsequently, following an FOI by the ABC, no documents exist. So, basically, it was a decision made by the minister on a whim—no business case, no modelling and no consideration of who this is going to reach. How are more people going to be able to see this coverage? Foxtel's own figures show that their subscriptions have dropped in the last 12 months, yet the minister stands here with a straight face and says that this is to increase the reach and coverage of women's sport. What an absolute farce! What about the kids in my home state of Queensland? What about the parents who can't afford Foxtel? How are their kids going to be able to see this? They're not going to be inspired by these sports; they won't be able to see this sport. What about a little girl growing up in Frankston, the minister's home state, whose parents can't afford Foxtel? They're going to miss out on this opportunity. The saddest part about this is that they are doing this at a time when women's sport is riding the crest of a wave. We've seen that with the launch of the women's AFL. Senator Farrell might interject here, because his team, the Adelaide Crows, won that first premiership; unfortunately— Senator Farrell interjecting— Senator CHISHOLM 39801 I disagree with that. Unfortunately, they defeated the Brisbane Lions team. We've also seen the women's Big Bash League gain popularity at the same time. We also saw, this year, the domestic netball competition also rise in popularity. So, at a time when there's so much happening in women's sport, in what could have been such a really positive thing—by giving this money to free to air so that every child in Australia could see it—he gives the money to Foxtel so that fewer people can see it. This isn't going to increase the reach or the coverage of women's sport. It's going to mean there will be kids in plenty of parts of Australia who aren't going to have the opportunity to see this. This is a terrible decision by this minister, and it's at a time when women's sport is riding a wave. We know, from talking to any national sporting organisation in Australia, that sponsorship is so important. What's the key to getting good sponsorship? Free-to-air coverage. If you talk to the AFL and the NRL, they all say that the key to getting sponsors in the door to sponsor your league or your club is free-to-air coverage. Yet, no, he doesn't help them in that regard. He gives it to Foxtel—with no business case, no modelling, no documents. He gives $30 million to Foxtel, a subscription television service that you've got to pay for. This is what this minister has been responsible for. Minister, can you confirm that there was no business case, that there were no documents, that there was no modelling, that Foxtel is a subscription service whose numbers are dropping and that, when it comes to this deal, this had nothing to do with women's sport; it was just a secondary consideration to you pleasing Foxtel by giving them $30 million with no strings attached? 13:20 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria As we have traversed before on this issue, of course there was documentation in the context of the budget process. There were a range of inputs to what was a decision of government. The media reform package was considered and prepared in that budget context. The FOI applications to which I think the senator is adverting sought a very specific range of documents. Obviously there are other documents, but they are part of the cabinet process. 13:21 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland That really failed to answer the key question here. Very simply, this money was to increase the coverage of women's sports and niche sports, yet Foxtel's own figures show that subscriptions are dropping. How can your decision to give $30 million to Foxtel possibly increase the coverage of women's sports and niche sports across the population of Australia? It is very easy, very simple. 13:22 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I think it's known that Fox Sports have four dedicated sports channels. They have a good track record of access to sports that might have a lower number of participants and that receive little or no free-to-air coverage. 13:22 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland What an absolute farce! It goes to show he can't answer that question, because he knows that this isn't actually going to do anything to increase the number of eyeballs that are able to watch these sports. This is the deal you've done, Senator Burston, Senator Xenophon. This is what you've done. You've facilitated $30 million going to Foxtel, basically just as money that they can do whatever they want with—no strings attached. There is nothing that's actually going to do what the minister said, at a time when women's sport is riding the crest of a wave. This is going to do nothing for that. This is a tragedy for women's sports, when they're crying out to get on free-to-air television because that will bring in the sponsorship dollars, that will lead to crowds getting involved and that will lead to higher pay for women's sports, which deserve so much more than they have had historically. This minister does nothing for them. It is a shameful deal and one that he should hang his head in shame over. 13:23 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales We understand that the package that's been delivered for the so-called innovation fund is going be administered by the communications regulator, the ACMA. Will the government be circulating an amendment to amend the ACMA Act? What advice has the government taken with regard to the ACMA, and does this deal that's been done require an amendment to the ACMA Act? 13:24 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Any necessary amendments will subsequently be introduced into the parliament. 13:24 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I heard Senator Xenophon's answer to my question, but I don't believe he has fully answered it. I should make the observation, Senator Xenophon, that this could be your last chance to make observations in the Senate. What I mean is that your matter is going to the High Court before we come back again— The TEMPORARY CHAIR 247871 Senator Farrell, once more you need to be reminded to direct your communications through the chair. Senator FARRELL I0N I'm sorry; I should have recalled that, and I will do it through the chair. What we're asking for is answers from Senator Xenophon. He indicated that late last night, apparently, the specifics of the agreement he reached with the government to end media diversity in this country were released. We've tried to find that information and haven't been able to track it down, so our only way of getting that information at the moment is either through the government or through Senator Xenophon. I recall—through you, Chair—that when Senator Xenophon first came to this chamber nine years ago his role model was Brian Harradine from Tasmania. You can look back at Brian Harradine's history, and just one of the many deals he did was over the sale of Telstra with the Howard government. He got $350 million for his state as a result of that deal. The question I'd like an answer to—a straight answer!—from Senator Xenophon is: how much of the $50 million or $60 million deal he's done with the government has been secured for his home state of South Australia? It's a simple question. I've not been able to find anywhere on the record, so far, that we've got an answer to that question. Senator Xenophon wanted to model himself on Senator Harradine; I think it's pretty clear now that Senator Xenophon is no Brian Harradine. He hasn't secured the sort of money that Brian Harradine secured when he reached agreements with the government. Tell us: if you've done this agreement with the government, how much have you got for your home state of South Australia? 13:27 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia I'll ignore the baiting and the ungracious remarks by Senator Farrell. If the High Court did manage to hand down a decision between 12 and 16 October, I'd be delighted. Somehow I think that might be a little unlikely, so you may have to see me again, Senator Farrell—I'm very sorry about that! I seek leave to table a document which I've provided a copy of to Senator O'Neill. It's headed 'Summary of Media Reform Negotiated by NXT'. It's a three-page document, and I seek leave of the chamber to table that document. Leave granted. 13:28 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I wanted to reflect on the contribution we saw from Senator Xenophon last night. We know Senator Xenophon can be a bit of a chameleon, and until I got into this chamber I certainly had admired it from afar. Having been able to observe it over the last 12 months, the way that he performs in this place is very admirable. From what I can work out, there are basically three versions of Nick Xenophon. There's the South Australian battler, sticking up for his home state. There's the fighter against the system, sticking it to the mainstream parties. And then what we saw last night was the sincere and heavy-hearted Senator Xenophon, passing this more out of sorrow than anger, I think, in the way he spoke about this—that they were the toughest negotiations he'd ever had. I thought that was some very good theatre from Senator Xenophon. If these are the toughest negotiations he's ever had, he didn't deliver up much of a deal, did he? And that's been exposed on the floor here today. Now that we've had an opportunity to look into the detail, what Senator Xenophon has done has really been stripped bare, yet we are going to be living with the long-term consequences for a long time. I think the most significant of those is that, now and forever, this government and Senator Xenophon will be responsible for aiding and abetting the attacks on the ABC. They have legitimatised it and given it an opportunity. That is what they are responsible for, given their actions. We saw yesterday the efforts of the One Nation senators—and I don't think you could call that a fair and balanced contribution. But the one thing that I have really loved is the contribution in this debate from Senator Fifield and the way that he says 'fair and balanced'. He says it in, actually, such a fair and balanced way. It's very admirable the way he does it. But the problem for the government and the problem for Senator Xenophon is they have let the arbiter on fair and balanced be One Nation. That is what they have done by the way they have conducted this debate, let it happen and agreed to pass the One Nation legislation on this. That is something that the government and Senator Xenophon are going to be responsible for. Everyone else in this place will constantly hold them to account. When we say 'fair and balanced', I think you only have to look at the contribution that we saw from the One Nation senators yesterday. There was nothing fair and balanced about it. All it actually was was a series of grievances that they had against the ABC. Well, if you don't like the ABC covering stupid comments or stupid things you've done, stop doing stupid things! It's pretty simple. Yet, they came in here, one after one, complaining about the stories that the ABC have done on One Nation. Then we had Senator Roberts come in. I thought that this was really interesting, given his own difficulties with the High Court. I think he's making a case to be the 'fair and balanced commissioner' if Senator Fifield wanted to appoint him. He went through all the empirical evidence that he is building. And we know he loves empirical evidence; he's always talking about it. But it seems like he's been doing his own homework on what he thinks is fair and balanced. We have seen some of the things that they talk about—some of the crazy stuff that they actually want to see the ABC cover more: the anti-vaxxers, the climate change denialists. This is what the government and Senator Xenophon are going to own. You're going to own it. That is what this government has done. So, Minister, when are you going to stand up for the Australian people and defend the public broadcasters, the ABC and SBS, from the attacks that we are seeing from One Nation and others that you have legitimised through this deal that you have done on media reforms? 13:32 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Can I go back to the matter that I was asking questions about—the ACMA. I thank Senator Xenophon for making it clear that, despite doing the deal in the dark, he put this up on his website so that we could see what was going on. Thank you very much. I don't know if the government have responded yet. They have had the opportunity, I suppose, in the time we've been having this debate to put something up. Can I go to the comment in there on the advisory committee, which we did have some questions about—who they would be and where they were coming from—that the minister couldn't answer. Senator Fifield D2I I did. Senator O'NEILL 140651 Do you want to put it on the record, Minister, who the advisory committee will be? Senator Fifield D2I I have. Senator O'NEILL 140651 So the minister is not responding. The comment reads: The advisory committee's recommendations will be made public. Further transparency measures will include details of the administration of the fund being included in the ACMA's Annual Report and scrutiny through Senate Estimates. This change of the role for ACMA is described in Senator Xenophon's statement as the fund being: … administered independently of government by the Australian Communications and Media Authority … I've asked what changes are required for ACMA to be able to do that. In your response, Minister, you indicated that if there were amendments that were required you would do that at some later point in time. Why is it not prepared for consideration now, as this is part of the deal that you're doing? We've got no guarantee that what you have promised Senator Xenophon, in terms of ACMA administering this, is actually going to be possible. When do you propose to put these amendments? The TEMPORARY CHAIR G0D The question is— 13:34 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Does the minister not want to answer that question? Senator Fifield D2I I've answered it already. Senator O'NEILL 140651 So, let me understand: the deal that you have done with Senator Xenophon requires—possibly, but you're not quite sure—changes to the capacity for ACMA to undertake the role that you've promised. And you have indicated that there may well be amendments that are required, but you don't know what they are and you can't put them before us today—is that correct? The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheets 8261— Senator O'Neill interjecting— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Just a moment. Senator O'Neill, are you seeking the call again? Standing orders prevent me from giving you the call. You've spoken twice already. 13:35 Senator KETTER 244247 Queensland As a senator for Queensland, I have some concerns about the level of funding that might be flowing through to my home state. Minister: can you tell us and the voters of Queensland what level of funding is expected to come through for Queensland? 13:36 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria That's already been addressed here. 13:36 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Thank you very much. It seems the minister has decided that he's not going to answer any questions, and I certainly have quite a lot that I want to put on the record. So, I will continue with some comments and a few questions, and I invite the minister to respond at any point in time. What we have seen with this deal with regard to ABC and SBS is really outrageous. And this government has proven it is utterly desperate and bereft of integrity by bowing to the One Nation party's demands to attack our national broadcaster in order to scrape their flawed media ownership changes through this parliament. As I said earlier, the Turnbull government has been trying to repeal this two-out-of-three rule for 18 months, but they haven't been able to do it on merit. So, this is why we are where we are. The pact between the Turnbull government and One Nation is regarded by many, in the commentary since 16 August, as a direct assault on the independence of our public broadcaster, the ABC and the SBS. I'm going to quote from Andrew Tillett and Max Mason in TheAustralian Financial Review from 15 August 2017. And I do want to put on the record my respect for the great work that our journalists do and their significant contribution to our community. I want to reflect on Andrew Tillett, who I recall as a junior cadet in a regional area where I live, outside of Sydney, many, many years ago. He is a person who really takes the standards of journalism very much to heart. He writes very carefully and asks very incisive questions. This is what Andrew Tillett and Max Mason had to say in the AFR on 15 August: One Nation clinched a deal for the biggest assault on the ABC's independence in decades. That's how it's being characterised. As part of the deal, the government has agreed to the insidious call for this competitive neutrality inquiry into the ABC and SBS. There is no way you can dress that up as anything other than a direct vehicle to attack the ABC and SBS and to diminish its role. And in response, Bernard Keane, from Crikey, said: … the problem is that the inquiry isn't limited to … the ABC's online operations generally. It's focused on all the practices of the national broadcasters. And the problem is, the entire rationale for the national broadcasters violates competitive neutrality. Competitive neutrality principles require that government bodies are not subsidised to compete with commercial entities. But that's the entire raison d'etre of the ABC and SBS. If they were required to only engage in activities where there was market failure, what would they provide? This goes to the heart of the attack we are seeing on the SBS and the ABC—a determination to clip its wings, to cut it back, to shut it down. Indeed, in my notes I took yesterday, as Senator Hanson was making her comments, she protested and said, 'No-one should see this as an attack on the ABC.' But she also said in her speech that they should give up their slush fund. That is how she characterised the funding of the ABC, as a 'slush fund'. I think it is clear, after her contributions in the course of this debate, that Senator Hanson is going after ABC funding. If you need any further proof that the Turnbull government are absolutely hypocritical in this context, with no clear vision for the Australian media, then you need look no further than this competitive neutrality inquiry. This inquiry is aimed at ensuring the SBS doesn't compete with the commercial broadcasting sector, yet twice now the coalition government have attempted to amend the SBS Act to permit the SBS to increase its advertising and enable product placement, in direct competition with the commercial broadcasters. Labor believe that the ABC and SBS should have a presence in the digital media space as part of promoting diversity in our media. Labor believe that the content they produce should be readily accessible online. And Labor congratulate the ABC and SBS on their achievements with iView, SBS On Demand and online news. We affirm the recent speech by the ABC chair, Justin Milne, which was delivered at Parliament House quite recently at the ABC parliamentary showcase, where everybody, as I recall from the many years I've attended, shows up to get their photos with B1 and B2, those iconic images of the ABC for entire generations of Australians. If Senator Hanson goes ahead with this and doesn't reconsider pulling the two-out of-three rule out and her attack on the ABC, we might end up with only B1, and what a loss that would be! We are talking about serious cuts here. I wish to put the comments that Justin Milne made on the 16 August on the record here because they are very pertinent to the debate we are undertaking. He said: Now, I may be an ABC ingenue but I’ve been around media for a while and can tell you that the advent of the internet, smart phones, instant global connectivity, Google, Facebook, Netflix and machine learning all mean that the changes we are experiencing today will be the biggest media has ever experienced. In the past, we have accepted the "Mass Media" model—newspapers and TV stations publish when it suits them. If the audience misses the show, bad luck and if the audience wants to provide feedback, they can write a letter. In the future, we will demand that our media uses information about us and the world to provide an intelligent, personalised service, unique to each of us, available exactly when and where we want it—anywhere on the planet. Today the ABC is one of Australia’s greatest cultural treasures, its most trusted broadcaster and a fundamental part of our thriving democracy. It will be tomorrow too. And while we might receive some attention in the press from certain quarters—allegedly venturing into territory where we have no business, I assure you that this couldn’t be further from the truth. The ABC has a clear mandate to serve all Australians … And that is without the tinkering the government has promised to undertake. He said very clearly: The ABC has a clear mandate to serve all Australians; to provide broadcast and digital media programs of broad appeal, and to reflect the diversity and multicultural character of the Australian community. We are proud to live up to our Charter obligations. Our people come to work every day knowing they are doing a job which the public values. The Corporation is not reticent about exercising its legislative remit. He went on to talk about the noise of recent weeks and applauded Australia as a democracy that has benefited from a dual-media system for 85 years—having the public broadcaster alongside commercial media. He claimed: This media environment has ensured vibrancy and diversity, for the good of all Australians. The level of criticism that the ABC has been subject to in the course of this debate is nothing like we've ever seen before. I think the remarks that were delivered by Justin Milne really give voice to the attack that that very important institution is experiencing right now. Senator McAllister sent me an article that came out with some figures. It's the Essential Report. It's a survey that asked about trust in media. It says: Overall, trust in media has fallen a little since this question was asked last year – however rankings remain much the same. And this continues to today. It also says: The most trusted media were ABC TV news and current affairs— Sixty-three per cent said that they trust it a lot— … SBS TV news and current affairs (61%) and ABC radio news and current affairs (58%). Why we are at a point where we have a government that is willing to trade off diversity with One Nation for an attack on the ABC simply doesn't make sense to me. Senator Fifield, I've got a couple of questions that I would like you to answer. The first one is: now that the government has decided to subsidise for-profit commercial media to the tune of $60 million as part of the deal with Senator Nick Xenophon and to the tune of $30 million for Foxtel, will the government promise to refund SBS all the funds that it cut from it, which is less than the $90 million that it's given to commercial media? The second question I have for you, Minister, is: will the grant of funds to commercial media be transparent and open to public scrutiny? If so, how will that process take place? The third question is: is it now government policy to subsidise for-profit commercial media while removing funding from public broadcasters? Those are three very direct questions. I'd appreciate some answers, Minister. 13:46 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria The SBS will be funded in the usual way through a combination of its own revenue and funding provided in the budget. Yes, there will be transparency in relation to those measures to which you have referred. The government outlined the funding for the ABC in the budget before last, which establishes the training and funding base. 13:47 Senator DASTYARI 225099 New South Wales I want to acknowledge that Senator Bernardi, who's currently in the chair, really belled the cat last night on what these reforms are actually about, because a dirty deal has been done to secure the passage of this legislation. Senator Bernardi and, I understand, Senator Lambie—more in token nature than in whole-hearted support—highlighted what this is really about, and that is an attack on public broadcasting and an attack on the ABC. We heard from One Nation senators who came into this chamber and—credit where credit's due—were honest about what it's about. Senator Burston has been incredibly honest about his views when it comes to public broadcasting. I commend him for that. I pay tribute and credit to someone who was prepared to say: 'This is my view. I will vote according to my view, and I will negotiate and strategise on how I can get legislation through that supports that view.' That's what One Nation has done. This isn't a victory for the government; this isn't a victory for media diversity. This is becoming a victory and has become a victory for One Nation. This is a victory for One Nation when it comes to media reforms here today. I have to say that, when it comes to the issue of public interest journalism, a whole lot of crocodile tears have been poured in this place but the big ideas have actually been run away from. Through our Senate inquiry, we heard witness after witness and big idea after big idea. We were able to hear big ideas—again, some of which have the merit to actually be properly explored. Do you create a proper fund to allow investment in journalism to be treated in the same way as we treat research and development grants? Do you end up levying a big company like Google to pay for that? These are the big ideas, if you're serious about the future of journalism, that should have been explored and needed to be explored. I have to say—I said it last night, and I will say it again—Senator Xenophon, your position on this and what you settled for is so much weaker than what you were saying to the witnesses and others as we were going through our public inquiry. This is not a good deal. This is a $60 million slush fund that we find out is to buy iPads. It's to buy iPhones. Everyone's going to get a new iPhone X under this proposal! This is the slushiest fund imaginable. This isn't about the future of journalism. This is about a government throwing money at a problem to try to get the passage of legislation. The worst bit about it is when you actually look at institutions like The Guardian, BuzzFeed and others. Again, the question I will specifically be posing to the minister in a moment will be about why he is creating this. I mean, we know what's being said in this chamber is different than what's being said outside it. We know that the minister has been telling people privately that the issue with including The Guardian is that he could not possibly—they had to exclude them—get it through his own backbench and couldn't get it through his own party. Senator Leyonhjelm belled that cat yesterday morning when he said that as long as there's nothing going to The Guardian, it's something he could support. So what do you do? You create a slush fund to buy iPads and iPhones and, in doing so, you exclude different organisations when you may not like what they have to say. That is not media reform. That is not where we should be heading in this modern era when it comes to how we deal with media and how media needs to be dealt with. There are big challenges, but that's not what this legislation has addressed. What we have here is a government that has done its deals and has done a deal with One Nation, and then has gone and done a deal with the Xenophon group. They have tried to find a way of marrying the two together. The only real honest brokers in all of this—I have to say again that it amazes me—has been One Nation, because at least they have held a consistent position to do in the public broadcasters. That has been their position from the start. Senator Hanson came into this chamber yesterday and, in her second reading contribution, made it very clear that there are journalists at the ABC who she dislikes, who she feels haven't given her a fair deal, and part of her reason for this is that. We heard from Senator Malcolm Roberts—again, consistency is a beautiful thing—who was able to somehow turn this entire debate into a conspiracy with the CSIRO as it relates to climate change and ABC coverage. Respect where it is due: sometimes it's tough to make the links that he keeps making, but he believes in it. Then last night Senator Bernardi—I think it was at about five minutes to 11—actually exposed what this is all going to be about in the end. Senator Xenophon, we all see through this. We know what's gone on. You have gone to the government and said, 'Look, I'll cut you a deal. Cut me a favour here, and make sure the One Nation stuff is separated out so that I don't have my fingerprints on it.' That's what's gone on here. We all know that. We all know what's really happened here. This is a dirty deal that's been done at the last minute. This is not how big issues, big reforms and big changes should actually be dealt with and actually be tackled. That isn't what we've had here at all. What we've had is a cheap deal that was done at the last minute to keep One Nation happy and to buy off the NXT party. There is the opportunity here to actually make big reforms and to actually reshape Australia's media landscape. What we have here is a fix to a problem, but, frankly, the inclusion of the potential CBS takeover of Network Ten changes it all anyway. What's the rush? The rush is because we were told it has to be done immediately, because Channel 10's about to go under. That is what we were all told. That is what the minister was saying in the media and that is what was being said privately. There was an urgency. Then, all of a sudden, you end up with this. The specifics of the deal will get looked at by FIRB and others. I understand there is an ongoing legal case on what will happen with the future of Channel 10. I will let others far more experienced than me settle those legal matters. But the idea that we need to do this urgently wasn't there before. So, why this dirty deal at this hour in this way? That is a question that no-one has been able to properly answer in the Senate. To have this kind of a deal—frankly, we are all getting a bit tired of it, Senator Xenophon, we really are—through the chair. We all sit around like lemmings while you make this eleventh-hour deal that is going to throw huge issues up into the air—like what the future of the Australian media landscape is going to look like—and it all depends on whether or not they are buying you off well enough. You are a senator who made it so clear what your views were on horsetrading. Your views were so consistent for so long, and you have spoken so passionately and funnily and charmingly about it, but you then go and do these types of deals week after week after week. And it is always the same: it's a last-minute deal; there will be an hour's motion, it will have support, we will be stuck here dealing with it, and there will be a pot of money that appears to look good on the surface. Then, when we get to the point of actual examination, we see how pathetically weak and small that pot ends up being. What we found out today is that this is a $60 million iPad-iPhone fund. That is what this is. This is for the new iPhone, everybody. This is what the Senate is spending its time and another $60 million on. I note what Senator Bernardi and Senator Leyonhjelm—who, again, have been quite honest in this debate—have said about it in the past 24 hours: they are not fans of this type of spending, but it is probably not bad enough for them to change their votes. I don't want to misquote other senators, but that was the gist of my understanding. They are both big enough and bad enough to speak for themselves. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator DASTYARI 225099 They are your words, not mine. The TEMPORARY CHAIR G0D Order! Ignore those specific interjections, Senator Dastyari. Senator DASTYARI 225099 What we have is a last-minute deal that was done by the Nick Xenophon Team in the dead of night under dirty circumstances to keep One Nation happy. Every time we do these deals the same thing happens: on the surface they look fantastic, but when we start getting to the bottom of them we see that there's nothing there. These are dirty deals that have been done dirt cheap, and they are done at the 11th hour. We as a Senate are better than this. We as nation are better than this. Senator Xenophon, who has consistently got up in this chamber and spoken against horsetrading and against doing these kinds of deals, has spent the 11th hour doing this. It is an attack on the ABC and an attack on media diversity. This is a fix to a problem that it appears no longer even really exists. There are going to be winners out of this legislation when it passes today, and the winners are going to be One Nation, because, once again, this government has kowtowed to them—has kowtowed to their coalition partner One Nation. Senator Xenophon has facilitated what will no doubt be a long-term attack on public broadcasting—a long-term attack on the ABC—and has broken a solemn principle that we don't horsetrade like this on this type of legislation. We have seen this time and time again. When proper daylight hits, and there is nothing more than a $60 million slush fund for iPads, we will see it for the farce that it is. Progress reported. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 7374 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland I advise the Senate that Senator Sinodinos will be absent from question time today. In Senator Sinodinos's absence, Senator Birmingham will represent the Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science and the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 7374 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Hadgkiss, Mr Nigel 7374 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. Proceedings against former ABCC commissioner Nigel Hadgkiss, in which he has admitted to recklessly breaching the Fair Work Act by failing to accurately reflect the law in Fair Work publications, were commenced on 22 August 2016. Yesterday the minister advised the Senate that she became aware of the behaviour in October 2016. Why did it take two months for the minister to become aware of Mr Hadgkiss's illegal conduct? 14:01 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Wong for the question. As I indicated yesterday, the claims against Mr Hadgkiss were first brought to my attention in October 2016, when the CFMEU sought to add the Commonwealth as a respondent to the proceedings. These were allegations and they were contested at the time. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Wong, a supplementary question. 14:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I again ask—because she didn't answer the question—why it took the minister two months to become aware of the illegal conduct. Given that she did know, by her own admission, in October 2016 of the illegal conduct, why did the minister appoint Mr Hadgkiss as commissioner of the ABCC just two months later, on 2 December 2016? 14:02 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I reject the premise of almost all of those questions. I made it very clear in my answers both today and yesterday—to Senator Cameron's question—that I became aware of the behaviour, or the conduct, in October 2016. At that time, they were allegations that were contested by Mr Hadgkiss. The conduct was not illegal at the time. It was on Tuesday of this month that Mr Hadgkiss admitted to the breach. At that time, I became aware of the breach. In relation to the appointment of Mr Hadgkiss, I as minister did not appoint Mr Hadgkiss. Senator Wong would be aware that, when the ABCC bill passed the parliament, the legislation prescribed that the head— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Wong, a final supplementary question. 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Is the minister aware that section 21(3) of the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016 requires the minister to be satisfied that the person is 'of good character'? Why did she persist in the appointment of Mr Hadgkiss when this minister knew of the behaviour that Mr Hadgkiss admits is illegal? 14:03 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Senator Wong, as you are a former lawyer—one for the CFMEU, albeit—I would have thought that you of all people would know that an allegation is merely that: an allegation. It was an allegation that was made by the CFMEU, which was contested by Mr Hadgkiss. In relation to allegations, I don't think it would surprise— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Order on my left! A point of order, Senator Macdonald? Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 I'm sorry to interrupt the minister. Mr President, my point of order is the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate. She asks the question and then continuously interjects and answers the question herself. I expect that from a backbencher in the Labor Party, not from the Leader of the Opposition. I ask you to call the Leader of the Opposition— The PRESIDENT e5v There is no point of order. Thank you, Senator Macdonald. Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Order! Senator Macdonald, thank you. I will remind all senators that it is disorderly to interject, and I need to hear the question and the answer of all senators. I would ask you to desist in disrupting the chamber. Minister, you have the call. Senator CASH I0M As a lawyer, Senator Wong would also know that it is appropriate to recognise and not usurp the role of the courts in determining the facts of a case based on evidence. Workplace Relations 7375 14:05 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is also to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. I refer to the minister's answer in question time yesterday. Can the minister further update the Senate on recent court proceedings involving officials of the CFMEU? Senator Wong interjecting — 14:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I will actually take Senator Wong's interjection: 'Will these merely be allegations?' To answer your question—no, they won't. Yesterday the Federal Court of Australia made a finding in relation to the CFMEU. The CFMEU were fined $2.4 million. Can I just repeat that—$2.4 million for breaking the law for conducting illegal strike action on the Barangaroo building site. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator CASH I0M What do we hear? I was going to say deafening silence, but it's not, is it? What we have is a defence of the CFMEU, the most militant union in this country—a union that has no shame when it comes to undertaking some of the most disgusting and egregious behaviour and, in particular, when it comes to demeaning and degrading female inspectors on worksites. I, colleagues, am no longer allowed to say what they said because Senator Wong is offended by the words of inspectors of CFMEU officials being raised in this chamber, but she, along with other members of the Labor Party, make no defence at all. The PRESIDENT e5v Order! Senator Cameron on a point of order. Senator Cameron AI6 The minister is actually misdirecting the Senate in relation to your order, Mr President. You determined that language shouldn't be used, and that should be made clear. The PRESIDENT e5v Thank you, Senator Cameron. In relation to the point of order, I intend at the end of question time today to rule on two matters that were raised by Senator Wong yesterday; so whether Senator Cash is anticipating what I may or may not say after question time, I don't know. Can I remind all senators to be very cognisant of the language they use in the chamber, and I have reminded ministers of this in the past. There is no point of order against the minister. Minister, you have the call. Senator CASH I0M Thank you very much. I do not hear anyone on the other side, even the feminists, mount a defence against the foul and abusive language used in particular by Luke Collier, a man who bashed his girlfriend—committed domestic violence. There is nothing said by those on the other side of the chamber, other than to stand here and defend the actions of the CFMEU. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Hume, a supplementary question. 14:08 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Perhaps the minister could update us as to whether there was any commentary in yesterday's judgement about the likelihood of CFMEU officials obeying the law in the future? 14:08 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you. In making the findings against the CFMEU yesterday and handing down the $2.4 million fine, regrettably, Justice Flick stated that it was unlikely that the CFMEU would take any notice of the penalties handed down against them. Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting— Senator CASH I0M In fact, Senator Macdonald, Justice Flick said that it was unlikely that deterrents could be achieved by the imposition of penalties comparable to those that have been imposed in the past. He said: Such penalties have proven to be ineffectual. Maybe the penalties are ineffectual because those on the other side never condemn the behaviour. Those on the other side only ever come into this place and defend the CFMEU for all of their unlawful conduct. Those on the other side are part of the Australian Labor Party, the political party in this country that happily puts its hands out and says, 'Let the rivers of gold run to us.' (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Hume, a final supplementary question. 14:10 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Is the minister aware of any alternative proposals for penalties for such breaches of the law? 14:10 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Unfortunately, I am because, as we know, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten, has already stated that if they are ever given the keys to the office in this place again, they will abolish the ABCC immediately and quite proudly. Why? Because they condone the behaviour of the CFMEU. Instead of being fined $2.4 million yesterday by the Federal Court, under Labor, the CFMEU would receive the fine of absolutely nothing, because the ABCC will be abolished by any future Labor government. Again, how can those on the other side come into this place and not stand up and condemn the behaviour, after the findings—decision after decision—of the Federal Court of unlawful behaviour by the most militant union in this country? It's because money talks. Hadgkiss, Mr Nigel 7377 14:11 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. Reports last night revealed the government will pay legal costs for Nigel Hadgkiss, despite him admitting to have recklessly breached the Fair Work Act. What amount of taxpayers' money does the government anticipate spending to defend Mr Hadgkiss? 14:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you, Senator Cameron, for the question. Legal assistance is provided in accordance with the Commonwealth's Legal Services Directions, as is the standard practice when Commonwealth agency heads are subject to legal proceedings that are brought against them in relation to actions in their capacity as an agency head. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Wong, a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU My point of order goes to direct relevance. The question was: 'What amount?'—not the question of the decision, which is what her answer related to. The question is: what amount of taxpayers' money does the government anticipate spending to defend Mr Hadgkiss? I would have thought the minister would want to tell the Australian people how much money they're going to be spending on him. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Cash, have you concluded your answer? Senator CASH I0M Yes. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Cameron, a supplementary question. 14:12 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Who agreed to pay the cost? The minister, the Prime Minister or someone else, and how much will this cost the public? 14:12 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, I don't have with me the amount of costs yet because I don't believe they have yet been determined given that the matter is actually still before the courts. But, again, I reiterate: as is common practice regardless of which political party is in office, legal assistance is provided in accordance with the Commonwealth's Legal Services Directions, as is the standard practice when Commonwealth agency heads are subject to legal proceedings that are brought against them in relation to their actions in their capacity as an agency head. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Cameron, a final supplementary question. 14:13 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Will the minister rule out indemnifying Mr Hadgkiss against any penalty that may be ordered by the court? And I'll try again: how much will taxpayers have to fork out for this reckless law-breaker? 14:13 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In relation to the latter part of Senator Cameron's question, I have already indicated my answer to that. In relation to the first part, on indemnity, Mr Hadgkiss has not sought an indemnity and the government will not be providing one. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 7378 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:14 The PRESIDENT e5v I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the President's gallery of a parliamentary delegation from China. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 7378 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Climate Change 7378 14:14 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria My question is for the Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for Environment and Energy, Senator Birmingham. John Howard used to say that politics is governed by the iron law of arithmetic. Well, Minister, climate science is no different. By extending the life of coal-fired power plants, there's no way that Australia can meet pollution targets that we agreed to in Paris. Minister, when will the government formally notify the signatories to the Paris agreement that it has no desire to honour its side of the agreement to keep global warming at a level where we have at least a fighting chance of saving the Great Barrier Reef? 14:15 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia It seems like an eerily familiar story: every time Australia has set climate reduction targets, the Australian Greens have predicted that we would not meet those targets. And every time the deadline for the emissions reduction targets comes around, lo and behold: not only has Australia met those targets but has exceeded those targets. We are absolutely confident as a government that once again the Commonwealth government—Australia—will meet and honour its commitments and may well exceed those commitments again. Australia has made very strong commitments in relation to emissions reduction targets—to reduce emissions by between 26 and 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. That is the equivalent of a 52 per cent reduction in Australia's per capita emissions—among the highest of any G20 country. Yet the Greens and the Labor Party say that's insufficient, and the Labor Party promised they would commit to something even more, but without a skerrick of detail as to how they would see that achieved or what the impact would be. Australia is a country that makes international commitments, honours its commitments and delivers on those commitments. That is precisely what we have done in relation to every emissions reduction target to date. Indeed, in relation to our 2020 target—to get five per cent below 2000 levels—we see that we are well and truly on track and indeed likely to exceed that, just as we beat our first Kyoto target, by some 128 million tonnes. So, regarding this trajectory, this pattern of behaviour by the Greens, whereby they say targets are insufficient—but then they also say the targets won't be met—the truth is that the government, the country, does meet its targets, and we will do so again. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question? 14:16 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Minister, we've seen unprecedented weather-related disasters around the world. We've got wind speeds from hurricanes in the Atlantic that are off the charts. We've got fires two weeks out from winter across New South Wales—record-breaking temperatures. Given that your only energy plan is to keep open the oldest, dirtiest coal-fired power plant in the country, has your government raised the white flag when it comes to tackling climate change? 14:17 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia We continue to honour our policies, our commitments, in relation to emissions and in relation to energy affordability, security and reliability. We also listen to climate science and evidence—but we listen to it all. We don't cherrypick like those in the Greens do. We don't decide that every extreme weather event is attributable to changes in the climate. We know that credible scientists point out that this is a time of year when major storms occur, that it is not surprising to see multiple events occur at once. Dr Phil Klotzbach, the atmospheric scientist from Colorado State University, and Dr Jeff Weber, meteorologist at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research, have highlighted, in relation to events in the United States, that patterns such as this have been seen before. But we accept that climate indicates that there are changes and eventualities that we need to deal with. That is why as a government we have invested not only in policies to address emissions but also in adaption policies to ensure that Australia deals with those changes. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question? 14:18 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Minister, you say that you listen to experts. But the experts and the business community are all saying that the only credible energy plan is one that replaces dirty, polluting coal-fired power with more solar, with more wind, with battery technology and energy efficiency. They say it's a plan that brings down pollution, brings down prices, is good for jobs, is good for the economy and is good for people. Minister, when will your government adopt a plan that is backed by experts and not the coal— (Time expired) 14:19 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Our government will make sure that Australia meets its emissions reduction targets. We'll do that whilst ensuring that we keep energy affordable and reliable in Australia as well. We're not going to be driven by the ideology of the Greens. We're not going to be backed into some viewpoint that you must shut down coal plants to meet those targets. We will make sure that the targets are met in a way that guarantees the affordability and reliability of energy around Australia. That means listening to the energy experts, as well as the ideologues that the Greens like to cite or point to. That means ensuring that the policies we apply are actually balanced to meet the emissions reduction targets, but also to ensure we don't cripple the economy at the same time. Of course, we must ensure that our economy continues to have reliable baseload dispatchable energy. As I said the other day, if the Greens had their way, we wouldn't have any reliability in our energy grid left. The problems that SA are seeing would have been multiplied right across the country. We will not allow that to occur. (Time expired) Energy 7380 14:20 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. When announcing Dr Finkel's clean energy target, Prime Minister Turnbull celebrated its 'technology-agnostic approach'. Today, exactly two years after Prime Minister Turnbull toppled former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, it's reported that Mr Abbott and up to nine of his backbench colleagues will cross the floor if their own government attempts to legislate an energy mix which includes renewables. Does the Prime Minister intend to back away from his commitment to a technology-agnostic mechanism or will he once again give in to the hard Right of his party room? 14:21 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator Bilyk, as Senator Cormann observed, you shouldn't believe everything you read in the newspapers. The fact is, as I've tried to explain in this chamber many times, the government's approach is technology-agnostic. We are not going to make the mistake— Senator Wong 00AOU I don't think Tony Abbott thinks that. Senator BRANDIS 008W7 May I finish, please, Senator Wong, without being interjected on? Senator Bilyk, as I've tried to point out in this chamber many, many times, we are not going to make the mistake that the former Labor government made or that the state Labor governments in South Australia and Victoria and Queensland have made of putting ideology ahead of engineering. Our objective, Senator Bilyk, is to ensure that Australian households have reliable and affordable power. That is our objective. We acknowledge, Senator—as, if I may say so, should you—that of course there will be an energy mix. There will be a mix of fossil fuels, including coal. There will be renewables. There will be other energy sources. With the passage of time, no doubt the share of that energy mix from renewables will increase, but, for the time being and for the foreseeable future, coal and other fossil fuels will continue to be a very important part of that energy mix. We are not going to allow either an ideological obsession with coal or a felt need to outflank the Greens in appealing to the green Left ideology to dictate our policy. Our policy is not ideological, unlike yours, Senator Bilyk. Our policy is pragmatic. It is a policy of whatever works to keep the lights on, to keep power as affordable as possible and to keep supply reliable. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Bilyk, a supplementary question. 14:23 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Prime Minister Turnbull has twice failed to win agreement in the coalition party room on the clean energy target. Does the Prime Minister still remain committed to implementing a clean energy target by Christmas? 14:23 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator Bilyk, I attend meetings of the coalition party room— Senator Payne M56 Unlike you. Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Unlike you. The assertion you've made in your question is completely wrong. It is entirely untrue. Whoever has told you that has misled you, Senator Bilyk. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Bilyk, a final supplementary question. 14:23 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Isn't it clear that, even two years after Prime Minister Turnbull toppled the former Prime Minister Mr Abbott, the far Right of the coalition are still in control? 14:23 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator Bilyk, what you say is absurd. What you say, Senator Bilyk, with all due respect, is absurd. In this important national debate about energy policy, the Turnbull government has commissioned the Finkel report in collaboration, by the way, with state governments, both Labor and coalition, in order to ensure that all the options can be considered in a thoughtful, methodical, careful way. We are making decisions in relation to energy policy; the decisions that your side of politics failed to make when you were in government, as Mr Butler, the shadow minister, has lately conceded; decisions of the kind state Labor governments in South Australia, Victoria and Queensland are refusing to make because they are dictated by an ideology. We are not dictated by ideology. We are dictated by what is in the interests of the Australian consumer. Peacekeeping Operations 7381 14:24 Senator BURSTON 207807 New South Wales My question is for the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne, representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Today is the 70 anniversary of Australia's involvement in peacekeeping operations around the world, and we thank them for their service. In the case of Lebanon, in 1983-84 the UN observers were at risk of being shelled by artillery or killed by militia on a daily basis. Indeed, the Australian embassy in Beirut was closed down in 1984 because of the security situation in Beirut, according to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Some UN peacekeepers and observers were evacuated with gunshot wounds and others were subjected to physical harm from hostile forces of the Israeli Defence Force, reacting to UN sanctions and militia opposed to their presence in Lebanon. Minister, can you please advise the chamber on what basis unarmed ADF members and police deployed into a hostile environment or an environment that becomes hostile might be recognised for war-like service and receive the Australian Active Service Medal and full repatriation benefits? 14:26 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Burston for some prior notice of his question. I also thank him for a question of this nature on a day when we are honouring our proud Australian peacekeeping tradition that goes back seven decades to our first UN deployment in 1947. Today, a new peacekeeping memorial was unveiled on Anzac Parade to commemorate the courage, the sacrifice and the valour of Australian peacekeepers from the ADF, the police services and the civilian community. The memorial honours the close to 80,000 Australians who have served in more than 60 UN and multinational peacekeeping operations. Senator Burston asks me about nature of service, of which I have several contemporary examples. The ADF is contributing 59 specialist personnel across multinational and UN peacekeeping missions to provide niche capabilities and expertise in areas such as operations and logistics. This currently includes 19 ADF personnel to the UN Mission in South Sudan, 12 ADF personnel to the UN Truce Supervision Organization in the Middle East and 28 personnel to the multinational force and observer mission in the Sinai. I acknowledge those men and women and thank them for their service. However, it is important to note, in relation to Senator Burston's question, that matters of nature of service will differ from deployment to deployment. Over those 60 operations I referred to earlier, they have been very different over the years. War-like classification requires the authorisation to use force to achieve a military objective and the expectation of casualties. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Burston, a supplementary question. 14:27 Senator BURSTON 207807 New South Wales Minister, can you please advise the chamber on what basis those troops who were deployed to Rwanda had their Australian Service Medal upgraded to the Australian Active Service Medal? 14:28 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Burston. I can. The ADF personnel in Rwanda who took part there took part in armed operations to clear armed militia from internally displaced or IDP camps. While initially deployed without an expectation of a need to use force beyond self-defence, this nature of service was reviewed after deployment. It was found that the use of force beyond self-defence was integral in achieving the objective of the deployment; namely, the clearing of armed militia from the IDP camps. Consequently, the Australian Active Service Medal was awarded in recognition of the war-like service. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Burston, a final supplementary question. 14:28 Senator BURSTON 207807 New South Wales Minister, what does it take for a member of the ADF or police to be recognised for their war-like service in a manner that is appropriate to the environment to which they have been deployed, and will the minister consent to take a fresh look into the matter of the UN military observers who served in Beirut in 1983-84? 14:29 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales The fact that Australian Defence Force members may be deployed to a location in which there are hostile forces in conflict with each other, such as the Middle East in support of the United Nations, doesn't in and of itself meet the criteria for reclassification as qualifying service or war-like service under previous or even extant repatriation legislation. Defence has recently completed a comprehensive review of ADF service with the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization, known as UNSTO. It confirmed that there is no period of service with UNSTO from 1956 to 2010 that warrants classification as other than peacekeeping or non-war-like service. Defence, of course, acknowledges that the role of an unarmed observer can at times be hazardous not only during periods of increased conflict but also when carrying out the routine day-to-day tasks in support of the UN mission. This was the case with unarmed military observers who served in Beirut in 1983 and 1984. (Time expired) Australian Labor Party, Trade Unions 7382 14:30 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. I refer to the minister's earlier answer. Is the minister aware of any other reports of members of registered organisations being linked to questionable practices? 14:30 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Bushby for the question. Unfortunately, colleagues, yes, I am. The contempt for the rule of law by certain members of registered organisations does go beyond the CFMEU. The current Leader of the Opposition, Mr Bill Shorten, has serious questions to answer about a number of scandals which relate to union members and the Australian Labor Party. In October 2015, we saw a scandal where members of the Plumbers Union were allegedly signed up by the Australian Labor Party as part of Mr Shorten's local power base by paying for their membership with gift cards. Mr Shorten was very silent on this alleged process and continues to be silent to this day. But, today, we see another report where there are very serious questions for Mr Shorten to answer. Mr Shorten needs to explain his involvement with the latest cash-for-stacks scandal. A printer used by Mr Shorten on a number of occasions has been accused of creating fake invoices, receiving payment from the taxpayer and then funnelling that cash to pay for Labor Party memberships. Mr President, that is the definition of fraud. Mr Shorten claims he knows nothing about this situation. But given the previous gift card scandal involving union members, it is imperative that he gives an account of this latest scandal involving his very own Victorian Labor Party. Mr Shorten needs to provide a copy of all invoices from the printer, where payments were made on Mr Shorten's behalf to F&M Printing, and he needs to clarify whether any of these funds were used for illegitimate purposes. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Bushby, a supplementary question. Senator Cameron interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Cameron! I need to hear the question. 14:32 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania Is the minister aware of any commentary around this matter or any explanations that have been offered for these questionable practices? 14:32 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Unfortunately, as was the case with the gift card scandal, Mr Shorten continues to say, 'I know nothing about this latest rort.' But, unfortunately, there is someone on the other side— Senator Kim Carr interjecting— Senator CASH I0M And, yes, colleagues, he took the bait! Come on down, Senator Carr! Senator Kim Carr interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Carr! Senator CASH I0M You see, Senator Carr, you also used the printer involved in this latest union scandal. But guess what, colleagues? When asked by the Herald Sun this morning how many times he had used the printer, do you know what Senator Carr's response was? 'I don't know.' He couldn't actually tell them how many times the printer had been used by his office. And, Senator Carr, you know the players in this game very, very well. The PRESIDENT e5v To the chair, Senator Cash. Senator CASH I0M You are very familiar with the ALP members who have allegedly been stacked into the Labor Party as part of this scam. You too need to come forward and give a very clear account. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Bushby, a final supplementary question. 14:34 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania Can the minister explain why it is important for those individuals who have been implicated in this matter to be open and transparent? 14:34 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Because this is taxpayers' money. This is taxpayers' money and potential misuse of taxpayers' money that we're talking about. All of us in this chamber would agree that every cent of taxpayers' money needs to be accounted for. Unfortunately, what we are seeing is a pattern of behaviour here. We saw allegations about members of the Plumbers Union having their Labor Party membership in Mr Shorten's electorate paid for by gift cards. What we now have is an accusation of fraud from a company which has been used by the opposition leader, Mr Shorten. Mr Shorten and those on the other side—for all their talk, colleagues, in relation to respect of the rule of law—need to stand up now, show that they respect the rule of law and respect taxpayers' money, and provide a full account of what occurred. Community Development Program 7384 14:35 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion. Minister, at Garma in August you made a statement that the Community Development Program would shift to a community wage based scheme, which would include the ability for participants to earn top-up money. Since then there has been no further information on what this scheme would look like. When will the program be shifting to community wages? Why hasn't the government announced the next steps of this scheme? 14:35 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory I thank Senator Siewert for the question and acknowledge that she has been working very closely and positively with the government on this matter. We haven't announced something because we haven't got agreement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, which I think is fundamental in these matters. We have been informally keeping the opposition and the Greens informed of where we're up to on this. We have formalised a consultation process. We've been working with the communities to come to this position. The next step is to ensure that the final stage of this goes out. The principles have been agreed to. Significant principles have been agreed to. Senator McAllister 121628 With whom? Senator SCULLION 00AOM There are mutterings from the other side. I'll be making a submission to the Senate inquiry. A Senate committee has been inquiring into the previous iteration of this. I say to those interjecting that 60 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people deserted the system under those opposite. Our repairing of that and getting people back and engaged has ensured that more than 65 per cent of people now attend those activities. We will be going to a round of consultation. On the basis of that round of consultation, we won't be just rolling it out immediately. We've selected between six and eight sites to ensure that the change in the IT systems and the buy-in from those communities enable us to learn the lessons, so we don't do exactly what we did with the RJCP—introduce it in three months and have 60 per cent of people desert it. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Siewert, a supplementary question. 14:37 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I thank the minister for his answer. Could the minister outline what the principles are that have been agreed to and by whom? 14:37 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory We have consulted with a number of organisations. I have obviously the Indigenous Advisory Council, but also under congress we have an element of the Redfern statement group, who we consult with around employment. We also have all of the providers, who we consult with. As you would be aware, there was a recent conference in Cairns where this was discussed. We have also been discussing these things with communities. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator SCULLION 00AOM For the titterers on the other side, I have actually been to around 200 communities on over 300 occasions. This is one of the most significant issues we talk about. We have discussed considerably these issues and there doesn't appear to be any significant moving away from the suite of options we have put forward. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Siewert, a final supplementary question. 14:38 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Given people who are part of the new CDP community wages scheme will be working for community wages, will they be exempt from the cashless welfare card and, if not, why not? 14:38 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory That is a matter that is under consideration. The question whether this is work or not is a fundamental part of this. That is the biggest issue that has been talked about in communities. The great thing about the cashless debit card, as opposed to other cards that have been trialled in the past, is it has the capacity to shift the percentage of the funds that are to be quarantined, so we certainly have a much more flexible system. But this is a matter that is being consulted on and thus far most considerations of this matter have been around the groups of people who are not going to be engaged with the wages system for a whole suite of reasons. We need to deal with them separately to those who are engaged in the new wages system. I'm more than happy to give you a brief as these consultations come to bear, Senator. Renewable Energy 7385 14:39 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator Nash. While announcing the start of construction at the White Rock Solar Farm in his electorate of New England, the Deputy Prime Minister celebrated the government as: … supporting renewable energy production to help secure the national grid. Does the Deputy Prime Minister's statement reflect the coalition government's position? 14:40 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales Yes, of course it does. The coalition government absolutely support renewable energy. Indeed, I don't think we as the coalition could have been clearer that, when it comes to the provision of reliable and affordable energy, we believe in an all-of-the-above policy. Of course renewables are part of the future, and they are very much part of the government's policies. I do need to point out for the Senate the bizarre and hypocritical nature of somebody from the Labor Party asking me a question today, because only a few short hours ago the Labor Party moved a motion trying to shut me down in my ministerial duties. They actually wanted to stop me doing my ministerial job. They wanted me not to be able to do my ministerial job. But what do we see now? We see those on the other side asking me a question in my ministerial role. It just shows the chaos on the other side. Who knows what's going on over there? Nothing sensible is immediately obvious. We can only assume that they are simply shambolic. Anybody outside watching the proceedings today and, having watched the chamber a few short hours ago, with the Labor Party trying to shut me down from my ministerial duties, seeing them ask me a question in my ministerial capacity would see it as simply hypocrisy. Senator Cameron interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Order, Senator Cameron! You have a colleague on her feet wanting to ask a question. Senator McAllister, a supplementary question? 14:42 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'm glad the minister referred to 'chaos', because the Queensland LNP member of parliament, Mr George Christensen, has reportedly threatened to cross the floor if the government attempts to legislate a clean energy target. Has the Deputy Prime Minister explained the importance of renewables for the national grid and in supporting regional jobs to Mr Christensen? 14:42 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales I'm not aware of a personal conversation between the Deputy Prime Minister and Mr Christensen, but I can certainly tell you that all of us in the National Party discuss many aspects of energy policy. They include renewables, coal-fired power and extending the life of coal-fired power stations. They include a whole range of things. So it would be unsurprising for any of those things to be canvassed between the Deputy Prime Minister and Mr Christensen. Isn't it interesting that we're getting a question from the Labor Party on the other side under whom electricity prices doubled 101 per cent? It is going to be the coalition that will continue to ensure that we are focused on reliable and affordable energy for people right across this country under the all-of-the-above policy, and we will be consistent in doing so. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question? 14:43 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Reports today indicate that former Prime Minister Tony Abbott and up to nine of his colleagues will cross the floor if the Turnbull government attempts to legislate renewables in Australia's energy mix. Is Mr Christensen included in the count, or does his position take the total number of MPs willing to vote against the Prime Minister up to 11? 14:44 Senator NASH e5g New South Wales The coalition government will continue to put forward sensible policy to ensure that people across this country have access to reliable and affordable energy. Isn't it a shame that those in the Labor Party use question time to talk about an issue of parliamentarians crossing the floor when they could actually talk about things that are important to regional Australia? If only they cared as much about regional Australia as they do about the issue of people crossing the floor. Then they would be asking me about the Building Better Regions Fund and the half a billion dollars that the coalition government is putting into that. They would be asking me about the Inland Rail—$8.4 billion being invested by the coalition government into regional Australia. They'd be talking about the major regional projects fund—$272 million going to major regional projects across the country where regional people are going to think big and deliver big. (Time expired) Energy 7387 14:45 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia My question is to Minister for Education and Training representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister apprise the Senate of the importance of a reliable and affordable energy supply to Australian families and businesses? 14:45 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Brockman for his question because Senator Brockman, I know, appreciates the importance of reliability and affordability in our energy markets, as do all of my colleagues on this side of the chamber. Indeed, households and businesses around Australia also know that affordability and reliability are essential. Affordability and reliability are widely appreciated. They don't seem to be appreciated by those opposite, so I was surprised to find that some others who do recognise the importance of affordability and reliability come from none other than the union movement. I was looking through various statements and submissions recently. In January this year, the Victorian secretary of the Australian Workers' Union said: You cannot run heavy industry without reliable, plentiful and cheap electricity. … … … It's just a shame that renewables aren't quite there yet. Senator Cameron AI6 And you get that from renewables. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X No, you will want to hear this, Senator Cameron: … the rush away from coal and gas-fired electricity power stations to renewables is a little unseemly in its haste because we are potentially crucifying hundreds of thousands of manufacturing workers. It is not just the AWU. At the risk of inflaming my colleague Senator Cash, the CFMEU has had something similar to say. In its submission to a Senate inquiry in November last year, it said: The decline and closure of base-load coal power in South Australia has contributed to higher average power prices in that State together with much uncertainty over future pricing … and increased vulnerability of supply … We understand the importance of affordability and reliability. Households understand the importance of affordability and reliability. Businesses understand the importance of affordability and reliability. Even trade unions, it seems, understand the importance of affordability and reliability. It's just those opposite who want to pretend you can live in some nirvana where you don't have to worry about putting policies in place to deliver affordability and reliability. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Brockman, a supplementary question. 14:47 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Can the minister outline what the Turnbull government is doing to put downward pressure on power bills? 14:47 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia As I've told the Senate, we're taking a number of steps across retail markets, network systems and, indeed, generation. In terms of network systems, this chamber could have, if it had wanted to, passed legislation this week to put in place the limited merits review process. This is legislation that would have saved billions of dollars, because that's certainly the extent to which it's been gamed by network operators to date. But, despite saying it should be done, and done quickly, those opposite have sent it off to a Senate inquiry. They've acted as a roadblock and deferred action in that space. Nonetheless, as a government, we're getting on with taking action elsewhere. We're ensuring that two million Australian households across the country are going to have a clear opportunity to choose to get onto a cheaper energy plan, saving up to $1,500 per household in the some cases. We're ensuring that there is more gas back in the domestic market, with Santos announcing just last week an extra 30 petajoules in the market, which will make a real difference to supply and therefore affordability. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Brockman, a final supplementary question. 14:48 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Is the minister aware of any spurious claims or, dare I say it, alternative facts in discussions around energy policy in Australia? 14:49 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia It was remarkable to hear Mr Shorten and others seek to mount claims that power prices have gone up by $1,000 recently. These are claims that they have sought to peddle, despite the fact that both the Australian Energy Regulator and the Australian Energy Market Commission have clearly said that those figures are incorrect. The Labor Party is out there simply peddling falsehoods to try to play politics with the serious issue of energy supply and energy affordability. It doesn't matter which way you take Labor's claim, it's false. The coalition clearly inherited a mess when we came to office. Electricity bills had increased by more than 100 per cent over previous years when we came to office. But our steps to repeal the carbon tax saw the largest fall in electricity bills. We saw, as the ACCC has confirmed, a $550 benefit to households than would otherwise have been the case, and we will keep— (Time expired) Newlands Civil Construction: Senator O'Sullivan 7388 14:50 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Brandis. On 27 February when sitting as chair of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Senator O'Sullivan said in relation to the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing project: I can report on the Toowoomba bypass. It is coming along sterlingly. Is it appropriate for the chair of a committee to interject and offer a comment on a project in which they have a commercial interest? 14:50 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland Senator Chisholm, that question is so stupid, even by your very low standards. Senator O'Sullivan lives in Toowoomba. If you had ever been to Toowoomba in your entire life, it is no doubt you would have— The PRESIDENT e5v Point of order, Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU Direct relevance—the question is this: is it appropriate for the chair of a committee to interject and offer comment on a project in which they have a commercial interest? The PRESIDENT e5v On the point of order, Senator O'Sullivan? Senator O'Sullivan 247871 Mr President, I seek leave to make a personal statement now. The PRESIDENT e5v Is leave granted? Senator Wong 00AOU We will give him leave after question time. Leave not granted. Senator O'Sullivan 247871 I seek leave now to table a transcript of the speech I'm going to give and the accompanying evidentiary document that will put this to bed. The PRESIDENT e5v Is leave granted? Senator Wong 00AOU Mr President, I haven't seen the documents. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator Wong 00AOU If he provides them, we'll consider it, and he may well get leave when he stands up after question time. Leave not granted. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator O'Sullivan, leave has not been granted. Is this a further point of order? Senator O'Sullivan 247871 Yes, it is; in response. At four minutes past 12 today, nearly three hours ago, the Chief Government Whip formally went to the opposition to hand them the document, and they rejected them. The PRESIDENT e5v That is not a point of order. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator O'Sullivan 247871 They've seen the documents. The PRESIDENT e5v On the point of order, Senator Brandis? Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Wong, I give you a lot of latitude about points of order, and I'll give the same courtesy to the Leader of the Government. Senator Wong 00AOU What's the point of order? The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Wong, you get a lot of latitude on points of order, and I'm extending the same courtesy to the other leader. Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Thank you very much, Mr President. Senator O'Sullivan has taken a point of order on which you are yet to rule. I wish to speak to that point of order. What has been disclosed to the Senate by Senator O'Sullivan is that, although Senator Wong asserted a few moments ago that the opposition had not had the opportunity to consider the documents which will show that there is absolutely no substance in allegations against Senator O'Sullivan, it is now apparent that these documents were offered to the opposition for inspection by them some three hours ago. The Leader of the Opposition should apologise to the Senate for seriously misleading the chamber. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Cameron, do you wish to contribute? Senator Cameron AI6 Yes, on the point of order. I happened to be on frontbench duty when the documents were handed to me—a bunch of documents without— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator Cameron AI6 Senator O'Sullivan was seeking to immediately table the documents and speak on them. I had not seen the documents; I had not had time to look at the documents. Then, after consideration, I said the documents could be tabled and we would give Senator O'Sullivan an opportunity to speak. That was not accepted. The PRESIDENT e5v Order! Let me now bring this back to where we stand. Senator Di Natale, on a point of order? Senator Di Natale 53369 I know this might come as a shock to Senator O'Sullivan, but there are more than two parties in this chamber. I know it's a shock! The members of the crossbench and the Greens haven't seen this documentation. It wasn't offered to the Greens. So we won't be allowing you the opportunity to table those documents now. Should you wish to do it after question time, we will consider that. The PRESIDENT e5v I'm not going to take any further points of order in relation to this matter. I am going to rule exactly where we are now, and that is that leave has been denied. We will continue with question time. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Is leave now being granted? Senator Wong 00AOU Leave is granted. Table them now and, as I said, we will give you leave after question time to make a personal explanation. The PRESIDENT e5v You're directing your comments to me, Senator Wong. Leave has been sought. The Labor Party is not objecting to leave. Senator Di Natale, are you objecting to leave being granted? Senator Di Natale interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v I need your position. I'm going to put the question. Leave has been sought. Is leave granted? Senator Di Natale 53369 No, leave is not granted. The PRESIDENT e5v Leave is not granted. We will now proceed with question time. Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Going back to Senator Chisholm's question, Senator Chisholm suggests that there is something inappropriate about a senator who lives in Toowoomba, whose electorate office is in Toowoomba, making on observation during the hearings of a Senate committee about the progress— Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Wong! Is there a point of order, Senator Williams? Senator Williams I0V Mr President, I ask you to ask Senator Wong to be quiet while we listen to the answer instead of screaming across the chamber at Senator O'Sullivan, please. The PRESIDENT: I remind all senators not to interject while other senators are speaking. Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Again, this is the absurdity of Senator Chisholm's question: he suggests that Senator O'Sullivan, who lives in Toowoomba, whose electorate office is in Toowoomba, has done something inappropriate by making a remark during the course of the hearings of a Senate committee about the progression of the largest capital works project in the history of Toowoomba. According to Senator Chisholm, by his own benighted lights, there is something unusual or inappropriate about that. The fact is that this government is extremely proud to have funded the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing. We are very proud of the fact that, going back to the days when Mr Ian Macfarlane was the member for Groom, Mr Ian Macfarlane and many other coalition members and senators from Queensland have urged the government to fund the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing. We are very proud of the fact that we are the government who are delivering on the Toowoomba Second Range Crossing. If Senator Chisholm had the slightest interest in or knowledge about the interests of the people of Toowoomba, which obviously he doesn't, rather than take cheap political points, he'd be applauding it. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Chisholm, a supplementary question. 14:58 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I look forward to being in Toowoomba on Sunday with the Premier. Senate standing order 27(5) states: A senator shall not sit on a committee if the senator has a conflict of interest in relation to the inquiry of the committee. What action will the government take to ensure Senator O'Sullivan has not breached that standing order? 14:59 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland I have seen no evidence whatsoever that Senator O'Sullivan did have a conflict of interest, and I don't believe that Senator O'Sullivan does have a conflict of interest. If the Labor Party hadn't denied him leave to make a statement, we wouldn't even have this question because Senator O'Sullivan would have been given the opportunity to clarify the matter and demonstrate, before now, why the innuendos and insinuations against him coming from this man on the other side of the chamber are utterly false and unworthy. Senator Cash interjecting— The PRESIDENT e5v A point of order, Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU Senator Cash should withdraw that. The PRESIDENT e5v Excuse me, Senator Wong. You're addressing your remarks to me. Senator Wong 00AOU Mr President, I apologise. Senator Cash—I may have misheard her—said something highly unparliamentary to Senator Cameron, and I ask her to withdraw. The PRESIDENT e5v I didn't hear anything because of the noise in the chamber, but, Senator Cash, can I ask—because I do of all senators—that, if you said something that was unparliamentary, you withdraw. Senator Cash I0M I stated that Senator Cameron defended Luke Collier, who is a girlfriend basher. If Senator Cameron is offended by it, I will withdraw it. The PRESIDENT e5v Thank you, Senator Cash. Senator Bilyk HZB It's not just Senator Cameron who you offended! The PRESIDENT e5v Order! Senator Bilyk. Can I just make the comment that some comments, whilst they might not be unparliamentary, can be unsavoury. I'll just leave the comment at that. Have you concluded your answer, Senator Brandis? Senator Brandis 008W7 Yes. The PRESIDENT e5v Senator Chisholm, a final supplementary. 15:01 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Given the department responsible for the Commonwealth's involvement in the project reports to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, can the minister explain to the Senate why it is appropriate that Senator O'Sullivan continues as chair of the committee despite his commercial interests? 15:01 Senator BRANDIS 008W7 Queensland It's because he's a fantastic advocate for regional Australia. That's why. He's a better advocate than you are, Senator Chisholm. It's not a secret, Senator Chisholm. It is not a coincidence, Senator Chisholm, that the Australian Labor Party does not hold a seat, federal or state, west of Brisbane. Do you know why? It's because the people who live in Toowoomba, like Senator O'Sullivan, know that people like you, Senator Chisholm—creatures of the Labor Party machine—haven't the slightest interest in them. You don't have the slightest interest in them; you don't have the slightest interest in their wellbeing. You couldn't care less about representing them. You come into this chamber to mock the greatest capital works project in the history of Toowoomba which every man, woman and child in Toowoomba would be glad of, but not you, Senator Chisholm, because you don't deserve to represent the people of Queensland. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT 7392 STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT Parliamentary Language 7392 15:02 The PRESIDENT e5v I wish to make a statement to the Senate about matters raised in points of order by Senator Wong yesterday. Before I do, can I ask senators to really reflect upon the behaviour in the chamber today. I want all senators to go away, reflect over the next few weeks and consider their behaviour. I know that tensions rise and some questions provoke more emotion than others, but please keep a check on the language used, the interjections and the emotion. I just ask all senators to reflect during the break. In relation to the matters raised yesterday during question time by Senator Wong, I undertook to review two matters. The first involved the quotation by the Minister for Employment of derogatory language in an answer to a question about the building and construction industry. On 29 February last year I made a statement about the quotation of such language. I indicated, first, that quoting something does not provide a shield for inappropriate language, secondly that I was concerned about the language being used but, thirdly, that I was also concerned about the rights of senators to express what they want to express in their answers. I draw senators' attention in particular to the following part of that statement, which in my view also applies to the language quoted by the Minister yesterday: Had the quotes been in relation to a protected person, there is no question that they would have been completely out of order and required to be withdrawn. Had the offensive words been scattered through a debate, it is highly likely that any chair in this place would have queried them as inappropriate … and where the language used is strictly necessary to make the point,— where there is no protected person— it makes it very difficult for the chair to prevent a senator from quoting such language or to require its withdrawal. If senators choose to enter this territory, they do so at their own responsibility— and their own risk— … … … In exercising their judgement on whether to quote in full from sources containing offensive material, I would encourage senators to be mindful of the wider audience that views or listens to proceedings, including the frequent presence of young students in the public galleries. I also draw senators' attention to privilege resolution 9, which reminds senators of their responsibilities when they exercise the great privilege of freedom of speech in this place. On the second matter, Senator Wong asked that I consider whether the primary question asked by Senator Leyonhjelm of the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann, yesterday should have been ruled out of order, on the basis that it was directed toward opposition, rather than government, policies. Under standing order 72(1), questions may be directed to ministers relating to public affairs. The standing order is supplemented by numerous rulings, including rulings about 'alternative policies'. Summarising these rulings, Odgers' Australian Senate Practice says: A question which invites a minister to comment on the policies or actions of non-government parties is out of order unless the question seeks an expression of the government's intentions in some matter of ministerial responsibility. As Senator Wong pointed out yesterday, you will find that on page 627 to 628 of the current edition of Odgers. The question was directed solely to opposition policies and should have been ruled out of order on that basis. Senator Cormann was correct in saying that: … questions can be directed to ministers about public statements that they have made. However, Senator Leyonhjelm's primary question was not directed to such statements. Senator Wong also mentioned in passing that I have extended further latitude than previous presidents on 'alternative policy'. I would point out that examples of this can be found under my predecessor. However, I do agree with Senator Wong that a type of 'alternative policy creep' has occurred over a number of years. Therefore, I will be cognisant of this and invite all Senators to be mindful of this in their questions. So unless the question seeks an expression of the government's intentions in some matter of ministerial responsibility it will be ruled out of order. Whilst it cannot certainly have any impact upon the question asked yesterday, I will in future rule such questions out of order. BUSINESS 7394 BUSINESS Rearrangement 7394 15:06 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria by leave—I move: That— (a) the routine of business from not later than 4.30 pm until 6 pm shall be consideration of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 and the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017; and (b) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm. Question agreed to. PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 7394 PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS 15:07 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland I seek leave to make a personal statement. Leave granted. Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 In recent days, I have been the subject of assertions made under the protection of parliamentary privilege, directed at myself that in effect say that either myself or companies which I currently have an interest in, or have historically had an interest in, have or have had either a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth of Australia. These assertions are designed to make the argument that I am somehow in breach of section 44 of the Constitution of Australia and therefore assert, by their inference, that I am ineligible to sit in the Senate, representing my state of Queensland. I have decided to make this personal statement to respond to those assertions, notwithstanding that I have released a number of statements indicating my position previously. In this chamber on 11 September, an assertion was made, and I quote the Hansard: Newlands Civil Construction, a company in which Senator O'Sullivan has an interest … That statement was and remains materially incorrect. At the end of my statement I will seek leave to table extracts of publicly available records from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission confirming and negating that assertion. On the same date in this chamber, when referring to the aforementioned company Newlands Civil Constructions Pty Ltd, a statement was made, and I quote from the Hansard: Senator O'Sullivan has, as part of the O'Sullivan family, controlling interests— of Newlands Civil Constructions Pty Ltd. That statement is false. I have not now nor have I never had, either in my own capacity or in concert with anybody else, an interest in or control of the corporation Newlands Civil Construction Pty Ltd. At the same time, a question was presented to the Senate that said: 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 ... I can only assume that the burden of that question was directed to contracts with the Public Service of the Commonwealth of Australia. In response, I can say that I have not now, nor have I ever, used my position to influence any contract establishment or negotiation with the Public Service of the Commonwealth of Australia. Again, to avoid any confusion in my answer, I can inform the Senate that I have not now, nor have I ever had, a contract or an interest in a contract with the Public Service of the Commonwealth of Australia in any capacity, either directly or indirectly. Additionally, I have not now, nor have I ever had, shares in a company that has shares in other companies, even through multiple structural relationships where those other companies have had a contract with the Public Service of the Commonwealth of Australia. Further, and notwithstanding the strength of the aforementioned declarations and in the interests of absolute completeness, I state, in order to bring clarity to deal with the commercial or corporate illiteracy of those challenging these facts, that I have never had a conversation with any person, partnership, trust or entity or their representatives, legal officers, administrative officers, contract officers, engineers, agents or persons of extended interest, or their next-door neighbours, about any agreement between any person, corporation or entity who, in turn, has had an agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth of Australia. The next assertion was a reference to the company named Newlands Civil Construction Pty Ltd. That was—and it was made by Senator Cameron—that this is a company whose managing director between 1991 and 2013 was Senator O'Sullivan. Inconveniently, that company wasn't registered until the year 2008, some 17 years after the date stated in Senator Cameron's assertions. I want to repeat for effect that I have never been the managing director of Newlands Civil Construction Pty Ltd nor its predecessor company, Town and Country Industries Pty Ltd, nor have I ever been a member of either of their boards. Accordingly, when it is asserted that I have been a shareholder or a director in these companies, or indeed the managing director, as was the burden of the statement, those claims are absolutely false. I will quote further from Hansard. The government was asked to state the contracts that Senator O'Sullivan's company has benefited from. For the benefit of those making those statements, I can categorically state that it is not my company and it has never been my company, and the extracts that I will table here today from the Australian Securities and Investment Commission will verify that fact beyond any doubt. This, of course, now puts those making the statements in a rather serious and invidious position. This is their challenge. If they have contracts, a piece of paper, an affidavit or something on the back of a napkin that says that I have a direct or indirect interest in anything to do with contracts with the Commonwealth of Australia, I call on them to table those documents or supporting evidence in this place. I can say that it would not make sense for anybody to have made these allegations, as they have, without having seen some supporting evidence themselves. So now is the time for them to share it with the Senate, as I am with all of the documents that I have at my disposal. I make the call with the confidence of knowing that they do not exist. It will then follow that, if such a document is tabled, the person tabling it should also present the publicly available transcripts from ASIC showing the relevant shareholdings, either directly or indirectly, with the corporation concerned. The primary focus of these people is the corporation named Newlands Civil Construction Pty Ltd. To put matters beyond any reach, I corresponded with the Minister for Finance, the Hon. Senator Mathias Cormann, and the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, the Hon. Darren Chester, to ask them to search all Commonwealth records and confirm to me what I personally know to be true: that this company has not currently or historically had any agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth of Australia. Both ministers have confirmed that position in writing. I will, with other documents, seek leave to table that correspondence to the Senate. In closing, I can't be any clearer. Every document and record that I can access, records that have been publicly available, that anybody could have searched at any time, would have determined that the assertions being made were false. I can do no more than make this statement. I do not intend to respond anymore to any allegation made by the opposition or anyone else in this place. This has had a serious effect on my family. It's had a serious effect on the reputation of a company that employs well over 120 people—something that many of the people over there have never done. I seek leave to table documents that include—inconveniently for some—the ASIC company extract of Newlands Civil Construction Pty Ltd, a letter to the Minister for Finance and to the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, a letter from the Minister for Finance, a letter from the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, questions to answers on notice from Minister Nash, a Hansard of questions without notice from Senator Watt, a Hansard of questions without notice from Senator Chisholm, a Hansard of take note of answers contributions from Senator Cameron, a Hansard of take note of answers contributions from Senator Watt, and a Hansard of take note of answers contributions from Senator Chisholm. Leave granted. Senator Cameron interjecting— Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 Apologise, you grub. Honourable senators interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Order! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 7396 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Hadgkiss, Mr Nigel 7396 15:17 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Employment (Senator Cash) to questions without notice asked by Senators Wong and Cameron today relating to the resignation of the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner. Well, wasn't Senator Cash— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator Cameron, please resume your seat. Senator Wong 00AOU A point of order: Senator Macdonald should withdraw. He shouted the word 'grub' across the chamber earlier. Some might say, 'Look in the mirror,' but I'd ask him to withdraw. Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 I said, 'Apologise, you grub,' and he should. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator Macdonald, we've just heard a lengthy statement from the President about the need to be respectful and the need to treat each other with respect. You were out of order in calling out. I would ask you, without repeating the offence, to withdraw that comment. Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 Well, I have repeated it. I will withdraw it. But, how about— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Thank you, Senator Macdonald. Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 A point of order, Deputy President! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Please resume your seat. Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 A point of order! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP I've asked you to resume your seat. I want some separation between you withdrawing those remarks and then seeking a point of order. Senator Macdonald? Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 A point of order: Senator Wong, in taking the point of order, said, 'He should look in the mirror,' which means she is using this—can you sit down at least until I've finished, Senator Wong! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Thank you, Senator Macdonald. Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 Can you sit down! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Senator Macdonald, resume your seat! I really should not have to repeat my statement that you be respectful. I should not have had to repeat that, and yet I did. I will now hear from Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU I withdraw. Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 Deputy President, will you allow me to finish my point of order? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP I've heard enough on the point of order. Please resume your seat. Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 Oh, I see. You just hear as much as you want to. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Please resume your seat. I believe that Senator Wong has the call if she wishes to continue. Otherwise, I will go to Senator Cameron. Senator CAMERON AI6 Senator Macdonald reflected on the Chair. He should withdraw. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP I remind all senators of the statements made, not 10 minutes ago, by the President. I appreciate there is a lot of tension in the Senate, and I would ask all senators to be respectful of one another and to be respectful of the chair. Senator CAMERON AI6 I rise to take note of the answers given by Senator Cash to questions asked by myself and Senator Wong. Well, wasn't it an uncharacteristically subdued performance from Senator Cash today, when she had to answer questions without prepared bile being flung against the trade union movement? Minister Cash knew about allegations against Mr Hadgkiss, allegations that were sufficiently robust to be vented in the Federal Court and sufficiently robust to be proved correct. They were sufficiently robust that Mr Hadgkiss had to concede that what was put before the court was correct. Minister Cash either colluded with Mr Hadgkiss to cover up his illegal activity or was completely incompetent. Minister Cash had a responsibility to inquire as to whether there was any validity to the allegations that were being made against a very senior Commonwealth officer. Minister Cash failed to do this. She failed to do it because any cursory examination of the allegations that were being made would have resulted in the conclusion that the allegations were correct. Minister Cash failed to ensure that the law that applied in this country, that was under her portfolio, was applied correctly. Minister Cash just failed in the basics of what her responsibility was to ensure that the law was applied. Did Minister Cash advise the Prime Minister or the cabinet of the allegations that were being made against Mr Hadgkiss? Because if even a cursory examination of those allegations had been made, it would be clear that the person being put forward for a very senior public service position was, in fact, a law-breaker. That is what would have been seen, yet this minister failed to do any examination of the allegations that were before the Federal Court. She continued to work with Mr Hadgkiss and promoted Mr Hadgkiss to a position that he should not have been entitled to take up, given his unlawful behaviour. I wonder if the minister did disclose the cloud that was over Mr Hadgkiss to the cabinet? If she did, what was this cabinet doing appointing Mr Hadgkiss to a position in which he was supposed to uphold the law but in fact was breaking the law? He was the regulator who was supposed to uphold the law. When did Minister Cash advise the Prime Minister of the illegal behaviour of Mr Hadgkiss? Why didn't Minister Cash sack Nigel Hadgkiss, instead of allowing a two-week extension and providing him with $16,000 of public money while he had admitted to breaching the law? He was a self-confessed person who had undertaken illegal activity, yet he was rewarded by this minister with $16,000. He is a self-confessed law-breaker, given an extra $16,000 of public money by Minister Cash. If that had been some poor worker in a low-paid job trying to get access to the Fair Work Commission for unfair dismissal proceedings, Senator Cash would have waved that away and said, 'No, we don't want people to have access to unfair dismissal proceedings.' But this is a minister who knew that this person had acted illegally, who did not take steps to do anything proper about it, who should not be a minister in this place and who should resign. (Time expired) 15:25 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory I note that the Labor Party didn't want to take note of the questions in their grubby attack on Senator O'Sullivan. Perhaps they are reflecting on their grubby tactics when it comes to that. But when it comes to these questions before the Senate at the moment, let's be clear about the difference in standards between this government and the coalition and the Labor Party and their union mates. We've got, on the one hand, Mr Hadgkiss, who has been forced to resign as a result of activity. I understand allegations were confirmed of failing to update a website. There is no doubt that we take the law very seriously and, be they minor breaches or more serious breaches, we have shown the kinds of standards that we will hold officials to. But let's be clear about the alternative and the absolute contrast in the way that the Labor Party treat criminals and law-breakers, the very people who put them in this place. Let's have a look at some of those people who we are talking about who have breached the Fair Work Act and, in fact, all sorts of other legislation. Labor Party senators here owe their spots in the Senate to some of these criminals and some of these organisations which have engaged in criminality, corruption, standover tactics and violence. They will never condemn them, because they own them. The modern Labor Party is but the subsidiary arm of groups, criminal organisations, like the CFMEU, led by people like John Setka. John Setka is supported by Labor senators in this place and of course the Leader of the Opposition. John Setka has twice been jailed for contempt of court. He is currently facing serious charges of blackmail. In 2015, the Federal Court found him guilty of coercion. Recently, in front of cheering crowds at a CFMEU rally, he said there was nothing wrong with breaking the law before saying disgraceful things about the police and threatening ABCC inspectors. These are the kind of people that those opposite are close to. They are not just close to them; they are funded by them. They are funded by groups like the CFMEU and by Mr Setka and Joe McDonald, the National President of the CFMEU. He has been found by the courts to have breached industrial law 53 times. He has criminal convictions for assault, trespass and contempt of court. Luke Collier is the labour hire and youth organiser for the CFMEU in Western Australia. Luke Collier has been jailed for violent assault. In 2016, Mr Collier was found guilty of attempting to intimidate an FWBC inspector at the Barangaroo site, using disgraceful language. I am not going to repeat that language, Deputy President, because it is too disgraceful to be quoted in here. It is the lowest level of language. But of course it goes well beyond that with some of those criminals that I have mentioned. We saw during the royal commission some of these standover merchants and some of this extortion. We have seen violence from the Labor Party's mates. They are not just their mates; they are the people who put Labor senators into this place and Labor members into the House. They are the people who support Bill Shorten and keep Bill Shorten in his role. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: A point, Senator Seselja— Senator SESELJA HZE That is, Mr Shorten. They are the people who keep the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, in his role—the likes of John Setka. Mr Hadgkiss has paid a heavy price for failing to update a website. There is no doubt about that. He has paid a heavy price and he has lost his job. I compare him to his opponents, for whom there is no accountability from the Labor Party, such as the likes of John Setka. This is what John Setka had to say in a tweet: Good riddance to the rat that is Nigel Hadgkiss. From the widows and families of construction workers, may you rot in hell. I am going to table this tweet from Mr Setka. That is disgraceful; it is disgusting. I table the document. Senator Polley e5x You need to seek leave. Senator SESELJA HZE No, I don't. John Setka and his likes are the kind of people who are supported by the Labor Party. I would be very, very happy to compare and contrast. (Time expired) 15:30 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Well, what have we seen in here again today? Hypocrisy at the highest level. But what was different about today with Senator Cash was that her performance for her backbench really was less than a D—it really was. We know that when she comes into this place at question time she has her Dorothy Dixers all ready, she has rehearsed in front of the mirror, she is out there and she is stalking, trying to emphasise what she is trying to put over not only us on this side but also the general public. Well, today she wasn't that minister at all. That's because she knows that she has done the wrong thing. She definitely has done the wrong thing, and the appointment of Mr Nigel Hadgkiss is firmly at her feet. Now, why would a minister, who had known for around 12 months that somebody had broken the law, once that had come to light after two months, then appoint such a person to a job that pays $460,000 a year? At the same time, this government always comes into this place and makes these allegations, like Senator Seselja. Once again, it wasn't a great performance. The unfortunate thing is that when they start attacking people on this side of the chamber and when they are making their assertions that somehow I'm here because of the CFMEU, it is just plainly wrong. The assertions that we are all trying to protect some unionists who have done the wrong thing is wrong. Never once have I ever come into this chamber and defended anything that the CFMEU has done or any individuals have done. The minister today, in trying to deflect away from the explanation that she should have been giving as to why she should in fact resign from being a minister, was trying to assert that the language that has been used by these males allegedly has been defended by those on this side of the chamber. Well, I would have to say, with the Minister for Women saying that, I'm offended. I'm absolutely offended that the minister would make that sort of allegation in the chamber. But, as always, what we see from this government is them doing whatever it takes. They will throw a bomb over this side and expect that we are just going to sit here and take it. Well, the table was turned today, because the minister was unable to defend her appointment to a very senior position. Mr Hadgkiss was hand-picked and appointed as the ABCC. They said, 'Oh, well, he lost his job.' The only reason he lost his job was that he got to be too much for the minister. He should have been sacked The hypocrisy in this place from those on that side never ceases to amaze me. I know they think that the community out there are silly. Obviously they do think that, because otherwise they wouldn't come in here and have such double standards that are just so obvious. This government are in such disarray. We have a minister who likes to throw out allegations and tarnish everyone with the same brush and who can't defend her position when Mr Hadgkiss should have been sacked. It is quite funny, really. When Minister Nash got up today, I thought for a moment there she was trying to outperform Senator Cash in her defence today of a question that was directed towards her. The reality is that this government is seen for what it is. It is a dysfunctional government that has ministers, such as the Deputy Prime Minister, that it is questionable should be here. We have Minister Nash, whose status is questionable, yet she starts lecturing the people on this side, and we have a minister who has clearly demonstrated today that she isn't fit to hold that position. She also has a glass jaw. She can throw it out. She can overdramatise and do her dramatic moves to try to be emphatic. But what she has failed to do today in any shape or form is defend the decision she made to appoint this man. (Time expired) 15:35 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria What an extraordinary outburst from Senator Polley. But it shouldn't be surprising after what we saw in question time today. The issue of Nigel Hadgkiss was made perfectly clear by Senator Nash. The claims against Mr Hadgkiss first came to Senator Nash's attention in October 2016 when the CFMEU sought to add the Commonwealth as a respondent to its proceedings. They were only allegations before a court, and they were contested. As you well know, Senator Polley, it would have been entirely inappropriate to prejudge the outcome of such court proceedings. Senator Polley interjecting— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP Order! Senator Polley. Senator HUME 266499 It is totally staggering that the Labor Party is suggesting that any individual should be summarily sacked as soon as an untested allegation is made against them and without any form of due process. That is an astounding suggestion coming from a Labor Party and opposition completely beholden to the CFMEU. It was, in fact, only this Tuesday night that Mr Hadgkiss admitted to a contravention of the Fair Work Act, and he summarily submitted his resignation to the government that evening. We have said time and time again that this is a government that firmly believes in the rule of law. Unlike the Labor Party, this is a government that practises what it preaches. Our commitment to upholding the rule of law stands in stark contrast to that of those opposite, the leaders of Australia's trade union movement and their supporters. When it comes down to it, this is really nothing more than a smokescreen from those opposite to cover up the extraordinary revelations that we heard yesterday when the CFMEU was handed unprecedented penalties for its concerted campaign of industrial lawlessness at the Barangaroo building site in Sydney. The judgements and incredible fines—they were fined $2.4 million—that came out yesterday demonstrated the utter contempt that the corrupt CFMEU has for the law, which is echoed in the words of Sally McManus from the ACTU that there is nothing wrong with breaking the law. This government will not be lectured by those who hold such contempt. The recidivist, militant CFMEU officials continue to believe that the law doesn't apply to them. Enough is enough. The opposition leader, Mr Shorten, must immediately and unreservedly cut ties with what has become Australia's most notorious union. I want to quote from the judgement yesterday. This extraordinary announcement is from Justice Flick: It is difficult to perceive how such conduct can be regarded as in the best interests of the bulk of its members and the workers it supposedly represents. Such conduct may promote the CFMEU as a "militant" union. But the constraints imposed by the law apply to all including the CFMEU. What I find most galling is that, in a week when the world sits at a point of military brinkmanship on the Korean peninsula, the likes of which we haven't seen since the Cuban missile crisis, and a week where successive failures of Labor state governments and Labor federal governments have left our nation on the brink of a looming energy crisis that quite clearly only the Turnbull government has any solution for whatsoever, no alternative policies have been presented by those opposite. The Turnbull government is clearly the only government capable of providing a solution. In a week when economic data is finally showing the green shoots of a flourishing economy—more jobs; 250,000 jobs in just over six months, 80 per cent of which are full-time—in this week, when we have this news, this is the subject that the opposition chooses to pursue: Mr Hadgkiss's resignation. The integrity deficit of those opposite is as broad as it is deep. These militant unions not only own your party, but they own your souls and, as demonstrated today, you are an opposition that lacks both substance and civility. 15:40 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria I will get to some of the comments that have been made in response, but I do want to make a comparison between Senator Cash's rather unsophisticated manner, indeed her rant, about unions, and her statement in relation to Mr Hadgkiss. In her answers, she said that no-one on this side of the chamber has ever worried or condemned a union or union officials who break the law. She is wrong. She is so wrong that we on this side of the chamber always laugh at her when she says it. Of course we condemn unlawful behaviour. We know better than anyone on the other side of the chamber the cost to members of unions, and to those who aren't union members but who benefit from the terms and conditions that unions negotiate on work sites, when unions do not act in accordance with the law. Of course we know that that is wrong. I'm going to come to the moral question of having clients, knowing people who act immorally. I'm going to come to that later in relation to Senator Cash and the foreign minister. Senator Hume had some factual inaccuracies in her speech taking note. For many months Senator Cash has kept on the head of the ABCC while knowing—she actively had knowledge, so it wasn't constructive knowledge; it was active knowledge—for 11 months, Mr Hadgkiss had breached the very act, the very piece of legislation he was supposed to be upholding and the regulations he was supposed to be enforcing. Senator Hume said, 'We only knew on Tuesday night.' That is factually inaccurate. There was an agreed statement of facts that was tendered to the Federal Court earlier this week. An agreed statement of facts does not just happen in one day. So for some time Senator Cash must have known that the head of her agency had acted improperly and was in fact prepared to admit it in the Federal Court this week. This isn't the first part of the time line. In fact, it was in December 2013 that Mr Hadgkiss acted improperly. That's some time ago. Then what happened was that in October 2016 the minister became aware of it. Then this week she gave a statement saying, 'We wish Mr Hadgkiss all the very best for his future.' What kind of minister does something like that? Mr Hadgkiss acted improperly. He was head of an agency. It is really quite unbelievable. What was her response when she learnt about it? This is three years after the improper actions, by the way. After that, even then she doesn't act. Does she ever get briefed by the department? Does she ever meet the agency heads or agency senior staff? Because of course it wasn't just Mr Hadgkiss who was aware of this: she decided to ignore the warnings of the senior staff at the ABCC who also knew that Mr Hadgkiss was acting improperly. In her answer she also asserted that Senator Wong was somehow a questionable lawyer because she had union clients. That would be like my saying, for example, about that the member for Curtin—who is also a former lawyer—that she is a former lawyer, albeit one who acted for CSR, a criminal asbestos company who knowingly poisoned workers with their toxic products. When the foreign minister was one of the lawyers for CSR, she decided that the best tactic there was to delay, delay and delay the trial in the Barrow and Heys case, so that those people dying of mesothelioma would not receive full compensation. What a totally immoral way of behaving—tick-tock, tick-tock, waiting for the victims of asbestos poisoning to die so that her client did not have to pay the full compensation. But it seems that Senator Cash and the member for Curtin are perhaps peas in a pod. (Time expired) Question agreed to. Community Development Program 7402 15:45 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs (Senator Scullion) to a question without notice asked by Senator Siewert today relating to the Community Development Programme. This is a very important issue. We heard a great deal of criticism of the Community Development Program, both in the current inquiry—which I'll try not to comment on further because it is an ongoing inquiry—and outside of that process. We have heard of the appalling rate of penalties that have been applied to Aboriginal people living in communities, to the point where the around 35,000 people who are on CDP have copped more penalties than anybody else on the Newstart program. So quite clearly it is having a negative impact. There has been a lot of criticism about the way the program operates. In particular, people have been very critical of the fact that the CDP is not really like the CDEP, when the government had originally—when it moved to that program—said that it was based on the CDEP. The key element of the CDEP was community wages, where people actually had real jobs at award wages and then got top-up. To give the minister his due—although I'm critical of a whole lot of other aspects of how CDP has been handled—the minister has listened, and at Garma the minister said that the program would be moving to community wages with top-up. That's work, and at award rates. The reason I asked about when the government is going to articulate further about what the program's going to look like and when it's going to start is that people are obviously sick of the CDP and they want to get out of that program and move to community wages as soon as possible. The minister said that he has developed a set of principles. To date, when people have been asked if they have been consulted, they've said that they haven't been. I don't think we've heard from anybody yet who said they had been consulted about moving to community wages. I'd very much like to see the principles. The minister did not answer my question about what those principles are. I will be writing to the minister immediately asking him to outline those principles. Getting information on what they are and when they will start applying is absolutely fundamental. But one of the really important points here is that the government finds itself in a quandary. The minister says we're going to go to community wages, based on award rates with top-up. That is work, and it is regarded as work by the community. Yet, at the same time, they want to apply the cashless welfare card. In Kununurra, CDP applies, but they also have—and I'll say here again—the awful cashless welfare card. What's the government going to do with the people who are on CDP working for community wages, based on award wages with top-up? They're going to try to quarantine wages, is what I heard from the government—and that is why I asked. They have two fundamentally different programs here, and they are going to clash. Is the government saying, 'We're going to have community wages and award rates with top-up, but we're still going to quarantine wages'? How can they do that? The minister's response was, 'We might shift it down so we only quarantine maybe 50 per cent.' They still—in the eyes of the community, and certainly to me—may attempt to quarantine wages. That is outrageous. I suspect that's the reason we haven't seen much progress on community wages. What I heard was the government is thinking of quarantining those community wages. That takes us down a very, very dangerous path. That's why I asked the question: is the government going to apply this or exempt people from the community welfare card if they are on community wages? The minister couldn't answer. The government has to answer that question. Question agreed to. BUDGET 7404 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 7404 15:51 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I present additional information received by committees relating to estimates: Budget estimates 2016-17 (Supplementary)—Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 10 May and 13 September 2017—Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. Additional estimates 2016-17—Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 21 June and 13 September 2017—Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. Budget estimates 2017-18— Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 17 August and 13 September 2017— Finance portfolio. Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee—Additional information received between 16 August and 12 September 2017—Defence portfolio. COMMITTEES 7404 COMMITTEES Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit 7404 Report 7404 15:51 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present Report No. 465:Commonwealth procurement, and I seek leave to have the tabling statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The tabling statement read as follows— This report sets out the findings of the Committee's inquiry on Commonwealth procurement, based on three Australian National Audit Office reports concerning this matter. Chapter 2 of the report discusses the Committee's findings on Audit Report No. 1, concerning Airservices' procurement of the International Centre for Complex Project Management—ICCPM—for the OneSKY program. Achieving value for money is expected to be a central consideration of Commonwealth procurement activities. However, as the Auditor-General noted at the Committee's public hearing, Airservices' approach to contracting the Centre was 'ineffective in providing value-for-money outcomes'. Airservices made extensive use of ICCPM to assist with the delivery of OneSKY, with 42 engagements of employees and subcontractors through 18 procurement processes, but each of these 42 engagements was sole-sourced. Airservices had also 'routinely failed' to adhere to its procurement policies and procedures. In addition, the Auditor-General raised concerns about Airservices' management of probity risks for this procurement. The Committee concluded that Airservices' procurement management was problematic on a number of fronts. While Airservices had made progress in implementing the audit recommendations, we recommended that Airservices provide the Committee with a post-implementation progress report for each of these recommendations. The Committee also recommended that Airservices report back on a number of matters to demonstrate its improved management of probity in procurement. The Department of Finance should also consolidate procurement guidance for corporate Commonwealth entities to ensure more strict application of the Commonwealth Procurement Rules. A companion audit, Audit Report No. 46, Conduct of the OneSKY Tender, was tabled by the ANAO while the Committee was conducting its inquiry. Given the probity findings in Audit Report No. 1, the Committee noted the ANAO's conclusion that the OneSKY tender process was 'appropriate' and that the tender evaluation governance 'guarded against the conflict of interest issues identified in Audit Report No. 1 impacting on the tender evaluation process'. However, given the ANAO's other findings from this audit—including that it was 'not clearly evident the successful tender offered the best value for money'—we recommended that Airservices report back to the Committee on its progress in implementing the findings of Audit Report No. 46. Further, as criterion 3 of the ANAO's objective in this audit was not able to be examined, the Committee recommended that the ANAO consider conducting a third stage audit into Airservices' conduct of the OneSKY tender and any associated matters, once the contract for the entire acquisition has been executed, to complete its audit objective on this matter. Chapter 3 of the report discusses the Committee's findings on Audit Report No. 13, concerning the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's management of the contract to provide health services for onshore immigration detention. The Committee noted the ANAO's conclusion that this contract 'was developed by the department based on a strategic analysis of shortcomings that had arisen under earlier contracts'. However, the ANAO identified areas for improvement in the department's contract management, particularly in relation to performance monitoring. We therefore recommended that the department provide the Committee with a progress report on: the implementation of appropriate performance monitoring of the contractor; implementing its risk-based remediation plan; progress with finalising key performance documents; and outcomes of any targeted audits it undertakes of the contractors' policies and procedures against relevant benchmarks. Chapter 4 of the report discusses the Committee's findings on Audit Report No. 16 concerning the procurement of garrison support and welfare services in offshore processing centres in Nauru and Papua New Guinea. The Committee noted the ANAO's finding that there were significant deficiencies in all three phases of audit activity by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The Committee acknowledged that the department was operating in a complex and rapidly evolving environment under exceptional time pressure during the establishment of the contracts. However, the Committee considered that the department ought to have taken steps to improve its procurement activity within a reasonable time, particularly in relation to the subsequent phases of consolidation of the contracts and retendering. The Committee also noted the ANAO's finding concerning ongoing issues with the department's record keeping practices, including in relation to conflicts of interest, assessments and performance management of contracts. The conduct and outcomes of the tender processes reviewed by the ANAO highlighted procurement skill and capability gaps amongst departmental officers. Procurement is core business for Commonwealth entities and the Committee welcomes the department's acceptance of the recommendations of the ANAO and its stated commitment to improve its procurement processes. The Committee recommended that the department provide a post-implementation progress report on its implementation of the audit recommendations, and that the ANAO consider conducting a performance audit of the department's next procurement process in this area. In conclusion, by taking a thematic approach to some of our inquiries, as we have done in this report, the Committee seeks to encourage improvements and shared learning in key areas of public administration. Effective Commonwealth procurement will continue to be a strong focus of the Joint Committee for Public Accounts and Audit in its role in scrutinising the governance, performance and accountability of Commonwealth agencies. Procurement is core business for Commonwealth agencies, and achieving value for money is expected to be a central consideration. I thank Committee members for their deliberation on these significant matters. I commend the report to the Senate. Senator FAWCETT DYU I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Question agreed to. Publications Committee 7406 Report 7406 15:52 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia On behalf of the Chair of the Publications Committee, I present the 9th report of the Publications Committee. Ordered that the report be adopted. Environment and Communications References Committee, Public Works Committee 7406 Government Response to Report 7406 15:52 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I present two government responses to committee reports as listed on today’s Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the documents in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows— Australian Government response to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee Inquiry: Responses to, and lessons learnt from, the January and February 2016 bushfires in remote Tasmanian Wilderness September 2017 Introduction On 17 March 2016 the Senate referred the following matter to the Senate Standing Committee on Environment and Communications for inquiry and report: The response to, and lessons learnt from, recent fires in remote Tasmanian wilderness affecting the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, with particular reference to: a. the impact of global warming on fire frequency and magnitude; b. the availability and provisions of financial, human and mechanical resources; c. the adequacy of fire assessment and modelling capacity; d. Australia's obligations as State Party to the World Heritage Convention; e. world best practice in remote area fire management; and f. any related matter. On 8 December 2016 the Senate Inquiry tabled its report into the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area which included six recommendations. The Australian Government welcomes the opportunity to respond to this report. Responses to recommendations Recommendation 1 The committee recommends that the Australian Government: recognise that climate change has increased fire conditions in south-eastern Australia and the risk to natural and cultural values in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area; and report annually to the World Heritage Committee on the state of conservation in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. Government Response: Agreed in part The Australian Government recognises the potential impacts of climate change, including the risk of fire, to the natural and cultural values in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (Tasmanian Wilderness). The Australian Government does not support annual reporting to the World Heritage Committee. State Parties to the World Heritage Convention are invited to submit to the World Heritage Committee periodic reports on the application of the Convention, including updated information about the state of conservation of the World Heritage properties located on their territories. Since the World Heritage Committee introduced periodic reporting in 2000, Australia has submitted periodic reports on all of its World Heritage properties, including the Tasmanian Wilderness, in 2002 and 2011. Australia also provides quarterly notification reports to the World Heritage Centre of proposed developments within or outside of the Tasmanian Wilderness that may impact its Outstanding Universal Value. The Australian Government reports on the state of conservation of World Heritage properties when the World Heritage Committee requests the Government to do so (that is only when the Committee has serious concerns about the state of conservation of a particular property). Recommendation 2 The committee recommends that the Australian Government, in cooperation with the Tasmanian Government: recognise the need to identify the ecological and biodiversity impacts of fire on fire sensitive vegetation communities, organic soils and endemic fauna species in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area; and allocate long-term funding to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and/or the Tasmanian Government to assist with the development of fire assessment and modelling specifically suited to the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. Government Response: Agreed The Australian Government supports the Tasmanian Government's management of the Tasmanian Wilderness through an annual payment of $3.4 million, which is more than matched by the Tasmanian Government. An additional $10.2 million over four years from 2014-15 was provided to support Tasmania's additional and ongoing management responsibilities for the 172,000 hectares added in 2013. The funding supports work on identifying the ecological and biodiversity impacts of fire on fire sensitive vegetation communities, organic soils and endemic fauna species in the Tasmanian Wilderness. Examples of projects supported by this funding include: - identifying and researching the impacts of bushfire on fire sensitive and resistant vegetation types and wildlife - identifying and understanding the impacts of bushfire on soils - determining fire management practices to reduce risks to World Heritage values including on fire sensitive vegetation and habitat for the orange-bellied parrot. The CSIRO is recognised as a world leader in fire behaviour research. CSIRO provides expert advice on bushfire management and modelling, and disaster management software to a wide range of governments, agencies and the public across Australia. The Australian Government's support for CSIRO is significant and the government is committed to growing this funding. CSIRO is receiving $1.352 billion this financial year and this will increase to $1.452 billion by 2019-20. This funding supports research directed at improving our understanding of climate change impacts, landscape adaptation and bushfire management. CSIRO actively reviews its research portfolio ensuring that its research efforts are aligned to its strategic priorities. Recommendation 3 The committee recommends that the Australian Government, in conjunction with state and territory governments, investigate a national remote area firefighting capability, to support Australian fire agencies. Government Response: Not agreed The Australian Government does not support this recommendation, noting that bushfire response is a matter for each state and territory. National coordination of interstate firefighting assistance to a jurisdiction, including remote area firefighting capability, is already enabled through the Arrangement for Interstate Assistance, a nationally agreed framework for the provision of assistance between state and territory emergency management agencies. The Arrangement is appropriately auspiced by the National Resource Sharing Centre of the Australasian Fire and Emergency Services Authorities Council (AFAC) and is supported by the Australian Government. A key enabler of the Arrangement is the rapid convening of the Commissioners and Chief Officers Strategic Committee (CCOSC) of AFAC which is co-chaired by the Director General of Emergency Management Australia, a senior official in the Australian Government Attorney-General's Department. During the fires that are the subject of this enquiry, the CCOSC considered requests for assistance to Tasmania in the context of the national fire risk and available resources, and specifically considered remote area firefighting capability. The Arrangement was subsequently used for the deployment of significant interstate resources, including remote area firefighters, to Tasmania. Recommendation 4 The committee recommends that the Australian Government commit to long-term funding for the National Aerial Firefighting Centre of an amount that is at least equal to the government's current contribution, rising in line with the Consumer Price Index. Government Response: Agreed The Australian Government provides $14.8 million each year to the National Aerial Firefighting Centre. Parameter adjustments will continue to be managed through normal Budget processes. Recommendation 5 The committee recommends that the Australian Government recognise the need to enhance protection and conservation efforts in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area by allocating increased funding: to the Parks and Wildlife Service, Tasmania, for appropriate management activities and resources; and for research projects aimed at providing qualitative and quantitative data specific to climate-related and ecological threats to the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (such as dry lightning strike). Government Response: Agreed in part The Australian Government supports management of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area through: - an annual payment of $3.4 million a year to the Tasmanian Government, including to the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service (which is more than matched by the Tasmanian Government) - an additional $10.2 million over four years from 2014-15 to the Tasmanian Government, including to the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service, to support the additional and ongoing management responsibilities for the 172,000 hectares added in 2013 - $100,000 from its National Environmental Science Program's Emerging Priorities Fund to the University of Tasmania to invest in projects that will better protect the Tasmanian Wilderness from adverse impacts of wildfire. This funding supports management and research projects aimed at providing qualitative and quantitative data specific to climate-related and ecological threats to the Tasmanian Wilderness. Examples of projects supported include: - planning, on-ground activities, land management, monitoring, rehabilitation and stakeholder engagement, including with Aboriginal communities and the tourism industry - research to reduce threats and improve, restore and present the property's natural and cultural values - identification, protection, presentation, monitoring and rehabilitation of Aboriginal heritage - examining the impact of climate change on weather-related fire risk factors in the Tasmanian Wilderness - updating the landscape fire regime model currently used by the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service with improved fuel layers and other spatial data, including future climate projections, and expand it to encompass the whole Tasmanian Wilderness - examining the appropriate use of fire retardants in the Tasmanian Wilderness, including net environmental impact. Recommendation 6 The committee recommends that the Australian and Tasmanian Governments: develop options to increase co-operation to ensure that the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area is protected and conserved in line with Australia's obligations under the World Heritage Convention; and work together to ensure strong provisions to protect the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area from bushfire risks are included in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Management Plan. Government Response: Noted The Australian and Tasmanian governments work collaboratively to ensure that Australia's obligations under the World Heritage Convention are met. This shared commitment to meeting Australia's obligations was recognised in the World Heritage Committee's decision on the Tasmanian Wilderness in 2016. The decision commended the commitment of the Australian and Tasmanian governments to rule out all forms of commercial logging and mining in the whole of the property, as well the commitment to implement all of the 20 recommendations made by the 2015 reactive monitoring mission. In 2016, the Australian Government worked with the Tasmanian Government and reviewed the draft management plan for the Tasmanian Wilderness to ensure its consistency with the Australian World Heritage Principles included in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. On 10 December 2016, the management plan for the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area was published. The 2016 management plan recognises the impact of fire as the greatest challenge for the management of the property. The new management plan takes into account the recommendations of the Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council's independent review of 2016 fires by: - addressing communication of fire management to key stakeholders - detailing cross tenure fire management arrangements and legislative obligations. The new management plan puts in place a range of measures to mitigate the impact of bushfire on the property, including through research and ecological burning. Fire management in the Tasmanian Wilderness is based upon a well-developed strategic risk-management approach that assesses, identifies, prioritises and manages the risk posed to reserve values. The Tasmanian Government will develop a holistic fire plan covering all aspects of fire management for the property which will: - include objectives to guide fire management for the protection and conservation of the property's Outstanding Universal Value - provide guidance for prioritising the protection of the property's Outstanding Universal Value over other values or structures. Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works report: Report 5/2017 September 2017 Recommendation 6 6.51 The Committee requests that Defence Housing Australia and the Department of Defence provide the Committee with detailed reports which outline the project's financial position at the end of each of the three phases of the project, and if the Committee requests, provide: A private briefing on each phase of the project; A site inspection; and Representatives to appear at a public hearing. Government response Agree The Government supports the actions under Recommendation 6. A detailed report on project expenditure and, if required, a private briefing will be provided to the Committee following the completion of the first 58 houses under Phase 1 on the upgrade project. Phase 1 is expected to be completed by August 2017. Corporations and Financial Services Committee 7410 Report 7410 15:53 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the report of the committee Whistleblower protections, together with a corrigendum, the Hansard record of proceedings, and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. National Disability Insurance Scheme Committee 7411 Report 7411 15:53 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the interim report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme on the provision of hearing services under the National Disability Insurance Scheme, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the Senate take note of the report. 15:54 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia This is an interim report from the standing committee of which I'm a member. We have been unable to get all the information that we need from the National Disability Insurance Scheme or Agency, because they haven't yet finished doing their references packages. The reason this matter was inquired into by the Joint Standing Committee on the NDIS is that there is a great deal of concern—concern I share—about how the NDIA and the NDIS are handling hearing and support packages for people who are deaf or hearing-impaired. It is between Australia and Denmark as to who provides the world's leading services for those who are deaf and hearing-impaired. We truly have a world-class system that we all should be proud of. We ensure that children have any hearing impairment identified at birth. They are monitored. They get access to cochlear implants. We have Australian Hearing, one of the leading organisations of its type in the world, and we provide support and services to the deaf and hearing-impaired up to the age of 26, which is fantastic. We also provide a community service obligation to those over the age of 65. What people are deeply concerned about is that that world-class system is at risk under the NDIS system as it is at the moment, because we have variability in the packages that are provided in the first place. People, including children, with the same sort of hearing loss or hearing impairment are getting different packages depending on where they are. They are getting them really late. One of the critical things around deafness and hearing impairment, particularly when you are young, is that it is identified straightaway, which is why we do newborn hearing screening, to ensure that it is identified from birth. Then what's important is early intervention—making sure that, if a child needs a cochlear implant or implants, they have that, and then they have the early intervention programs that people like First Voice provide, to enable their speech and hearing and language capacity to develop. We know, from all the evidence, that, if we can provide that treatment early enough, by the time they reach school age they are at the equivalent level of development as their hearing peers. That's why it's important. But what's been happening is that, because of the delays through the NDIS process, those children have not been getting that early response process. They are getting, for all intents and purposes, lost in the system. Yes, it's about choice and control, but they're not being provided with, for example, referral pathways in order to find and get the services they need so early for the child's early intervention program. The committee has made six recommendations around how to address that. I urge the NDIA to take these up straightaway. We recommend that the NDIA monitors eligibility rates for adults with hearing impairments, to build a clearer picture of the number and needs of people who've been found ineligible for the NDIS services, and they should report in 12 months, because we're very worried about what's happening to those people who are found to be ineligible. We recommend that the NDIA immediately reviews the cases of people with hearing impairment who've previously been found to be ineligible and test their eligibility against revised guidelines. We also recommend that state and territory governments clarify and make public how they will provide services to those who are deaf and hard of hearing who are not participants in the NDIS. We also recommend—and this is really important—that Australian Hearing be formally appointed as the independent referral pathway for access to early intervention services under the NDIS and funded appropriately to take on this new role. I cannot emphasise enough how important that is if we are going to maintain the world-class services and supports that we provide. We also make a recommendation to ensure that early intervention packages take a holistic approach and meet the needs of the participants. What we're finding is that the packages are not of the size to provide proper early intervention supports. What we need to recognise here is that, if we provide packages that genuinely meet the costs of providing these services, those young people, as I said, will reach the same developmental age as their hearing peers and will go on to have full, productive lives. In other words, investing early will save a lot of money into the future but, more importantly, will provide quality services and supports for people to be able to make the best of their opportunities. That is so essential. We also recommend that the NDIA urgently finalise, publish and introduce the early intervention references packages. That is critical, and that's why we haven't reported. The NDIA told us in late March that they would, in fact, have that ready in April. Guess what—it's 14 September now and they're still not done. This is an interim report until we can see that package and we can finalise the committee's inquiry. I recommend that people who have an interest in this area to please read this report. I beg the NDIA—again I'm begging the NDIA—to make a change to the way they carry out their business. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Economics References Committee 7412 Report 7412 16:00 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the report of the Senate Economics References Committee on toll roads, together with the Hansardrecord of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 16:01 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria This report into the operation of toll roads in Australia was incredibly illuminating as to what's really going on with transport planning across the country. It was very clear from the evidence presented to the committee that things are not operating as they should. Many very significant transport decisions are being made in the interests of private toll operators rather than in the interests of developing a transport system for our cities which meets all of the other objectives: environmental objectives, social objectives, objectives of reducing congestion in our cities, and objectives of reducing pollution in our cities. It was very clear from the evidence presented to the committee that we are in a situation where much of the large-scale motorway and freeway development that's occurring is in the interests of one company—Transurban—which now operates 13 of the 16 toll roads operating across the country and essentially has a monopoly. Very significant evidence was presented to the committee that showed that it's a massive problem. Given all the problems that you have when one large company is basically the sole provider of toll road operations, decisions aren't being made in the public interest. This is particularly the case when many of the decisions about whether to go ahead with toll roads are made in ways in which the information isn't available to the community to assess. There are huge problems with transparency and huge problems with information. Decisions are being made on the basis of information which is commercial-in-confidence and that information is not able to be shared openly with the public. That might be acceptable if you have a government process that determines that there is a need for a major new road and then invites tenders to bid for that road, but we have a further development which undermines the transparent and accountable planning processes when we have market-led proposals, such as in the case of the West Gate Tunnel, which is currently being planned for Melbourne. Transurban went to the Victorian government and said, 'Here is a proposal for a tollway.' From the evidence presented, it certainly looks like a very good proposal for Transurban shareholders, but, in terms of assessing whether it meets the needs of the community and whether it's value for money for the community, a lot of the information is still commercial-in-confidence. We heard evidence from Mr William McDougall, who was a very senior transport planner who did considerable work with the Victorian government. He was involved with part of the independent peer review of the West Gate Tunnel. He had very serious concerns with some of the transport modelling and the economic modelling—whether it was accurate; whether it was information that could be relied upon. He raised his concerns with the Victorian government and, rather than those concerns being taken into account and properly addressed, he was removed from the team that were working on the West Gate Tunnel. He presented evidence to us because it was an opportunity for him to share with the community the sorts of things that were going on behind closed doors. The independent peer review of the West Gate Tunnel that he contributed to has still not been made public. The Victorian government has happily shared with the community other independent peer reviews of transport projects, such as the Melbourne Metro Rail tunnel, but not the independent peer review of the West Gate Tunnel. Given the criticism by Mr McDougall, a senior and very experienced transport planner, you can only ask, 'What have they got to hide?' This really strikes at the heart of what the problems are with transport planning in our cities today. Far too much information assessing whether a project is appropriate or not is not available to the public. Of course, the Commonwealth is directly involved because it is Commonwealth funding that is going into many of these road projects. There are billions of dollars going into the WestConnex road in Sydney. That project has a similar lack of transparency and accountability. We do not know whether these roads are value for money. In fact, all the evidence that can be dug out shows that they are not, that they will not solve the transport problems they're setting out to address and that they are going to be adding to congestion and pollution in our cities. Our cities are heading into a situation where they will be jammed with traffic. These projects are not tackling the very congestion problems that they are setting out to address. The recommendations from our report outline some things that could be done about this. The first and most important one is that plans for major road projects like this only move forward when they are done in the context of an overall, integrated and holistic transport plan for a region. We should not be assessing projects one by one on a project-by-project basis. The recommendation of the committee was that Infrastructure Australia take a system wide, mode-neutral approach in its consideration of any project and consider alternative ways of solving the problem being addressed. The additional comments from the Greens go further than that and say that we should not be putting billions of dollars of Commonwealth money into individual projects unless they have been planned in the context of a fully integrated, holistic transport plan for a region and there has been very strong community involvement in the development of that transport plan. That way we can make sure that these very large, very significant bits of infrastructure really are meeting the needs of the community, really are creating cities that are healthier and more sustainable, really are seriously addressing the issues of congestion and really are creating healthy, vibrant cities. On these large road projects the major beneficiaries are the shareholders of the companies, particularly Transurban, who are operating them. Tolls was another major area the committee heard evidence about. It heard about the tolls that are in place for these roads, what happens when people don't pay their tolls and the fines that are being issued, particularly in Victoria and Queensland. People on low incomes living in the outer suburbs often have no other option but to drive on these toll roads—the public transport options just aren't there for them. They are having to pay very substantial tolls on a week-by-week basis just to get to work. What happens if they find themselves not able to pay those tolls? We heard evidence of people racking up tens of thousands of dollars in toll fines when they did not pay a fine for an essential journey to or from work. A very large proportion of the time of the Magistrates Court in Victoria, in particular, is now being filled by people contesting their toll fines. This is a really, really warped way of managing our society, where we have people who are very vulnerable, with low-incomes, not able to pay these massive fines—and why should they be paying these massive fines anyway?—clogging up the court system. These courts should be considering much more significant things, but this is where our current operation of toll roads has left us. We've certainly made some recommendations about how this way of managing the imposition of tolls and then managing the fines needs to be seriously reconsidered in order to not have these really deleterious impacts on some of the most vulnerable people in our society. In conclusion, this report really lays out a very good body of evidence of how the current direction that we are heading with the planning of our roads and our transport networks across our cities really needs to change. We need to have much more integrated, holistic planning to ensure that the social and environmental benefits and the benefits of tackling climate change are really taken into account in our planning, so that we end up with transport systems that really serve our communities in the best way possible. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Corporations and Financial Services Committee 7415 Report 7415 16:11 Senator O'NEILL 140651 This committee, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, has landed a unanimous report on whistleblower protections in the corporate, public and not-for-profit sector, and that is no small feat. Of all the parliamentary inquiries that I've done, I'd say this is one that has certainly done some significant heavy lifting for a vital change that's required in our community. Before I go to my more deep comments about the report, I'd like to thank the chair, Mr Steve Irons, from the other place, and the Liberal senators and members, including Senator Williams. I would particularly like to thank my Labor colleagues on the team with me: Mr Matt Keogh, Ms Terri Butler and Senator Ketter. We were also joined by Senator Xenophon on this inquiry. Everyone worked together toward a really great outcome in a context that is often maligned here. Evidence to the inquiry, as well as consideration of existing laws, indicates that whistleblower protections remain largely theoretical, with little practical effect in either the public or private sectors. This is due in large part to the near impossibility under current laws of protecting whistleblowers from reprisals, holding those responsible for reprisals to account, effectively investigating alleged reprisals, and of whistleblowers being able to seek redress for reprisals. I'd like to thank at the outset the brave Australian men and women who have already blown the whistle and the whistleblowers who came to speak to us as a committee, both publicly and privately. You've helped to detect misconduct across the public and private sectors. You've done so despite a systemic culture of cover-up, a highly toxic culture of not speaking out and an incredibly uneven power imbalance. Whistleblowing has involved great risk for you and your families, and you've often paid a very high price for simply doing the right thing, not just for your own personal sense of satisfaction of telling the truth but for community benefit as well. Sadly, whistleblowers have been forced out of their jobs, intimidated, harassed and have even faced death threats, so I sincerely thank our whistleblowers for coming forward. I think the lesson is that we must do more to protect them. Currently, whistleblower protections are simply not working. They're inadequate and are rarely used, especially in the corporate sector. Whistleblowers are not coming forward, and that is because we have failed to protect them. I want to acknowledge one whistleblower in particular, Mr Jeff Morris, who is well-known to the Australian public for matters regarding Commonwealth Bank and CommInsure. He paid a very high price for that civic action. Let me read you a small part of his submission to the committee. He said: Talk of "shooting"— And I mean guns. … made me wonder if I had put my family at risk of being collateral damage. The fact that the CBA management had apparently decided not to pass on a warning sickened me and made me realise the full extent of the evil I had confronted. Jeff and his family suffered incredibly for speaking out. He lost his job. He received death threats, which I have reported here. His wife ended up in hospital from the stress. He was diagnosed with PTSD. He lost his family. These are things that should not happen to somebody simply taking right and proper civic action. The question is always: how do we break such a culture of silence and how do we protect whistleblowers such as Jeff? This committee has put forward a number of recommendations. For Jeff and for the many others who fought the culture of cover-up and have come forward, I hope that this gives them some comfort. Sadly, they have not been able to have their losses redressed. No longer will whistleblowers pay the high price for doing the right thing. I would like to turn your attention to one of the recommendations of the report—that is, a reward system. We have heard the cultural practices of some organisations—like, sadly, our big banks—have become so oppressive and corrupt that the only way that we could get people to blow the whistle was to incentivise them in a way that attends to their personal safety, their professional reputation and the security of their family and also in a way that deals with the fiscal reality of the risk that they're taking on and the implications for their family's personal wealth, safety and security. We're at a point where whistleblowers are so at risk that we have to create a structure to provide some type of additional financial protection. We heard about the experiences of other jurisdictions with whistleblower financial rewards systems. We know that reward systems do exist in a number of other jurisdictions that are similar to Australia, including the UK, the US and Canada. A reward system to motivate whistleblowers to come forward with high-quality information on misconduct and information that would otherwise be difficult to obtain is a key recommendation. The reward system also motivates companies to improve internal whistleblower reporting systems and to deal proactively with illegal behaviour. There will be significant productivity gains, cultural gains and—on this R U OK? Day, dare I say it—mental health gains in the workplace when people are not being forced into practices that they know are unethical and being told to keep quiet about it or lose their job—that has to change. Some evidence was presented to the committee about the US Dodd-Frank bounty system, suggesting that unethical incentives had been introduced. To mitigate against those findings, with regard to the US Dodd-Frank bounty system, the reward system recommended by the committee has three key features. It will have a limit or a cap on the reward being paid to the whistleblower, it will be reflective of the information disclosed and it will be determined against a number of criteria. Mindful of the personal cost borne by many of this who have blown the whistle, we have recommended a wage replacement commensurate to the whistleblower's current salary if there is a reprisal action or the whistleblower is suffering abuse. That will protect them and their family. Whistleblowers shouldn't have to weigh up sending their children to school and paying their mortgage against actually taking ethical and civic action. I thank the Labor members and also Greens members. I thank Senator Whish-Wilson also for his contribution to landing this report. The report is unanimous, but Labor members of the committee wanted to combine all of the whistleblower protections into one single act. We didn't quite get there; we got pretty close. We consider that significant inconsistencies exist not only between the various pieces of Commonwealth, public and private sector whistleblower legislation but also across the various pieces of legislation that apply to different parts of the private sector. The committee has recommended that the public sector whistleblower protection legislation remain in a separate act and that all private sector whistleblower protection legislation be brought together within a single act. The vast majority of evidence presented to this committee strongly supported greater consistency and harmonisation across public and private sector whistleblower protection legislation. There is much, in our view, to be gained from a single act. We would urge the government to move continuously in that direction. It would provide simplicity and consistency, reduce compliance burden and make it easier and more efficient for the body of legislation to be maintained into the future. One of the committee's other significant recommendations is the establishment of a whistleblower protection authority. Such an authority would—once legislated and enabled by the government—support whistleblowers, assess and prioritise the treatment of whistleblowing allegations, conduct investigations into reprisals and oversight the implement of a whistleblower regime for both the public and private sectors. We consider this to be an essential ingredient of an effective whistleblower protection system. By its very name, the whistleblower authority would be a very important contribution to the public sphere. People who have no other contact with government agencies and don't know where to go would know that, if they were wanting to blow the whistle, they could go to the whistleblower protection authority to get guidance about which entity might be the appropriate one to which they could make their disclosure. As we heard time and time again during the committee proceedings, whistleblowers and their families are suffering very serious reprisals for doing the right thing and speaking up. Embedded toxic cultural practices are preventing people from advancing information in the public interest. The recommendations in the committee's reports are, in our view, a necessary step to making it safe for Australian people to go into workplaces, act ethically, be good citizens and, if they see something illegal or wrong happening, have adequate protection to blow the whistle and continue to live their lives without the sort of disadvantage that has been the signature of whistleblowers in Australia up to this date. Finally, thank you to the committee in toto and thank you to the secretariat for bringing this together. It was quite an arduous process. I feel very pleased that we are tabling this committee report today in the Senate. 16:21 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia I endorse essentially everything that Senator O'Neill has said. At least we can agree on something today, and that is the protection of whistleblowers. This has been a terrific committee in that it has been not just bipartisan; crossbench colleagues, the Greens and I, Labor and the government have gotten together to produce a very good report. There's one small point of difference, and that's whether we have parallel bills or one bill to protect whistleblowers, but that is a question of form rather than substance. I see Labor's point and I don't take issue with it. I just want to focus on this issue, because I think Senator O'Neill has well traversed the reason why we need whistleblower protection and these reforms. This committee was convened to report on this issue as a result of agreements I reached with the government last year. Senator Dastyari isn't here, so he can't call it a dirty deal. But I hope he doesn't call it a dirty deal, given the very good work that's been done in a non-partisan way to strengthen the protection of whistleblowers. The agreement reached with the government last year made it very clear that this was the first step in bringing about significant, sweeping whistleblower reforms of the type we have never seen before in this country. The undertaking from the government was that there would be this report, with a reporting date of 13 June 2017. The report has been delayed, and that will delay other timetable aspects. But an expert panel will be set up to examine this report and make recommendations as to the type of legislative changes we need for the protection of whistleblowers in the corporate and the public sectors, because we don't have that in any comprehensive way. We have public interest disclosure. It's not comprehensive. It's not adequate. It doesn't give the compensation. It doesn't give the protection. It doesn't give the necessary rewards to those people who put everything on the line to tell the truth and uncover wrongdoing and malfeasance. There will be an expert panel. I'm very pleased to say that the Assistant Treasurer contacted me this morning to indicate that the expert panel will be established and that the government is keeping their word to me on this. That is a very good thing. Legislation will be introduced. It may not by December 2017, but I would imagine the timetable may see it introduced by February 2018. The bills will be debated and put to a vote by June 2018, and the government has committed itself to these sweeping reforms. They've done so with the registered organisations legislation, so we have a template for reform. These reforms will actually go further. These reforms will finesse the registered organisations reforms and fine-tune them, but I think that what we did in the registered organisations legislation was a good start. Finally, we have here a historic opportunity to bring about protection and reforms, the likes of which this country has never seen before. It will mean better protection for whistleblowers. It will mean better corporate governance, better public sector governance, less waste in government, less abuse by corporate officers and less abuse of corporate responsibility. This will unambiguously be a very good thing for this nation. I look forward to this report being the template for further reform. 16:24 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Very briefly, I would also like to congratulate the committee for all their fantastic work. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to participate in a lot of the hearings, but they did a really good job. This is an extremely important matter. It takes a lot of courage to blow the whistle, no matter where you are. It takes even more courage, and something entirely different, to rage against the machine, because that's inevitably what you are going to have to do. By machine, I mean significant resources, very deep pockets. One thing I was particularly pleased about with this report was that the committee considered and recommended a financial reward scheme, a bounty-style scheme. My experience is that, once you blow the whistle, effectively, you should almost be pensioned off. It's going to be that difficult to stay in an organisation or even get employment again. It is a very significant matter for a lot of people. The financial rewards and compensation, essentially, are to provide you with an annuity until you're old—because that's what you're going to need. If you look at the statistics about what happens to whistleblowers, that is exactly what you will need. You will virtually have to be pensioned off, not to mention all the medical bills, the duress, the stress, the mental health issues and other issues that you are going to face. We need to provide every possible incentive we can to protect whistleblowers within a framework that balances the risk for the organisations that those whistleblowers are blowing the whistle on. We need to do everything we can to provide a framework and good legislation. My final comments would be that we do some great work in this chamber, we really do, along with our staff, who are all here today—the committee staff, the ministerial staff. We do some fantastic work but, so often, the work we do doesn't get put into legislation. So we have a great report before us and, no doubt, all of us are going to have to continue to work and hustle so that we can actually get this legislation through. I look forward to seeing the government's response. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 7419 DOCUMENTS Tabling 7419 16:27 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I table the Legislated Review of Aged Care 2017. Community Affairs References Committee: Government Response to Report, Drug and Alcohol Services 7419 Order for the Production of Documents 7419 16:27 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning alcohol and drug rehabilitation services and the government's response to the report of the Community Affairs References Committee concerning the prostheses list framework, and I seek leave to have the response incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The response read as follows— Australian Government response to the Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee report: Pricing regulation associated with the Prostheses List framework September 2017 Community Affairs References Committee Pricing regulation associated with the Prostheses List framework Introduction The Australian Government recognises the important role that medical devices play in the overall health of Australian patients and the need to maintain a stable, sustainable and innovative medical device sector. In 2016-17, 2.7 million medical devices on the Prostheses List were supplied at a cost of $2.1 billion. The Australian Government further recognises that reform of the prostheses listing arrangements and price regulation is necessary to put downward pressure on private health insurance premiums for consumers. In early 2016 the Government initiated an Industry Working Group (IWG) on Private Health Insurance Prostheses Reform, chaired by Emeritus Professor Lloyd Sansom AO, seeking views from stakeholders about the factors that were influencing costs of medical devices and impacting on private health insurance benefits paid for prostheses. The Government reconstituted the Prostheses List Advisory Committee (PLAC) in October 2016 to address the issues raised in the work of the IWG, to develop detailed reform options for the Government to consider, in collaboration with stakeholders. The Committee's Inquiry has been invaluable in drawing information and views from stakeholders, and highlighting the challenges faced by the PLAC and Government in developing and implementing reforms to prostheses price regulation. There is a high level of consistency between the Committee's findings and the PLAC's reform work plan. In addition to reforms through the PLAC, the Australia Government has initiated new pricing reforms to reduce the cost of thousands of medical devices to take pressure off private health insurance premiums for Australians. In a first tranche of cost reductions passed onto 13.5 million Australians with private health insurance, the government reduced the cost of medical devices as set by the Prostheses List by 10 per cent for cardiac devices and intraocular lenses and 7.5 per cent for hip and knee replacements from 1 February 2017. This reduced costs for private health insurance members by an estimated $86 million in the first year, and a further estimated $500 million over the next six years. The Government has asked the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority to provide data in relation to average public sector prostheses costs, average public sector private insurance payments for prostheses and average private sector prostheses costs. The data shows differences in the prices of prostheses related procedures between private and public sectors. Government is consulting with the medical device sector on a second tranche of cost savings to be delivered from 2018 to further improve the cost of private health insurance and deliver pricing stability for the sector. The Australian Government welcomes the report, has carefully considered the recommendations and provides the following responses. Recommendation 1 The committee recommends that the Prostheses List Advisory Committee, in consultation with stakeholders, develop and publish a formal work plan with defined agreed targets, activities, timeframes, indicators and outcomes to assist stakeholders to better understand and participate in the reform process; and Recommendation 5 The committee recommends that the Prostheses List Advisory Committee continue to consult with stakeholders regarding reform of the Prostheses List to ensure transparency of the reform process. Response: The Australian Government agrees that the reform work undertaken by the Prostheses List Advisory Committee (PLAC) should be transparent to all stakeholders. The PLAC is taking a collaborative approach to prostheses reform, and has published a workplan on its website. The PLAC has committed to keeping stakeholders informed, engaged and consulted throughout the reform process through a range of mechanisms, including releasing communiques after each meeting. The PLAC will develop a communication strategy with input invited from all stakeholders to guide future engagement. The Department is regularly updating the PLAC website to provide more information about PLAC activities and timeframes as these are developed and agreed, and has established a consultation "hub", which enables stakeholders to participate in reforms by accessing consultation papers and providing views. Recommendation 2 The committee recommends that the department immediately implement better and more robust coordination between the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the Prostheses List Advisory Committee, including implementing appropriate coordination of health technology assessment processes to ensure that applications to list on the Prostheses List as a minimum have a concurrent application for listing on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. Parallel processing of applications to register new medical devices on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods (ARTG) and list on the Prostheses List is an important part of the existing health technology assessment processes, and assists with earlier patient access to important new technologies. The form to apply to list a new device on the Prostheses List for reimbursement includes a checkbox for applicants to confirm that an application has been made to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) for registration. The Government supports better and more efficient coordination of health technology assessment between the PLAC and the TGA. The PLAC's reform workplan includes "Minimising duplication and improving the listing process", and the PLAC has commenced identifying opportunities for aligning and streamlining processes with those of the TGA. The TGA assesses safety and performance for the device's intended purpose, and the PLAC assesses comparative clinical effectiveness and cost relative to comparators. However, there are features that are common to both assessment processes. Mapping of processes to find opportunities for alignment and to reduce duplication is underway, and the PLAC membership includes an advisor from the TGA. The PLAC Chair hosted a Health Technology Assessment Roundtable on 9 June 2017. Expert members of the PLAC, Chairs of the Clinical Advisory Groups (CAGs), members of the Panel of Clinical Experts (the Panel), members of the TGA's Advisory Committee on Medical Devices (ACMD) and the Chair of the Medical Services Advisory Committee (MSAC) participated in discussion about the health technology assessment processes of each committee and how the combined clinical expertise and health economics expertise could be used to achieve better outcomes. The outcomes of the Roundtable were published on the PLAC's website and are being translated into action plans for developing processes and protocols for sharing resources in application assessment and post market surveillance. The Medical Technology Association of Australia has also agreed to assist in developing Questions and Answers that will help medical device sponsors to better understand the parallel processing pathway. In addition the Government is consulting with the MTAA and other stakeholders on enhanced reforms that could be introduced to minimise the time taken for approvals to ensure that patients being treated in the private sector are able to access safe, effective and cost effective medical devices available in the public sector. Recommendation 3 The committee recommends that clinical input through Clinical Advisory Groups remain an integral part of the Prostheses List Advisory Committee and the Prostheses List decision making process to ensure that safety and effectiveness of medical devices remains a primary consideration in decisions about inclusion on the Prostheses List. Response: The Government agrees to this recommendation. Clinician input is and will remain an integral part of Prostheses List decision making. The PLAC has recently updated the Terms of Reference and Operational Guidelines for the Clinical Advisory Groups and Panel of Clinical Experts to reflect their roles in providing expert clinical advice. The revenue received from Prostheses List cost recovery is primarily used for supporting clinician input into the application and listing processes. Recommendation 4 The committee recommends that the Government assess the resources needed to develop and implement reforms within an agreed timeframe and provide any further resources to the Prostheses List Advisory Committee and the Department of Health. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. The Department and the PLAC are currently reviewing the cost recovery arrangements that fund the operations of the Prostheses List, and will consider the resources required to support the implementation of agreed reforms as they are developed. Recommendation 6 The committee recommends that where the Commonwealth decides that a prostheses registry is needed, the Parliament should ensure that the registry is legislated for and collection of data is made compulsory. Response: The Australian Government notes this recommendation. There are already a number of Commonwealth government and industry funded devices registries (including the National Joint Replacement Registry). The Commonwealth is working with state and territory health department representatives to develop a national policy and funding framework for clinical quality registries, which will include consideration of other prostheses registries and mandatory collection of data. Recommendation 7 The committee recommends that the Government legislate for the compulsory provision of private hospital and day surgery data to the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. The National Health Reform Act 2011 specifies that the provision of costing information in relation to the calculation of an efficient price (by the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority (IHPA) is only applied to public hospital services in Australia. Cost information from the private sector is provided to the IHPA on a voluntary basis. The IHPA currently reports on this information through the National Hospital Cost Data Collection, Private Sector Cost Report for each year. The Government will continue to encourage the provision of data by all relevant stakeholders to inform improved policy and planning processes. Recommendation 8 The committee recommends that action is needed to reduce the prostheses costs and that savings should be delivered as soon as possible and have an evidence base. Response: The Government agrees in principle, and recognises the need to work with medical device sponsors, health providers, private hospitals, day hospitals and private health insurers to identify ways to reduce prostheses costs without reducing patient outcomes, or reducing the value of private health insurance to Australian consumers. Data provided by the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority (IHPA) on prostheses pricing in public and private hospitals has identified price differences, which are now the subject of consultation with stakeholders and consideration of a further tranche of price reforms in 2018. Along with data and information from stakeholders, and the PLAC's advice on the outcomes of targeted reviews, this will assist the Government to identify potential changes to prostheses benefits. Recommendation 9 The committee recommends that guidelines for targeted prostheses reviews be finalised at the earliest opportunity and published with a schedule of proposed targeted reviews to enable stakeholders sufficient time to prepare for the reviews. Response: The Government agrees in principle to this recommendation. The PLAC has commenced targeted reviews of prostheses listings in the hip, knee, cardiac and spinal categories to inform options to improve arrangements and identify potential reductions in private health insurance expenditure. These reviews are being conducted in collaboration with stakeholders, including medical device sponsors, private hospitals, day hospitals and private health insurers, as well as consumers. The PLAC has published its draft Approach for Targeted Prostheses Reviews on the department's website and invited feedback from stakeholders. The department received eleven responses, and this feedback is assisting in scoping and planning targeted reviews. The PLAC has committed to publishing the plan for each review so that stakeholders can prepare and provide input. This includes setting out a consultation strategy to seek the views of stakeholders on options, impacts and implementation considerations. Recommendation 10 The committee recommends that the Department of Health undertake further analysis and consultation, including with consumers, to determine the most appropriate benefit setting model or models, and that this analysis include investigation of the introduction of outcomes based categorisation of items on the Prostheses List, and the option of the government purchasing devices directly. Response: The Government notes this recommendation, and recognises the need for further work on a future benefit-setting framework. The Department of Health commissioned preliminary research from the Centre for Health Policy at University of Melbourne on possible pricing models for medical devices and how they could be applied to the prostheses listing arrangements. Input from stakeholders was taken into consideration to ensure a broad understanding of potential impacts. The final report on this research is available on the Department of Health website. Further work to develop an evidence-based benefit-setting framework for prostheses will occur in consultation with stakeholders. Recommendation 11 The committee recommends that the Prostheses List Advisory Committee be required to review the group prices for prostheses when applications for new comparable devices are received which request listing at a lower price than the existing benefit level for that group of devices. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. It is intended that the PLAC will develop an approach to reviewing the benefits for prostheses as part of building the evidence-based benefit-setting framework for prostheses. As part of this work, the PLAC will consider appropriate triggers to initiate reviews and provide advice on options to the Government. In the interim, the category-based targeted reviews will consider the current benefits for prostheses with reference to available data on pricing. Recommendation 12 The committee recommends that the Minister for Health release new Independent Hospital Pricing Authority data on the differences between prostheses prices in private and public hospitals and investigate whether this could be used to adjust Prostheses List Advisory Committee prostheses prices as soon as possible. Response: The Government agrees to this recommendation. The Minister for Health has consulted with stakeholders on prostheses cost data as supplied to the Independent Hospital Pricing Authority (IHPA) with a view to using this information to assist with developing reforms to prostheses listing arrangements. The IHPA data shows that prostheses costs in the public sector are, on average, lower than in the private sector for comparable patient types, classified by Diagnosis Related Group. However these data do not fully take into account differences in the type and use of prostheses in the private and public sectors. The Government will seek further advice from the Medical Technologies Association of Australia and other parties on additional data sources. Recommendation 13 The committee recommends that the Prostheses List Advisory Committee further investigate rationalisation of the Prostheses List to reduce its size as an important element in reviewing and reforming the benefit setting process. Response: The Government agrees to this recommendation. The PLAC has commenced reviewing the criteria for listing devices on the Prostheses List. In addition, the PLAC is reviewing devices that are currently listed on the Prostheses List to consider any opportunities for lower cost and/or high volume devices to be reimbursed more efficiently through other mechanisms. The targeted reviews of prostheses will also consider the current grouping schemes for prostheses and seek opportunities for reducing their complexity. This work will contribute to streamlining the Prostheses List. The work to review the listing criteria and streamline the grouping schemes will be undertaken in consultation with stakeholders, to provide advice to Government on options. Recommendation 14 The committee recommends that the department investigate the impact of the 25 per cent market share requirement and its role in distorting the market. Response: The 25 per cent market share guide is not a requirement for setting benefits on the Prostheses List. It was an historical guide to establish single benefits for groups of devices on the Prostheses List in the absence of pricing data being available. The PLAC will develop options for an evidence-based benefit-setting framework for the future, in consultation with stakeholders, to inform advice to the Government. Recommendation 15 The committee recommends that the Prostheses List Advisory Committee investigate a mechanism for the reimbursement of medical devices not currently eligible for inclusion on the Prostheses List, including non-implantable devices and implantable devices not requiring hospital admission. Response: The Government notes this recommendation, and the need to balance the objectives of keeping private health insurance affordable, and ensuring that insurance policies provide cover for appropriate health care to meet the needs of policy holders. The PLAC has commenced reviewing the criteria for listing devices on the Prostheses List, which will include discussion of devices that do not meet the current listing criteria, such as cardiac pressure wires, drug eluting balloon catheters and cardiac ablation catheters. In this review process, the PLAC will also have regard to other reimbursement options, such as theatre banding and case-based payments. The PLAC will consult with stakeholders in developing options for Government on possible revisions to the listing criteria. Recommendation 16 The committee recommends that the nature and cost of services associated with a medical device on the Prostheses List be disclosed separately to the cost of the device. Response: The Government agrees to this recommendation. The PLAC is working to develop an evidence-based benefit-setting framework for prostheses for the future. In this context, the PLAC will consider the costs of medically relevant services and other cost factors in supplying prostheses to patients, and how these costs are identified and reported. COMMITTEES 7425 COMMITTEES Community Affairs References Committee, Environment and Communications References Committee 7425 Membership 7425 16:27 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 250216 Order! The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees. 16:27 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Community Affairs References Committee— Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Reynolds to replace Senator Duniam for the committee’s inquiry into the future of rugby union in Australia Participating member: Senator Duniam Environment and Communications References Committee— Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Whish-Wilson to replace Senator Rice for the committee’s inquiry into the Aboriginal rock art of the Burrup Peninsula Participating member: Senator Rice Question agreed to. BILLS 7425 BILLS Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017 7425

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017

Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017

In Committee 7425 16:28 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 195565 The committee is considering the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 and the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017. The question is that amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8261, moved by Senator Xenophon in respect of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, be agreed to. Question agreed to. 16:29 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I would firstly like to clarify that the Greens' amendments on sheet 8171 are being withdrawn. We have circulated amendments on sheets 8266 and 8265. I just wanted to make sure that people are aware of that. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Yes. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U I would like to go to our first amendment, which is on sheet 8266. This amendment is about the most controversial aspect of this legislation—the two-out-of-three rule. We've heard much debate already today about this issue and whether it will indeed lead to a further concentration of media. On the other hand, there is the argument that this is perhaps needed in order to save those institutions that already exist from having to shed further staff and to give them more of an ability to underpin their business models. I am particularly concerned about the scrapping of the two-out-of-three rule—and we know that, with the Nick Xenophon Team and One Nation, the government has support to remove this from the current statute books. The concern that I have is in relation to the newly acquired Channel 10. We know that there is currently a successful bid from CBS to buy Channel 10, but there is also a question mark over whether CBS will be allowed to follow through with that acquisition, because it is a foreign-owned company. We know from the tabling of documents in the New South Wales court over the last couple of days that this bid would do a lot more for securing jobs for journalists and local production staff at Channel 10 than the Murdoch-Gordon bid would ever have been able to achieve. I am concerned that, without some kind of commitment from the government that they will back the CBS acquisition, we are leaving Channel 10 staff in a state of limbo, unaware of what the future holds for them. I want to make sure that scrapping the two-out-of-three rule isn't going to be used as a fast-tracking for the government to override the purchase of Channel 10 by CBS through the Foreign Investment Review Board. This Greens amendment would effectively say that the two-out-of-three rule cannot be scrapped until the government confirms that CBS can take over Channel 10, through the approval of the Treasurer and the Foreign Investment Review Board—that the removal of the two-out-of-three wouldn't be able to happen until confirmation of acquisition occurred. That is the effect of this amendment. However, I do have some questions for the minister on this. Minister, I'd like to know what the government's intention is in relation to CBS's acquisition of Channel 10. Will you confirm that you will allow it to go ahead? 16:34 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria FIRB matters are ones for the Treasurer. Can I indicate while I'm on my feet that the government will be opposing this amendment. The amendment would be ineffective as there is no approval action undertaken by the Treasurer under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act. To require the Treasurer to publish details of a decision taken under the act would result in him breaching the act's confidentiality provisions. As this is the purchase of a media business, it is a significant and notifiable action under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Regulation. When a foreign person undertakes a significant and notifiable action, the Treasurer has the ability to prohibit the action or to issue a no-objection notification imposing conditions on the acquisition or the Treasurer may decide the Commonwealth has no objection to the acquisition, in which case a no-objection notification is given. There is no approval under the act for a significant and notifiable action. 16:35 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Could the minister please clarify whether there will be a no-objection notification given? 16:35 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria That is a matter solely for the Treasurer. 16:35 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I'm asking the minister as a member of the government: does the minister understand that the government will not be moving for a notification that would effectively stop CBS from purchasing Channel 10? It's a pretty simple question. Does the government intend on stopping this or not? 16:35 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria This is not a government decision. This is a statutory decision for the Treasurer. 16:36 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Labor understand the sentiment behind these Greens amendments, but we do not support it or the precedent it may set. We do agree it's a matter for the Treasurer. The situation with the Ten Network is complex and is currently before the Foreign Investment Review Board and the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Labor have been on the record as clearly supporting the CBS acquisition of Ten, subject to approval. We think it's a positive thing. In her comments, the shadow minister, Michelle Rowland, the member for Greenway, pointed out, I think very poignantly, that the transaction is a positive result for the staff of Ten and a vote of confidence in the network, which is indeed regarded as a prime broadcaster asset by many Australians and certainly by Leslie Moonves, the chairman and CEO of the CBS Corporation. We think that acquisition in this form is good news for the provision of news and current affairs. We think it actually demonstrates that diversification of news is possible and can be maintained in the current environment, contrary to the alarmist commentary of the government which has underpinned much of the contentious debate in the Senate. 16:37 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I'm wondering whether the minister would be able to pick up the phone and call the Treasurer and ask whether he intends on issuing an objection notice or not? I don't understand what the problem is. You're asking us today to amend legislation to scrap the two-out-of-three rule. It is in direct relation to the purchase of Channel 10. Whether you want to admit that or not, everybody knows it. Pick up the phone and call the Treasurer and get us a response. 16:38 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria The answer to Senator Hanson-Young's request is no. It is a matter for the Treasurer to independently consider the facts. 16:38 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia by leave—In respect of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, I move Australian Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8266 together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit "Schedules 1 and 2", insert "Schedule 1". (2) Clause 2, page 2 (after table item 2), insert: (3) Schedule 2, page 6 (line 14), at the end of the Schedule, add: Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 15A After section 77 Insert: 77A Approval of acquisition of Ten Network Holdings Limited An approval by the Treasurer of the acquisition of Ten Network Holdings Limited is a notifiable instrument. Note: A notified instrument must be registered on the Federal Register of Legislation. These amendments will effectively ensure that the two-out-of-three rule cannot be scrapped until the government have confirmed that they will not interfere with CBS purchasing Channel 10. Question negatived. 16:39 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales In respect of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 8174: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2, column headed "Provisions"), omit "Schedules 1 and 2", substitute "Schedule 1". We also oppose schedule 2 in the following terms: (2) Schedule 2, page 5 (line 1) to page 6 (line 14), to be opposed. I would like to speak on Labor's amendments to the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017. I have made some remarks earlier, but in the context of our amendments I want to put on the record that we believe the Turnbull government's response here is deeply flawed and wholly inadequate as an attempt at media reform. Labor's clear and consistent position has been that Labor supports this bill as long as schedule 2, which is the repeal of the two-out-of-three cross media rule, is omitted. If that had happened, we would have passed this legislation, this reform, months and months ago. But the government has been bloody-minded about this and pushed through with the deals that we saw under construction last night. Labor absolutely acknowledges the commercial pressures the broadcasting sector is under and we understand that the regulatory framework for media and communications is outdated and in need of reform. That is why we supported most of the package, except for the two-out-of-three rule. But all the Liberal-National government has managed to come up in the name of media reform, after four years in office, are some piecemeal deregulatory measures, one of which is the highly controversial and dangerous repeal of the two-out-of-three rule. The bill barely begins to address the true media reform agenda and does precious little to secure public interest considerations in the contemporary media environment. Labor is committed to supporting the Australian media industry, as well as the jobs and content it produces, as the sector continues to adapt to the new media environment. Labor acknowledges the competitive pressures the broadcasting industry is under, which is why Labor supports the measures the industry needs most—license fee relief, the repeal of the 75 per cent reach rule, and a relaxation of the antisiphoning scheme and list. Lots of it we've agreed with, except for the two-out-of-three rule. At the same time, Labor is committed to safeguarding the public interest in our democracy, and doesn't regard the internet or the existence of Google or Facebook as a justification for the junking of fundamental public interest safeguards. Labor also acknowledges the facts around media ownership diversity in this country. To get it on the record at this stage of the debate, a couple of those facts are very important to us. Australia's level of media ownership concentration is already one of the highest in the world. This is an undeniable fact, regardless of what might have been said in the course of this debate. The traditional media—newspapers, commercial television and commercial radio—continue to be the main source of news and current affairs for Australians, particularly in regional areas. The majority of the top 10 news websites accessed by Australians are either directly or jointly owned by traditional media platforms. It's just the same voices on different platforms. The digital divide means that access to new media still remains out of reach for many Australians, given substandard levels of broadband connectivity. It is particularly the case for many Australians in rural and regional areas. We've had many debates about the accessibility of Australians right across this nation to what has been described as the multimedia platforms that can be delivered by the internet. The problem is a lot of people out there in the country can't afford to buy into the dodgy internet that's being provided for them by this government. Our other serious concern is about issues of diversity of ownership and control. They matter to the Australian public. We get a better democracy if we have a range of voices reflecting on what's going on in this country. Fewer voices is not a sign of a strong and healthy democracy. We have such a concentrated media market as it is. An Essential poll last year showed that the majority of Australian voters, 61 per cent, across every single demographic disapproved of changing the media ownership laws to allow a single company to control a newspaper, TV network and radio network in the same area. It would have been good if the government listened to the people instead of listening to the conversations that they've had in the darkness here in the parliament—out of the light and the scrutiny of the Senate. Unlike the coalition government, Labor understands that it's the proper role of government to promote media diversity in the public interest. Labor understands that the government does not have the balance between promotion of public interest and support for the industry right in this bill. For these reasons, Labor supports all of the measures in the bill except for the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule, which is ill-conceived, not justified on the evidence, and which risks undermining Australia's democracy. As I said, the Turnbull government has been trying to get the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule through parliament for up to 18 months now, and they haven't been able to do so on merit. I made comments earlier in the day about the nature of the deals that have gone on here. Senator Dastyari, in the break just before question time, spelt them out in great and dirty detail. The dealings with the Nick Xenophon Team for public interest journalism have been conducted behind closed doors. Australia already has one of the most concentrated media markets in the world, but we've got a government hell-bent on making it worse by repealing the two-out-of-three media control rule. The recent move by CBS to acquire Network Ten is very important in the context of this bill and the deals that have been agreed. The two-out-of-three rule is indeed a key safeguard that continues to do the heavy lifting in maintaining media diversity in Australia. The Turnbull government's argument, that the rule is out of date, is simply out of touch with the practical reality that's emerging with the CBS purchase of Channel 10. What's more, the Turnbull government continues to peddle the furphy that existing competition law is actually adequate for the task performed by the very important two-out-of-three rule—that is despite their claims being debunked in previous reviews. The recent ACCC decision on the proposed Birketu-Illyria joint bid to acquire Network Ten confirms that our competition laws have no safeguard for diversity in this very important part of our democratic tradition. ACCC chair Rod Sims was at pains to clarify that, while the transaction would not substantially lessen competition—which is the test that the ACCC is required to use to assess acquisitions against—it would reduce diversity across the Australian media landscape. If this legislation passes this afternoon to repeal the two-out-of-three rule, the ACCC has shown that what will replace it is inadequate. Unlike its counterpart across the ditch, the ACCC is not required to apply a public benefit test. It's not the job of the ACCC in Australia, an economic regulator, to consider pluralism or to consider democracy in assessing mergers. The New Zealand Commerce Commission recently did use that test in deciding against the proposed NZME-Fairfax merger. That's something that is not available to us as a safeguard against the removal of the two-out-of-three rule. The reason the Turnbull government has so studiously avoided the convergence review recommendation to introduce a public interest test for media mergers is that they want to allow media mergers that aren't in the public interest. Instead, according to reports, they meddle in the fourth estate, behind closed doors, with the assistance of both the NXT political party and Pauline Hanson's One Nation party. The broadcasting reform bill, and the many backdoor deals associated with it, represents a direct assault on media diversity in Australia. Aside from handing unprecedented media power to a privileged few commercial operators, this cynical bundle of trade-offs is also set to undermine our national broadcaster. Australians are outraged by the grant of $30 million to Fox Sports and the lack of documentation and accountability in relation to the deal. Under Labor questioning at estimates earlier this year, it was apparent that the government had no clear idea about what outcomes it sought to achieve with this proposal. Further, an FOI application by the ABC established there was no documentation around this empty bribe from the government to industry. You have to wonder what sort of a deal was done and where that might have been undertaken between Foxtel and the government. A freedom of information request filed by ABC Radio Melbourne's Mornings program, seeking correspondence between Foxtel and the Department of Communications and the Arts, was declined on the basis that no such documentation exists. In declining access, the legal director for the department stated the access was refused because: 'I am satisfied that documents falling within the scope of your request do not exist.' So, while the Turnbull government falls over itself to support commercial subscription broadcasters, it looks to inflict cuts on the national broadcaster, rather than craft its media reforms properly and deal with the one sticky bit of the legislation that we needed to sort out, the two-out-of-three rule. I continue to remind those who might be listening to this or reviewing the Hansard, and those who are in the chamber, there was agreement on everything that we are discussing in this bill except for one part. That part was that no media outlet where you live should control the TV, the radio and the papers, because you deserve a wider range of views than that. That's simply it. That's a rule that's been in for decades, and it has provided that safety net to us as citizens of this country. Rather than deal with that and acknowledge that, the government have been captive to interests that have led them down a path into doing a deal with Pauline Hanson's One Nation party. Australians right across this country are rightly concerned about this attack on the ABC and the SBS. They are right to be concerned that it has been driven by Pauline Hanson's One Nation party, whose deal, when it was delivered in writing here, ironically by Senator Bernardi yesterday evening, was something that they didn't even come in to support here in the chamber. As Senator Bernardi said, there were bits that we could see and there were bits that we couldn't see about the deal that was done. Last week, Labor was presented with a petition from the Australia Institute and the ABC Friends signed by over 15,000 Australians that asked the coalition and the Senate crossbench to please reject all moves to trade away the ABC and SBS funding, not to tamper with their charters and independence or hobble their ability to engage in the new media environment. Recently, the Turnbull government welcomed what it called constructive engagement with One Nation, only too happy to support a package of measures that are directed at doing the exact opposite of what those people who enjoy the ABC and the SBS have asked for. The deal between the Turnbull government and Pauline Hanson's One Nation party includes something really insidious that probably won't get much media but is going to have a big impact—that is, the competitive neutrality inquiry. This sort of inquiry absolutely threatens to dramatically curb the activities of the ABC and SBS, as well as to re-write the ABC Act and charter to give One Nation some new hooks with which to meddle with ABC independence. These include a requirement that the ABC be fair and balanced, which Senator Burston confirmed was designed to give an equal platform to anti-vaxxers. The question you have to ask is: if we've got an equal platform for anti-vaxxers, what's next? White supremacists? Holocaust deniers? Climate change sceptics? There are some things that we should just not give a platform to. Furthermore, Senator Hanson herself stated recently in no uncertain terms that she would be talking to the Treasurer to 'whack off' quite a bit of money from the ABC's budget next year. Labor condemns the Turnbull government for using the ABC and SBS as a political football, a trading tool and a bargaining chip in its backdoor deal with the One Nation party. The deal with Senator Xenophon was exercised in some detail earlier in our questions when his amendments came up. By supporting the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule, Senator Xenophon's NXT party for South Australia— (Time expired) 16:54 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia The Greens will be supporting this amendment of the opposition. We are extremely concerned that, given the lack of alternative options put forward by the government to ensure media diversity, to ensure that journalist jobs will continue to grow, to protect the jobs that are there, to ensure that there is proper investment and opportunity for public interest journalism—in the absence of anything of substance coming from the government in relation to that—we simply cannot support scrapping the two-out-of-three rule, because we believe that it will result in a concentration of the media, at a time when we need more diversity and we need more scrutiny on our governments, whether they be state, federal or local, more scrutiny on politicians. We need to be able to protect the role of public interest journalism here in Australia. We know that there are, of course, issues in relation to the changing nature of the media landscape. We know the pressures that are on media organisations to sustain themselves, but the government has come up with nothing to really deal with those issues aside from scrapping the two-out-of-three rule, which really helps the big guys but doesn't really help the little guys at all. We've already been through some of the details today of what we know of the deal that has been done between Senator Xenophon, One Nation and the government in relation to the $60 million that has been secured to pass this bill. But we have heard that this won't go to jobs for journalists, won't go towards ensuring that independent smaller players across the board will be able to employ journalists so that they can do good public interest journalism. No. We have heard that it's going to go to some computers, iPads and phones, or maybe some junkets. There is no commitment to actually paying journalists to be journalists, no support for media organisations to ensure that they can be sustainable. It doesn't deal with the realities of the changing media landscape and the fact that business models of media organisations are under huge pressure and are going to have to change. It is a pipedream at best and a false hope at worst for media organisations across this country who are looking at what's going on in this place today. There's been a nice big deal handed on a platter to some of the largest media companies in the country, with the scrapping of the two-out-of-three rule, but there is nothing for small and medium players, which will mean less diversity. So, in the absence of proper investment in public interest journalism, in the absence of actual jobs for journalists, the Greens simply cannot support scrapping the two-out-of-three rule, and we support the opposition's amendments. 16:58 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I just indicate that the government won't be supporting this amendment. The abolition of the two-out-of-three rule is an integral part of what is a comprehensive package. It's something that will provide the opportunity for Australian media organisations to reconfigure themselves in ways to best support their viability, and, as I've indicated in my earlier contributions, there remain important diversity protections. The CHAIR: I will just advise senators that there are two questions, so they'll be put separately. The first one is that the amendment, as moved by Senator O'Neill, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [17:03]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)

28 AYES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallagher, KR Hanson-Young, SC Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lambie, J Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Urquhart, AE (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 32 NOES Birmingham, SJ Brandis, GH Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Cash, MC Cormann, M Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S Leyonhjelm, DE McGrath, J McKenzie, B Nash, F O'Sullivan, B Parry, S Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, D (teller) Williams, JR Xenophon, N 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

17:07 The CHAIR 112096 The question is that schedule 2 stand as printed.

The committee divided. [17:07]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)

32 AYES Birmingham, SJ Brandis, GH Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Cash, MC Cormann, M Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S Leyonhjelm, DE McGrath, J McKenzie, B Nash, F O'Sullivan, B Parry, S Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, D (teller) Williams, JR Xenophon, N 28 NOES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallagher, KR Hanson-Young, SC Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lambie, J Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Urquhart, AE (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

17:09 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia by leave—In respect of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, I move Australian Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8265, as revised, together: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 16), omit "Schedule 7", substitute "Schedules 7 and 8". (2) Page 54 (after line 6), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 8—Tabling of public broadcasting reviews Australian Broadcasting Corporation Act 1983 1 After section 78 Insert: 78A Terms of reference of proposed reviews of the Corporation to be tabled and subject to disallowance (1) If the Minister prepares terms of reference (however described) for a proposed review of the Corporation (the proposed review), the Minister must arrange for a copy of the terms of reference to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament at least 15 sitting days before the commencement of the proposed review. (2) Sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Legislation Act 2003 apply in relation to the terms of reference as if those terms were a legislative instrument. (3) The proposed review must not be conducted if: (a) the terms of reference for the proposed review have not been tabled in accordance with this section; or (b) the terms of reference for the proposed review have been tabled but have been disallowed. 78B Reports of reviews of the Corporation to be tabled (1) If the Minister conducts a review of the Corporation, the Minister must arrange for a copy of the review to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament within 15 sitting days of the completion of the review. (2) If the Minister, or another person or body, causes a review of the Corporation to be conducted: (a) the Minister, person or body must arrange for a copy of the review to be provided to the Minister; and (b) the Minister must arrange for a copy of the review to be tabled in both House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving the copy of the review. Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 2 After section 73 Insert: 73A Terms of reference of proposed review of SBS to be tabled and subject to disallowance (1) If the Minister prepares terms of reference (however described) for a proposed review of the SBS (the proposed review), the Minister must arrange for a copy of the terms of reference to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament at least 15 sitting days before the commencement of the proposed review. (2) Sections 42, 47 and 48 of the Legislation Act 2003 apply in relation to the terms of reference as if those terms were a legislative instrument. (3) The proposed review must not be conducted if: (a) the terms of reference for the proposed review have not been tabled in accordance with this section; or (b) the terms of reference for the proposed review have been tabled but have been disallowed. 73B Reports of reviews of the SBS to be tabled (1) If the Minister conducts a review of the SBS, the Minister must arrange for a copy of the review to be tabled in both Houses of Parliament within 15 sitting days of the completion of the review. (2) If the Minister, or another person or body, causes a review of the SBS to be conducted: (a) the Minister, person or body must arrange for a copy of the review to be provided to the Minister; and (b) the Minister must arrange for a copy of the review to be tabled in both House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving the copy of the review. These amendments relate to the ability of the government to commission inquiries and reviews into the public broadcasters, whether that is the ABC or the SBS. The reason why this is absolutely important is because this parliament should have the power to decide whether or not reviews are something that the parliament supports. Senator O'Sullivan interjecting— Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Chair, perhaps you could call—I don't care if you're listening or not, Senator O'Sullivan, but you could bugger off if you're not interested. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 244247 Senator Hanson-Young, that's not parliamentary. Senator O'Sullivan interjecting— Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U If you're not interested in the debate, leave the chamber. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, please address your comments to the chair. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U These amendments put in place the power of the parliament to disallow the government's intended review to inquire into the ABC and SBS. We know that part of the deal that has been done between the government and One Nation is the competitive neutrality review. This is designed to be a Trojan Horse to undermine the ability of our public broadcasters to do their job—to provide services to the Australian people and to provide quality news and entertainment to the Australian public at the times that they want. We know that this is in the firing of this government and One Nation, because we know that there are bigger commercial players out there who don't like the fact that the ABC and SBS offer such a quality service through things like iview and SBS On Demand. We know that as part of the dirty deal that has been done between the government and One Nation, the attack on our public broadcaster is held right here in relation to this competitive neutrality review. We know that One Nation doesn't like the ABC. We heard Senator Hanson wax lyrical for minutes upon minutes last night—it felt like hours—about how terribly mean the ABC has been to Senator Hanson and One Nation. Well, boo-hoo. Sometimes journalists write things and say things that you don't like as a politician. Sometimes they cover stories that you don't like as a political party; but that is part of the job. You don't come in here as an elected member of parliament and start using your power on the crossbench to dictate what our public broadcaster should be able to say or not. Of course, what we have is a personal grudge from Pauline Hanson being carried out in this place. Senator Hanson BK6 On a point of order, I need to be referred to by my name in the proper way, as Senator Hanson, please. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson-Young, could you please refer to people by their proper titles. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Senator Hanson has a personal grudge against the ABC and she's using her position in this chamber to grind the axe as hard as she can. Of course, it is absolutely appalling to see that being facilitated and allowed by the government and the Nick Xenophon political party in relation to this. This attack on our public broadcaster is shameful. There has been an attack on our public broadcasters' independence, and the ability for the Australian public to access the content—the quality news and quality entertainment services—is all under a cloud because of this dirty deal that has been done between Senator Hanson, One Nation, Nick Xenophon and, indeed, the government. We know that the government don't really want to talk about this. They say, 'Oh, well, this is a deal that was done. It doesn't have to come to the parliament, so no-one who feels a bit uncomfortable about it doesn't have to vote for it.' This parliament should have the power to decide what our public broadcaster should and shouldn't be subjected to. All this amendment does is say that this place has the power to disallow or accept or agree to a review commissioned by the government. If those in this chamber decide that's okay, they'll vote for it. If they don't, they won't. It's about giving the power to the Senate to make sure we know that we can protect or inquire into the public broadcasters as the parliament sees fit, not because it's been dictated to by Senator Hanson and One Nation because they don't like the ABC and what the ABC publishes or runs about their political party. The competitive-neutrality review that is part of the dirty deal between One Nation and the government will, of course, set a path for cutting back the ability of our public broadcasters to deliver services online and on demand. It will set a path for why some in this place and some outside this place want to exert influence on the chamber and on the government. It will set a path for those people to argue that there should be a pay wall on ABC iView and, indeed, SBS On Demand. It would of no surprise to anyone in this place just how dear the ABC and SBS are held in the minds and hearts of Australians right across this country. It is, of course, the most trusted news source in the nation. The Australian people love the fact that they can watch the shows that they want when they want through such a quality service as iView or SBS On Demand. Parents across the country rejoice that they can turn on the television, use iView and ensure that their kids can watch quality kids' shows at a time that is needed—a saving grace for many Australian households, I must say. Just imagine what the Australian people will think when they hear that Senator Hanson and One Nation have put a pay wall on ABC iView. Just imagine what the Australian public will think when they hear that they cannot use the catch-up service of SBS On Demand or on the ABC to see the news of the day—because, perhaps, they have shiftwork or they work long hours or they're pensioners who have to catch up with the news at a different time. Just imagine what the Australian people will think when their public broadcaster cannot deliver the service that is available now unless they pay for it. It is a double tax on the ABC and SBS. There are people who are arguing: 'It's not fair that ABC and SBS are able to deliver such good quality services to the Australian people free of charge. How on earth can commercial operators compete?' Well, it's not free of charge. People pay their taxes to get a good, quality, public broadcasting service. The Australian people pay taxes and they are comforted by the fact that their public broadcaster can deliver the service that they rely on and trust. It is no surprise that the ABC has the most trusted news service in the nation. People love their ABC. They love our ABC. And they don't like that Senator Hanson and One Nation have got their grubby little hands on it and are going to demand that the government cut these services through funding cuts and clipping the wings of these services through their online platforms. This chamber and the other place should have the right to decide what type of reviews of our public broadcasters a minister will commission. That is what this amendment is about. We heard previously that the deal done between the government, One Nation and the Xenophon political party would all be wrapped up in different legislation and we didn't have to vote for it now, except for that one key element—this crucial review. Well, here is the opportunity to make sure that this parliament, at a further point in time, has the right to say yes or no to the demands that have been put forward by One Nation. I don't think that the Australian people deserve to have their public broadcaster held to ransom by One Nation. I don't believe that the Australian public should have to see their public broadcaster used as a pawn in negotiations between One Nation and the government. And I don't believe that our public broadcaster should be held to ransom because Senator Hanson and One Nation have a personal grudge against stories that have been published about them by our public broadcaster. This amendment means that we rise above that and ensure that this parliament can make an independent decision about what our public broadcasters should be subjected to and that it's not left to the grubby backroom deals that have been done to secure any reform that this government or One Nation desires. It is simply about putting the power back into the hands of the parliament and, therefore, back into the hands of the people that we represent—the Australian public—who fund our public broadcasters, who love our public broadcasters and who don't want to see them used as punching bags just because some politicians don't like what they say. 17:22 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I need to respond to this because Senator Hanson-Young has misled this chamber and the members of the public who are listening to this broadcast. What she's saying about the grubby deals is not the case. Senator Hanson-Young is alluding to deals having been done for cuts to the ABC, but that is not the case. Let me put it on the record. In my discussions with the minister's office, at no time did we discuss cuts to the ABC budget, which is in excess of $1 billion a year. Let me repeat that—$1 billion a year! You know what I will do? I will talk to the Treasurer or the finance minister about that. That's not the portfolio of the communications minister. I will go to the person I need to talk to about it, at the right time, prior to next year's budget, and state my case as to why I believe that the ABC budget needs to be cut. So let me put it on the record: no cuts to the ABC budget. Let's make another thing clear. Senator Sarah Hanson-Young made a comment that I was whinging about the treatment of One Nation on the ABC. No—I was talking about an edition of Australian Story that was about me. It was not fair and it was not balanced. That is what happened. I spoke to the minister about the ABC charter and stories needing to come across as fair and balanced. No-one would expect any less. That's common sense—that you need for something to be fair and balanced from anyone. It's pretty much in the ABC's manifesto now, at the moment, but it needs to be put there. They actually tend to agree with it themselves in their own manifesto. So it is actually about making sure that everyone is aware of the need to be fair and balanced. I'm sure the Greens would feel that way, too, because they've just had a program done on them. It didn't look too good for them. But, anyway, I've copped it a lot longer than Senator Hanson-Young—for many, many years—so I know what it's like. So there's no problem about that. I have no problems. If you go back to my speech, if you were in the chamber, I actually complimented Steve Austin from ABC Radio Brisbane, who has given me a fair go. That's all I've asked of media. It's not my position here. They have their job to do; I have my job to do. So all I ask, no different to any other Australians, is to get a fair and balanced view. That's all that we ask. Another point here is that we have called for accountability. It's not unrealistic to call for accountability. Why wouldn't you call for accountability? It is the taxpayers' dollars. Let me say again: $1 billion-plus a year. There is no accountability as far as what they are paying some of their commentators. It was on the record a few years ago that one commentator who is actually on television one night a week for one hour is actually getting paid in excess of $355,000 a year. Why shouldn't the wages of these people who are on $200,000-plus a year be exposed? We are. Everyone in this chamber is. The wages of heads of government agencies are recorded. The taxpayer is paying for it; why hide it? Why shouldn't it actually be out there on the record? 'Oh, no, there's nothing. We're not looking after anyone?' Oh, yes, we are. We've actually asked for an advisory council with a local on it that it is actually going to represent rural and regional areas—and not have someone coming from the cities that have no idea. If Sarah Hanson-Young has any idea, she would understand— Senator Hanson-Young interjecting— Senator HANSON BK6 I do apologise, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. It is a fact that here we have only 17 per cent of ABC funding going to rural and regional areas, and yet 35 per cent of the population is there. So they are not providing the right comparison, and they need to put the funding there. So what we are saying is: 'Hey, we care about you out in rural and regional Australia. You're not getting a fair deal for your dollars. We're trying to make them accountable to you so that they do their job properly.' I notice that Senator Sarah Hanson-Young spoke about the SBS. The SBS is not even in it; never discussed the SBS—not intending to cut back their funding. Nothing at all with the SBS. So, again, misleading the chamber, telling people out there in the general public what One Nation is wanting to do. The Labor have had their go at it today, as well. So what I find is you actually have— Senator Hanson-Young interjecting— Senator HANSON BK6 Both sides, the Greens and Labor, actually miss a lot. What I find is you don't have integrity. I'm sick of the political politics of this place. You actually have to lie, mislead the parliament and tell people things that aren't true. People want honesty in this place. If you are going to say something, if you are going to attack me or One Nation, do it with true facts. Don't try and win brownie points with the people outside— Senator Hanson-Young interjecting— Senator HANSON BK6 by misleading people about the actual truth in this place. We've seen this many, many times. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 244247 Resume your seat, Senator Hanson. Senator Hinch, on a point of order. Senator Hinch 2O4 Yes, on a point of order. It may be unusual for me to be defending Senator Hanson, but Senator Hanson-Young had her say. She talked for 15 minutes. It has been a continual banter through the whole of Senator Hanson's speech. It's not fair. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Hinch. You are quite right: senators are entitled to be heard in silence. I remind all senators of that. Senator HANSON BK6 I will wind this up. One Nation is very concerned about the media and what we need to do for media diversity in this country. We have looked at it and we have spoken to people from all sides on it. I have spoken to the Labor Party as well. They don't really have a problem with this. It's playing politics here without looking at the benefits to the country. You're saying there won't be media diversity. That is the complete opposite to what the truth is. What will happen is they will be able to buy up other avenues and expand their businesses and create more employment. If you think that keeping the two-out-of-three rule is going to help, it's not. It's going to shut it down. Then what will happen in this country is you're going to end up with foreign investors coming in and buying up the media in this country as they're buying up everything else. So you need to have an open mind and you have to understand. A lot of people in this place have never run a business and have never employed people. They wouldn't have a clue what they are doing, yet they sit here and make these decisions. So know your facts and know what you're doing. One last point on grubby deals being done: the Greens actually did the grubby deals when it came to the backpacker tax, and they want their $100 million. So don't talk to me about grubby deals and money being transferred in hands. I know—I'm not stupid. I've only been here for a short period of time, but I'm not stupid. I've seen the antics in this chamber. It disgusts me and it disgusts the people of Australia. Remember, we are here to make the right decisions for the people of this country who are relying on us, so don't play your politics with me. It doesn't work. 17:31 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Can I quickly indicate that the government won't be supporting this amendment. It is unworkable. The government's intention in relation to the foreshadowed inquiry is of course to be transparent and to make that public. 17:31 Senator XENOPHON 8IV South Australia I kind of liked the deal the Greens did on the backpacker tax. I thought it was very ingenious to get through an impasse. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator XENOPHON 8IV I shouldn't have opened that up! I shouldn't have mentioned the backpacker tax. I apologise. I did like what the Greens did on that. I thought it was quite ingenious and workable. As a matter of general principle, the executive arm of government should be allowed to initiate reviews on any matters within its constitutional power, however ill-conceived that review may be. As a matter of incontrovertible principle, the parliament has the right to reject any legislative attempt to implement any recommendations from such a review. My colleagues and I strongly support a well-funded, fiercely independent public broadcaster in this nation. For instance, ABC iview and SBS On Demand must remain free for all Australians forever more. 17:32 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales With regard to Senator Hanson-Young's amendment that is before the chair, Labor will not oppose this amendment. This amendment is to amend the BSA to fetter the discretion of a minister to conduct a review of the ABC or SBS, making the terms of reference subject to a disallowance, then requiring the minister to table a report or review 15 days after the completion of the review. Labor understands the sentiment behind this amendment that's been circulated earlier this afternoon, but in the short time we have had to consider it, we understand there may be some practical implications and issues associated with it. On balance, Labor regards it as a transparency measure which may benefit our national broadcasters, particularly with a government like the Turnbull government, which clearly cannot be trusted with the ABC or the SBS. 17:33 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I want to point out that I'm disappointed that the Nick Xenophon Team will not be supporting this amendment, because this is an opportunity to ensure that the grubby deal that's been done between the government and One Nation is put to parliamentary scrutiny. We all know that this review is the one element that isn't required in legislation and this parliament cannot stop it unless we give ourselves the power to do so. You've said, as a political party, several times in the last few days, that you don't want to be linked to the deal with One Nation. This is the opportunity to prove it. This is the opportunity to ensure that you are not backing in the undermining of our public broadcasters and allowing in the Trojan Horse which is going to rip apart the integrity of the online services run by ABC and SBS, along with their ability to deliver quality news and entertainment to the Australian public free of charge, as a public service. This is the opportunity to stand up, and you're squibbing it. Don't come into this place and tell us that you have nothing to do with the grotty deal between the government and One Nation to attack the ABC, when you're given an opportunity and you don't take it. It is clear as day that the deal done in exchange for the government to get their two-out-of-three rule through includes a package which attacks the ABC and SBS—attacks their integrity, their independence and their ability to continue moving forward to deliver quality services, news and entertainment to the public. You squibbed it. I'm extremely disappointed and I think many Australians will be too. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 244247 The question is that, in respect of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8265 be agreed to.

The committee divided. [17:40]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Ketter)

27 AYES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallagher, KR Hanson-Young, SC Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lambie, J McAllister, J (teller) McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Sterle, G Urquhart, AE Whish-Wilson, PS 31 NOES Birmingham, SJ Brandis, GH Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Cormann, M Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S Leyonhjelm, DE McGrath, J McKenzie, B Nash, F O'Sullivan, B Parry, S Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, D Williams, JR (teller) Xenophon, N 7 PAIRS Carr, KJ Sinodinos, A Dastyari, S Canavan, MJ Gallacher, AM Ryan, SM Lines, S Gichuhi, LM Marshall, GM Abetz, E Watt, M Macdonald, ID Wong, P Cash, M

Senator Bernadi did not vote, to compensate for a vacancy.
Senator Georgiou did not vote, to compensate for a vacancy.
Question negatived.

17:44 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 244247 The question is that the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, as amended, be agreed to and the Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017 be agreed to without request. Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017, as amended, agreed to; and Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017 agreed to without requests. Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Broadcasting Reform) Bill 2017 reported with amendments; Commercial Broadcasting (Tax) Bill 2017 reported without requests; report adopted.

The committee divided. [17:44]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Ketter)

31 AYES Birmingham, SJ Brandis, GH Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Cormann, M Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Kakoschke-Moore, S Leyonhjelm, DE McGrath, J McKenzie, B Nash, F O'Sullivan, B Parry, S Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, D Williams, JR (teller) Xenophon, N 27 NOES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallagher, KR Hanson-Young, SC Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lambie, J McAllister, J (teller) McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Sterle, G Urquhart, AE Whish-Wilson, PS 7 PAIRS Abetz, E Marshall, GM Canavan, MJ Dastyari, S Cash, MC Wong, P Gichuhi, LM Lines, S Macdonald, ID Watt, M Ryan, SM Gallacher, AM Sinodinos, A Carr, K

Senator Bernardi did not vote, to compensate for a vacancy.
Senator Georgiou did not vote, to compensate for a vacancy.

Third Reading 7443 17:47 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I move: That these bills be now read a third time. The PRESIDENT e5v The question is that these bills be now read a third time.

The Senate divided. [17:48]
(The President—Senator Parry)

Senator Bernardi did not vote, to compensate for a vacancy.
Senator Georgiou did not vote, to compensate for a vacancy.
Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.

DOCUMENTS 7445 DOCUMENTS Consideration 7445 COMMITTEES 7445 COMMITTEES Community Affairs References Committee 7445 Report 7445 17:52 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I rise to speak on the government response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee's report Out of home care. It has been more than two years since the committee tabled its report. In that time, there is an issue in relation to out-of-home care that has gained considerable attention. While it is not directly referenced in the report and the government's response, I wish to speak briefly about the need for consideration to be given to extending options for continued support for young people and out-of-home care from the age of 18 to 21. I recently met with Mr Paul McDonald, the CEO of Anglicare Victoria. Through the work of his organisation and many others involved in the Home Stretch project, there is a compelling case to be made to provide options for continued out-of-home care for support to young people who need it, to the age of 21. The Home Stretch is a national campaign formed to seek change to the current leaving arrangements for young people in state care. For too long we have been witnessing poor outcomes for kids being required to leave the care system on or before 18 years of age. Many who are required to leave their care setting at this age become homeless, involved with the criminal justice system, unemployed or a new parent within the first 12 months of being exited from care. There are many reasons why change is needed. Findings from a 2009 survey conducted by the CREATE Foundation on care leavers demonstrated that 35 per cent were homeless in the first year of leaving care, 46 per cent of boys were involved in the juvenile justice system and 29 per cent were left unemployed. Furthermore, a 2008 study by the Care Leavers Australia Network reported that 41 per cent were pregnant during their adolescence and 43 to 65 per cent of care leavers have poor mental health outcomes, including depression, anxiety, PTSD, panic attacks and sleep disorders. I have been advised by some NGOs that young people were being groomed while homeless and on the street. Extending care would require governments to provide support in the form of ongoing reimbursements to carers, case management to the young person and resources to access education or employment activity. Some models internationally require participation in employment or educational pursuits as a condition for a person to be supported in extended care. Other models provide financial reimbursement in the form of an allowance. Current government policies require the child protection system to begin preparing a young person to leave care as early as 15 years, while most would leave their care placement during their 16th or 17th year. In comparison, children residing at home in the wider community, with one or both parents, are remaining at home longer, with almost 50 per cent of young people aged 18 to 24 having never left the family home. Moreover, international research where care is extended until the age of 21 shows that education participation doubles and homelessness rates are halved. While there are some available services to assist the transition to leaving care, too many young people are still struggling to cope independently at 18 years after a life in state care. The termination of care by state governments at 18 years is not consistent with parenting that is seeing most young people remain at home well into their 20s. As soon as a young person in out-of-home care reaches 18 years of age, the state, as the effective parent, abruptly ceases to provide ongoing financial, social and emotional support as a caregiver. While parents are increasingly providing support for their children well into their 20s, there are few supports available through governments to assist the young people for whom the state has assumed guardianship to help them into independent adulthood beyond the age of 18. In light of the belated tabling of the government's response to the Out of home care report, it is timely and topical to have a public discussion about the extension of care to young people up to the age of 21. A number of jurisdictions outside Australia have implemented policies to extend care beyond the age of 18. In the UK, a program called Staying Put allows eligible young people at age 18 to voluntarily continue with support to age 21. Ontario, Canada, operates a model which provides a thick sum of money to support independent living to age 21. In California, state and federal funding provides for a flexible care model to young people in out-of-home care to the age of 21. Comparable programs are in place in other states across the US. These programs have been evaluated, and there are important and long-term benefits. Extended care supports higher levels of engagement with education and improved employment prospects; improved housing stability and lower long-term reliance on homelessness services and public housing programs; improved physical and mental health outcomes, driven by improved access to care and early intervention; reduced incidence of alcohol and drug dependency; reduced involvement with the justice system, including reduced likelihood of being incarcerated; and improved social integration and civic engagement. These outcomes demonstrate the value of supporting young people and stand in sharp contrast to the approach taken by this government in the policies that have been promoted. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 17:59 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia As we know, this week the government handed down its response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee's Outofhome care report. Shamefully, it has been two years since this report was handed down and we are only just now getting a response to the very substantial issues that were raised in it. This is far too long, particularly considering there are recommendations in this report that need to be progressed through government. The report made 39 recommendations, particularly focused on a nationally consistent approach to the out-of-home-care system, noting how important that is. It asked for accountability recommendations for the Commonwealth and states and territories to ensure compliance with the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children 2009-2020, support and training for foster and kinship care, better care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, nationally consistent support services and training for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander workforce, and for many other important recommendations. This chamber and, most importantly, the many families and children who are impacted by the out-of-home care system deserve better. They deserve an explanation about why the government took so long to respond. They also deserve an explanation as to why the government has made so few commitments in that time to act on these recommendations. The response only notes most of the recommendations. It only outlines things the government is already required to do under the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children, and, in the main, it uses nothing from this report to say that, yes, there is more of an agenda that needs to be pushed here. As my good colleague Senator Doug Cameron highlighted, we know that children coming out of the out-of-home care system are suffering from serious disadvantage—homelessness, contact with the justice system, poverty and more. What I find perhaps most galling about the government's response is that there was no acknowledgement of the personal experiences of young people and children in the out-of-home care system in terms of the impact the system has on their lives. It was an absolutely bureaucratic response that talked about recommendations, frameworks, state and Commonwealth government relations and so on, which are of course important, but there was absolutely no moral acknowledgement of the profound situation of young people in the out-of-home care system and what a significant thing it is to sever the relationship between a child and their parent and take that child into care because the child is deemed to be in an unsafe situation. It is a profound thing to do, and there is absolutely no acknowledgement of the experiences of young people in our out-of-home care system, particularly in terms of how they can at times be shoved from pillar to post by the foster care system in our states. The Commonwealth government must play a role in making sure we give children and young people in care and those leaving care the support they need. Our approach to child protection at the community level, the state level and the Commonwealth level covers the whole range of needs. We have to accept that these children are no longer in the care of their families; they are effectively in the care of the state. There was really no acknowledgement in the government's response of how profound and significant a thing that is. Before their children even enter into care, we need to help families more with early intervention, prevention and family support services. Then, if the children do enter care, we need to make sure that they are safe, secure and protected in that care. When they are leaving care to live independently or to go back to their families of origin, we need to make sure that children and their families are given the support they need to thrive for the rest of their lives. Senator Cameron highlighted some of the particular issues that young people leaving care have. I'd be the first to acknowledge that child protection is a complicated issue and that we won't change things overnight. We also know that responsibility for the tertiary end of child protection lies with the states. But the Commonwealth must be involved in national leadership on these issues. True leadership is needed if we are to see real change in these areas. There are things that the Commonwealth can do. We in the Labor Party understand the need for a nationally consistent approach to child protection in order to best protect children. That's why, under Labor, we developed the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children 2009-2020. The framework commits state and territory governments to an ambitious long-term plan to promote and enhance the safety and wellbeing of Australia's children. Part of this plan is the National Standards for Out-of-Home Care. Labor members of parliament have continued to hold the government to account for the lack of progress under this framework. The government's response, which references the framework, gives little comfort that, under this government, we are making any real progress on these issues. We are very concerned about the lack of progress made on developing a national approach, especially with things like working with children checks and a National Statement of Principles for Child Safe Organisations. I note, for example, that national working with children checks are something that the royal commission into sex abuse in institutions also called for some two years ago. They gave this government 12 months to implement the recommendations, and there has been no evidence forthcoming that anything has been done about nationally consistent working with children checks. It is a disgrace. The government have not demonstrated in any way that they are serious about taking action in support of protecting children in our nation. They've been too slow to respond to these recommendations, let alone act on them. In this country child protection notifications are increasing and we need to work out how to do more. We hear more and more about the challenges and, sadly, the trauma that children experience in out-of-home care. I again return to the fact that what is most missing from the government's response, not only in the practical detail, is any recognition of the lived experience of these children—what they confront in their lives. We need to listen to the sector about what they think needs to be done to protect our children, but, more than that, we need to listen to the children and young people themselves. Last month, Jenny Macklin and I held a meeting, as part of Labor's community sector partnership, with children and family service delivery organisations. We talked with peak bodies and leading researchers about how the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children can be improved. We remain committed to facilitating a national approach to child protection, acknowledging that this work must be done through COAG and in partnership with state governments. But it is not simply enough to talk about how we can take a national approach to protect the wellbeing of children. The government must show real leadership and action if we are serious about protecting our nation's children. As the shadow minister for families and communities, I certainly am dedicating myself to ensure that we do everything we can to keep our children in this nation safe. Question agreed to. National Integrity Commission Committee 7448 Report 7448 18:08 Senator RHIANNON CPR New South Wales I rise to speak on the National Integrity Commission report. To remind senators, this was an initiative of Labor. For a while, some thought Labor was moving on the need to address corruption at a federal level. I'm willing to confess that I was one of the people who was feeling very cynical about what Labor was up to. I certainly want Labor to come on board, but I've seen the manoeuvres for so long. It's worth reminding ourselves of what has gone on here. Many senators and many MPs have said really fine things about the need to address corruption at a national level, but the party has not come on board and hasn't come forward with a really strong position. We see that clearly here. I didn't want to be right here and feeling cynical about Labor, but the best we got out of this committee was that the recommendation is, effectively, that the issue should be re-examined in 2019 because we need to wait for further research. We are drowning in research in this place. Later, I will come to so many examples from the government side and the opposition side of issues that should be investigated by a national anti-corruption watchdog or integrity commission, but we don't have one. And that's where there is very clear need shown. But what we saw, as this inquiry unfolded, was that hope crumbled. I will just outline why I can understand people thought that we were heading in the right direction here. These are comments from Labor senators and MPs with regard to the National Integrity Commission Bill that former Senator Christine Milne brought forward. The highly respected Senator Faulkner said in regard to this bill: 'This bill that we are debating today has merit.' Then Senator Marshall said: 'I support the motives behind this bill.' Senator Claire Moore said, obviously in reference to remarks that I had made in which I was having doubts about where Labor was heading, and I still have those doubts, as you can hear: Contrary to Senator Rhiannon's statements, Labor is open to considering a federal ICAC. Labor has never objected to a federal anticorruption body in principle. That was in 2013-14 when we were debating the bill. Labor still haven't taken it onboard—getting ready to really put it out there up-front so it would be part of a platform if they did end up in government. They just can't do it, it seems. Then Stephen Jones—and this was a more recent statement in August this year—said how he clearly supported the case for the establishment of a federal anticorruption body. 'We need a federal anticorruption body here in Canberra.' So there they are—individual statements from MPs; really fine. But when you come to this report from this inquiry that we are considering today, when Labor had the opportunity to give leadership and to really put it out there that the need is now, they couldn't cross that path. To put it on the record, the Greens have long advocated for a national integrity commission. In 2010, Senator Bob Brown brought it forward; Adam Bandt did in 2012; and, as I said, Christine Milne did in 2013. During these years there has been a wealth of research, and that's why I wanted to emphasise it. This is, effectively, the best argument that this report has for why we haven't got the recommendation that's so clearly needed. As I said in my opening remarks, the research, I would say, is all the incidences of deep wrongdoing that, sadly, senators and MPs in this place have been involved in. It's actually very relevant to run through those, because it's pretty sickening. If you wonder why people are cynical about politics, cynical about politicians and cynical about this place, it's because there are these incidents. When it comes to a federal level, they don't even get investigated. We don't have the means to. You might joke about New South Wales, but at least we have a state ICAC—even though it has been watered down by the Liberals and Nationals now—that does investigate these really bad practices. So let's go through some of them. Both the Liberal Party and Labor Party accepted donations from compromised Chinese nationals after ASIO expressly asked them not to. They were asked by ASIO not to. ASIO asks you to put up a fence and put all the security around Parliament House; you do that at the drop of a hat. When it comes to the own self-interest if you are in the Liberal, Labor or National parties—'No; we won't follow ASIO today.' Then we have—some people say he is highly respected—Minister for Finance Senator Mathias Cormann. He signed a lease over a building which crossbench Senator Bob Day owned. That was against the Department of Finance's advice. Why? We'll probably never know. Then Barnaby Joyce, the minister for agriculture, relocates an entire department to his electorate with no compelling reason. This is a real beauty. There's more to come on this one. Liberal MP Stuart Robert went to China to seal a deal between the Chinese government and a millionaire donor to the Liberal Party. The Australian Hotels and Hospitality Association regularly figures in things going on with unsavoury aspects of political donations and fundraising. The Australian Hotels and Hospitality Association paid $45,000 to the Menzies 200 Club. That's a fundraising vehicle for the member for Menzies, Kevin Andrews. What was Mr Kevin Andrews doing at the same time? He was personally developing the government's gambling policy. I'm not saying it's money in paper bags, but, gee, it's getting pretty close. On Labor's side, Senator Sam Dastyari was state secretary when New South Wales Labor accepted donations from a black-market tobacco importer—tobacco! I suppose it was 10 years ago, but there was all that song and dance and the fine statements made when Mark Latham said, 'We won't take any money from tobacco importers and tobacco companies.' Then Senator Pauline Hanson put her face and party logo on a plane that was gifted by a property developer, and One Nation travelled the country in this plane—a plane which was never declared. How do you get away with that? Is it because you're a senator and because we don't have a corruption watchdog? We've got a big problem here and we've got to name it. Then Brickworks to donated hundreds of thousands of dollars, before the election, to the Liberals and were awarded a multi-million-dollar government contract from a clean energy scheme after the program had been closed down. Again, how does that come about? We just don't know the fine details—and we don't know the fine details because we don't have a means to investigate them. Coming back to this report, the Greens did have hopes that this committee would make a strong recommendation which would go some way to restoring trust and confidence in democratic institutions. I fessed up that I was feeling cynical, but still there was a flicker of hope—but that flicker of hope crumbled. The committee's report notes that … Commonwealth agencies struggled to explain to the committee how their individual roles and responsibilities inter-connect to form a seamless Commonwealth government-wide approach to integrity and corruption issues. I give emphasis to that. We've had this debate many times in this place, brought on by the Greens, about the need for a national integrity commission—a national anti-corruption watchdog. One of the arguments given is: 'We have all these government bodies and they're already dealing with it.' And there's the evidence: … Commonwealth agencies struggled to explain to the committee how their individual roles and responsibilities inter-connect … They don't. It doesn't work. We don't have what we need at a federal level. To call our existing measures a framework is grossly misleading. Why? Because there are people in this place who want to keep the status quo, who want to keep it as it is. It's 2017! This can't continue! It is really sick, and we've all got to take responsibility for what is going on. It has gone on for too long. There's been little coordination in strategy in the current approach. Transparency International has argued that: The Commonwealth’s present arrangements are the result of decades of largely uncoordinated developments in administrative law, criminal law and public sector management, together with political accident. The Australia Institute said: … there are gaps in our current integrity system, with no body currently able to investigate systemic corruption at a parliamentary or ministerial level. That makes me really ashamed. The New South Wales ICAC had come in before I began in the New South Wales parliament, but I can tell you that people are proud of it—they really are. Yes, it's been watered down, and we need to fight to get it back to what it was, but they're proud that we have it. What do we have here? Ongoing scandals—that's what we have—and ongoing scandals will continue. Sadly, it'll be the scandals that will drive us, eventually, to have a national anti-corruption watchdog if the senators and the MPs in this place don't have the courage to come together, take a bipartisan, tripartisan, cross-party approach and set up a national anti-corruption commission. It's overdue. The time is now to set it up. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Red Tape Committee 7451 Report 7451 18:19 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I want to rise as a servant to the people of Tasmania and Australia to make an offer to one of the better-known servants of people in this place—that is, a servant to the people of Queensland, Senator Malcolm Roberts. In the interest of cross-Senate cooperation and as an expression of the Greens goodwill, I indicate that I have a speaking spot reserved in the adjournment debate tonight, and I offer it to Senator Roberts for his valedictory speech! As senators would know, in valedictory speeches it is customary for senators to do a number of things, such as to thank the people that voted for them—so, Senator Roberts could decide to thank the 76 people that voted for him. Senators also talk about the topics that are precious to them and the topics that they've spoken about a lot in this place. Of course, red tape is one of the topics that Senator Roberts has spoken about at length in this place. He would have an opportunity to explain what he means—and this is a direct quote from Senator Roberts in the Hansard—when he said: … cost of energy; cost of doing business; red, blue, or UN … tape— UN tape— taxes; fees; charges. At every turn, governments … have their hands in the pockets of Aussies, stealing our money. He'd have an opportunity to explain that. What I think the people of Queensland and Australia, the people that Senator Roberts purports to serve, would be most grateful for is an explanation from Senator Roberts about exactly how—and this is a direct quote from Hansard: … the rainbow coloured, solar powered unicorns … are going to die. I look forward to that, and I'm sure the people of Queensland do as well. He could also explain—and I quote again directly from Hansard—the empirical evidence behind the: Transgender pixies riding their solar-powered unicorns over oh-so-sustainable rainbows … I mean, we are going to miss him, Mr President—are we not? He could also, of course, explain what exactly he meant when he said: We heard all about the Chicken Littles— And I want to emphasise: I'm quoting directly from the Hansard here— bwok bwok bekerk! Senator Roberts could explain— Senator Rice 155410 Mr Roberts shortly— Senator McKIM JKM The soon-to-be Mr Roberts could explain how he subscribed to The Australian for a more balanced coverage of politics in this country. He could let us know what actually happens in illuminati meetings, and whether the tin-foil hats actually fit! Mr President, thank you for your indulgence. I'm sure everyone can agree we will miss him, and we urge him not to let the doors of this chamber hit him on the backside on the way out. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 7452 COMMITTEES Consideration 7452 ADJOURNMENT 7453 ADJOURNMENT 18:24 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That the Senate, at its rising, adjourn until Monday, 16 October 2017 at 10 am or such other time as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy President, and that the time of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 7453 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 7453 18:24 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the end of the sitting day to the day on which the Senate next meets. Question agreed to. ADJOURNMENT 7453 ADJOURNMENT Economy 7453 18:24 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria It's a pleasure to rise tonight to confirm that the tide is finally turning for the Australian economy. The better days for our economy have emerged. The green shoots in the economic landscape are poking through. In recent months we have seen more jobs, more investment, more wages and more exports. I am delighted to stand here tonight to confirm that the Turnbull coalition government has delivered on its promise for jobs and growth. It's more than a catchcry; it is an outcome. The national accounts for the June quarter reveal solid and more balanced growth for our prosperous and unique economy. This is a clear demonstration that only the coalition has the skills to implement the policies that deliver economic growth for all Australians. The facts are clear. The policies of the Turnbull coalition have secured economic stability and prosperity for Australia. Our economy has expanded 1.9 per cent during 2016-17. We've exceeded even our own expectations. Economic growth was above our 1¾ per cent forecast in the 2017-18 budget, and I'm very proud that we've managed to achieve this growth despite the volatility that continues in our commodity prices. Only a coalition government can deliver the diligent and informed economic management that Australia requires. As evidenced by our national accounts for the June quarter, the forecasts that this government has made on areas such as growth, jobs and unemployment, have proved to be extremely accurate and even highly conservative. We've been able to maintain the confidence of the ratings agencies through these conservative assumptions, particularly those relating to commodity prices. This is no mean feat, and I doubt that those sitting opposite us tonight could achieve those same results. The Treasurer, Scott Morrison, is 100 per cent right: the better days are, in fact, within reach. We've seen over 240,000 new jobs created just in the last fiscal year alone, and there is strong evidence to suggest that the labour market is tightening. Everything seems to be lining up with more jobs and more investment. The Turnbull coalition government is adamant this will flow through to the household sector, and Australians will finally soon see the real wage growth that has been so elusive in recent years—not just in Australia, but around the world. We have a plan to jump-start wage growth. Incomes may be flat—they have been flat for a long time—but that is why growing the economy is so very important. The Turnbull government will not just dole out random cash payments in an untargeted manner, in a scatter-gun approach, nor will it implement higher taxes. That is a doomed policy of those opposite. Increased taxes on the Australian economy act like a wet blanket on not just growth but wages, investments and jobs. To secure the sustained economic growth we rely on individual Australians. We rely on their aspirations and we rely on their accomplishments. Those accomplishments are realised by their initiative, by their enterprise and by their hard work. Accordingly, the Turnbull government's national economic plan has been carefully devised to increase private investment. And new private investment, very excitingly, has expanded in this last quarter by 1.1 per cent. Things are looking good. New private investment has expanded, and, at 1.5 per cent higher throughout the year, this is the first really positive growth sign since March 2013, which signalled the end of the mining investment boom. This is a sign that our economy is, indeed, transitioning from the mining days. Australian businesses have benefitted from the government's increased investment. I rise in the chamber tonight buoyed by the economic data that we've seen in the June quarter accounts and buoyed by the knowledge that the coalition has the right economic plan to secure those better days ahead. Australians have long rejected the socialist agenda and the erroneous premise of high spending and high taxes idealised by the opposition leader. Our economy simply cannot afford to indulge in the cynical politics of envy, upheld by the opposition leader, Mr Bill Shorten. The tide is now beginning to turn. It's very exciting that economic growth is just there. It's there. It's right before us. The time is now, and I thank the chamber for its time. R U OK? Day 7455 18:29 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales It has been a long day and I know that everybody is getting ready to get away, but it is important for us to acknowledge R U OK? Day. In my role as assistant shadow minister for mental health to Julie Collins, I feel really privileged that people who work in the mental health sector have provided me with the wisdom of their experiences and the challenges they face. I know that public communication campaigns about mental health are actually changing the landscape in which our conversations at least are beginning. I congratulate all those who have made R U OK? Day an institution now in Australia's mental health awareness. It is today, and that is why I want make remarks this evening at the end of a very long day. R U OK? Day reminds us all that, if we are worried about someone, we actually have what it takes to start a meaningful conversation. There is a form of mental care that we can give to one another in our common humanity. It's not a skill that we have to acquire through any sort of qualification; we can just get up and help one another. There are four simple steps being advocated by R U OK? advocates. The first is to ask, 'Are you okay?' The second is often harder to do—it is listening. We in this place are certainly pretty good at talking, but sometimes the listening is a little harder to do. Listening means that we hear what people say and maybe we say back to them what we've heard them say. This is reflective listening: 'This is what I heard you say. Is this what you mean?' It is about actually really listening to somebody, not just spending time while they talk. We also want to encourage action. If it becomes apparent to you that people aren't feeling particularly well, then the idea is to encourage them to take some steps, such as going to a GP or getting official assistance if they need it. The follow-up step is not too onerous. A few days later—set a reminder in your diary—check in to see how they are and make sure that they are okay. These are simple things, but in our busy lives we can be distracted. These are simple ways in which we can help one another. The conversations that we have can make a profound difference. Today is the real day for R U OK?, but we can undertake this activity every single day of our lives. If someone you know is not acting quite the same as they have been, if you notice something, if they are a little bit withdrawn or if they are just not being themselves, it is really incumbent upon all of us in this journey of life to act on that and look after the people around us. Start a conversation with a family member, a friend or a person sitting next to you at work. You should ask them, 'Are you okay?' We know that help is available. We're not all expected to be professional counsellors. If people have serious challenges that they are facing in their life, sadly, some people will be experiencing a period of depression or vulnerability and they might have serious suicidal thoughts and behaviours that can be too much for family or friends to handle. There are many dedicated professionals and organisations, such as Lifeline and beyondblue. If anybody listening to this broadcast is feeling a little down on this day, there are wonderful resources available for them to plug into. They can just Google beyondblue or Lifeline and there will be somebody there to have a conversation with them. We need to continue to address suicide as, sadly, the number of lives lost is growing. Despite all the progress that has been made with our capacity to talk about mental health and wellbeing, heartbreakingly, the leading cause of death for men and women in Australia between the ages of 15 and 44 is suicide. At this time there is a very pressing responsibility on us in this place as legislators to be mindful of that statistic. Even though much progress has been made to reduce the stigma associated with mental ill health, so much more can and must be done. We need to get more women and definitely more men talking about this. Deaths from suicide occur amongst Australian men at a rate three times greater than that for Australian women. These statistics are confronting and are a significant reminder of the need for a coordinated effort across government and the community to reduce youth suicide. I would like to close with some comments about youth suicide, because in 2015 suicide accounted for around one-third of the deaths of young people aged 15 to 24. On average, eight young people die by suicide every single week in Australia. In just a few seconds, you can just think and be still enough to think about the impact of that on a family, the impact on their friends at school and the impact on their workmates. It's such a devastating reality for us. Eight young Australian men or women, with their entire lives ahead of them, are feeling that life is not worth living. We can reach out to them. The beginning of the conversation is as simple as asking, 'Are you okay?' Kids Helpline is a fantastic youth-dedicated helpline. Dedicated youth specialists deal with these issues, and they really have a great understanding of what's happening with young people and how to prevent these tragedies from happening. Kids Helpline has found that young people do not ask for help for a number of reasons. Young people are worried, basically, that they might not be understood, they will be judged, they will be called an attention seeker or they will be a burden. We really have to change that message to young people. We want to tell young people that we care about how they are feeling and that we will listen when they want to speak about issues. We will notice them. We will see them. All I can say, again, is the four things: ask, 'Are you okay', listen, encourage action and check in. Every one of us has a story. Every one of us can do something to prevent suicide and to enhance mental health and wellbeing in our community. The PRESIDENT e5v Thank you, Senator O'Neill. A fitting contribution to be the last contribution of this sitting fortnight. The Senate stands adjourned and will meet again on Monday, 16 October at 10 am. Senate adjourned at 18 : 36 DOCUMENTS 7456 DOCUMENTS Tabling 7456 Tabling 7457