2018-02-05 45 1 0 Senate 0 1

Monday, 5 February 2018

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 10:01 The PRESIDENT e5v I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 1 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION New South Wales 1 Senators Sworn 1 New South Wales 1 10:05 The PRESIDENT I0Q I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from Senator Dastyari resigning his place as a senator for the state of New South Wales. Pursuant to section 21 of the Constitution, I have notified the governor of New South Wales of the vacancy in the representation of that state caused by this resignation. I table the letter and a copy of my letter to the Governor of New South Wales. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 1 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 10:06 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I table for the information of the Senate a revised ministry list reflecting changes to the ministry made on 20 December 2017. I seek leave to have the document incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 2 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 10:06 Senator ANNING 273829 Queensland by leave—I advise the Senate that as of this day forward I will be sitting as an Independent senator. 10:06 Senator GICHUHI 270552 South Australia by leave—I advise the Senate that I've become a member of the Liberal Party of Australia and will sit with the government accordingly. BUSINESS 3 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 3 10:07 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That general business order of the day No. 49, the Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017, be considered today at the time for private senators' business. Question agreed to. BILLS 3 BILLS Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017 3

Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017

Second Reading 3 10:08 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I rise to speak on this private senator's bill, the Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017, and from the outset I'd like to welcome all senators back. It's good to be here. I'd like to also commend my colleague Senator McAllister for her tireless efforts in producing this bill. Primarily this bill seeks to require, among other things, the Productivity Commission to undertake research on inequality and its effects on the Australian economy and community and to report to the minister and to mitigate the negative effects of inequality on the Australian economy and the Australian community. This bill is a simple yet powerful measure that will ensure that the Australian government, by way of the Productivity Commission, has an easily accessible institution to measure inequality in our country. Many might ask why the Productivity Commission is best suited to perform this function. The Productivity Commission is more than just an advisory body. Its work sets the national agenda and provides a basis for substantial change—as seen, for instance, with the reliance by the FWC on the Productivity Commission's report into last year's despicable penalty rates decision. As stands, the Productivity Commission is not required to take inequality into account. Although its enabling legislation currently requires it to have regard to a wide variety of factors, such as the need to promote regional development and to ensure that development is ecologically sustainable, there is no reference to inequality. This is a problem because there is an emerging consensus that increasing inequality not only has social justice implications but also has macroeconomic consequences. Inequality restricts access to social, economic and other opportunities, which limits intergenerational mobility and imposes society-wide cost through lost economic opportunities. Inequality influences patterns of consumption and demand in ways that restrict economic growth. This bill aims to correct this by expanding the Productivity Commission's mandate to explicitly include consideration of inequality. It does this by requiring the Productivity Commission to consider the importance of mitigating the negative impacts of inequality on the Australian economy and the Australian community when exercising its functions and requiring the Productivity Commission to produce a report on the extent of inequality and its effects on the Australian economy every five years on the same timetable as the Intergenerational report. In determining the merits behind this bill I would like to inform the Senate of some alarming trends currently faced by our nation. Australia's inequality level is the challenge of our time. Inequality in Australia is at a 75-year high. Wealth is growing more quickly at the top. Over the past four decades, real earnings for the top 10 per cent have risen nearly four times faster than they have for the bottom 10 per cent, and the trend of increasing inequality will continue unless we arrest it. Extreme levels of inequality are incompatible with how we as a nation see ourselves. Almost three-quarters of Australians agree the differences in income are too high. Australia doesn't have the extremes of inequality that we see in other countries such as the US, but it is below the OECD average. Two and a half million Australians live below the poverty line. Inequality is a drag on economic growth and a destabilising force. The OECD has estimated that, from 1985 to 2005, inequality reduced growth amongst member states by almost five per cent. Rising inequality in leading nations has been named as one of the drivers of the financial crisis. High wealth concentration was a destabilising factor in extremely deregulated financial markets. We should talk more about inequality and we should do so armed with the numbers. An inequality report would do three things. Firstly, it would establish measures for economic inequality in different dimensions such as geography, gender and age. The government can't respond effectively if the problem is not measured, and the community may remain unaware of the extent to which inequality is connected to social and other outcomes. Secondly, it would access the effects of economic inequality on the economy and on individuals. It would ask, 'How mobile we are?' and 'How is inequality affecting people's life chances?' You only have to look in the remote regions of the Northern Territory and the rest of Australia to see how people struggle. Accessing the effects of existing government programs on economic inequality is a critical part of the policy development cycle. And, thirdly, it would access personal struggles with inequality—in particular, as I said, in the Northern Territory. The poorest regions in the Territory also have very high inequality. These are the vast regions that encircle the Darwin area, called Daly, Tiwi, West Arnhem and East Arnhem. Of course, there are regions with varying income levels that also have relatively low inequality ratios—for example, the region of Molonglo in South Canberra. I have to talk about the gap in child mortality. The target to halve the gap in child mortality by 2018 was certainly not on track last year, and the target to close the gap in life expectancy by 2031 is not on track. Interestingly enough, we're coming up next week to the Closing the gap report on life expectancy, health and education for first nations people in this country. The attendance rate for non-Indigenous students remains steady at 93.1 per cent, but progress will need to accelerate for that target to be met. Halving the gap in employment by 2018 is not on track. As our shadow finance minister, Jim Chalmers, outlined in his recent book, Changing Jobs: The Fair Go in the New Machine Age, it's certainly a remarkable achievement that Australia has maintained a record quarter-century of uninterrupted economic growth, especially when this period contained the greatest global downturn since the Great Depression. However, the gains of this growth are increasingly flowing to the top end of town. We see this way too often. In the Northern Territory, as a Senator for the Northern Territory, I travel to our remote regions and towns. Equality is absolutely necessary in terms of transportation and access. At this time of year, with the wet season, half of the Northern Territory is impacted quite dramatically by heavy flooding, as we've seen with the evacuation of residents from the Daly River region last week to Darwin. Huge thanks, obviously, to the Northern Territory Emergency Service, Red Cross and other personnel involved with the evacuation. Again, the measuring of inequality is certainly quite critical for the constituents of ours in the Northern Territory and the remote regions of Australia. I am certainly confident that this bill is a step in the right direction. I commend the bill to the Senate. 10:16 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I rise today to speak on the Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017, a private senator's bill introduced to the Senate by our colleague from New South Wales Senator McAllister. I'm very pleased that Senator McAllister shares the coalition's passion for decreasing inequality in Australia so that all Australians can have a fair go—after all, Australia has long been heralded around the world as the land of the fair go. But what is less pleasing is that Labor would once again commission yet another study into the problem of inequality rather than tackle it head-on. You see, the Labor Party so often seeks to appear to be taking real steps to solve today's pressing issues, but in reality the Labor Party is unashamedly just sitting on its hands. By contrast, the coalition government is addressing inequality with policies to boost economic growth, general employment and income for hard-working Australians, while targeting assistance to those who need it most. We don't just want to be seen to be doing good; the coalition is actually doing good. Before I address the substance of this bill, allow me to first highlight what some might view as a glaring flaw in the bill itself. I wish to draw the Senate's attention to the fact that Senator McAllister's bill links the timing of the reports to the intergenerational reports that are produced by the Parliamentary Budget Office every five years. An inequality report must be tabled, according to this bill, within 15 sitting days of the tabling of an intergeneration report. However, the intergenerational report is produced by Treasury, not by the Parliamentary Budget Office, which is a significant flaw in the bill that we are discussing today. So this bill can't have any effect, because the PBO won't be producing the intergenerational report. Although, undoubtedly, the intent of the bill is sound, it would appear that it was potentially hurriedly prepared—and, let's be frank, it's a politically motivated piece of legislation that would in fact have very little effect. Australia's tax and transfer system overwhelmingly directs assistance towards those who need it the most. According to the ABS household expenditure survey, the poorest 20 per cent of households, on average, receive welfare payments and social services worth more than eight times that which they pay in taxes. This is evidence of how our social welfare net is working effectively to assist those Australians who need it the most, ensuring that conditions are available for them so that they too can prosper and grow as contributors to our nation's great economy. Recent data has supported the notion that income inequality outcomes in Australia have in fact continued to improve since the dark days of the global financial crisis, and that's thanks to a strong and resilient economy. For example, the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey—the HILDA Survey as we know it colloquially—released in June 2016 found that the percentage of Australians in both relative and absolute poverty has in fact fallen since the global financial crisis around 10 years ago. Absolute poverty has in fact decreased substantially, from 12.9 per cent to 3.9 per cent, and relative poverty has similarly decreased from 13 per cent to 10.4 per cent. Furthermore, the HILDA Survey shows that, thanks to a robust economy that facilitates social mobility rather than fosters inequality, most 'poor' households are not persistently poor, and this is particularly important. Half of those who experience poverty over a 10-year period remain in poverty for only one to two years. In keeping with these findings, the government took steps in the 2017-18 budget to encourage greater workforce participation, and it also protected the welfare system for those who need it the most. Meanwhile, in stark contrast to our own track record, those opposite are talking. They're prevaricating, they're equivocating and, rather than developing a policy, they are commissioning yet another study. I can't believe that the opposition has not learnt from years gone by, and I remind those in the chamber of the years of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. In the lead-up to his campaign he promised study after study after study and, as his term as Prime Minister showed, the people of Australia dismissed this as window-dressing. The people of Australia do not want that kind of do-nothing government, big on announcements but devoid of outcomes. Rather, what Australians expect of their government is a government that gets things done, working in a methodical, logical and timely manner to improve the lives of everyday Australians. Alternatively, the coalition government, on the other hand, is doing exactly what coalition governments are expected to do and what they have done since time immemorial—what they have always done. The coalition government is getting on with the job. Our priorities and our policy agenda are to secure the essentials that Australians rely on and to work to reduce the cost-of-living pressures in this country. I am thankful for the opportunity this private senator's bill provides me to speak a little about the Turnbull coalition government's program to reduce income inequality in this country. One of the coalition's flagship policies is of course the enterprise tax plan. It was justified by a recently released journal study, courtesy of The American Economic Review. According to that study, titled 'Do higher corporate taxes reduce wages? Micro evidence from Germany', higher company taxes in Germany actually led to reduced wages and thus to greater inequality. The study I cite is particularly useful in the Australian context, given the similarity of our labour market to that of Germany. The study finds that workers bear about half of the total tax burden, a figure that is congruous with the 50 per cent corporate burden often quoted by Treasury. Examining administrative linked data from the 18,000 tax changes across 10,000 municipalities in Germany between 1993 and 2012, this study found that higher company taxes in fact reduce wages most for those who need our help most: low-skilled workers, women and younger workers. The study also noted that higher-skilled employees are not affected at all. All of this points to a simple fact: cutting company tax rates improves inequality. In spite of this, the Labor Party continue to meet our enterprise tax plan with downright hostility, stubbornly dismissing it as trickle-down or neo-Liberal Reaganomics. As the aforementioned study demonstrates, those who the Labor Party purport to look out for the most—women, young workers and low-skilled workers—are those who stand to benefit the most from our enterprise tax plan. That's right: contrary to the member for Maribyrnong, the Opposition Leader, Bill Shorten's assertion that our tax plan is a cut for the top end of town, it is in fact women, young workers and low-skilled workers who are the main beneficiaries of our corporate tax cut. As per usual, the Labor Party are all talk. They pretend to look after the little guy, but, when push comes to shove, all they want to do is bash job-creating companies and look after union cronies. So artificial, in fact, is the Labor Party's concern for hard-working Australians that they refuse to support legislation to ease the tax burden for those who need it most. When will the Labor Party learn that higher taxes of any kind are not the answer? We cannot tax our way to prosperity. Furthermore, the coalition government's budget repair measures are designed to reduce debt and deficit—a symptom of the addiction to spending that is solely attributable to the Australian Labor Party; an addiction for which all Australians are now paying dearly. Our measures reduce the debt and the deficit; they increase the ability of the government to respond to economic shocks in a way that supports economic growth and employment—two factors that are key in reducing income inequality. As the most recent round of job figures showed, the coalition's policies to increase employment and grow the economy are working consistently and are working effectively, with a record of more than 400,000 jobs created in 2017, of which, I remind the chamber, 300,000 were full-time. And, furthermore, in addition to our strong jobs growth, we have seen rising profitability and a gradual tightening in the labour market as companies are finding it harder to find skilled workers. As such, all the primary drivers of wages growth are now in place, and we expect, as do many prominent economists such as Chris Richardson and Saul Eslake, that the so-called income recession will now come to a rapid end. Attendant on the expected wages growth is swifter budget repair and an end to the crops of debt and deficit sewn and grown by Labor over those six fateful years. In addition to creating jobs, the government has introduced a range of measures to rein in spending and improve the sustainability of Australia's social safety net—a social safety net of which we are immensely proud—all whilst ensuring that the welfare system remains one of the most precisely targeted in the world. With the support of the Senate, more than $37 billion worth of budget repair measures have already been legislated, including measures from the 2014-15 budget that comprise part of the omnibus savings bill that passed with the support of the opposition, and for that we thank them. Our 2017-18 budget, building on the success of the omnibus savings bill, seeks to grow the economy to secure more and better-paying jobs—the kinds of jobs that are required, that are necessary, that are fundamental to a 21st century economy. The budget, as expertly put together by the Treasurer, the Hon. Scott Morrison, also guarantees essential government services that Australians rely on, such as Medicare, hospitals and schools, all in spite of the scare campaigns that emanated from those sitting opposite. Our budget tackles cost-of-living pressures, many of which are the result of the disastrous former Labor government, and, contrary to our predecessors, ensures that the government lives within its means. All of these measures, working in concert with one another, are about continuing to redress inequality and ensuring that there isn't a single Australian who cannot access the assistance that he or she needs, while fostering the prosperity and growth of all Australians. One of the core features of this coalition government's agenda has been guaranteeing the essentials, protecting and boosting essential services that Australians rely on. As we have endured the so-called income recession, Australians have come to place even greater faith in the government's range of essential services. And so it should be, for the first duty of a government is to protect and keep Australians safe and ensure that critical services they rely on are guaranteed. These services include health care, housing, disability support, education and, in particular, employment. This coalition government is, most importantly, guaranteeing Medicare, making funding fairer for students and sharing the responsibility of our higher education system. Our essential services give Australians the security and confidence they need to seize opportunities as they arise. First and foremost, this government is tackling the cost-of-living pressures on Australian households. The 2017-18 budget eases the cost-of-living pressures on Australians and their families particularly in the areas of energy, housing and childcare costs. On the energy front, the National Energy Guarantee, unveiled by the Minister for the Environment and Energy in October last year, will further ease cost-of-living pressures on Australian households, with expected savings of up to $400 per year on their energy bills. The government's energy security plan will help provide reliable and affordable energy for Australians, with practical reforms designed to meet immediate challenges and lay the foundations for our future energy needs. Hardworking families have faced increasing childcare fees, with costs growing by 51.7 per cent between 2008 and 2016. This has placed a significant strain on household budgets and presents a hurdle for Australians considering returning to the workforce. To assist around one million hardworking Australian families, the government is investing $37.3 billion over five years through its Jobs for Families Child Care Package, which will help ease the cost-of-living pressures and provide more affordable access to quality child care. Australians will also get a better deal from our financial and banking system, with the government giving consumers access to free, fast and binding dispute resolution services—making banks and their executives more accountable and giving consumers greater access to and control over their banking data, empowering them to seek out better and cheaper services. All of these measures are real, genuine and productive steps in making sure that Australia continues to improve on measures of inequality. Finally, as part of our commitment to ensuring that all of our older Australians are able to enjoy a comfortable and dignified retirement, the government will reinstate the Pensioner Concession Card for those impacted by the asset test changes introduced in January this year. This will allow an extra 92,000 people to access the discount offered to holders of the Pensioner Concession Card, including subsidised hearing services, offered by the Commonwealth. Furthermore, these people will continue to be able to access discounts offered by the states and territories. So it becomes clear that this coalition government is working to redress inequality by guaranteeing essential services, and the most important essential service is Medicare. Contrary to the despicable 'Mediscare' ad campaign run at the last election by the Australian Labor Party, this coalition government can assure all Australians that not only is Medicare here to stay but also it will be significantly strengthened in the future. The government is guaranteeing vital healthcare services, with Commonwealth health funding expected to increase from $75.6 billion in 2017-18 to $82.6 billion in 2020-21. The Medicare Guarantee Fund was established on 1 July last year to secure ongoing funding for the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, guaranteeing Australians access to these services and affordable medicines into the future. The fund provides transparency around the cost of running the MBS and the PBS and guarantees the government's commitment to funding affordable health care that all Australians rely on. Not only is Medicare guaranteed but it will be made stronger under this coalition. The government will provide a billion dollars to lift the freeze on the indexation of the MBS, to encourage GPs to bulk-bill children under the age of 16 and concession card holders. Bulk-billing incentives will also be indexed from 1 July 2017. When the Gillard government introduced the National Disability Insurance Scheme to parliament in November 2012, there was only one small problem—it was not fully funded. As they are wont to do, the Labor Party came up with a piece of legislation and passed that legislation but conveniently forgot that it must be paid for at some point if it was ever to become functional. Fortunately now, though, for those Australians who rely on the services provided through the NDIS, the Turnbull government has acted to fully fund the NDIS scheme. If my memory serves me correctly, I also think it was Mr Shorten, who is part of the party which now rejects the true Gonski funding that excludes unfair and special deals for particular education sectors. The Gonski program is also now fully funded. The only failures, I believe, are those of the Labor Party, who have wrecked and resisted at every step of the way the government's economic plan to repair the budget, grow the economy and create jobs. Our achievements in implementing the national economic plan stand in stark contrast to those opposite, who show no sign of waking up to the economic challenges facing hardworking Australian families and Australian businesses. I thank the chamber for its time. 10:36 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I'm pleased to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on the Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017. If you needed any more clear or stark reinforcement of why we on this side, and the Australian people, say that this government is out of touch, you only had to listen to that speech or take it off Hansard because, obviously, the government is living in a different community than we are in Tasmania or in Australia. They just don't understand the difficulties. The reality is that there is greater inequality in this country—much greater than there was when they came to power over four years ago. I support this bill and I'm very proud to be in a party that is so evidently committed to addressing inequality, one of the greatest social and economic issues facing the nation. The bill amends the Productivity Commission Act 1998 to expand the general policy guidelines for the exercise of the Productivity Commission's function to require consideration of inequality. This bill and fighting inequality are things Labor wholeheartedly supports—unlike those opposite—and, unlike those on the other side, we even acknowledge it. Last year, the Treasurer, Mr Morrison, said inequality hadn't got worse. But it's time to come back to reality. Under the Turnbull government inequality is thriving. Wage growth is at an all-time low. The cost of living is paralysing families. Thousands of vulnerable older Australians can't access care, and the government's health cuts are bankrupting families. Homelessness and housing stress are national crises. Where is the Prime Minister on all of this? He is busy obsessing over his own political woes; he's obsessing about whether he's able to keep his own job. When it comes to the recent polling, we note that No. 26 was rung out this morning—so there are only four more before he reaches Tony Abbott's 30 negative polls, which this Prime Minister used to knife that Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is so preoccupied he has failed to fulfil one of the biggest obligations that a Prime Minister of this great country has, and that is to know and understand what's happening in our community. He has failed to listen, failed to act and failed to understand what Australia's most vulnerable people are struggling with. Those opposite have taken the low road one too many times, and even their most loyal supporters are turning away. If you were to say to me, Senator Bilyk, that Malcolm Turnbull had a bit of a tough time in 2017, I would give you an award for the understatement of the year, because 2017 was an absolute shocker for the Turnbull government. After a particularly tumultuous year you might have expected them to bunker down and re-emerge in the new year with a resolution to be better and to be different. But 2018 started the same way for the Liberals as 2017 ended—in a complete shambles. From their divisive Trump-style comments about gang violence in Victoria to the delay of the GST report to the revelations that our broadband speeds are now lagging behind Third World countries or the clumsy tirade on China's Pacific affairs, we're seeing more of the same old disorderly government. They've kicked off this year with no direction, no plan and, above all, no narrative. As a former investment banker, you'd think that Mr Turnbull would have the economic nous to manage the economy and address the cost of living that's paralysing families in this country, in particular those on very limited incomes, such as older Australians. But his elitist approach to economic issues such as tax and housing affordability has created an us-versus-them culture. People are switching off and feeling disenfranchised. In Mr Turnbull's first speech of the year last week he vowed that 2018 would be a year of delivery and that families could look forward to cheaper energy prices and lower childcare costs. What a load of bunk and rot from the Prime Minister. Last week's Productivity Commission report confirmed that childcare costs continue to skyrocket under the Liberals and that it won't get any better under the government's changes, which won't take effect until 1 July. The Liberals don't support early education or our early educators who do such a critical job. Next month, childcare workers will walk off the job in a bid to raise the industrial-law award wages. This will be the third national walk-off in 12 months, but, again, the Liberals aren't listening. It's not like these early childhood educators want to take these measures, but they are left with no choice. Parents support them; this government ignores them. This says everything about this government's priorities. While Australians have suffered record low wages, it has pursued penalty rate cuts and tax hikes for low- and middle-income earners while cutting tax for millionaires and big business. That's what this government prioritises. Mr Turnbull is an elitist and the Liberals are so out of touch with the Australian people that it's not funny. From that speech, the first speech in this chamber this year from a Liberal, they've demonstrated very, very clearly that this government still doesn't get it. This government still doesn't understand what's happening in its own community. You might recall on Q&A last year when Mr Turnbull condescendingly asked an audience member to explain how he had disappointed her. How disingenuous can you be? That's the level and mentality of our Prime Minister: too worried about his own job and too big an ego to listen to what's happening in the community. Mr Turnbull has spent most of his life within the top one per cent of wage earners in this country. How can someone who has lived a very privileged life relate to parents who will be trying to balance their family budgets as they buy new school uniforms, school shoes, books and lunch boxes for their kids as they go back to school this week in Tasmania? It's no longer a question of whether Mr Turnbull can relate to the majority of the population, because we all know he can't. The magic number, as I said, of 30 Newspolls has arrived, and no amount of smoke and mirrors can hide the fact that he can neither lead and govern nor close the gap of inequality in this country. This is a government with the wrong priorities and the wrong vision for Australia. The Prime Minister needs to understand the heartbeat of the country's people. The Prime Minister needs to understand the hardship that's been experienced by so many—too many—in this country. The Prime Minister needs to understand the heartache of parents having to say no to their kids when they can't do music lessons, when they can't do swimming lessons and when they can't dance with their friends. He needs to get real and start showing some heart for Australians who are less fortunate. Those opposite think that if they give a tax cut to the big end of town, to big business, who do not pay their fair share of tax already, there will be economic growth and jobs created. I'd like to ask the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, to explain to me and the Australian people when in history tax cuts for big business have stimulated job creation and caused wage growth. I know he can't answer that, because it hasn't happened. The drivers of an economy are the people. How about you focus on them, Mr Turnbull, just for once? Last week, Mr Turnbull said that life in Australia was good as a result of the coalition's economic policies and that his government are committed to defending the fair go. That is absolute nonsense. It's rubbish. We heard from a government senator just before I began to speak saying that everything is all right, that they've got everything on track. The problem is that they don't understand and they aren't listening to the Australian people. I don't know who these government senators and members are socialising with or visiting or who the constituents they see in their offices are. Obviously they're very different to the people who have contacted me or the people who have talked to me in the supermarket or around a barbecue over the new year. The government can never defend the fair go until they change their priorities and policies. They are an arrogant government who are so far out of touch it's not funny. Comments from the Prime Minister that everything's all right and that he's going to defend the fair go reinforce the fact that he just doesn't get it. He doesn't listen or understand what is so evident. He doesn't understand the struggles happening in our suburbs and for the rest of us. The Prime Minister doesn't understand the pressure Australian households are under, and he doesn't care that one in four parents are going without food so that their kids have enough to eat. Instead of focusing on big issues like stagnant wage growth, the rising cost of living, access to affordable health care and housing affordability, we've seen a government fixated on itself. It's comments like those from the Prime Minister which reinforce that the government don't understand and that they haven't been listening. There are so many people in our communities who have legitimate concerns. Most Australians are focused on putting food on the table, paying their bills, paying their mortgage or paying their rent. But this government is too preoccupied with satisfying millionaires and the big end of town. There are single mums and single dads who are trying to make ends meet by having two jobs. They are also many, many two-income families who are still under increasing financial pressure, and that puts enormous pressure and stress on these families and individuals. Mothers and fathers have lost their jobs because industry is under pressure and government has not reacted fast enough. And then there are the older Australians, the people forgotten by those opposite. We know the crisis confronting older Australians in this country. It's financial, but it's also about care. It's about the 100,000-plus people who are still waiting to get a home-care package, to get assistance to stay in their homes. Let's face it—we all know that the best place for older people to age is in their own homes. It's also a lot less expensive for every government to have people stay in their own homes. Let's not forget that. They still pay their rates. They still have to pay their own hydro bills and their heating and energy costs. So the least that this government can do is to ensure that older Australians who need assistance to stay at home, to live safely and have the dignity and respect they have earned, get it. But this government has failed. It's not just this government. We remember the Howard days. They were in government for 11½ years and, even though people thought that John Howard was a man of the people and the man of the poor, he always failed to deliver for older Australians. And this government is no better. There are older Australians in my home state of Tasmania who are forced to wait in ambulances or in queues at emergency departments because there are not enough beds in the hospitals. We know that, in Tasmania, older people have been left on the floor in accident and emergency departments. Why? Because the Liberal state government and the Turnbull Liberal federal government have cut funding to health. The Tasmanian health system is in crisis. Only last week, the head of surgery at the Launceston General Hospital resigned because he couldn't reach an agreement with the minister and the government of the day. He left because they took away all his power to make decisions. That's the calibre of Liberals when it comes to health care in this country. There's never been a more important time for government to be actively promoting equality of opportunity than now. It's in our national interest. The people are sick of hearing those opposite bang on about their sterile, unrealistic slogans, such as 'jobs and growth' and the 'innovation agenda' and the empty rhetoric of trickle-down economics. I don't have an economics degree, but I do know maths and I do know the numbers. I know the number of people who are still trying to get jobs in this country and the number of people who are doing it really tough in this country, and trickle-down economics will not change our economy for the better for those people who need it most. We need a renewed debate on the role of government in reducing inequality—something that the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, continued last week. This brings me to the contrast between Labor and the Liberals. Of Australia's two viable governing parties, only one has a policy approach that will defend opportunities—the Australian Labor Party. Last week, the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, outlined Labor's vision for 2018 for a fairer, stronger and more inclusive Australia. The contrast between Mr Shorten's and Mr Turnbull's first speeches for 2018 couldn't be more stark. Mr Turnbull used his speech last week to cement the fact that he is the ultimate hollow man of Australian politics. As my colleague Mr Chris Bowen said, 'Malcolm Turnbull talking about income tax cuts is like the English cricket team bragging about winning the Ashes.' Malcolm Turnbull, in his Toowoomba declaration last week, bragged that he will cut taxes for Australians, when he's increasing the taxes of seven million Australians. The fact is that Malcolm Turnbull is increasing taxes for seven million Australians so that he can cut taxes for multinationals and millionaires. He wants a medal for saying that he might cut taxes, when we know that he is, in fact, increasing them. Under Mr Turnbull's tax increase, someone earning $60,000 gets a tax hike of $300 a year. Meanwhile, he's giving millionaires a tax cut of $16,400 a year and big businesses a tax cut of $65 billion. If Mr Turnbull was really fair dinkum about tax, he would drop his tax increases. All his talk and jibe about tax increases when all this government wants to do is increase tax through the Medicare levy is just hollow rhetoric. Fact: this is a government that wants to increase income tax, and the Labor Party stands against it in this place. Fact: the only thing stopping Australians earning less than $87,000 a year paying more income tax today is Bill Shorten and the Labor Party's opposition to this government's ridiculous policy. Fact: the Liberals are so delusional and out of touch they think that, if they give a $65 billion tax cut to big business, who do not pay their fair share of tax now, there will be economic growth and jobs will be created. I could go on and on about the inequality in this country and the fact that this government is still out of touch. Inequality in Tasmania is already impacting many households, as I said earlier. We in Tasmania already experience high levels of inequality and underemployment. In fact, nearly 40 per cent of Tasmanians receive some form of government benefit. This is well above the national average. We know that Mr Turnbull doesn't like Tasmania because we didn't support him; we didn't vote for him at the last election. But he still has to respond to the desires and ambitions of all members of this country, including Tasmanians. Most income in Tasmania is generated from wages and salaries. Other income is produced in the form of pensions and child payments. However, all income is then further reduced by taxation and other increasing costs. Any impact on our income stream, such as the Turnbull government's cut to penalty rates further, reduces our ability to support normal basic living costs, education and health. Clearly with this low wage growth any rise in unemployment in Tasmania will lead to defaults on mortgages and consumer loans and could have catastrophic results for our state. We have already lost 4,700 jobs in the last 11 months. We cannot afford for this to continue under Malcolm Turnbull or the Liberal state government of Tasmania. We need action. We need leadership. I know I'm asking too much when I ask to have leadership from this Prime Minister, but the Australian people deserve nothing less. 10:56 Senator MOORE 00AOQ Queensland In December 2014 this Senate brought down a report with the title Bridging our growing divide: inequality in Australia: the extent of income inequality in our nation. It was a very concerning report, for the very reason that we had seen that the issue of inequality—we're talking about 2014—had been discussed both in our own community and internationally and that a range of recommendations and issues had arisen that focused on exactly what the issues around inequality were. As you know, our process of developing reports includes taking evidence from a range of experts across the nation and, most importantly I think, having the opportunity to visit communities all around our nation and to listen to people who genuinely care about their lives, about their communities and, in this case, about what they perceived as genuine inequality—a situation in which our nation was actually not responding to fairness, not actually going forward with equality but identifying a clear danger that the inequality would impel our society and our community as we knew it. Well, the report came down, and a number of recommendations were made. I know many people in this place made contributions to the debate, and several months later the government responded and said that in fact there wasn't inequality in Australia. The government's response to that was particularly concerning because it went back over so many of the arguments we've already heard in this place, which were simplistic, and came up with simple answers, saying things like, 'Well, it's not as bad as it used to be' and 'If we get the budget right it will improve' and various other things. I'm not trying to verbal the government, but I'm trying to encourage people who are interested in this topic to go back and have a look at the build-up of evidence, community concern and personal stories showing how people feel about their lives and whether or not they believe that things in fact are equal and whether it's getting better. So, this report came down. Within that report was a particularly worthy piece of documentation provided by Professors Peter Whiteford and Andrew Podger, which was a graph—and we had many, many graphs in this report—showing results of selected studies of inequality in Australia. It didn't go back to Federation, although it possibly could have. Nonetheless, it took a time frame and gave us a bottom line about which we could have our discussions and look into what we should do next. It began with the Bradbury study in 1992 and then went through over 30 studies up to Bray in 2014. It gave a synopsis about whether or not these reports indicated growing inequality. The reports all looked at our community—not the world, not the international aspects, but what was happening in our own communities. They consistently said that there were serious concerns. I will quote from the ABS's Survey of Income and Housing—and it's a long one which sounds like economics, which is not my strength, but I'm going to put it on the record: While the mean household net worth of all households in Australia in 2011-12 was $728,000, the median (i.e. the mid-point when all households are ranked in ascending order of net worth) was substantially lower at $434,000 … This difference reflects the asymmetric distribution of wealth between households, where a relatively small number of households had high net worth and a relatively large number of households had low net worth … This was then illustrated in a series of graphs that came after. The survey went on to focus clearly, and I have deliberately made that quote because we're looking at people who had income, who had strong income, as I noted. We weren't talking about the gap between the wealthiest and least wealthy—those who are very poor in our society—which is sometimes where this debate focuses, showing that great gap. It talked about people who were already in income-solid families and showed how that inequality had increased. However, it went on to show stats, which I know have been quoted in this debate, that over 1.2 million households, which is 14 per cent of our community, had net worth of less than $50,000, with 114 of those households having negative net worth—one per cent of all households. That's where it really hits home, where, despite many protestations made over many years, there is clear acknowledgment that there are people living in our community, who are our neighbours, who have not only limited income but negative net worth. Discussions around inequality and income often degenerate into a war of graphs and statistics, and I'm not saying that that is always bad. It's important to understand the statisticians' information, and that we have very clear data—and I'll come back to that later. In the Australian context, we have a range of academic institutions that look carefully at what's happening in our communities and a number of universities have very strong research areas that follow the economic inequalities and livelihoods of Australians. The key Australian Bureau of Statistics data came out of two surveys: the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey, the HILDA; and the Survey of Income and Housing, the SIH. These surveys provide ongoing statistics that look at what is happening in our community, and it's on that basis that Treasury also make statements about income such as the one I read earlier. The whole reason we're having this discussion about this piece of legislation is that we want the Productivity Commission, which is an economic based organisation that lives and breathes statistics and how the economic process impacts on our community, to have a more regular high-profile role in looking at exactly what's happening in inequality in Australia, and putting it to the forefront so that not only does it review these issues but, as often with productivity reports, they come back consistently to the parliament so that parliamentarians are able to discuss what the recommendations and findings of those reports are. The core issue is then to turn that into effective responsive policy. So, where we identify inequality, we're able to consider the reasons for the inequality and access the information that we have across the board. We can then look at how we can develop policy that identifies where people are in need and where people are not benefiting from other advances that are going on in our economy and respond to that. That is the job of policy development, and Senator McAllister's bill makes sure that we have that front of mind and integrally linked to the development of all policy that comes from what's happening in our community. We know that we have data. We know that we have information, but I'm particularly keen for people who may be interested in this issue to have a look at Senate committee reports such as Bridging our growing divide: inequality inAustralia and many others that have come here. We have talked many times about individual areas that are disadvantaged and the particular problems some of our community have with getting solid financial security. Beyond the statistics are the kinds of issues about which Senator Polley was talking. They're the people who have actually had the courage to come and talk with their parliamentary representatives about what's important to them and—sometimes with absolutely admirable courage and devastating honesty—talked to us about the terrible things that have happened in their personal lives and in their communities which have caused them to have the serious inequality issues that have brought them to talk to us. Whilst the 2014 report does not in a final report give a lot of data from communities and from representatives, when people who are interested go into the parliamentary records, read the submissions that people have provided and read the Hansard records of the public hearings, that's when the faces, the families, the immediate impact of financial insecurity and the growing inequality—and I state clearly that it is growing inequality—in our community become most real. Senator Polley listed a number of gut-wrenching examples in her contribution. I refer meanwhile to the 2014 report, where we have the particular identification of sectors of our community who are most vulnerable. At the moment, one of the areas that is causing a great deal of distress for many of us is ongoing discussion with people who have disabilities and the impact of the absolutely clear evidence that shows that, for people with disabilities, the whole range—their income earning capacity, their livelihoods, their ability to have effective housing and education—is negatively impacted. The contrast between those families that are working with disability and those that are not is a clear area where there is need for effective policy to respond to that and acknowledgment that that is an area of need. Chapter 4 of the 2014 report looks at particular areas. I want to pick up on one area about which I have spoken many times in this place: people with mental illness. The National mental health report 2013 said: 2‑3% of Australians – around 600,000 people – have severe disorders … …   …   … Another 4‑6% of the population (approximately 1 million people) have moderate disorders, and a further 9‑12% (approximately 2 million people) have mild disorders. The committee recommendations go on to say there's a strong correlation between homelessness and poorer health and wellbeing, especially in relation to mental health. The rates of labour force participation are impacted, and Mr Fear went on to say we know that only about 38 per cent of people with mental illness work full time, compared to 55 per cent of the rest of the population. He goes on to talk about the issues with Newstart and Centrelink. We have much more in terms of other areas, particularly regional disadvantage. Many years ago there was a report put out that Wayne Swan was involved in which looked at postcodes. If you look at postcodes across Australia, you can zero in and see significant contrast between various postcodes in our community with regard to financial security, access to health and access to employment. That is a clear sign to all of us in this place that we have to acknowledge that inequality exists. We need to acknowledge that not everyone has been advantaged by the statements that have been made about the strength of the economy over many years. We do acknowledge there has been increased wealth, but acknowledging there's increased wealth does not remove the reality that there are people who have not been benefiting from these advances. We shouldn't run away from that, we should try very hard not to allocate blame about that and we should look at how we, working as a parliament, can respond to it most effectively. At the moment there are a number of issues pulling together that give us in Australia, in our parliament, a very clear encouragement and opportunity to respond to the recommendation from the 2014 Bridging our growing divide: inequality in Australia report. It called for us to take the issue seriously and look at having a report to parliament about what is happening in our community. That's what Senator McAllister's private member's bill has done in recommending the Productivity Commission amendment. Also, internationally—and I've spoken about this many times in the parliament—the world has made an agreement, across all continents and in all countries, that we can identify inequality in our own areas and then work together to respond to that. The Sustainable Development Goal: Agenda 2030 looks at reducing poverty and, most importantly, at how our communities can ensure absolutely—and this is the theme that we should all hold dear to our hearts—that no matter what policies are introduced or what happens in the economies, we are going to leave no-one behind. This, to me, sums up the debate around inequality. If we had genuine commitment to effective policy development in our country as we moved our policies forward, as we looked at responding to the various pressures that impact on our nation and if we genuinely made a commitment that we would develop policy that would leave no-one behind, we would not only be ensuring that inequality would be reduced but we would also be acknowledging that people need to have that security—that we can, in fact, have a 'leave no-one behind' agenda. There are 17 Sustainable Development Goals, but the first one is to end poverty in all its forms everywhere. I know that's a challenge, but if we're looking at genuine equality we would be looking at removing poverty. The subclauses of goal 1, to end poverty in all its forms, go through the various things that were defined four years ago when we were looking at the evidence around developing the inequality report. We were looking at ending hunger and ensuring food security. There is devastating evidence in the 2014 report that talks about hunger in Australia and the impact that we're having in terms of food banks and kitchens which are being developed to ensure that people in our streets, in our communities, are not going without meals. I'll refer anyone who's interested in this situation to the evidence that was received there. I think that sometimes we become very comfortable. In our own lives, we become extremely comfortable. When we hear about world poverty, we immediately think of something overseas—devastating malnutrition and things in our Pacific neighbours' countries, as Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells would understand. We don't think about our next-door neighbour in our own street in our own community, but the evidence we have from people who work in food kitchens and food banks indicate that there is poverty in Australia. If we're going to make an international commitment on the world stage to end poverty, that should mean everywhere. We should be looking at the data, the information and the people who are suffering from poverty, malnutrition and a lack of security in our own communities. In looking at that part of the Sustainable Development Goals, immediately we have a responsibility domestically as well as internationally. If we are to respond effectively to the Sustainable Development Goal: Agenda 2030, to which our country has signed up and about which we're going to make our first report back to the UN this year, we need to ensure that the data collection, information and education processes within Australia are addressing the identified issues of inequality, which are the same here as they are overseas. They may well have lesser impact here. I'm not making a claim that Australia has the same desperate poverty as places that are suffering drought and famine, like central West Africa. I'm not making that claim. But I'm saying there is genuine inequality in our communities and we need to identify and address that, and then, as part of our genuine commitment to ending poverty in all its forms—to leaving no-one behind—we address openly what's happening in our own communities, using the data sources that we have. We have enviable data sources. In fact, the Australian Bureau of Statistics is seen as an international expert in looking at data collection, and one of the things we're going to be doing as part of the 2030 agenda is sharing our knowledge in this space with other countries. So let's use that effectively within our own community: address hunger, address homelessness, address housing shortages, address health shortages, address the environmental impacts of disasters and address what is happening in our own community overall—which is causing people to feel they're not respected and that they are not sharing the increasing wealth of our nation. That's the hint of inequality. We have the opportunity to do something about it. We shouldn't dismiss it. We shouldn't pretend it doesn't exist or make comparisons showing that everyone is doing better so, therefore, everyone is okay. That's clearly not the case. When you hear people talking about their own experiences, they don't feel as though everyone is doing okay, and we have the capacity, as a nation, to respond. 11:15 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I'd like to start by thanking Senator McAllister for introducing the Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017 to the Senate. The provisions in the bill go to the heart of Australian values. There's no doubt that Australia is a prosperous country, but we're also a country that prides itself on compassion and egalitarianism. The principle of equality of opportunity—that old 'fair go' as most Australians call it—is a core Australian value. This bill would ensure that the Productivity Commission, one of the key drivers of public policy development in Australia, takes account of this core value when it provides advice to government. The bill will achieve this in two ways. Firstly, it will amend section 8 of the Productivity Commission Act 1988 to add: … the need to mitigate the negative effects of inequality on the Australian economy and the Australian community. That would be added to the Productivity Commission's policy guidelines. This will ensure that as well as important considerations such as economic growth, industry performance, employment and regional development, the important Australian principle of the fair go is taken into account in the commission's work. The inclusion of inequality in the commission's policy guidelines has a great deal of potential to guide Australia's response to the issue. After all, while the Productivity Commission is an advisory body, their advice is given significant weight when it comes to devising public policy. An example of that, as we have seen recently, is the Fair Work Commission's reliance on the Productivity Commission's report in their recent decision on penalty rates. It would be an interesting exercise to consider how the Productivity Commission's advice on penalty rate cuts for some of Australia's lowest-paid workers might have looked had they been required to take inequality into account. The bill will also require the Productivity Commission to publish a report every five years on the extent of inequality in Australia. And this five-year cycle will be the same as that for the intergenerational reports produced by the Parliamentary Budget Office. We only have to look at the contribution of the intergenerational reports to public policy debate to get an idea of the potential impact these reports could have on shaping government's response to inequality. What is proposed in this bill should really be uncontroversial, yet we have heard from senators on the other side of the chamber who speak in opposition to this bill. I really am a bit perplexed as to why they do that. On the airwaves, we heard the Treasurer, Mr Morrison, and the finance minister, Senator Cormann, deny that there has been a growth in income inequality in Australia. I am not sure what planet they are on, but it surely is not the same as the planet I'm on. Do those opposite truly and honestly believe that inequality isn't growing? If they do, surely they wouldn't have an objection to an independent report from a respected body like the Productivity Commission that could confirm this and settle the manner once and for all—unless of course they don't actually believe it. The fact is that those opposite know; they know that inequality is growing in Australia. And they know that the policies of their government are contributing to that, but they're obviously embarrassed to admit it. The government's denial of growth in income inequality is contrary to the recent evidence. In October last year, the International Monetary Fund said that Australia was among the countries with the highest growth in income inequality. And the latest Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia—or HILDA, as we commonly refer to it—report, released in August last year, shows that following the election of the Abbott government, household incomes started to decline in real terms. The HILDA survey found childcare costs were soaring—I think most of us know that!—particularly for low- and middle-income families, and stated these may be 'acting to increase inequality'. It also found that mortgages for young Australians aged 18 to 39 had more than doubled since 2002. And no more starkly has Australia's growing income inequality been laid bare than in a recent report from Oxfam Australia. Over the decade since the global financial crisis, the wealth of Australia's billionaires has grown by 140 per cent—140 per cent!. But at the same time, average wages have increased by 36 per cent and household wealth by only 12 per cent. The top 10 per cent of Australians own more than half of Australia's wealth, whereas the bottom 10 per cent own only 0.2 per cent. We also had a report in December last year from the Victoria University Centre of Policy Studies, which found that not only had wages growth hit record lows but the wages of the lowest-paid workers had not grown at all. A report in August last year on the Australian Digital Inclusion Index found there was a growing divide between the digital inclusion of people in high- and low-income households. It's a matter of national shame, I believe, that in a country that is one of the most prosperous in the world in terms of average incomes we have three million Australians, including more than 700,000 children, who live below the poverty line. How can anyone deny that there's a problem with inequality in Australia when we have the 12th highest GDP per capita yet so many Australians living in poverty? But those opposite continue to bury their heads in the sand and deny that there's a problem when it comes to inequality—either that, or it suits them to deny there's a problem because it's their regressive policies that are contributing to the growing divide between the haves and the have-nots. Those on this side of the chamber, when we stand up for equality and fairness, often get accused by government senators of waging class warfare or the politics of envy. If there's one thing those opposite can be trusted to do and do well, it's to turn supporting fairness into a negative. I want everyone to understand: the term 'class warfare' is just a clever way of ascribing a negative connotation to what is no more than advocating for a more just and equal society. That's what we on this side of the chamber do. Labor believes in fairness, believes in egalitarianism and believes these are values that Australians also hold dear. As I've said time and time again in this place, the real class war is that being waged by the Turnbull government. It's being waged against the vulnerable and the disadvantaged on behalf of big business. And yet when Labor stands up for disadvantaged Australians it gets accused of starting the so-called class war that those opposite have been perpetuating for decades. We have seen time and time again the government use their policies to target people on low and middle incomes. Just last year, the government cut $1.5 billion in family tax benefit part A, affecting 600,000 families. They have implemented changes to child care, which will make 279,000 families worse off from July this year. And, in a dodgy deal with the Greens, they made cuts to pensions that see some pensioners worse off by up to $14,000 a year. And this government also, through their so-called Gonski 2.0 education funding changes, will rip billions of dollars out of schools, including $68 million from schools in my home state of Tasmania over the next two years. This is on top of the billions the Abbott and Turnbull governments have already cut from education and health. Australia's access to affordable health care has been further exacerbated by the government's Medicare rebate freeze, which is making it harder and harder for low- and middle-income Australians to even see a doctor. It's also worth mentioning the sustained attacks by the Liberals on superannuation. Under Labor a 12 per cent superannuation guarantee was due to commence in 2019, yet under this government the superannuation guarantee remains stuck at 9.5 per cent. Now it's going after the governance of industry super funds, despite those funds providing substantially better returns for Australian workers. Sadly, while this government continues to attack low-income earners with its policies, it looks after its mates at the big end of town. Mr Turnbull has given a $16,500 tax cut to millionaires, and he's going to give away $65 billion of tax cuts to big business without any evidence that it will have a commensurate economic benefit. We also have the consequences of inequality, which this government has failed to take any action to address. We have falling rates of home ownership amongst young Australians, who are finding it more and more difficult to get into the housing market. We also know that wages growth has slowed to a crawl, and this is eating into the incomes of ordinary Australian families. Wages growth is now at its lowest level in 20 years and has failed to keep pace with growth in the economy or company profits. Labour productivity has grown by 20 per cent over the last decade, but at the same time there has only been a six per cent growth in real wages—that is, less than one-third of the growth in labour productivity. As an aside, there are a number of people in this room at this moment who have worked in the union movement—and I think we're all proud to have been union industrial officers or organisers or whatever role we held there, even though those on the other side tend to think there's a negative in that—and it's interesting to note that stagnation in wages growth appears to come at a time when the number of enterprise agreements is falling. But what do we get from the other side? Instead of trying to strengthen the enterprise bargaining system, we've got a government that's doing the bidding of its mates in big business and attacking trade unions at every single turn. It's bad enough that more and more workers are being stuck on award wages, but many are also being exploited and underpaid. It reminds me of the rip-offs in the 7-Eleven, Pizza Hut, Domino's Pizza, Caltex, Bakers Delight franchises—and the list goes on—all the areas exposed by Four Corners. We all know this government has done nothing—not a thing—to address sham contracting or the use of labour hire arrangements to undermine the pay and conditions of workers. The government has stood by while a pay cut of up to $77 a week has been delivered to 700,000 of Australia's lowest-paid workers. Late last year there was an opportunity to restore these penalty rates. Mr Christensen had promised he would vote to restore penalty rates, but, sadly, he reneged. He did this spectacular backflip and, amazingly, he voted against a Labor amendment that echoed the provisions of his own bill. Unlike those opposite, Labor will continue to fight for low-paid hospitality and retail workers and the penalty rates that they rely on. The other issue I'm reminded of, as I speak today about the policy failures of this government in regard to tackling inequality, is of course its lack of action when it comes to multinational tax avoidance. I've said this several times in this place before: not only has this government failed to take real action on multinational tax avoidance; when they came to power they set about reversing a number of Labor's reforms. Our legislation to plug loopholes in Australia's transfer pricing rules and anti-avoidance provisions and to crack down on companies overvaluing assets in international transactions was wound back by this government, handing back more than a billion dollars to multinational companies. While this government has been crying about their own anti-avoidance laws, the Australian Taxation Office confirmed in the last round of Senate estimates that those laws had not netted a single dollar from multinational tax dodgers. In fact, much of the money that has been clawed back by the tax office was thanks to anti-avoidance laws introduced under Labor, which the Liberals of course opposed. It's pretty shocking, I feel, that more than one-third of large firms and multinationals pay no tax whatsoever, according to the most recent data. Another failure that we've debated extensively is the failure of the government to crack down on bad behaviour by Australia's banks and financial institutions. I don't know how many years and how many hundreds of stories of inappropriate lending, loan fraud, bad advice and unfairly declined insurance claims the government had to hear before they finally—quite belatedly but finally—backflipped and accepted the need for a royal commission into the banks. They were dragged kicking and screaming into accepting that there was a need for a royal commission into the banks. Yet another area where the government has failed to act is the use of discretionary trusts to split income and minimise tax. This is a mechanism used mostly by affluent households, and something which Labor has plans to address. Our policy is quite well targeted, in fact, and will not affect charitable trusts, deceased estates or people who work in or run a small business. It's clear that Labor is serious about tackling inequality, while those opposite are not. While tackling growing inequality is a worthwhile end in itself, we should also recognise that there are other benefits. Often the debate around income inequality is framed as balancing it against the need for economic growth, but that is a completely false dichotomy. Analysis conducted by the OECD back in 2014 found that countries where income inequality is decreasing have faster economic growth than those where it's increasing. This is a view backed up by Nobel Prize winning economist Professor Joseph Stiglitz, who explained that low-income earners tend to spend a larger proportion of their income, thereby stimulating the economy. Inequality, Stiglitz argues, leads to lower consumption and weaker aggregate demand. This argument overturns the whole theory of trickle-down economics that we keep hearing from the other side, to which conservative governments tend to subscribe. Really, there's no proof that it works, but it suits those on the other side to use this process. Of course, the other positive outcome of addressing inequality is improving people's access to economic opportunities. My colleague the shadow Assistant Treasurer, Dr Andrew Leigh, looked at this in 2009 as a researcher. Dr Leigh and his associates found that, in the 10 countries they studied, social mobility and equality of opportunity went down as income inequality went up. Social mobility and equality of opportunity decrease as income inequality increases. To be honest, this isn't rocket science. It stands to reason that the more resources you have, the more opportunities you have to further yourself. If child care is available and affordable, you can afford to take up regular employment. If primary health care is affordable, you're more likely to avoid the consequences of chronic health conditions. If education is affordable, you have more opportunity to further your career prospects. As I've said, this bill should not be seen as controversial. It makes sense, if the Productivity Commission is going to take into account such things as ecological sustainability and regional development, that inequality should also be on that list. We know how important the work of the Productivity Commission is in providing advice on driving industry productivity and improving the performance of the economy as a whole. But—and this is what people really need to think about—without this legislation, put forward by my colleague Senator McAllister, we are relying entirely on the private sector for advice about inequality in Australia, because there is no mechanism that compels federal government to routinely examine inequality. This bill provides such a mechanism and makes it far more difficult for any government to avoid the uncomfortable question of whether income inequality in Australia is getting better or worse. This question, of course, is one that would be particularly uncomfortable for the present government, which explains why they are so opposed to this bill. The government, through their actions in some areas and inaction in others, are contributing to worsening inequality in Australia. It is therefore hardly surprising that they oppose measures that would help put a spotlight on inequality. This is just another sign of a government that is becoming increasingly out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Australians. What those opposite don't like about this bill is, if the Productivity Commission advice for tackling inequality were to be added, it would place public pressure on the government to actually address the problem. Taking serious action to address inequality goes against the philosophy of those opposite. They hate to admit this, of course, because they know it's not a view shared by most Australians who believe in the fair go. The Liberals believe it is the responsibility of the individual, not society, to further themselves. Rather than it being your circumstances, your resources and your opportunities that influence your outcomes, they believe it is your own personal failure if you can't achieve success in life. This is a party that subscribes to the flawed notion of trickle-down economics, and its members honestly believe tax cuts to millionaires and big business will drive job creation and economic growth rather than just line the pockets of already wealthy executives. (Time expired) 11:36 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise to make a contribution to Senator McAllister's private member's Productivity Commission Amendment (Addressing Inequality) Bill 2017. Inequality is rife in Australia. On this first occasion following the Christmas break, we have to talk about that very expensive and very colourful shirt the Prime Minister wore to a Christmas event in Sydney. The Prime Minister, lit up like a Christmas tree, showed up in a shirt that cost over $700 to feed the most marginalised and most disadvantaged. I think we're going to struggle to find an image in the course of 2018 that shows more powerfully how completely and totally out of touch with the Australian people this Prime Minister is. And it's not just the Prime Minister; the entire party that he represents is in a permanent mismatch between the lived experience of ordinary Australians who are struggling under the burden of increasing inequality and themselves, which is a hallmark of this government. Private members' bill debates, let's face it, in the Senate, do not always attract a great deal of attention. But this bill is actually a very important piece of legislation that, if enacted, has the potential to readdress a very significant flaw in the way in which the Productivity Commission looks at the plight of Australians, and that's why I applaud it. Senator McAllister's bill would require the Productivity Commission to take inequality into account in the exercise of its functions. It is very important that it does, given the nature of our current society. The reality is, at the moment, it's impossible for it to do that because it is simply not enabled by the current legislative frame. The bill would also require the commission to undertake work to regularly report on the extent of inequality in Australia and its effects on the Australian economy and community. I want to endorse and echo all of the sentiments that were expressed by Senator Bilyk, in particular, her comments around the bifurcation that exists with those who are running businesses getting an advantage from driving wages down and increasing inequality. We know Henry Ford a long, long time ago doubled the wages of his employees so that they would have sufficient disposable income to be able to go out, save, and envision that they might too buy a model T Ford and that's exactly what happened. The reality is people have been cut to the bone in the amount of money they have at their disposal to purchase in their local community. As a senator who lives on the Central Coast, who is happy to represent the whole of New South Wales, I will speak to the reality of families I met over the Christmas break on the Central Coast who were talking about how difficult it is to get their kids in uniform and back to school because they are so stretched. Energy costs, under the government of the Liberal Party at both federal and state level, have left New South Wales residents in a terrible state. The financial burden of those costs is making it very, very difficult for them to even get their kids off to a good start at the beginning of school—and I hope that I'll have sufficient time to make some remarks about the terrible cuts to school funding that are entrenching inequality into the future. But let me be clear: this issue of inequality should be at the forefront of economic debate, because inequality absolutely adversely affects economic growth and the quality of life of all Australians. Senator McAllister's bill embodies core Labor values and reflects what would be the priorities of a Shorten Labor government—to deal with the reality that confronts ordinary, hardworking Australians, not the privileged few who have friends in the top end of town and can afford shirts that are worth $700. It is the Australian Labor Party that is committed to tackling the most significant social, moral and economic problems of our time, and inequality is right at the heart of a core problem for this nation. Australians, perhaps in the course of this year, or certainly in the year following, will have a clear choice: a Labor Party that understands and accepts—and is willing to make policy to address—the growing gap between the rich and the poor in this country, a Labor Party that's committed to closing the gap, a Labor Party that contrasts with an out-of-touch Liberal government that doesn't see the inequality that it is itself creating and doesn't see inequality as an issue at all. We need a party that is committed to helping all Australians, not just the top end of town to the exclusion of all others. Just last week, both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, delivered speeches that set the scene and revealed their priorities. The contrast between the two could not have been any clearer. Not once in his major address last week did the Prime Minister mention the word 'inequality'—not once. He doesn't see it. He doesn't get it. This is despite the fact that inequality on his watch is rising to levels that we have not seen in around 75 years. The Prime Minister didn't mention cost of living either, and only once in his entire speech did he discuss wages. This is despite the reality that Australia's record low wage growth is now at around two per cent and despite the latest cost-of-living figures showing that the cost of essential items is crushing Australian families. I mentioned electricity, for example. The latest figures from the ABS tell us that electricity costs grew around six times more than wages. No wonder people on the coast and across the great state of New South Wales are feeling the pinch in their pocket, while the Liberal Party continues as if nothing is going wrong. This means that Australians are struggling to keep the lights on. Instead of recognising this reality, the Prime Minister stated that he will 'continue to put downward pressure on energy prices'. If he's going to continue what he is doing, he should at least be honest about what he is doing, which is putting upward pressure on prices. A failure of policy in this area is impacting every hardworking Australian. Take fuel, for another example. Fuel costs grew more than five times the growth in wages, and that means Australians are struggling to pay for petrol for their cars. The situation is not much better for health and education. The cost of hospital services and secondary education grew by more than double wages. Australians are struggling to pay for necessary health treatments and to send their children to school. I visited rural New South Wales last year, where families in Cobar were speaking about the extraordinary cost of putting petrol in their cars to get to the health services that they need to access. As a senator for Western Australia, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, you know more than many this reality for people in regional Australia. The cost of health in the city is already a very big barrier for people, who are trying to get to a doctor just down the road, where they might be able to get public transport. Add to that, in the regions and the remote parts of Australia, the additional cost of putting petrol in your car—a cost that's risen at five times the rate of wage growth—and we've got a burden that's growing in an extraordinary way in the parts of this country that are supposed to be represented by the National Party, who are meek and mild here in the parliament and do not stand up for the people whose voice they claim they have. They do not fight for fairness for those from the regions. Instead of discussing the struggles of everyday Australians of this kind, the Prime Minister's speech was focused on spruiking his $65 billion handout to multinationals and big business—$65 billion—while he's cutting funding from health and education and watching on and doing nothing about a failure of wage growth that's impacting every family pay packet that will be going home this week. In 2018, the Turnbull government has learnt nothing. They're still fighting to protect that well-worn trickle-down economic agenda that they have so wedded themselves to. Policymakers worldwide know it's not working. Giving money to those who have the most and waiting for it to trickle down to the poor is a lovely notion that's been totally discounted by all economists worth their salt. Yet this government and a Prime Minister wearing that shirt on Christmas Day, insulting the group of people whom he was meeting that day, are completely out of touch with what's going on. In contrast, Bill Shorten was focused on inequality, and Labor promises to deliver better wages for working Australians. This is because Labor's listening. Labor's heard time and time again from hardworking Australian men and women that they're struggling with record low wage growth and rising cost-of-living pressures. Just yesterday, with regard to private health insurance, Labor made a very, very important announcement that we will cap the premium increases at two per cent in the first two years and also task the Productivity Commission with the biggest review of the industry in 20 years to improve the quality, value and affordability of private health insurance. It might not mean much to someone who can afford a $700 shirt, but most Australians are not getting the value from putting our money into private health insurance that they once were. Labor understands this, and that's why we want to take some of the pressure off families. The reality is that, under Prime Ministers Abbott and Turnbull, average premiums have risen by 27 per cent while we've got the lowest wage growth in 75 years. So, families now, under this Liberal government who says they're looking after ordinary working Australians, are paying over $1,000 a year more than when the Liberals were elected—$1,000. That's a lot of money in any person's language. But, for the people in the seat of Robertson where I live, $1,000, I know, is a life-changing amount of money that I'd rather see in their pockets than in private health insurance. According to Oxfam last year, Australia's 33 billionaires increased their wealth by $38 billion while the growth in wages for hardworking Australians hit record lows. And this is what we've seen under the Abbott-Turnbull government: time and time again, millionaires, billionaires and multinationals continue to increase their wealth and their profits while the ordinary hardworking Australian misses out. Australian men and women are struggling to make a decent living. They're tired of the anxiety that's associated with insecure work and the rise of casualisation, and more so than ever. This is certainly not their fault. Australia has been described internationally—and we still hold onto this view of ourselves—as the land of opportunity, but fighting for equality of opportunity and social mobility is a fight that must continue every day, and it's certainly a fight that Labor is willing to take up to this government on their watch. Research by the McKell Institute tells us that where you live is more likely than ever to determine your income. I grew up in an Australia where it was about how much passion you had to get out and use your talents and abilities that was going to give you opportunities. It used to be that you could get an education at any school across this country and you had a chance. But not under this government. Access to health services and education services and opportunities are dividing us like they have never divided us before. The rich are getting richer and richer by the day; those who are at the edge are being forced and forced and forced downwards. Location—not your level of education—playing a large role in determining your income is not the sort of Australia that I want to be a part of. Under the Turnbull government's watch, there is no longer an opportunity for people to make their way out of difficult situations. There have been $65 million tax cuts for multinationals, billionaires and the banks. We know that there was a $16,400 a year tax cut given to millionaires. Instead of helping Australian men and women gain secure work, earn a decent wage and retire with dignity—as well as being able to afford a house and get a world-class education—the Liberals have decided to do what they can to help those who are doing just fine. They're cutting funding from education, creating barriers to our world-class education system. Almost 10,000 students this year will miss out on a place in Australian universities because the Turnbull government has cut $2.2 billion from that sector. Our best and brightest, who need an opportunity for a proper education, have been cut away from that opportunity—further increasing the inequality that seems to be the passion of this government. Under the Turnbull government, there are now 730,000 Australians unemployed, and, of concern, there are almost 1.1 million unemployed Australians who are looking for work and unable to find it—1.1 million of our fellow Australians, and the Turnbull government think they're doing a good job. They celebrate the unemployment figures, ignoring these nearly two million Australians. For our young people, the situation is even worse, with the proportion of young men and women working full-time continuing to fall in a stubbornly downward trend. That's since the GFC. Importantly, nearly one in five young people in the labour force want to work more but cannot. Again, that is something this government is ignoring. The under-utilisation of our labour market is bad for the economy. Our economy will not be as productive as it could be unless people are spending, saving or investing. Beyond this, insecure work can cause, or be caused by, mental illness and mental ill-health; beyond earning an income, work is a source of social interaction and a way to gain a sense of purpose. This is particularly so for young people, and insecure work and unemployment—which we know is the hallmark of the world in which they are seeking work—can have a devastating long-term consequence on their education, on their employment, on their physical and mental health and on their capacity to contribute over a lifetime to the great nation we call Australia. Beyond not recognising the issue of insecure work, again, the Turnbull government fails to mention these sorts of issues in any of their speeches. Certainly, it was absent from the Prime Minister's speech last week. Australians need, want and deserve better wages, but the Turnbull government is doing nothing about that. I want to, particularly, put on the record my concern about this absence of policymaking for middle Australia. We really shouldn't be surprised, because it does reflect the ethos of a Liberal Party to govern for the top end of town. They always talk about how close they are to business, but decent businesses—small businesses that are employing people on the ground—are paying good value for good workers. Sadly, they're not getting the support of this government. I want to put on the record in the short time that remains to me that it's not just this federal Liberal government that has this attitude; Liberal governments across the country are embodying this same sort of out-of-touch approach to governing by no longer rewarding hard work with decent wages and by continuing to choose big business and the top end of town over middle Australia. Take, for example, the New South Wales Liberal government and their transparent desire to short-change 9,000 Sydney and New South Wales trains employees. These are dedicated workers who are seeking basic working conditions and fairer wages to simply support themselves and their families. For more than six months, the Liberal government—the sister to this government here in the federal parliament—have failed to make a fair and reasonable offer that the workers there can accept. When the New South Wales Liberal government have openly said they look forward to the day when their transport system is driverless, it is easy to see they have no respect for their workforce. It's been left to the Rail, Tram and Bus Union to fight to ensure that the men and women that they represent are not left behind and have the capacity to earn a decent wage under fair working conditions. It's also an opportunity for me to put on the record that, as a Labor senator, I stand in solidarity with those workers, who, since having their whole workforce decimated by the Liberal government in New South Wales to the point where a new timetable has come in, are now being forced to work 13-hour shifts for 13 days in a row. They are trying to stand up for the New South Wales residents who use that transport system. There are issues of safety. Do you really want someone driving a train in the 13th hour of their 13th consecutive day? That's what New South Wales has been reduced to because of the cost cutting of the Liberals: essential services put at risk because of a lack of understanding of the need to deliver equality for all workers and for all Australians. In closing, can I say it's left to the Labor Party and unions across Australia to deliver for those most in need in middle Australia, and it's exemplified today by Senator McAllister's bill. 11:56 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Happy New Year, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle! It's good to be back and engaging in some interesting debate. But I have to say, it is disappointing to come in and listen to contributions like the one just made. I have a lot of respect for Senator O'Neill, but some of the things that have been given to her to read out today don't quite stack up. Often, and over many years, this country's been referred to as the 'lucky country' and—as I think Senator O'Neill said herself—a land of opportunity. People have come here from distant lands over many, many years to make the most of what is on offer in this country, to take advantage of the wonderful opportunities and the level playing field that I thought we had in this country. Everyone has a chance to make a go of it here, no matter what sort of a background they come from. Recently, we celebrated Australia Day, when many of us have the privilege of representing the minister for immigration and citizenship and reading out the minister's message at the Australia Day citizenship ceremonies. People come from wherever they've come from, countries that don't have the same nature and system of opportunity that we have here in Australia, and they seek out these opportunities that our country provides and offers to them. You talk to these people and you hear their stories about the countries they've come from and the conditions they lived under—often squalor and fear. Many of these people, under certain regimes in different countries, couldn't get ahead no matter what they did. And so they were looking forward to the opportunity to make a go of things here. These people often come here with nothing. Some people have sought refuge here as asylum seekers. Often they are at a disadvantage to those of us who were blessed enough to be born in this country, because they don't speak the language. So they start from way back there. Yet these people will take any opportunity that is thrown their way. I don't hear them complaining about it. They are grateful to have the opportunity here to be able to do these things. My own mother-in-law came from Albania. She couldn't speak English. They had nothing with them when they came here and sought political asylum. They worked three jobs. My father-in-law, who trained as a cardiologist in Albania, came here and worked as a cleaner for an extended period of time at the Greenslopes Private Hospital in Brisbane. They did not take a cent of welfare. They've worked very, very hard since they've been here. They were at a disadvantage, compared to the situation that those of us who were born in this country started our lives with. But they made a go of it. They've done very well. And that's because this country presented to them opportunities that they did not have in their home country of Albania. They were not allowed to choose their line of work. They were not allowed to live in the town they wanted to. That is the difference. Listen to Senator O'Neill and some of the other contributions from those opposite and you'd be tricked into thinking we're in some awful dictatorship where people are forced to work against their will at ridiculously low wages, where they don't have a chance to do what they want to do and improve the life of the next generation of their family coming through. It's about equality of opportunity, which I was so pleased to hear Senator O'Neill mention, versus equality of outcome. We have opportunity. We have the chance to do something: to start a business, to study, to go and do something out of our comfort zone that may well yield a benefit, that may result in a profit or a promotion at work or a new job or something like that, something to improve our lives. In my view we should be nurturing that, not equality of outcome, where no matter what you do, however little you put in, you're guaranteed to get as much as the person who busts their guts over here and risks everything—mortgages their house—to start their business, to employ the 13 or 14 people that they employ in their small business. We should be rewarding those who want to put in, who want to make a go of things, who actually want to do something not only for themselves but also, through paying tax, for this country. We talk, or at least Senator O'Neill talks, about these business people as if they're big moguls who sit in smoke filled rooms plotting to undercut workers in this country. It's madness. We have small-to-medium business enterprises in this country that make up a huge portion of our economy. They employ a huge number of Australians. They're the ones we're talking about. They're the ones we need to help out. So I was pleased that Senator O'Neill talked about equality of opportunity, which is important, and we should protect that at all costs. But the rest of the rhetoric, the rest of the baseless claims that were made in her address, didn't stack up with that. They were all plucked out of thin air and they all pointed to the usual Labor stance of equality of outcome, which is the wrong thing to aim for. We should be aiming for and protecting equality of opportunity. We should be empowering Australians—young Australians, older Australians and new Australians. We should be motivating and encouraging them, not shaming them. This debate is all about shaming people who do well. It is talking about profit as a dirty thing. As I said before, people who run a small business, who have started up a business for the first time and have mortgaged or sold their home—maybe they're renting because they haven't been able to afford to buy one yet—are the ones who've risked everything to set up this enterprise which employs other people. I commend and applaud that. I applaud those people who take that risk, who contribute to the economy, who aren't looking to government to sort their life out for them. They are taking matters into their own hands, and that's what we should be fostering. We should not be shaming these people into thinking they are doing something dirty and something wrong because they have done well in business and can afford to buy a nice car, send their kids to a good school and take their family on a holiday. This sort of debate is all about shaming those who actually want to do well, and that's what annoys me about this. It is something I'm ashamed of, that we in this country have this sort of attitude towards people who take risks, who put everything on the line, who have skin in the game, and— Senator Carol Brown F49 What schools would those be? Senator DUNIAM 263418 There are many, many good schools, Senator Brown, and I will send you— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D Ignore the interjection, Senator Duniam. Senator DUNIAM 263418 I accept your admonishment, Mr Acting Deputy President. I'm sure that Senator Brown, as a representative of the great state of Tasmania, agrees with me that we need to be fostering this attitude of reward for effort, encouraging rather than shaming people who wish to make a go of things in this country. I take issue also with a couple of the things that Senator O'Neill mentioned in her speech—namely about people who can afford to buy $700 shirts. I don't know many, if any, people who would go down to the shop and pick up a $700 set of threads. If they do, good on them. This outrageous example of pointing to someone who buys a $700 shirt and then grouping everyone who is a small or medium business operator with the big end of town as nasty business people—this talk of billionaires and millionaires—who are trying to undercut the worker is madness. The people we are talking about here—people who run businesses, who employ other Australians—are not in that category at all. To inject all this rhetoric into this debate and try to paint a picture of a society in Australia where you've got lots of people drive around in Bentleys and everyone else having to hitchhike is just ridiculous. So I don't accept the points that Senator O'Neill made in that respect. It is just that: rhetoric. It is just trying to make this debate more emotive than it needs to be. We need to be real about it and we should get real about this sort of stuff. Getting out into our regional communities, where there are lots of small-business people—farmers and the like—you would understand that this $700-shirt business is not real. It is just part of this flourish that they're putting into this. If I can turn to Tasmania for a moment: I've been observing the state campaign in Tasmania. We're in a state election campaign. One of the Labor Party's candidates in Tasmania, a fellow by the name of David O'Byrne, who was a minister in the last government in Tasmania, penned a— Senator Polley interjecting— Senator DUNIAM 263418 I beg your pardon—I missed that interjection. Senator Polley e5x The last good government! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D Order! Senator Polley, interjecting is not helpful. Senator DUNIAM 263418 I will take that interjection, because Senator Polley says it was the last good government in Tasmania. Of course, there's another minister in this chamber who was part of that government, but I'd have to invite those in the gallery and anyone listening—the seven people across the country listening today—to go and check the scoreboard because, frankly, it was not a good government. It was one that left us with a mess in our state, and the last four years have been about fixing that mess. I want to turn now to Mr David O'Byrne—the Hon. David O'Byrne, because he was a minister and has apparently earned the title 'honourable'. He penned an opinion piece for the Mercury dated 31 August 2017, 'Fighting to reduce inequality is the Labor Party's main task'. About two-thirds of the way through his opinion piece, he says in relation to Tasmania: Inequality is represented by the one in every two Tasmanians who cannot read or write properly. He's right about that. That's right. We do have a system which has, over many, many years, failed to support young Tasmanians—to teach them the basics. Our education system has not delivered what it should've done. We've been off experimenting with all sorts of different types of curriculums and learning systems. But I find it a bit galling when Mr O'Byrne decides to pen an opinion piece of this nature, having sat in government as a minister around the cabinet table as part of a government that wanted to close 20 schools in regional communities. He signed off on that and now has the gall to write an opinion piece saying that inequality is represented by these one-in-two Tasmanians who cannot read or write properly. If that is the case, in terms of fighting inequality in the state of Tasmania, my home state, how does closing schools—particularly in regional communities, where kids have to travel further to get to the next school if that one shuts, where there aren't all the supports of a bigger community and where the older generations certainly didn't have the educational opportunities that the younger generations may have—address inequality where kids can't read and write properly? That is something that he needs to answer for. Senator McKim JKM As your own minister! Senator DUNIAM 263418 Senator McKim, I'm sure, would agree that some of the policies brought in in the last four years have been good—us being the last state in Australia to have schools that went through to year 12, kids dropping out at year 10 and often not going on to do anything else. Thankfully, now we are seeing students in these schools going on to finish their secondary education—about time. It is good, and the feedback has been good—from the students, from their families, from the communities in which these schools exist and from the staff as well. I know it's not convenient when the staff take a different line to the AEU in Tasmania, but they are welcoming it. They are embracing it. Mr O' Byrne also goes on: Inequality is the look on the face of Tasmanians who are forced to wait 12 months to get in to the RHH after testing positive to a bowel cancer screening because they can't afford to pay to see a private specialist. There's been a lot of talk of cuts. The last government, the Labor-Green government in Tasmania, oversaw massive cuts. This is something that we see them try and sweep aside—put under the rug—so no-one can deal with it. They cut 250 nurses from our hospitals statewide. How does cutting those supports, those vital frontline workers—which, I might add, the Hodgman Liberal government have reinstated and then some—reduce the inequality that Mr O'Byrne is now concerned enough about that he's written an op-ed about it three years after he lost his seat in the Tasmanian parliament? Words are great, but back it up with actions. He went on, finally, to say: An interventionist government— aka big government, with lots and lots of public servants in nice big office blocks in Hobart, is the way to go— lifting all boats on a rising tide through a strong vision and targeted action … That sounds great, but to me it sounds like cutting down tall poppies, shaming those who do well, work hard and take a risk, and that is something I think we need to be aware of. On the specifics of this bill, I heard Senator O'Neill mention in her contribution that the bill will enable the Productivity Commission to do something that it doesn't currently do. But, as I understand it, the commission under the current legislation isn't precluded from doing that. I feel that, in directing it to study something that it already can, this legislation is not entirely necessary. No-one is stopping it from doing that. It can do that, so, in that sense, it seems mildly superfluous. The bill provides for a report in the end; it enables the Productivity Commission to study, evaluate and compile a report on inequality. It doesn't change anything. The government still needs to do something after receipt of these reports. Again, I'm pretty sure those seven people across the country who are listening to this debate, if they haven't tuned out already— Senator Polley e5x Five have just switched off! Senator DUNIAM 263418 Five have just switched off, said Senator Polley. They knew you were up next! I'm pretty sure those people are sick of us just commissioning reports and having a gab rather than doing the things that address the issues that have been talked about in this debate. I've already put on record my views about how best to assist those who want to get ahead, how best to provide equality of opportunity and not shame those young people who want to get ahead and try and do well. I encourage my kids to do well. I'm sure there are some opposite who will now say that I'm an elitist because I want my kids to do well, but I'm proud of any young person who does well, who does take a risk in life, who does try and improve the lives of others, particularly in our smaller, regional communities. Directing the Productivity Commission to undertake this analysis and provide a report to government is going to do nothing, other than allow us to line the shelves in our offices with yet another report that may well never see the light of day, that will just gather dust and that will not make a jot of difference to the lives of those people we're talking about now. I'm a very strong supporter, having done extensive work with Senator Polley and other senators on the Community Affairs References Committee, of supporting those truly in need. We can never shy away from the fact that in this country there are people truly in need. But I don't think having support for those who are in need should come at the cost of assisting those who want to get ahead. That's the thing. I think this debate sometimes comes down to there being mutual exclusivity: you've either got to support those who want to get ahead, or cut them off at the knees and give it all to those who can't do well off their own bat. You've got to wonder, though, if this bill passed, what would it would do for Australian families? They may be struggling to pay their power bills, as Senator O'Neill talked about. No-one's doing anything to address the cost of living. In Tasmania—and I'll need to double-check this—power prices under the Labor-Green government went up something like 65 per cent in the 16 years of government down there. We had an announcement yesterday in Tasmania, where the Tasmanian government, the Hodgman Liberal government, said that, if re-elected, they would leave the National Electricity Market, which would see a significant drop in power prices. That's the kind of thing that will help Australian families who are struggling with the cost of living and will assist in this debate about trying to make Australia a fairer place in terms of the burdens that are placed on Australian household budgets. But commissioning a report up here in Canberra, talking about it in this big room and doing nothing much else, I don't think will help those people. It is about practical initiatives. It is about going out and listening to Australians and what matters to them. It's about putting in place measures and initiatives which will assist them to deal with the problems they face, which will assist them to take advantage of the opportunities that we have in this country, which, as I started by saying today, is the lucky country. It is the land of opportunity, as Senator O'Neill said herself. In terms of providing equality of opportunity, we should be nurturing the attitude that we want to see in our young people—of entrepreneurialism, risk-taking and things like that—so that, rather than waiting for the government to fix everything, they can get up and do it themselves. (Time expired) 12:16 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales I wish you all the best for the new year, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, and I welcome Senator Jim Molan here as well. It's good to see you, Senator. Senator Payne M56 Team New South Wales! Senator WILLIAMS I0V Team New South Wales—that's it, Senator Payne! Team New South Wales—here to fight for the good side of politics. During the Christmas break I met with a couple of friends. They had a reunion of the Commonwealth Bank staff in Inverell just a week or so ago. Many of them are good friends, and I met with a couple there. The wife was telling me that, when she got married, almost 50 years ago, she worked for the Commonwealth Bank and she had to resign her job because, if you were married and a female, you weren't allowed to work in a Commonwealth Bank. So she had resign. And that was the case, probably, at many other institutions; I'm not just picking out the Commonwealth Bank. She had to reapply for a job. How unfair is that? That wouldn't want to be the situation today in any institution. I always say that life is about fairness and that people should be treated fairly and paid fairly. I have the opinion that, if a woman is doing the same job as a man, she should have the same pay as that man, and that is simply being fair. Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, you would have been familiar with the Thai Amarin restaurant at Green Square. I remember being there with you one night. During the Christmas break, Silvie and John sold the restaurant and retired. Both came here as refugees from Cambodia. Silvie's father was murdered by Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, terrible people who were trying to overthrow the government. Silvie and her six siblings and her mother walked in their bare feet from Cambodia to Bangkok. They slept on the side of the road. They made their way to Australia as refugees and became great Australians, great workers. They set up their restaurant, worked hard and became very successful. That is what Australia's about. It's the land of opportunity. If you have a go, work hard, work smart and do the right thing by your customers, if you're in retail business—you provide a good product or a good service—you become successful. That's how it should be. I'm very proud to say that I spoke about Silvie and John on Australia Day, both in Inverell and Glen Innes. We see how other countries have had to suffer like this, and luckily we haven't. I certainly hope we don't in the future. John, Silvie's husband, was also from Cambodia. They met in Sydney. John's father was also murdered, because he was in business. Pol Pot was a terrible piece of gear. Luckily, Silvie and John met. They married and were very successful in business. They had two lovely children, Janelle and Sean. They took up the opportunity that Australia offered. They were great refugees, great immigrants, proud Australians. Their siblings are still here. They've all done well. Their mother is still alive. It's a great success story from what was a terrible situation in Cambodia. That is what Australia offers—a land of opportunity. We have good education. It could be better, of course. It could always be better. The funding has been put forward by Senator Birmingham, with a great program for fair funding throughout Australia for all public and private schools. We have good schoolteachers. I wish there was a bit more discipline, in many respects, in some of the schools. The discipline has probably eased off from our days—I can't say 'our days', Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi; you're a lot younger than me! It has eased off from back in the sixties and seventies, I should say, when there certainly was a lot more discipline. There is the NDIS, to treat those who are disadvantaged, those who are disabled, to see they have a fair, decent standard of living— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D Order! It now being 12.20, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of government business. Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017, Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2017 23

Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017

Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2017

Second Reading 23 12:20 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 and the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2017 primarily implement reforms flowing from the expert panel review of medicines and medical devices, also known as the Sansom review. This is the second tranche of legislation following the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016, which was passed in the middle of last year. These bills were referred to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee on 30 November and the committee handed down its report on 2 February. I turn now to the detail of the legislation. Schedule 1 of this legislation provides a pathway for the provisional registration of promising new medicines. These will be included in a new class of therapeutic goods, which will be known as provisionally registered goods. Sponsors will be able to apply for this provisional registration subject to the Therapeutic Goods Administration reviewing and accepting early clinical data on the efficacy and safety of the medicine. That registration will be limited to a two-year period, although they may apply for up to two extensions. Sponsors will also be required to comply with additional conditions relating to the efficacy and safety of these medicines after it is available on the market. Whether we are talking about medicines, medical devices or procedures, there are always risks. In many cases those risks may be very low, but they are there and patients often do not fully appreciate this until after something has gone wrong. The potential risks must, however, be weighed against the potential benefits. In many situations it is the patients themselves who must weigh up these risks and benefits, hopefully with the guidance of health professionals. Patients who are presented with the same risks and benefits may well reach different conclusions about what is right for them. Even with medicines that have been in use widely and for a long time, new information may become available. That new information may improve our understanding and change either side of the risk-benefit ratio. Recognising that these medicines are based on early clinical data, it's important that doctors, health professionals and, most importantly, patients fully understand and appreciate the risks involved. With access to a medicine being given without the level of clinical data that would normally be provided, it is foreseeable that new information will show some of these medicines to be less effective than first thought, and there may be greater or new risks that weren't known at the time. Of course, the opposite could also occur. There will be strict conditions under which a medicine will be available through the provisional approval pathway. It will be for patients with unmet clinical needs for serious health conditions. These bills also reform the regulatory framework for complementary medicines. These reforms include: establishing a list of permitted indications for listed complementary medicines by the minister through a legislative instrument; creation of a new assessment pathway for listed complementary medicines; and allowing sponsors to claim evidence of efficacy. Complementary medicines fit into two categories: they are listed or registered. Listed medicines are assessed for quality and safety by the TGA. However, they are not assessed for efficacy. Registered medicines are assessed by the TGA for efficacy in addition to quality and safety. Schedule 2 of the bill allows the establishment of the permitted indications list, which removes the option of a free-text field for sponsors and allows only pre-approved low-level claims to be made. The National Boards and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency stated in their submission to the Senate inquiry that the current system: … will be greatly strengthened by the removal of the free text field for indications and replaced by a more controlled approach to permitted indications. This was an area where stakeholders' views diverged greatly. Many stakeholders made submissions to the inquiry suggesting that there should be a disclaimer in relation to indications based on traditional evidence, stating that there is no scientific evidence of efficiency. Schedule 3 of the bill creates a new assessment pathway for listed complementary medicines and provides an option for sponsors who want to use indications that are not on the permitted indications list. In this case, the TGA would assess the evidence of the efficiency, and the sponsor would certify the quality and safety. Sponsors would then be able to indicate in their promotional material that medicine had been assessed. Schedule 4 amends the act to provide classification so that it more accurately reflects existing administrative practices. For example, an application must meet primary requirements before it can further proceed. It makes little sense to waste resources further processing an application if that application is clearly deficient. Schedule 5 provides changes to the act in relation to Australia's conformity assessment body. This was a major part of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2016 Measures No. 1) Bill 2016 and ensures that the TGA has the power to obtain documents relating to certification activity from these bodies and the manufacturers whom they have certified. It also enables the greater use of assessment by overseas regulators for medical devices. Schedule 6 makes changes concerning the advertising of therapeutic goods. It allows for the TGA to be the single body responsible for management of complaints about advertising of therapeutic goods. It also broadens the sanctions and penalties available in relation to misleading advertising. Part 2 of schedule 6 reviews existing requirements for pre-approval of certain advertisements. Presently, there are inconsistencies in which therapeutic goods require pre-approval before they are advertised to the public. For example, medical devices do not. The inconsistency also extends to the media in which goods are advertised, with over-the-counter medicine advertisements being subject to pre-approval on television, on radio and in print; however, those same goods don't need pre-approval when advertised on the internet. The removal of the pre-approval process appeared to be the primary concern that arose from the Senate inquiry, with many civil society groups expressing alarm. CHOICE in its submission stated: The responsibility for pre-vetting advertisements is currently split between two bodies; Australian Self Medication Industry (ASMI) and Complementary Medicines Australia. The Advertising Standards Manager at ASMI reported that in 2014/15, ASMI reviewed over 1,400 advertisements with an average turnaround time of 7 days. She noted that during this period, the majority of new advertisements assessed required changes to avoid breaching the Therapeutic Goods Advertising Code, sometimes wholesale revisions. Considering this, it is evident that this process is essential in protecting consumers against false and misleading advertising. Ceasing pre-vetting opens a floodgate of issues – advertisers can say anything they want and, while the TGA has enforcement powers, once an advertisement has been aired or published, the damage has been done and consumers are unwittingly misled. Before any changes to this process are made, we strongly support a formal independent review of the system. Sufficient evidence should be collected that demonstrates that there is no need for pre-approval of adverts before such a decision is made. The Public Health Association of Australia also expressed those same concerns in its submission: The PHAA is concerned about abandoning pre-approval of advertisements without a formal review of the effectiveness of the proposed reform package. We note that the majority of published submissions to the TGA consultation on advertising reforms did not support removal of pre-approval in favour of self-regulation; with all those supporting the changes coming from industry or media organisations. Although there is room for improvement, the current pre-approval process is largely efficient and effective. It reviews over 2,000 advertisements per year with an average turnaround time of 7 days, and identifies changes required in most advertisements it reviews to bring them in alignment with the Code. Prevention is better than cure, and the current Bill replaces a co-regulatory scheme of known effectiveness with a self-regulatory scheme of unknown effectiveness. This is particularly important for media advertisements, which may persist even once found to be in breach of the Code (for example, remaining in print media indefinitely). Those reviews were echoed by many others. The core issue is that, if the pre-approval system is abolished, any protection can only be applied after the damage is done. Labor accepts that this legislation does provide positive measures including the improvement to post market surveillance, stronger penalties for a regulatory violation and a new complaints handling system. However, what we don't know is whether those measures will be sufficient to remove the pre-approval system without risking the increased harm that comes from misleading advertising. This legislation implements many complex reforms. A further concern is whether implementing all of these changes in a very short time frame will overload the capacity of the TGA. Schedule 7 will allow for powers of search and entry to monitor compliance with the act. It will also allow for more graduated penalties to contraventions of the act so that the response to breaches of the act can be more appropriate to the severity of the breach. Schedule 8 makes amendments to ensure that the record keeping and reporting requirements of biologicals are consistent with other medicines. Schedule 9 makes some minor amendments to the act including improving consistency with different types of therapeutical goods. Finally, the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2017 primarily allows for regulations to be made to prescribe an annual charge for a conformity assessment body determination and to ensure that annual charges will also apply to provisionally registered goods entered in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. Schedules 4, 5, 8 and 9 were not controversial, and the committee heard no evidence of any concerns about the measures in those schedules. The charges bill was not of great concern, with little discussion of this bill in the inquiry submissions. I now return to the main issue Labor had with this legislation, the removal of pre-approval process for advertisements. Labor drafted an amendment to retain the pre-approval system; however, we welcome Minister Hunt's willingness to negotiate on this matter. The government has agreed to retain the mandatory pre-approval system for two years subject to an evaluation at 18 months. We understand that the government will therefore now be moving its own amendment. Whilst we accept that some concerns remain, on balance, Labor believes that these bills are an improvement over what exists. The government's amendment and other non-legislative commitments made by the minister in his letter to Labor's shadow minister for health on 4 February this year addressed the most serious concerns we had. Labor will therefore support the government's amendments and the bill without further amendment. This will allow for swift passage of the legislation, and the provisional approval pathway for promising new medicines will be very important for patients awaiting treatment. 12:33 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I rise to speak to Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017. This is the second tranche of legislation arising from the Sansom review, which was an expert review of medicine and medical device regulation. It was a review that was long overdue. The Greens supported the review and we support most of the recommendations that have come from that review. The reason, in fact, we're standing here today and speaking about the report of the findings of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee is because the Greens moved this bill to an inquiry. It was through that process we learned of the significant concerns of a number of stakeholders. We referred this bill to inquiry because we had a number of concerns about the bill, particularly in relation to schedules 2 and 6. The TGA plays a very important role in Australia. It ensures that we have a regulatory body that assesses medicines that come into this country and ensures that the claims made about therapeutic products are substantiated and that people get access to therapeutic products in a timely way. It must be said that there are significant elements of this bill that we do support and are keen to see come into effect as soon as possible with regard to the regulation of therapeutic goods in Australia. Part of the reason for this legislation is ensuring that people get timely access to medicines. That's an important change. Changing the fast-track registration process does mean that we're going to get effective treatments into the hands of patients sooner than they otherwise would've been able to get access to those medications, and some of these medications may indeed save lives. It's a very important change and one that we welcome. But, as I said earlier, we do have some concerns about this bill. While we support changes to the fast-tracking process and other changes to therapeutic goods registration, there are other changes in this bill that we think have the potential to undermine consumer protections. Schedule 2 of the bill allows the minister to determine the list of 'permitted indications' that can be made for medicines listed on the register of complementary medicines. At the moment, what you have is a process for listing a complementary medicine on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods that allows the sponsor of that medicine to include a free-text description of the indications for the products. It basically allows the people who are sponsoring a product to write what they like about the product, to walk that line—and sometimes walk cross that line—between a claim that may have some merit and one that is clearly in the interests of getting the product moving through into consumers' hands. The change to determine a list of permitted indications is something that might be supported, provided that it comes with what was also recommended through the Sansom review. As I say, the removal of the free-text option is a good thing. It provides some boundaries around what the sponsors can say about products. The list of permitted indications was originally a very well-defined list, but pressure from industry has meant that we're going to see a much larger list of permitted indications than we otherwise might have. It's also going to be within the discretion of the minister. This is a power for the minister via a legislative instrument to establish that list of pre-approved permitted indications. We have to remember that that happens without any formal assessment by the TGA. The sponsors will look through a list of permitted indications and choose which one they think is appropriate for their product, but that doesn't mean that the product has been rigorously assessed by the TGA to determine that those claims can be made. The Sansom review did recommend this change. They said, 'Get rid of the free-text option, but you need to replace it with a list of permitted indications.' But they also did it in combination with a further recommendation that there should be a disclaimer on those medicines so that consumers are aware that they haven't been tested for efficacy, and that, while this claim might be made by the sponsor, this is not something that has been proven through an assessment by the TGA. That's very important. A number of stakeholders from a range of sectors raised their concerns about this with the committee, and they made it very clear that it was important that this additional disclaimer be inserted to make sure that the list of permitted indications are seen within their proper context. Just because the TGA have said, 'This is our list of indications, and we've said to you, "You can choose one of these," it doesn't mean that we endorse or have assessed your product to ensure that it complies with that indication.' The Sansom review said there should be a disclaimer that says explicitly: this doesn't mean that these claims have been assessed or verified by the TGA or that they're supported by the TGA. That was the view of a number of stakeholders—for example, the Consumers Health Forum of Australia. We all know who the Consumers Health Forum are. They basically advocate for patients to ensure that they have the right information to make the right choices to get access to medicines. They said: Our concern is that the limitations of this list of permitted indications may not be understood by many consumers and it may give them some misplaced confidence in the evidence behind the list. We also heard a similar sentiment from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, which is obviously the group that represents GPs here in Australia. It said: We strongly recommend that the TGA mandates that manufacturers must include a statement to accompany all non-scientific therapeutic claims, in close proximity and in the same font as the health claim. It must be said that the TGA have been generous with their time in providing us with briefings, and we certainly appreciate that, and I understand that the rationale for their not endorsing that recommendation from the Sansom review is that they believe it won't make a difference. My argument in return would be: if it doesn't make a difference then there should be no issue in terms of including it. I think it does behove our regulatory authority to ensure that consumers have all the right information in front of them and aren't led to believe that a particular claim made by the sponsor of a therapeutic product has somehow been assessed and endorsed by the TGA. As a result of these concerns I can indicate that the Greens will be moving an amendment in my name that would see the requirement for the disclaimer, as was recommended by Professor Lloyd Sansom in his review. The second issue is the issue of the deregulation of advertising and the removal of preapprovals. Schedule 6, part 2 of this bill removes the current system of preapprovals for advertisements of therapeutic goods. Currently, if you're a sponsor of a particular medicine and you want to advertise it, you're submitted to a pre-vetting process. The ad is submitted to a pre-vetting process under a power that's delegated to the Australian Self Medication Industry and Complementary Medicines Australia. That's to ensure that it meets approved standards. A number of people who submitted to the inquiry raised concerns about the removal of this current layer of oversight, which guards against the distribution or broadcast of ads that are in breach and which protects consumers from misinformation about any of the claims made in that ad, including those which might be about the efficacy or indications of the products. The submitters said we shouldn't remove that level of oversight. The Australian Self Medication Industry estimated in their submission that 60 to 70 per cent of advertisements submitted to ASMI's advertising services office for preapproval required some form of amendment. Some 60 to 70 per cent of ads submitted to the Australian Self Medication Industry advertising services office were changed. They needed to be changed. It might have been a minor change or a significant change. Some of the changes were small; some were significant changes to the claims that were made through the ad. That's a lot of ads, many of which, if they'd not been pre-vetted, would have been broadcast, meaning that consumers would have been exposed to false or misleading claims. We don't see why you would seek to change a system that protects consumers. The Australian Greens concur with the concerns raised by many of the stakeholders about this change and that there is little sense in removing this layer of regulatory protection, at least not until we have seen what the replacement regime looks like. The change seeks to implement a range of new sanctions for breaches. We want to make sure that the effectiveness of these new sanctions have been assessed and reviewed through the formal three-year review of the reforms, which the government has already committed to. Therefore, I also want to highlight that the Australian Greens will move a further amendment—that the removal of preapprovals for therapeutic goods advertising be delayed at least until after the three-year review of the reforms to the advertising regime. Our amendments also legislate for that review to take place and for public reporting of its findings. It's very important that that occurs. I understand that the government has written to the Labor Party and that there has been some discussion between the government and the Labor Party—both of whom, it must be remembered, were prepared to see this bill go through without any changes and without any amendments. But I'm pleased it appears that the government has written to the Labor Party and made a commitment for a non-mandatory preapprovals service for two years. It's an improvement, but it's still not good enough. The commitment won't, as I understand it, be statutory. It means that the government, of course, won't be amending the bill to make sure this occurs. If there's a change to that, I look forward to hearing from the government on that point. I'm surprised that the Labor Party would agree to that and, effectively, roll over on that change, because if they want a guarantee that we don't remove protections for consumers, then they need to make sure that the change is legislated. That's why they should be supporting the Greens' amendment—to ensure, in law, that the preapprovals process remains in place until the review is concluded. I always worry about handshake agreements between governments and oppositions: governments change, prime ministers change, ministers change. It is important that this change should be reflected in law. I understand that the letter from Minister Hunt to the Labor shadow minister sets out a range of non-statutory commitments. It is a series of commitments which the government has already made through the process of the committee inquiry. Again, I remind you that it was initiated through the Greens, so it is pleasing that we have some change in that area. But I do, again, stress my concern that without the appropriate legislation we cannot guarantee that this change will be binding. I think that the Labor Party was a little hasty in accepting the list, but, again, I hold out some hope that they may support our amendments. Let me conclude by saying that we are, of course, very supportive of Australians having access to complementary and traditional medicines. We think it's very important to give people access to both of those things, to ensure that the traditional use of medicines continues and that complementary medicines are made available to people who feel they may be of benefit. But we think it's very important that consumers are protected from false or misleading claims or ads which can confuse people about the level of evidence supporting these claims and the level of regulatory oversight for these products. Let's not forget this is very big business. This is a multibillion-dollar industry; there is a lot of pressure that comes to bear on our regulatory authorities to ensure that the pathway is cleared for industry. What that often means is that that comes at the cost of protections for consumers. I hope that the government might see fit to acknowledge that these commonsense amendments by the Greens are worthy of support. And, at the very least, I hope that the Labor Party and the crossbench will join the Greens to uphold consumer protections by supporting the Greens' amendments. 12:48 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I welcome all back to the start of a new parliamentary year, and I would particularly like to thank, just as he walks out of the chamber, our newest colleague, Senator Molan. Welcome, it is great to see you here. I rise to speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 and the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2017. Obviously, therapeutic goods and medicines are an increasing part of the increasing standard of living that we have experienced through the 20th century and into the 21st century, and they play an extraordinary role in giving us the long and healthy lives that we are privileged to enjoy. The Therapeutic Goods Administration, as the regulator, ensures that therapeutic goods available in Australia are safe, effective and of high quality, with the latest therapeutic goods advances being made available to the Australian public in the most efficient and effective way possible. These are the priorities that drive reform from this government and, as we've heard, drive reform coming out of the medicines and medical devices regulation review, which commenced in 2014. What benefits flow from the changes that are being made in this space? The key benefit from my point of view is that it's about getting medicines more quickly to those who desperately need them—in some cases up to two years earlier—but with the necessary checks and balances to maintain patient safety. It's about enhancing consumer protection by replacing an outdated advertising and complaints process, one that had, in particular, failed to take into account the increasing use of things like the internet to promote products in the marketplace, which wasn't adequately covered under the old system. It's about simplifying, for enhanced consumer confidence, self-selected medicines by limiting the claims that can be made by sponsors of complementary medicines. It also provides the TGA with appropriate powers, similar to those of the ACCC, to take action against those who do not comply with the new regulatory regime. The bill has extensive support amongst many groups, including industry groups, professional bodies and consumer groups. There has been extensive consultation on this bill and reform package, going back to legislation from last year. There have been 16 public consultations on the details of the medicines and medical devices review, for example. There will be ongoing public consultation to continue a high level of stakeholder input to the shape of this important work—public consultation is already planned for 2018. As we in this place know very well, legislation is never the end of the story. There is an implementation phase and there are ongoing monitoring of and changes to legislation, all of which are a very important part of the public policy development process. So the consultations in 2018 are a very important part of the ongoing implementation of this legislation. This bill was referred to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, of which I am chair. The committee received 55 submissions and reported recently. The majority report made four recommendations, which I will go through briefly. The committee recommended that the government ensure the TGA continue to carry out comprehensive, appropriate and timely consultations with industry and other key stakeholders, particularly in relation to legislation and regulations affecting the TGA regulatory framework. Obviously, as I have stated, this is a very important area, because the TGA and the government need to be constantly monitoring developments in the marketplace. The current regulatory regime clearly has not kept up with things such as direct advertising through the internet and websites promoting particular products with potentially outrageous medical claims. So the framework needs to be constantly monitored and consultation needs to be constantly engaged in with both industry and the general public to ensure that our regulatory framework remains up to date. The committee noted the importance of self-regulatory models and recommended that the TGA investigate ways to better support the effective functioning of self-regulatory models by industry, including the potential for further strengthening of the penalties regime if needed. This bill does strengthen the penalties regime, but obviously it is an area where we as a government and a society need to make sure we get the carrot and, particularly in this case, the stick right. Penalties need to be appropriate and timely, and they need to be able to enforce compliance in a proactive way to make sure that people will not take the risk of making outrageous health claims, unsupported by the evidence, to try to drive business. The committee also recommended that the government ensure that the Therapeutic Goods Administration is adequately resourced in accordance with its cost-recovery framework so that it is able to carry out its surveillance and monitoring functions in relation to advertising compliance. Obviously, when you go to a self-regulatory model you need to have the resources to make sure that monitoring is taking place and that the TGA is adequately resourced, through its cost-recovery framework, to do proper monitoring. Those were the three main recommendations. The fourth recommendation was that the Senate pass the bill, and it seems—and I thank the Labor Party for their support—that the Senate will be passing this bill. The government was happy to accept the recommendations of the committee and noted that they could be readily implemented by the TGA. As we've heard quite extensively Labor's position on the bill, I will briefly talk through some of the amendments proposed by the Greens. First is the idea that additional caution is required for the removal of mandatory pre-approvals. The bill has additional protections to support the removal of pre-approvals, including a screening service, which has been talked about. There will be additional governance and performance reporting to improve the visibility and transparency of advertising compliance processes. As well, there is going to be a comprehensive education program. There is also the issue of the disclaimer. There have been extensive consultations on the permitted indications list, and we believe that, in conjunction with the new penalties and the comprehensiveness of the permitted indications list, a further disclaimer is not necessary. There is evidence from the United States that a strong disclaimer has no real impact. In that context it is something, I think, that should be looked at further in the future, but the government, at this stage, does not support it. I will go to some of the more detailed aspects of the bill, in particular the priority pathway. The bill includes provisions supporting a new pathway to allow sponsors to apply for a time-limited provisional registration of certain prescription medicines that show potential for substantial benefit to Australian patients. This means that, with appropriate controls, Australians will have access to new and expanded use of medicines up to two years earlier than would otherwise be the case. Provisionally-registered medicines will be subject to TGA requirements to confirm the clinical benefits and safety of the medicines and ensure that patients and healthcare professionals are fully informed about any risks of using the medicines. Obviously, the process for the registration of medicines in Australia is quite a complex and time-consuming one. There are medicines developed elsewhere that potentially could be of benefit to a limited number of patients in Australia, and this change to a priority pathway will, in certain circumstances, speed up access to those medicines. The Department of Health is working to ensure the appropriate alignment of regulatory and reimbursement processes for those new medicines. There are going to be enhanced post-market monitoring mechanisms. These will include the prominent display of a black triangle on the product information leaflet used by prescribers, easier reporting of adverse events, practitioner education and legally binding obligations on sponsors to ensure the TGA has the most up-to-date information for the use of the medicine in Australia and overseas so that safety in using those provisionally approved medicines is always paramount. Obviously, in the healthcare sector, when you're introducing a new pharmaceutical there's always a balance between benefit and potential harm. This is an attempt to get the balance right, to bring in potentially life-saving pharmaceuticals in a timely fashion where such safety checks have been carried out. On the advertising and complaints changes: the Therapeutic Goods Administration will become the single agency dealing with complaints management. This will reduce complexity and encourage greater consistency and timelier decision-making, replacing an antiquated and cumbersome system with a simplified approach underpinned by good governance and clear performance reporting. These new arrangements will benefit advertisers, health professionals and consumers by providing timely and consistent decision-making, compliance and enforcement. A new TGA committee will be established to provide visibility and transparency over TGA's management of advertising and complaints. This will have representatives from industry, professional bodies and consumer groups. Again, to return to the issue of removal of mandatory preapprovals: it should be noted that mandatory preapprovals for therapeutic goods do not exist anywhere else in the world. Current preapprovals do not cover medical devices, nor do they cover all methods of advertising—as I mentioned earlier, the internet being the prime case in point. A mandatory preapproval system that ignores the new principal way in which people receive information like this is obviously a flawed system. Its removal will be supplemented with greater education to the industry, control of complementary medicine claims through a set of permitted indications and by the TGA taking appropriate actions through enhanced penalties and sanctions for those who don't comply. As I mentioned earlier, we need to make sure those penalties are robust enough to ensure compliance. On complementary medicines: the changes to complementary medicines will establish a list of permitted indications and require sponsors of listed complementary medicines to select indications exclusively from the list when entering a medicine on the ARTG. This will make clear to consumers the claims that sponsors are making, better supporting those who choose to self-medicate in this way. Only low-level indications suitable for low risk will be permitted. Indications for listed complementary medicines may not refer to the treatment or cure of a disease, ailment, defect or injury or to a serious form of disease, ailment, defect or injury. Providing a list of permitted indications will ensure that listed medicines only contain preapproved, low-level claims appropriate for medicines that are not premarket assessed. This will provide greater protection for consumers in relation to safety, quality and efficacy of products available on the market. Finally, on sanctions and penalties: the new enforcement provisions will give TGA further tools for its regulatory toolkit to enable them to deal appropriately with those who do not comply. Existing provisions will be enhanced and new enforcement options introduced. For example, injunctions can be sought to rapidly and effectively address serious cases of non-compliant advertising of therapeutic goods—for example, an alleged cancer cure which may deter critically ill people from seeking appropriate treatment. There's also the power to issue infringement notices as an alternative to court action so that noncompliance can be addressed in a timely manner. Again, that is a very important addition to the TGA's regulatory toolkit. These new provisions will work together with consumer law regulators, such as the ACCC, to ensure the safety, quality and efficacy of therapeutic goods. In conclusion, this bill, together with recent amendments already enacted, strengthens Australia's therapeutic goods regulatory framework. It ensures that Australia remains well positioned to respond to global trends in the development, manufacture, marketing and regulation of therapeutic goods. It makes Australia a more desirable destination for clinical trials and for the manufacture and development of medical devices. It will deliver better health outcomes and better economic outcomes as a result. Ultimately, this is an opportunity for us to make these vital reforms to the regulation of therapeutic goods in Australia, which will ensure better access to medicines, streamlined administrative processes and strong consumer protections. 13:03 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I'd like to thank senators for their contributions to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2017 Measures No. 1) Bill 2017. The amendments in this bill provide for a number of reforms to Australia's therapeutic goods regulatory framework, to ensure it remains well positioned to respond effectively to global trends in the development, manufacture, marketing and regulation of therapeutic goods. We all know how important medicines and medical devices are to the wellbeing of all Australians. We also know how important it is to ensure that the therapeutic goods available in Australia are of an acceptable safety, quality and efficacy, and that Australia's regulatory framework for therapeutic goods remains current with the rapid pace of innovation in the development of health products globally. These amendments continue the implementation of the government's response to the Expert Review of Medicines and Medical Devices Regulation, which indicated support for 56 of the 58 recommendations for reforms to the regulatory frameworks for medicines, medical devices, complementary medicines and advertising of therapeutic products. The expert panel review was informed by a large number of submissions—in the order of 100—as well as a number of consultations held by the expert panel with stakeholders. Individual panel members also held informal discussions with stakeholders and their representatives. In implementing the government's response, the department, through the TGA, has undertaken a number of significant public and targeted stakeholder consultations regarding the approaches for the implementation of the recommendations. Sixteen public consultations have been released to date, with feedback indicating general support for the overall policy changes. Stakeholders also provided advice on how best to implement the reforms. A stakeholder information day was held at the TGA offices on 4 September 2017 on this amendment bill. Approximately 60 stakeholders attended, representing consumers, health professionals, sponsors, broadcasters and advertising bodies. In considering the Expert Panel Review of Medicines and Medical Devices Regulation, the government formed the view that overall the reforms strike the right balance between consumer protections and reducing regulatory burden for companies importing or manufacturing new medicines, medical devices or complementary medicines. The measures in this bill provide significant reforms in relation to establishing a provisional approval pathway for promising new medicines that address an unmet client need, allowing patients to have earlier access to potentially lifesaving or life-transforming medicines. The regulation of complementary medicines provides consumers with more informed product choices via a new assessment pathway which allows for efficacy-assessed-listed complementary medicines and introducing a streamlined approach to the advertising framework for therapeutic goods, coupled with improved compliance and monitoring provisions. Amendments enabling the greater use of assessments from comparable international regulators will allow for medical devices to reach our market sooner. In considering these bills in the Federation Chamber on 25 October 2017, the member for Makin, the shadow minister for Medicare, Mr Zappia, indicated the Australian Labor Party's support for the bill. He indicated they did so because they agree that, on balance, the reforms are in the public interest, and we are pleased that that support has continued here in the Senate. We had extensive feedback from key stakeholders as part of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill and from many senators here today. The government has listened to this feedback, and further measures will be introduced to reassure Australians that they can have confidence in the regulation of medicines and medical devices. These include further strengthening provisions relating to advertising, including improved governance through the establishment of a therapeutic goods advertising committee, and performance management to ensure stakeholders have visibility and transparency of the advertising system. These additions will help to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place in relation to the advertising of therapeutic goods to the public. Furthermore, to address concerns associated with the move away from pre-approval of advertisements to a self-regulated regime, we have agreed to some minor amendments that will see the transition from the pre-approval delayed for two years. We've also agreed to some non-statutory initiatives, including an evaluation of the system after 18 months. I understand the amendments agreed to with Labor are being circulated now, and I thank Labor and the crossbench for their engagement on this issue. This overhaul of the advertising framework will provide consistency, transparency, and stronger compliance measures, and will retain a consultative approach to ensure that consumer protections are maintained. While we've focused on advertising, the bill, importantly, includes a package of reforms to the regulation of medicines and medical devices that provides benefits to consumers. Of particular benefit is establishing a provisional approval pathway for certain promising new prescription medicines. This will allow Australian patients with inadequate treatment options to access potentially lifesaving or life-transforming medicines up to two years earlier than under the current framework, and it builds on similar approaches available to patients in Europe and in North America. Some medicines will be registered on the basis of early clinical data which provides promising evidence that the medicine is likely to be of major therapeutic advantage to Australian patients. Provisional registration will be time limited and subject to strict conditions imposed by the TGA, including the requirement to collect more data to confirm the clinical benefit and safety of the medicine, and there will be specific communication with patients and healthcare professionals about these medicines. The introduction of the provisional approval scheme for medicines will enable desperately ill patients to access new medicines up to two years sooner. Importantly, the bill will also provide patients with greater access to medical devices. Improved access to new medical devices will also be enabled through the use of assessments from comparable international regulators that will allow for medical devices to potentially reach our market sooner. There will be streamlined public awareness of products that support public health, such as tests for sexually transmitted diseases. This bill, coupled with the recent amendments enacted last year, will strengthen Australia's therapeutic goods regulatory framework, ensuring it remains at the forefront to respond effectively to global trends in the development, manufacture, marketing and regulation of therapeutic goods. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2017 31

Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2017

Second Reading 31 13:11 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I've spoken at some length already about why the Greens don't want to see, in the Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2017 before us, the Product Stewardship Advisory Group disbanded. To save a few bucks, are we going to rip out of this legislation the body that is overseeing probably one of the most important recycling initiatives that we've seen in this country? It is probably one of the only things that we've done to take a holistic approach to fixing the waste problem that we have in this country. Now, I haven't had a chance to talk about CAMAC yet and why we don't want to see CAMAC disbanded and defunded either. It has done some critical work on financial managed investment schemes, which you yourself, Mr Acting Deputy President Ketter, have been involved with through the economics committee. In fact, it has been one of the only organisations to independently research the catastrophe that was forestry managed investment schemes. We need that kind of independent research and oversight in our policy, and it's very important for us to take our cues from that kind of independent research when we debate these topics in parliament. Mr Acting Deputy President, could I take a point of order while I'm speaking, if that's okay? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 244247 Do you have a point of order, Senator Whish-Wilson? Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I'm quite happy to speak for 18 minutes and 35 seconds on this because it is a topic near and dear to my heart. But I understand I only had six minutes on the clock. I just wanted to check that. Senator Ruston interjecting— Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Senator Ruston, I'm very happy to get away with it! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 244247 Thank you very much for that, Senator Whish-Wilson. We will reset the clock so that you have six minutes remaining. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I probably shouldn't have said anything, should I! I could have got away with that! Another point of order: will you include in the transcript what I've already said? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 244247 Yes, that's correct. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Thank you. Now is not the time to disband the Product Stewardship Advisory Group. If you go back and have a look at the Product Stewardship Act 2011 and ask yourself what it has achieved in this country, I'm sad to report it has achieved very little. There have been some schemes, like e-waste, which I have already talked about in this speech, that have worked very well. There are others that have been totally unsatisfactory, such as for tyres. However, when we look at schemes that haven't even got off the ground yet, like container deposit schemes, we have seen a state-based approach. The Senate has done fantastic work recommending that the federal government step in and take a nationally coordinated approach to collecting cans and bottles. We know plastic bottles make up nearly half of the plastic we find on our beaches and in our oceans—it is an absolute killer of marine life. It is a toxic tide of plastic that's choking our oceans. It is coming from our waste, and we don't have a holistic way to manage that in this country. We'll have bans, hopefully nationally, on plastic bags and microbeads. Who's actually got a plan for targeting the reduction of plastic that we use in this country? That's what product stewardship schemes do. They include the producers of these waste products, all levels of government and the consumer. I've got to say that this is very disappointing, given that we saw the UK Prime Minister come out over Christmas and declare her own war on waste—it was editorialised in the Age—that goes beyond plastic bags. It is a reminder for this country that we need a holistic approach to waste management. The UK has declared their war on waste. They've set a target for the reduction in the use of plastics by 2025, and they already have some bold ambitions in other areas. We saw Indonesia, also over the Christmas break, talk about their war on waste and their targets. This is something that's been discussed at the World Economic Forum and at the United Nations. The scourge of plastic pollution and other marine debris in our ocean is one of the biggest global pollution threats we face. It is absolutely choking our ocean and turning it into a plastic soup. We're finding microplastics in plankton in the Antarctic. It is that pervasive, and we're doing nothing about it. Product stewardship schemes are critical to taking a national coordinated approach. It would be nice to see some federal leadership on these issues from this current government, because they have been missing in action on the war on waste. Let's talk about Victoria. I was down there recently with the Senate, chairing the committee that's looking at how we can have better waste recycling in this country across the board. Victoria is on the verge of a crisis. I use that word very carefully. The Age has also been writing numerous stories about the problems in Victoria. Since China said that its going to stop accepting our waste recycling products—nearly 30 per cent of our plastics go to China—we've suddenly got a situation in this country where we don't know what to do with it. Are we going to landfill it, or are we going to use the funds from the levies that were set up to be reinvested in this industry in order to find solutions to not just recycle but use other products instead of plastic? We've got a situation now where some of our key recyclers are not committing to taking on any more kerbside recycling products in Victoria. What do we do then? Who's got a plan for this? Where's our holistic approach to waste reduction? We've seen illegal dumping in New South Wales. Four Corners showed an expose on the corruption that was involved in that and all the dodgy goings on, which the committee is also looking at. We have no national plan. We barely even have a state based plan for solving waste in this country. Thank God the ABC is running their war on waste and making this a public issue. It's doing a really good job in getting the public behind it and wanting to see a plan and wanting to see their parliament and politicians taking this situation seriously. Senator Urquhart, who is in the chamber today, was on—and I think she may have chaired—the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee when it did it's fantastic work of looking at how the federal government needs to do a lot more to tackle the issue of the toxic tide of waste, especially waste that's making its way into our ocean, polluting our waterways and turning our oceans into a plastic soup. We have to start somewhere. It has to be simple. There needs to be leadership and there needs to be a scheme. The product stewardship schemes that we're abolishing in this legislation are absolutely critical. No matter what kind of waste stream you are looking at, the advisory groups play a critical function. They've been underused. They've been ignored. Saying they haven't been funded and they're not working is not an excuse for getting rid of them today. What we should be doing is increasing funding to them, getting them active and getting a plan for reducing waste in this country that we can all get behind and that actually works. We should stop talking about it and actually get on and do it. 13:19 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia I wish the best of 2018 to all our colleagues here and welcome back. I'm very happy to be making my first contribution to the Senate for 2018 on this particular topic, which is deregulation. I mean, I would say how sweet that smell—we've been starved of it since the successful repeal days of bygone years. I have to say that the title of this bill is particularly attractive to Australian Conservatives, because smaller government is actually one of our core pillars. It's a pillar that we wish every other party would grasp hold of and uphold, because they both seem to have jettisoned it in the way of political expediency. While this bill does in places deregulate, it is worth contrasting it with past behaviour and, in particular, with the behaviour of significant others. There's no more significant other in the deregulation space currently than US President Donald Trump. President Trump in just his first year has led the US Republican Party to succeed in repealing or delaying 1,500 regulations and implementing a policy that sees his government cutting 22 regulations for every one enacted. That has kickstarted confidence in the US economy. It has kickstarted investment in the US economy, and he's living up to his motto, which is to make America great again. Why can't we make Australia even better by deregulating, repealing and cutting taxes? That's a question for those who are ruling the Treasury benches and the opposition who seem opposed to making Australia an even better place to be. But let's reflect on the better days, the repeal days. Two years ago, on 4 February, 2016, the Turnbull government had their mission accomplished moment on red tape. They scrapped the twice annual red tape repeal days even though, when elected, the coalition had promised to repeal $1 billion a year in red tape. The Turnbull government declared mission accomplished; nothing more to do here. Of course, the first significant repeal day—an unofficial one, which was easily missed—came with the election of the Abbott government. It was the abolition of the carbon and mining taxes, and I was a very proud supporter of getting rid of those taxes. When you now go to the website address cuttingredtape.gov.au, the modesty of their aspirations and goals today is apparent. It's a very modest page. Its focus apparently is on saving taxpayer money. I would suggest it's a very modest page because not much is actually happening. This page lists four repeal days as its claim to fame, and they were in the autumns and springs of 2015 and 2016. The last report, entitled 2015 Annual red tape reduction report,on that website indicates red tape reduction decisions had totalled $4.8 billion in red tape to be axed as of 31 December 2015. Clearly, the deregulation agenda, the cutting of red tape, the cutting of green tape, the cutting of costs and limiting of the size of our government has disappeared—mission accomplished. We're only absenting ourselves in Prime Minister Turnbull and his Air Force jumpsuit and an aircraft carrier for him to claim it. There's been zero progress on this, because the page has clearly been orphaned under the Turnbull administration. I'm not even going to say it's been archived, because it's still live, so someone is still paying for it to be up there; there's just nothing happening—more waste of taxpayers' money. The government said in their report of 2015 that it had overachieved on red tape repeal and would—and I will paraphrase a little here—now go a little more under the radar, have a little more innovation in its red tape repeal. I would suggest it's so stealthlike, so under the radar, that you cannot even see it happening. When it comes to red tape, I want to credit the extensive work of that fine institution, the Institute of Public Affairs, on this topic. Their latest report, entitled Barriers to prosperity: red tape and the regulatory state in Australia, includes chart 8, which gets worse every single year it's published. It's about the number of pages of Commonwealth legislation. From Federation through to about 1956, this place passed no more than 1,000 pages of federal legislation every year. It started rising rapidly, to a rate of about 3,000 pages a year by 1986. In 30 years, it had tripled. Since then, it has really taken off. It reached 8,000 pages of legislation passed annually at the height of Labor's frenzy for red tape in 2012, and it fell to a more sane but still extraordinarily debilitating 4,000 in the last reporting year. It's still far, far too high. I simply don't buy what the government's peddling when it says, 'Mission accomplished on repeal days and getting rid of red tape'. There is much more to be done. If our economy is to become more successful, more competitive and more attractive to investment, and if we are to stimulate Australia's prosperity, we need to look across the Pacific and see what can be achieved where the will is in place to do it. The Trump administration is delivering what it promised, and the proof is in the pudding when you look at the economic growth and the jobs growth in America and the investment that is going on there. Meanwhile, this government is fiddling as our economy burns. Around the time of the National Commission of Audit, the Institute of Public Affairs found our economy would be $176 billion, or 11 per cent of GDP, larger per annum if red tape repeal were taken seriously. What more incentive do you need? When you consider that, at that time, income tax revenue was around $10 billion less per annum than it is today, you realise that red tape repeal must remain a constant focus for whomever is in government. The National Commission of Audit identified 99 of 194 Commonwealth primary bodies that should be abolished, merged, privatised or consolidated. I accept that some progress has been made on this front, but there is so much more that can and should be done. This would save millions upon millions of dollars for the Australian taxpayer and free up the government to focus on what it should be doing rather than all the extraneous things that it does to satisfy the whims and demands of very small groups of people. The National Commission of Audit also noted that a further 700 bodies—boards, committees and councils—ought to be rationalised. I wonder what has happened to that. The Commission of Audit never really saw the light of day. It's been abandoned, just as red tape repeal days seem to have been abandoned. I wonder if the government is just claiming 'mission accomplished' on that too. I'd like to reflect also on the ASADA Advisory Group, which we're dealing specifically with here. Schedule 4 abolishes the ASADA Advisory Group because it's not active and has no current members. That's a pretty good reason to abolish it, so we're not going to argue about that. We support that. But I want to reflect on the history of this group and particularly on drugs in sport. I have a particular interest in the sporting arena. I was on the board of the Australian Sports Commission. I thought it did some excellent work. Stamping out performance-enhancing drugs and drug abuse in sport is really critical. Back in 2010, the ASADA Advisory Group was formed. It was announced in May 2012 that former sports minister and Home and Away star Mark Arbib would announce appointments to the committee, which had already met twice during the financial year. There was an accomplished list of people on it: Mr Brian Ward, OAM, who would chair the advisory committee; Ms Kate Palmer; Mr John Drury; Professor David Handelsman; Ms Anne Gripper; and Mr Steve Moneghetti. These are very notable and exceptional people, all of whom have achieved a great deal and were appointed to an advisory board in good faith by a government minister, who I'm convinced was doing the right thing. In its inaugural year, the committee had costs of about $15,900, including fees paid to its members—very modest. By its concluding year, it incurred just $1,100 in costs in the final reporting year. So it hasn't cost a great deal of money, but it's cost Australians and the Labor government in particular a great deal of credibility, to be frank. Remember: this committee was the one that was used by the Gillard Labor government to justify the 'blackest day in the history of Australian sport'. That was one of the blackest days in the misuse of sporting legends by a government desperate to distract attention from the lacklustre—and that's being very generous—performance of its leader. That was the day, you may recall, when ALP ministers Lundy and Clare declared that organised crime was behind the increased use of performance-enhancing drugs in Australian sport and was seeking to infiltrate our beloved national pastimes. Many people have come to the conclusion that this blackest day, as it was described by former head of ASADA, Richard Ings, was nothing more than to a stunt to steer attention away from flailing leadership of Ms Julia Gillard, who was in the dying months of her prime ministership at that stage as the faceless apparatchiks within the Labor Party—including Mr Bill Shorten, I have to say—were plotting to knife her in the back and reinstate the person they all said they hated: Mr Kevin Rudd. There were people who had integrity and refused to be part of a second coup to counter the earlier coup, but in the end these same people are at work today plotting now against Mr Shorten. Mr Shorten has been exposed as a hollow man. We know that Mr Shorten is vacuous and empty, and that's why he makes a lot of noise, but we also know that Mr Albanese is much more popular than Mr Shorten. He probably has less confidence in himself than Mr Shorten. I'm not sure whether or not that is justified. We also know that amongst the ALP rank and file Mr Albanese has the numbers but it's the faceless powerbrokers of Labor who are desperate to prop up Mr Shorten, because that will prop up their own interests. So will we see another quasi attempt to divert the people from the failures of Mr Shorten, say, 'There's nothing to see over here,' and in the same moment seek to besmirch another one of our great contributors to our national psyche: the sporting codes in this country. We don't want to see another blackest day in Australian sport—that claim, that falsehood just for political expediency. But I digress. The ASADA Advisory Group's closure was announced on 15 December 2014 and yet, extraordinarily, here we are, three years later and now abolishing it. So we've closed it, it sat there on the statute books and the government is claiming this is the smaller government bill of 2017. It is much ado about nothing. We're saving 1,100 bucks and we're closing the book on a very unsavoury chapter, and that's the extent of smaller government for 2017 for this government. What a shameful indictment. There are so many things we could be ripping into to save the taxpayers billions of dollars. The government could live within its means rather than mortgaging the future of our children, rather than intergenerational theft, spending cash, borrowing money today and expecting our children to repay it with not much to show for it. Shamefully, I think the government has given up the ghost in this space, as many on the government benches will attest to. But I think the reason they have had to throw in the towel is that, when you look across the crossbench here and look at the Labor Party, you see there is no will whatsoever, with one or two exceptions who have been consistent on the record—and I will credit Senator Leyonhjelm here at the risk of condemning his status with my praise. But at the very least he's been consistently standing up and saying government is too big and it costs too much money. We've had others on the crossbench here who say they're conservatives but who are prepared to throw an extra $5 billion into education with no measurable outcomes. They say that's a good result. That's not. Be accountable. Have targets and know what the money is going to be spent on. Then you can make an accurate assessment of it. As it is now, you just take a pot of money to the education department and say, 'Spend it how you like, and we'll see.' That hasn't worked in the past; it's not going to work now. It won't work until you say, 'You've got to deliver increased literacy and numeracy for our children.' Then you can maybe justify spending a bit of extra money—when the outcomes are known, the expectations are known and the performance is known. Here we have a circumstance where the government is flailing around for stuff to introduce on the first day. It wants to claim the mantle of smaller government, even though we know it's not true. I see the wry smiles on the faces of some government members. I will not name them, because I know they're embarrassed by the lack of performance on this. I merely say that the IPA is a great training ground for ideological warriors, for those who truly believe and understand the need to reduce the role of government. When you cross that Rubicon, if I may, from the 'People's Republic of Victoria' into the 'People's Republic of the ACT' something happens. It's like a closed shop. I left that shop because I think the door needs to be open for a better deal for Australian taxpayers. I would say to everyone: if you believe, like I believe, that deregulation is important, that cutting the cost of government is important, that giving taxpayers a fair go is important, and that governments living within their means, just like we expect every family and every household to do, is important, then the Australian Conservatives is the party for you. My door is always open to you, James. Sorry, my door is always open to anyone that's committed to that sort of agenda, because, honestly, that's what our country needs. We cannot continue this frenzied love affair, if I can put it like that, that Labor, the Greens and, unfortunately, too many within the coalition government have with micromanaging everybody's lives, with installing regulations, red tape and blue tape and green tape—whatever sort of tape you want to use—that inhibits or impinges on the ability of every individual and every business in this country to do their absolute best. It hasn't worked in the past. It's not going to work in the future. So, however modest the claim for the Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2017 is, it allows us to highlight the fact that the process of deregulation is far from mission accomplished. There are billions more dollars that could be saved on behalf of the Australian people that would enable them to get on with their lives as well as they possibly can; deliver the best possible outcomes for their employees and their businesses; generate more tax revenue for the government, ultimately; and stop this money shuffle which is crippling our economy. The merit of this initiative is good. It is lip service to a much bigger and broader problem, and I can only hope it will be a catalyst for the government to actually get their act together in this space rather than pretend they've achieved everything they need to. 13:38 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria At the outset, may I extend my welcome to colleagues at the beginning of a new parliamentary year. I have a confession to make. I wish that it was every day that I had the opportunity to rise in this place to speak on a bill entitled Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2017. That would be a great thing. But today is a good day because it is one rare day that I get to speak on a bill that is so well titled and so well motivated in its intentions. This is a bill we started debating late last year, before we broke for Christmas. I remember sitting in the chamber listening to the speech on this bill that Senator Whish-Wilson concluded earlier today. I reflected very carefully over the Christmas break on that speech and its many and varied aspects, and I will respond to some of them. Senator Whish-Wilson focused particularly on one of the advisory bodies that is going to be abolished by this bill and his concern that it would lead to problems for the Australian environment. Senator Whish-Wilson spoke about the many and varied forms of waste that concern him, including, if my memory serves me correctly, e-waste, plastic waste, food waste and probably other forms of waste. But, in listening very carefully to Senator Whish-Wilson's contribution last year and his continuation today, I did not hear him mention one form of waste. It is a form of waste that I think that we as parliamentarians, as stewards of the Australian people's money, should be very careful about. That is, of course, the waste of taxpayers' money. That is what this bill seeks to address and does address. The truth is that much of the money which taxpayers work hard to earn and pay to the federal government is not always as well spent as it could be. Any opportunity we have to make sure that money is spent better—and, if there's any left over, it is returned to the people it comes from in the first place through lower taxes—is something we should all strive to do. The waste of taxpayers' money is the greatest waste in this country and is something that we should all be mindful of. Senator Bernardi certainly knows the way to my heart by very kindly and extensively quoting from the great work of the Institute of Public Affairs—which, as senators know, is a former employer of mine—in particular, their work in recent years on red tape, which is a vital issue facing the nation. As the IPA has demonstrated and as Senator Bernardi quoted, red tape costs the Australian economy $176 billion a year and our GDP would be about 11 per cent higher if there were no red tape barriers to economic growth. Senator Bernardi is right in one very important respect: the task of reducing red tape is never over; the task of combatting red tape will never end. As long as there is a parliament, a bureaucracy and legislators, there will be a need to combat the rising tide of red tape. Senator Bernardi is being a little bit unfair, though, to the record of this government on red tape. I particularly note his reference to the IPA's annual research on the pages of legislation passed by the parliament. It's a piece of research which I had some involvement with in my time at the IPA. It is a very good measure of red tape. It's a measure which reflects more favourably on this coalition government than on the Labor government that preceded it, as I think Senator Bernardi was able to acknowledge. We have passed far fewer pages of new legislation than previous governments and we have done more to repeal legislation than previous governments. But it is, of course, a lament of all modern governments that so much regulation and legislation is required to be passed. There is so much demand in the community for us to act on issues of concern, and often the first call when addressing a problem in society is a call to government asking us to regulate. I think that is a flawed approach and that, whenever possible, we should decline to do so. One of the things this government and other governments attempting to reduce red tape have discovered is that it's much more difficult to remove red tape than it is to put it there in the first place. Every time a new law is passed and a new regulation is put in place, a constituency rises up to defend it. Even some of what I would characterise as the more modest measures in this bill, which really should be uncontroversial, are attracting some opposition. I politely suggest that most Australians haven't heard of the Oil Stewardship Advisory Council or, indeed, the Development Allowance Authority, yet there will be objections from some that these bodies will no longer exist. I respectfully suggest that, if these bodies were abolished, the only people who would notice tomorrow, as opposed to today, that they weren't there any more would be anyone who was serving on them or being paid by them; not anyone else in the wider community. One of my pleasures in this parliament is to serve on the Red Tape Committee, chaired by Senator David Leyonhjelm, who's speaking next in this debate. It has confronted many interesting issues on red tape and regulation. Sector by sector, we've looked at regulation in all sorts of different areas, from alcohol taxation to regulation in the health industry and health services, about which there is a hearing this Friday. As interesting as each of those sessions has been into individual industries and sectors, we've learnt about the perhaps unintended consequences and inefficient barriers that red tape causes for them in their industry, preventing them from employing more people, providing better services to their consumers or, indeed, providing better returns to their shareholders. What's more interesting are the holistic findings that will come out of this inquiry process. Hopefully we can make holistic recommendations at the end of the process because I think we're confronting two truths. One is that, in the modern world, the declining trust in institutions, particularly the declining trust in companies, has led consumers and voters to demand a higher level of regulation of those companies. Whereas once they may have been willing to trust their bank manager because they knew him from walking down the street and had a good personal relationship with him, now they think of a bank as an impersonal institution far away from what they do in their lives and not relating to them. They demand from us much greater regulation and much greater oversight over the activities of banks, which they no longer trust to do what they once would have done. That's why in areas of food safety, environment and a whole lot of other areas there is a greater demand for the regulation of businesses. That has very severe impacts, as the IPA has documented very well. Countering that phenomenon is going to be a very broad issue for us to solve. It is not going to be solved simply by walking in here and repealing any one act or bill, or by trimming back any existing regulation; it is a much broader societal issue for us to confront. The second issue is the one I referred to earlier, which is that constituencies arise around red tape and regulation, and those who benefit from it seek to defend it when governments seek to remove it. So, in their efforts to repeal red tape the government has encountered, amazingly, some businesses—and certainly many public servants, unions and others—that get really attached to regulation once it's in place and fight very hard to ensure it is not removed. They are utterly convinced that their very existence would not continue without that law or regulation in place. This lesson, very importantly, teaches us that we should be even more careful before we put a piece of regulation in place, because once we put it in place, by and large, it's going to stay there. It's going to be very difficult to remove. So I think we need to look at mechanisms to ensure that the build-up of red tape and regulation doesn't happen in the first place, as much as it is important for us to look at repealing regulation that is already there. I want to outline some of the key aspects of the bill. Of course, it is part of the government's smaller government agenda. It follows decisions the government has made, and that have been announced previously, to abolish a number of bodies. It will cease or abolish seven government bodies, and there are two in particular that I want to single out for consideration by the Senate in demonstration of why this bill is necessary. The first is the Central Trades Committee. This sounds like something from another era, and, indeed, it is. It sounds like something that perhaps Senator Rhiannon would have served on in her time in the Soviet Union. It is a bizarre anachronism that these sorts of bodies arise. In this case, it was a result of an act from 1946 to recognise the trade skills gained by Australians in World War II. It has jurisdiction for a whole range of industries, including blacksmithing. I must confess—and I will no doubt get some angry emails from the many blacksmiths out there—that I didn't think blacksmithing was a big employer in modern, 21st century Australia that needed special regulation by a special committee of the federal government. But there are some who would argue that indeed it is, and that abolishing this will have a terrible impact on the thousands of people, no doubt, who are employed as blacksmiths. I know our former colleague here, Senator Madigan, was a blacksmith, but I seem to remember it was notable that there were hardly any blacksmiths left at all, him included. I think that if the Central Trades Committee is abolished the nation will go on and people will rise out of their beds in the morning and go to work as blacksmiths, boilermakers and sheet metal operators, or in the boot trades. Again, blacksmithing is probably not a really big employer in modern 21st century Australia, even without this very important committee. The other committee is the Plant Breeder's Rights Advisory Committee. Again, I would hate to earn the wrath of plant breeders out there in Australia, but I have such great faith in their own ability to advocate for themselves that I don't think we need a special federal government committee established to do it. This brings me to a wider point about advisory committees and advocacy to government. There certainly is a role for advisory committees in some specialist areas, but, wherever possible, we should rely on civil society to advocate for itself. We shouldn't have government appointing advocates for civil society on behalf of civil society. We certainly shouldn't be employing them or putting them on committees because that fundamentally undermines their core responsibility, which is to advocate for their own constituency. It is not our job to employ people to be advocates on behalf of their own sector or their own industry. There are an infinite number of very good NGOs, charities and peak bodies here in Canberra and elsewhere in Australia that are very articulate advocates for their industry or their area or interest. They are very effective in making their case to government when need be, and the process of us appointing them to our bodies doesn't assist them in that. I would much rather see them do that on their own. Finally, I would like to turn to some objections that have been raised by Labor senators in this debate, particularly about the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee. It is worth noting that the financial services industry is one of Australia's strongest industry sectors, and really is not in need of sponsorship from taxpayers. I wouldn't have thought that Labor senators would agree that we need to pay the financial services industry to lobby the government; I didn't think that they were in favour of subsidies to big banks and other financial institutions, but perhaps I have a misapprehension there which will be corrected further in this debate. The financial services industry is obviously very professional, very influential and very capable of putting its views to government, and there are dozens of private organisations that do this; it doesn't need a government committee to do so. Obviously, it faces a diversity of issues, and the different views among stakeholders are needed for policy put to government. One single panel cannot ever hope to capture all that diversity and all those different points of view based on where they come from. Since it was abolished, we have received very rich input from the finance industry, including on reforms related to managed investment schemes, crowd sourced equity funding, external dispute resolution, mutuals' properties and member firms. There are a lot of exciting things in this space—open banking, just to mention one. I mentioned Senator Whish-Wilson's objections to the abolition of the Product Steward Advisory Group. Originally, this body had a role in the early stages of a new legislative scheme but, given the act is now well established, with years of operation, it is not necessary to have the committee continue. The Department of the Environment and Energy now engages with industry experts on an as-needs basis to gather advice on the classes of products to be considered for some form of accreditation and regulation. This is obviously a far more flexible and effective way to engage with industry, to get the right people at the right time at the least cost to taxpayers, unlike a standing body that has an inflexible composition and fixed overheads regardless of the need of the government to consult it and seek its advice. This more efficient approach to consultations means that we can get much more diverse input to our decision making from people who are highly engaged and effective because they are from the appropriate industry or science fields. It is not as though we are no longer seeking consultation or seeking advice; we are doing it in different ways. Not everything requires an ongoing standing committee. The 2016-17 product list, for example, was compiled under this kind of consultation. It includes products such as end-of-life batteries, photovoltaic systems, plastic oil containers and microbeads—which I know is an issue very close to the heart of Senator Whish-Wilson, being a surfer. This bill, if it were enacted, would repeal three acts and amend 10 acts across the Commonwealth to support the implementation of the government's smaller government agenda. It is the core business of what governments do, to focus on the really important things and to do away with some of the more peripheral things that we do that aren't as important and that aren't as vital. We should only be doing here what no-one else can do. If it can be done by civil society, by private enterprise or by volunteers then we should not be replicating it here. We should not be crowding out individual citizens who seek to do that on their own and we should seek any opportunity to reduce our expenditure and our waste so that we can do the very moral thing, which is to return to people the money they have earned themselves. It is profoundly wrong for us to take more from taxpayers—any more than we absolutely need—to do the things only we can do and spend it in an unwise and undisciplined way. That's why I commend this bill to the Senate. 13:53 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales I rise to support the government's Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2017. It's a bill with lots of potential, if you judge it by its name. But once again, I lament the fact that the government is not going far enough. Amongst other things, the bill abolishes the group that advises ASADA, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority. Of course it's good we're abolishing ASADA's advisory group but we should abolish ASADA too. In the late 1980s, some people came to see Ros Kelly, the sports minister at the time, to say something should be done about steroid use in sport. Ros Kelly should have told these people that sporting codes are perfectly capable of banning their players from using performance-enhancing substances. Instead, she created the Australian Sports Drug Agency, which has now become ASADA. ASADA is a government agency that tells players in various sporting codes not to use various substances from caffeine to peptides, many of which are perfectly legal. ASADA tests the players and if they find that the players used the various substances, they tell the sporting codes that the players can't play anymore. I emphasise we are talking about legal substances here, not illicit drugs. Taxpayers pay more than $12 million a year for ASADA to do this. There is absolutely no justification for it. Sporting codes are owned and managed by private organisations. If they think that their players should not take various legal substances, they can make a rule for their sport. No-one wants to maintain the integrity and popularity of a sport more than the sporting codes themselves. Of course if the sporting codes can get the taxpayers to pay for the drug testing of their players then they will take the freebie, but that is no reason to offer the freebie. If any employer comes running to the government and says, 'Can you please test my staff to see if they take legal drugs,' a government that is looking after taxpayers should tell that employer to get lost. What ASADA does cannot be justified on health grounds either. There is no public health case for stopping a tiny percentage of people, mostly elite athletes, from taking caffeine and peptides while letting them punch each other in boxing, torture themselves in triathlons or attack each other's hamstrings in rugby league. It is none of the government's business. Abolish ASADA and give everyday Australians a tax cut. 13:56 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory Firstly, I would like to thank those senators who have contributed to this debate. The bill, if enacted, would repeal three acts and amend 10 acts across the Commonwealth to support the implementation of the government's smaller-government agenda. The bill follows on from a series of government decisions, announced in earlier tranches of the smaller-government agenda, relating to the abolition of a number of bodies. I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that consideration of this bill in Committee of the Whole be made an order of the day for a later hour. Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 38

Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017

Second Reading 38 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 38 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 13:58 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia by leave—I inform the Senate of my appointment as Leader of the Government in the Senate, the appointment of Senator Fifield as Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and the appointment of Senator Birmingham as Manager of Government Business in the Senate. I also advise the Senate that Senator Cash will be absent from question time today for personal reasons. In Senator Cash's absence, Senator Birmingham will represent the Minister for Jobs and Innovation and the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation. Senator Fifield will represent the Attorney-General and Senator Payne will represent the Minister for Women and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service. 13:59 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I take this opportunity on behalf of the opposition to congratulate Senator Cormann on his election as leader. I'm sure I will have as warm and cordial a relationship with him as I had with his predecessor—possibly even warmer. I also congratulate Senator Fifield and Senator Birmingham on their new positions. The PRESIDENT I0Q It being 2.00 pm, we will move to questions without notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 38 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Medicare 38 14:00 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann—and I too congratulate him on his new position. Yesterday, when asked about the impact of his government's increase in the Medicare levy, the Prime Minister's told the ABC, 'I am not going to concede your figures.' Given the Prime Minister refused to concede how much extra Australians will be paying, will the minister now concede that the increase will mean a worker on $55,000 will pay $275 extra a year in tax while someone on $80,000 will face an extra $400 in tax? 14:00 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The coalition doesn't take any lectures from the Labor Party when it comes to tax. Taxes under the Labor Party will always be higher than under the coalition, because we know from the Labor Party that they've already thrown overboard the tax as a share of GDP cap. The Labor Party has already said that they will increase the overall tax burden in the economy beyond 23.9 per cent as a share of GDP. We are committed to keeping it below, and of course the coalition will deliver personal income tax cuts for low- and middle-income earners. Let me say that Australian workers—in particular, low- and middle-income earners—will be better off as a result of our business tax cuts. Nine out of 10 working Australians are employed by a private sector business, and their future job security, their future career prospects and their future wage increases depend on the future profitability of those businesses. Senator Wong 00AOU Good to see you, Mr President. The PRESIDENT I0Q Good to be back, Senator Wong. A point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU My point of order goes to relevance: I know that Senator Cormann always likes to spruik a company tax cut. The question was actually about the additional tax workers will pay as a result of this government's increase to the Medicare levy. He was asked specifically about workers on $55,000 paying an additional $275 and someone on $80,000 facing an extra $400 in tax. It was specific to the Medicare levy, not on the company tax rate. The PRESIDENT I0Q On the point of order, I consider the minister to be addressing the question which related to a range of tax issues. There were a range of tax examples provided, and I consider the minister to be addressing— Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q The question at the end was: will the minister concede? It had a preamble and examples, and I consider the minister has been addressing the question in answering it. I can't instruct the minister how to answer a question. Senator Wong 00AOU Mr President, I respectfully request that you consider the Hansard and consider what you just stated. I respectfully request after question time that you consider the Hansard. The PRESIDENT I0Q I will be happy to do so, Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU There was no other tax issue raised. The PRESIDENT I0Q I'm happy to do so. Senator Cormann. Senator CORMANN HDA Thank you very much. The Australian people, if they're watching the shenanigans again from the Labor Party, will be very disappointed. Of course, there is supposedly bipartisan support for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, except that the Labor Party didn't properly fund it. What we have included in our budget is a measure to ensure that the NDIS can be properly funded. All of those numbers are public. All of those numbers are reflected not only in the budget but in all of the documentation that's been released since then. This is just the Labor Party playing games. You are the high-taxing party. No Australian believes for one minute otherwise. Everybody knows that, if left to their own devices, under Labor taxes will go up and up and opportunity will go down and down. 14:04 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria I have a supplementary question, specifically again on the Medicare levy. Australians will pay an additional $1.7 billion a year as a result of the government's planned Medicare levy increase for low- and middle-income earners. How much of this will the Turnbull government's so-called tax cuts give back to low- and middle-income earners? 14:04 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Firstly, Australians actually are prepared to support the proper funding of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Australians accept that it is fair to fully fund the National Disability Insurance Scheme through an increase in the Medicare levy, the way it's proposed, because the more you earn, the more you pay; the less you earn, the less you pay. There are of course exemptions for very low income earners. When it comes to future personal income tax cuts, as the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and others have indicated for some time now, the government is currently working its way through what is affordable in its budget and it will be released in due course as part of the budget on the second Tuesday in May, by the time all the work has been done. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Collins, final supplementary question. 14:05 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria Given the Turnbull government is pressing ahead with its $65 billion tax cuts for big business while increasing the tax burden on everyday Australians, will the minister concede the Turnbull government will always put the interests of big business ahead of the interests of working- and middle-class Australians? 14:05 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I completely and utterly reject that. The Turnbull government unequivocally stands up for the interests of everyday Australians. We want families across Australia to have the best opportunity to get ahead. And for families across Australia to have the best possible opportunity to get ahead, the businesses that employ them have to have the best possible opportunity to be profitable and to be successful. Less profitable and less successful businesses will employ fewer Australians and pay them lower wages. That is something the Labor Party doesn't understand. Under our policies, more successful and more profitable businesses will be able to hire more Australians and pay them better wages. I have to correct Senator Collins. She talks about a $65 billion tax cut for big business. Half of that went to small and medium-sized businesses. She knows that, unless she's already decided that businesses with a turnover of $2 million or $3 million a year will get a tax hike under the Labor Party. Economy 40 14:06 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is also to the Minister for Finance representing the Treasurer, Senator Cormann, and may I also extend my congratulations on his new appointment. Can the minister provide an update to the Senate on the implementation of the government's plan for jobs and growth? 14:07 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank Senator Hume for that very important question. Yes, I can. When we came to government in September 2013, the Australian economy was weakening, unemployment was rising and the budget position was rapidly deteriorating. Today, economic growth in Australia is stronger than in any of the G7 economies. In the 2017 calendar year, we had more than 400,000 new jobs created in the Australian economy. The news doesn't end there. In regional Australia, 120,000 jobs were created over the last year, outpacing growth in the working age population by nearly two to one. The participation rate is 0.9 per cent higher than 12 months ago. The female participation rate is over 60 per cent, an all-time high. There are now 511,700 more Australians in jobs created over the last two years. Senator Cameron interjecting— Senator CORMANN HDA Senator Cameron doesn't like to listen to this positive economic news. He knows that if Labor is in government sometime in the future, all of that would go downhill because they would impose higher taxes and more red tape and be less sympathetic to open markets and free trade. Today we had the release of the ANZ jobs index, which shows that job advertisements have increased by 6.2 per cent in January to be 13.8 per cent higher over the past year. It is very obvious that our plan for jobs and growth is working. But we haven't got a plan for jobs and growth from the Labor Party. All we get from the Labor Party is the politics of envy, higher taxes and more negativity. Business conditions sit at 13 per cent up. This is well above the long-run average of plus five. Business confidence showed a strong increase to be at plus 11 points and remains well above the long-run average. Capital expenditure expectations are at plus nine points after a very strong result for November, at plus 14 points. Australia's exports are up 6.4 per cent compared to a year ago. These are all things that the Labor Party is not interested in. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Hume, a supplementary question. 14:09 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I thank the minister for his answer. Can he now advise the Senate, please, what is next on the government's agenda to progress its commitment to a stronger economy and more jobs? Senator Watt 245759 Maybe a little bit of wages growth! 14:09 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The senator at the back there says perhaps a little bit of wages growth. Well, you know what? Wages are actually growing above inflation. If the senator on the Labor side was really interested in stronger wages growth, he would vote in favour of business tax cuts. Any sensible economist will tell you that a lower, more competitive business tax rate will boost investment, boost productivity and increase real wages over time. Don't take my word for it. That is what former Treasury secretary Ken Henry used to say when Labor was in government. When Senator Wong was the minister for finance, she was out there campaigning for lower corporate tax rates. I've got a plethora of quotes from Senator Wong where she's singing the virtues of a lower, more competitive company tax rate. But political opportunism and the politics of envy in Bill Shorten's left-wing agenda are all designed to play into some sort of populist— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator CORMANN HDA Well, here is the news, Mr President: we will continue to work for businesses to be more successful so they can hire more people and pay— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Before I call Senator Hume—it is the first day back. Could I ask for slightly more order during answers. Senator Hume, a final supplementary question? 14:10 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Can the minister now advise the Senate: what are the risks to the successful implementation of the government's plan for the economy and for jobs? 14:10 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The biggest risk is that the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, continues to put political opportunism, the politics of envy and an increasingly socialist agenda ahead of the best interests of the Australian people. The Australian people need businesses across Australia to be as successful and as profitable as possible so they can hire more Australians and pay better wages. Mr Shorten clearly doesn't understand that nine out of 10 working Australians work for a private sector business. By Mr Shorten standing in the way of their future success and profitability, he is essentially being a serious risk to our future economic growth and jobs. We've got the United States reducing the corporate tax rate to 21 per cent, the United Kingdom going down to 17 per cent and even France talking about taking it down to 25 per cent. If we don't ensure that our tax settings are internationally competitive, we are sending jobs and investment overseas. Employment 41 14:12 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann—and could I also add my congratulations to your elevation to leader of the Senate. On Sunday, when asked why wage growth is as low as two per cent when company profits have grown 20 per cent, the Prime Minister said, 'I don't accept the validity of that description.' What does the Prime Minister think is invalid—the Australian Bureau of Statistics' measure of growth at two per cent or its measure of company profit growth at 20 per cent? 14:12 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank Senator Cameron. I watched that same interview, and the journalist quite strangely put the proposition to the Prime Minister that there had been no wages growth. That was of course patently false. We have had wages growth of two per cent—above inflation, above CPI—and the Prime Minister made the accurate point that as you continue to have growth, as you continue to have a situation where a business is more successful and more profitable and has to compete for workers in the Australian economy, then obviously the laws of supply and demand mean that wages will increase by more. You've got to remember, we inherited the situation where the unemployment rate was heading to in excess of 6¼ per cent, to the point where the shadow Treasurer said, in his Press Club speech after we won the election, that one of the three measures of economic success for this government would be whether we could keep the unemployment rate below 6.25 per cent. Guess what: it's at 5.5 per cent. And part of the reason why we've been able to keep the unemployment rate comparably low is because of flexibility in the labour market. That means that wages have grown by less than they have in the past. The alternative would've been a higher unemployment rate, but we are— Senator Cameron AI6 Mr President, a point of order on relevance—I did ask specifically about the Australian Bureau of Statistics' measure of wage growth at two per cent or whether it was the measure of company profit growth at 20 per cent. The minister has not gone near those issues. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cameron, your question also had a preamble. I do consider the minister to be addressing the terms of your question. Senator Cormann? Senator CORMANN HDA Thank you very much, Mr President. I was directly addressing the question. Wages have been growing, and we expect them to grow by more in the years ahead—in particular, if the Senate supports the government's proposal to reduce business taxes for all businesses to 25 per cent, because it will help incentivise businesses to invest more in their productivity. It will help ensure that more profitable and more successful businesses can hire more Australians and pay them better wages. And as more profitable businesses have to compete for fewer and fewer workers in the Australian economy, as excess labour in the market reduces, of course wages pressure will increase. I'm sure that is something that Senator Cameron, as a former union leader, understands very well. I'm certain Senator Cameron understands very well that if you have less supply of labour and more demand then prices will go up. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cameron, a supplementary question? 14:15 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Yes, I have a supplementary. Why is the Prime Minister increasing taxes on seven million working Australians at the same time that wages growth is at record lows? 14:15 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Well, wages growth has actually been increasing, so I don't accept the premise of the question. And the other point I would make is the same as the one I made in response to Senator Collins, and that is that taxes under the coalition will always be lower than under the Labor Party. People across Australia know that if Labor were to come back— Senator Wong interjecting— Senator CORMANN HDA Well, Labor went into the last election promising more than $160 billion in additional taxes, and even then the budget was worse off. They went to the last election promising higher taxes and a bigger deficit. How do you do that? By more spending. So, we don't take any lessons from the Labor Party when it comes to tax policy. Our commitment is to keep taxes as low as possible, to make sure that they are raised in the most efficient, least-distorting and appropriately equitable way, because the Australian people expect us to raise only as much as necessary—as little as possible, as much as necessary—and to raise it in the best possible way to ensure that businesses across Australia can be successful and hire more Australians. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cameron, a final supplementary question. 14:16 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Why is the Prime Minister giving big business a $65 billion tax cut while company profits have grown by 20 per cent? Isn't it clear that under the Turnbull government working- and middle-class Australians will always lose out to the interests of big business? 14:17 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Repeating a lie again and again doesn't make it the truth. There is no $65 billion tax cut for big business—as Senator Cameron would well know, because he was in the chamber when we voted on it. Nearly half of the 10-year enterprise tax plan will add to small and medium-size businesses, and that has already been legislated by this Senate. Small and medium-size businesses across Australia are waiting to see whether Labor will jack up taxes on them and the people they employ, or what their position is going to be. Right now in relation to half of this there's actually no Labor Party position, as far as I'm aware. So Senator Cameron should really desist from misleading the Senate and misleading, through the Senate, the Australian people there. There is no $65 billion tax cut for big business. Education 42 14:17 Senator GICHUHI 270552 South Australia My question is Senator Birmingham. Will the minister update the Senate on the Commonwealth funding for preschools in 2019 and their achievements under the national partnership agreement for universal access to early childhood education? 14:18 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Gichuhi for her question and her strong interest in education and training, and particularly in early education and development of our littlest learners in their preschool years. Indeed, the Turnbull government was pleased over the weekend to announce a further and ongoing commitment to preschool funding across Australia through part of an ongoing extension of the national partnership agreement in relation to universal access. This will see a further $440 million provided to the states and territories to support preschool services around the country. This will bring to some $3.7 billion the total scale of investment that federal governments have made to support access to preschool around the country. This is designed to underpin access to some 15 hours per week of preschool for children in the year before they start school, predominantly four-year-olds, and will support around 350,000 of our littlest learners to access high-quality preschool services. Preschool is important for a range of reasons. It's important because it helps those children to develop the skills necessary to succeed at school, whether that's skills in terms of their behaviour, their socialisation or basic skills, such as holding a pencil. All of these attributes are critical. We've seen strong progress in terms of preschool enrolment over that time. However, concerningly, that progress has not always been met by the states and territories ensuring that children enrolled in preschool are fully participating. The Commonwealth funding that has flowed over this time has not resulted in states and territories getting high proportions of the children who have the greatest to gain from preschool participation to participate, which is the reason why the Turnbull government has put on the table for the states and territories the need to lift their game before longer term solutions in this area are addressed. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gichuhi, a supplementary question. 14:20 Senator GICHUHI 270552 South Australia Can the minister explain how the universal access partnership agreement interacts with the government's $2.5 billion extra in the New Child Care Package? 14:20 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Indeed, Senator Gichuhi, it is important to recognise that the Turnbull government's support for early childhood education and care is not just limited to preschool support but of course is underpinned by our substantial overhaul that will occur in July of this year to the childcare subsidy arrangements—an overhaul that will ensure greater support and access for hardworking Australian families, particularly low- and middle-income Australian families, who in many instances will be some thousands of dollars per annum better off as a result of our reforms to help them meet the cost of childcare services. Of course, the support in the childcare sector importantly provides additional support for preschool access for those children who access preschool via long day care settings. That means especially high levels of extra support in states like Queensland and New South Wales, but, in doing so, it does distort aspects of the way the partnership agreement works, which is another reason why we have flagged to the states and territories the need to work on a longer term basis that deals with some of these discrepancies. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gichuhi, a final supplementary question. 14:22 Senator GICHUHI 270552 South Australia What further work needs to be done in order to determine any future funding arrangements? 14:22 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia It's critical that we have better data around the actual attendance of four-year-olds at preschool, particularly better data around the attendance of four-year-olds from disadvantaged backgrounds, Indigenous four-year-olds, children from low socioeconomic backgrounds and the like, to make sure that those children are accessing the entitlement that's available for them. Senator Cameron interjecting— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I hear yabbering coming from the other side of the chamber. Those opposite fail to acknowledge the fact that, before the last election, they budgeted zero dollars for preschool services during this term of parliament. That's the policy that the Labor Party took to the last election. By the decision the Turnbull government has taken this weekend, or this year, we will have guaranteed ongoing Commonwealth support for preschool from well before the last election until after the next election. But, in the interim, we have clearly identified the issues that need to be addressed by the states and territories in their delivery of preschool services, and, importantly, we are making sure that those who stand to gain the most from preschool services are attending those services. Climate Change 43 14:23 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. I congratulate Senator Cormann on his recent appointment and wish Senator Brandis all the best in his future endeavours. We have come back to parliament in the middle of a stinking hot summer. The Bureau of Meteorology has just said that temperatures in January were exceptional, with countless records—far too many to mention. Sydney just sweltered through a day hotter than 47 degrees. We had flying foxes falling out of the sky because of the heat. This is the new normal, yet we have a government and an opposition which remain wedded to coal and wedded to climate pollution. Minister, what do you say to the people of Batman, who in a few weeks time will have a chance to tell you and the Labor Party what they think of your policies that are driving up pollution, destroying jobs, inflating energy prices and killing the Great Barrier Reef? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I'm not going to call Senator Cormann until there's some order. The minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. 14:24 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Thank you very much, Mr President. I take Senator Di Natale's word for his weather report. But what I can say to Senator Di Natale is that jacking up taxes or jacking up the cost of energy for Australian families and Australian businesses and just sending emissions and jobs overseas does nothing to address climate change or reduce temperatures in Australia or indeed in other parts of the world. In fact, I remember sitting on that side of the chamber when Labor and the Greens came up with this incredibly ingenious plan that would actually increase overall global emissions, because you were just going to shift economic activity and jobs to other parts of the world. For the same level of economic output, emissions were going to be higher than they would have been if that particular task was performed in Australia. I look forward to the regular weather report from Senator Di Natale, but I can also reassure him that, on this side of the chamber, we will not be punishing the Australian people and doing something that doesn't make any difference at all. We'll continue to pursue our policy agenda to address climate change in a responsible, economically sensible and environmentally effective fashion. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question. 14:25 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Minister, your government, along with the Labor Party, have backed Adani's polluting Carmichael coalmine. You're now refusing to rule out a backdoor loan to the mine by propping up rail infrastructure to the mine. I want you to explain to the people of Batman— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Di Natale! Please pause the clock. I'm going to insist on there being enough order that I can hear the question so I can then deal with subsequent points of order. Senator Di Natale, please continue your question. Senator DI NATALE 53369 Minister, what do you say to the people of Batman who don't want the Adani mine to go ahead and certainly don't want their hard-earned cash going towards a jobs-destroying polluting coalmine? 14:26 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Senator Di Natale is only half right. It is certainly true to say that coalition senators, those of us on this side of the chamber, strongly support the Adani project as a job-creating multibillion-dollar investment which will deliver very important jobs, in particular, to the people of Central and North Queensland. On the coalition side of the Senate, we do support it. I'm not so sure about the Labor Party. The Batman by-election might have something to do with it. Whenever there's an election—and I've said this in this chamber before—we get the Shorten wibble-wobble or the Palaszczuk wibble-wobble. The Labor Party is in favour but they're against. We've got an election coming up in Batman, so now they're likely to be against. That is at least what the Labor candidate appears to have said. Let me tell you unequivocally: there is no wibble-wobble on the Liberal-National Party side of this chamber. We are in favour of this $16 billion-plus investment. We are in favour of the in excess of 11,000 jobs that it will create. We want to see it proceed and we'd like to think that the Labor Party— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question. 14:28 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Minister, there is no wibble-wobble about your plans, or the Labor Party's plans, to expand coalmining in Australia. Adani is just one of many. How are our commitments under the Paris climate agreement compatible with your plans to keep building and expanding coalmines and remain the world's largest coal exporter? 14:28 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia It is true that coal is our second-biggest national export earner. Obviously, on our side of the chamber, we continue to strongly support the coal industry. Do you know why? Because Australian coal is so much better than some of the other coal that could power plants in other parts of the world. This is a great contribution that we can make to lowering global emissions by exporting more good-quality Australian coal. In fact, the Greens should be joining the long queue of investors into high-quality black coal projects, including opening up the Galilee Basin. We know that former Greens Senator Bob Brown used to be a very strong supporter of coal in his day—and I haven't got the front page of the Hobart Mercury in front of me right now. We know that historically he's been quite a strong supporter—and I'm sure that Senator Canavan may be able to wave the newspaper for the benefit of the chamber. I would encourage Senator Di Natale, if he really cares about reducing emissions, to back the Australian coal industry to export more— (Time expired) Turnbull Government 44 14:29 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia My question is to Senator Cormann, the Minister representing the Treasurer. On 3 January, the Treasurer announced that the Turnbull government had extended the deadline for the Productivity Commission inquiry's report into the economic impact of horizontal fiscal equalisation from January to 15 May—conveniently after the South Australian and Tasmanian state elections. What discussions did the Treasurer or his office have with the Productivity Commission before the commission apparently requested an extension? 14:30 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank Senator Wong for that question. My advice is that it was the Productivity Commission that made such a request to the Treasurer. I will, on the basis of the question, ask the Treasurer whether he has anything else to add to that answer. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong on a supplementary question. 14:30 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Did the Treasurer or his office discuss the possibility of a delay with any of his cabinet colleagues or their officers before making a decision? If so, when and with whom was the possibility of a delay beyond the South Australian and Tasmanian state elections first discussed? 14:30 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I take that question on notice. I'm not sure what discussions the Treasurer may or may not have had. I am not aware of any such discussions. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong on a final supplementary question. 14:30 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Given the Productivity Commission's interim report proposes cuts to the distribution of GST revenue of $557 million to South Australia and $160 million to Tasmania, will the minister rule out any changes to the distribution of the GST which would see cuts to South Australia and Tasmania? 14:31 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia As Senator Wong would well know, the report she references is not a government report; it is a report from an independent statutory authority to government. In fact, it is only a draft report on which some further consultation is taking place as we speak. In due course, the Productivity Commission will release a report. As every Australian would expect the government to do, when that final report comes forward, the government will consider it and provide a response in due course. Environment 45 14:31 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to Senator Birmingham, representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Australia has sovereignty over its exclusive economic zone but must ensure the optimum utilisation of marine resources. Where the authorities believe that such optimum utilisation is not occurring, they have allowed foreign vessels temporarily registered in Australia to fish in our waters. Is the Turnbull government proposing major cuts to the marine park protection zones around the coast of Australia to accommodate foreign fishing vessels fishing in our waters? 14:32 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The short answer to Senator Hanson's question is no. What the Turnbull government has been doing is ensuring that there will be fair and appropriate use and access for both recreational and commercial fishers in Australia's marine reserve areas as well as ensuring, indeed, that marine reserve areas are appropriately places of protection. We have been working on making sure that marine reserves reflect a process of genuine consultation with communities and utilisation of scientific advice. Senator Hanson—through you, Mr President—you were not in the chamber at the time in 2012 when the then government bungled the creation of new marine reserves. At that time, they trampled over sustainable maritime communities to achieve a political outcome of being able to grandstand with the Greens in relation to the structure of marine reserves. They rushed consultation and shut recreational fishermen in particular out of that process. I would encourage you, Senator Hanson, to engage closely with the recreational fishing communities about the failings of that process and what the coalition has sought to do since, which is to achieve not only an appropriate and better environmental outcome but also a better community outcome and a better economic outcome through our review into marine reserves. We want to make sure there is a sensible balance that protects the environment, protects stocks, supports a sustainable fishing industry, attracts tourism and provides cultural, recreational and economic benefits for coastal communities. This is about ensuring that Australian jobs in tourism are supported, that Australian jobs in recreational fishing are supported, Australian lifestyles and recreational fishing are supported and, yes, Australia's fishing industries are supported by having not only appropriate access but also sustainable reserves for the long term, which is why we have gone through a lengthy but thorough process to get this right. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Hanson, a further supplementary question? 14:34 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, you must be well aware that these marine zones are nothing to do with recreational fishing, because they're too far out. Do you categorically deny that the government or AFMA are having discussions or negotiations with China or any other foreign entity to acquire fishing licences by deeming their fishing vessels to be Australian fishing vessels? If yes, why the deceit and what type of licences? 14:35 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The Australian government, to my knowledge, is having no such discussions. Senator Hanson, I will happily check with the relevant minister and make sure that I provide any update to that information if I am at all mistaken, but my understanding is that we do not have foreign fishing vessels in Australian waters in the way in which you describe. We have no plans to change that. What has happened in relation to marine reserves is indeed about providing the best possible outcomes for Australian fishers, for recreational fishers and for communities that depend upon the fishing industry or recreational fishing activities in that regard. It's why we've gone through a genuine consultation process. Five bioregional advisory panels conducted more than 260 regional public meetings all around the country between February and August 2015. It's a consultation process that has been informed by extensive scientific analysis as well, which will lead shortly to the tabling of updated plans. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q A final supplementary question, Senator Hanson? 14:36 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland You say, no, there are no discussions, but, if it was to come about, I would like to ask the minister what benefits Australia could possibly gain by opening our waters to more foreign fishing vessels when the United Nations has reported that organised crime is using fishing vessels to traffic in humans and drugs, dump waste, launder money, overfish and illegally fish, let alone destroying our own fishing and tourism industries. 14:37 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia With all due respect to Senator Hanson, you're posing now a very much hypothetical question on something I've just said is not the government's policy nor the government's intent and won't be happening under the government. Senator Hanson, you can't come and ask me what the benefits are of something you're clearly opposed to and, indeed, the government isn't actually pursuing. What we are pursuing is ensuring that Commonwealth marine reserves ensure that across Senator Hanson's state of Queensland or, indeed, anywhere else around the country we have a strong Australian fishing industry, that we have fair access to waterways for recreational fishers that underpin strong tourist and other activities and that within all of that we have a sustainable environmental framework that ensures those commercial and recreational fishers can be strong well into the future knowing that they have sustainable fishery stocks as well. Mining 46 14:38 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland My question is to Senator Canavan. Can the minister please advise the Senate what is standing in the way of the development of Adani Carmichael mine and opening up the Galilee Basin? 14:38 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I thank Senator O'Sullivan for his question. It's certainly not the market for coal at the moment. That is not standing in the way of the development of new coalmining ventures in this country, because the market for coal has started very strongly this year. We had the noted international expert on coal economics, Mr Bill Shorten, out there on the weekend, saying that the world coal market doesn't appear to have great economics for opening up a mine, when in fact the coal market this year has hit new highs, with the thermal price at the moment being $107, up more than double since last year. The coking coal prices are $220 a tonne, more than doubled in the past two years. This is good news for Australia, and any aspiring Prime Minister, you would think, would have a little bit of an understanding of the economics of our second-biggest export industry, but it's clear Mr Shorten knows nothing about coalmining or working in the coalmining sector. He also came out last week and said that he's increasingly sceptical about the Adani Carmichael coalmine in North Queensland. I don't dispute that Mr Shorten is genuinely increasingly sceptical. He is increasingly sceptical of his chances of winning the by-election of Batman. Because he's increasingly sceptical about that, he wants to trade off jobs in North Queensland to help him win a few votes in Melbourne. The Carmichael mine is 2,000 kilometres away, in North Queensland. It's an area where jobs growth fell by 10,000. Employment growth fell by 10,000 in that region last year, and Mr Shorten wants to make their pain even greater by putting into question this project, which on its own could deliver 10,000 jobs and thousands of others. He is trading off the interests of his own Queensland representatives to try and win a by-election in Melbourne. It is behaviour unfit for someone who wants to lead this nation and should be condemned. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Di Natale on a point of order? Senator Di Natale 53369 A point of order: I think I rose to my feet just before Senator Canavan misled the Senate by stating '10,000 jobs', when we know Adani themselves have said it's only about a thousand. The PRESIDENT I0Q That is not a point of order, Senator Di Natale. Please resume your seat. That is not a point of order and you know that. Senator O'Sullivan, do you have a supplementary question? 14:40 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland Thank you, Mr President. Can the minister please inform the Senate of the type of support the project has? 14:40 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland This project is widely supported by the people of Queensland. There are people from all different backgrounds who support this project. Indeed, there's a bloke called Senator Murray Watt who in October 2016 said that state and federal Labor have always supported jobs in mining. Well, up until that date perhaps they had. He went on to say, 'We also support the Adani mining project,'—Senator Watt, thank you for your support for the Adani mining project—'provided it meets environmental requirements'. He went on to say, 'This is a massive project and it's got the potential to create thousands of jobs, which will be fantastic for regional Queensland'. Mr Shorten hasn't been talking to Senator Watt for a while, or if he has he hasn't had much influence. Senator Chisholm, as well, said, 'The only people who lose in this'—this was while the native title laws were being debated last year—'are the people of Central and North Queensland, who are looking to this vital project as an economic opportunity for our region.' Why don't these guys stand up now and back their words with action? The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Sullivan, a final supplementary question. 14:41 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland What benefits could the Adani mine and the opening of the Galilee Basin bring to our home state of Queensland? 14:42 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland As I was saying, there have been good economic times for our nation, with more than 400,000 jobs being created last year, the highest on record in one calendar year. But, in the Fitzroy area, where this mine is, employment has fallen by 10,000 over the last year. That's why we want to get going projects that actually deliver jobs for these people. Others in this chamber want to ignore those jobs and the requirements of those people, but we want to seem them get going. This mine will deliver 10,000 jobs in direct and indirect benefits to our region, according to modelling. It will create just over 3,000 jobs in construction straight away, in direct jobs. There are five other mines that could be opened up if the Galilee Basin is opened and that would create more than 15,000 direct jobs in mining, not including the other jobs created, according to the Queensland government. This is a veritable jobs bonanza for our region if we can open up a new coal basin. That's what good government should be doing. We should be spreading economic opportunity around our region, and that's why we are supporting this project. Energy 47 14:43 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia My question is to Senator Birmingham, the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy. I congratulate him on his promotion. It's good to finally see a South Australian in a leadership position in the Senate Liberals. On 16 March last year, Minister Frydenberg announced: 'Australia's first virtual power plant goes live in South Australia.' The minister said that the $20 million project, combining solar panels and batteries in 1,000 residential and business premises to build a five-megawatt power station, would 'lower power bills, reduce emissions and provide stability'. How many megawatts of electricity has the project delivered? 14:44 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Farrell for his question and his kind words, although Senator Farrell seems to have forgotten that it's not that long since Senator Nick Minchin sat in the chair that Senator Cormann occupies, and that before him Senator Robert Hill sat in the chair that Senator Cormann now occupies. So there is a long history, indeed, of South Australians occupying leadership positions in the Senate Liberals. Senator Wong interjecting— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X However, I'm very happy in the seat where I now am, Senator Wong, to ensure that you don't start any conspiracy theories. In relation to the precise detail that Senator Farrell has asked for, I'll have to take that on notice and seek some information for Senator Farrell to get that precise detail. As Senator Farrell is well aware, the Turnbull government continues to work across a range of levels to make sure that energy is more reliable and more affordable, and, indeed, that we meet our international obligations in relation to energy generation. That's evident through our work in relation to the development of the National Energy Guarantee. We are pleased to see progress and support from a number of state governments, including Labor state governments, but, unfortunately, not from the South Australian Labor state government, who choose to continue to play politics with energy rather than actually getting on with working towards a national solution. Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Senator Collins, who is from the Labor state of Victoria, interjects. Well, the Labor state government of Victoria is willing to work cooperatively in relation to development of the National Energy Guarantee, even though Senator Farrell's mates in the state government of SA— Senator Wong interjecting— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Sorry, you are right, Senator Wong—I shouldn't describe Mr Weatherill as Senator Farrell's mate. That's far from the truth; we know that. You were right to interject. However, we will make sure we will continue to deliver— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU The question is about a government announcement—Mr Frydenberg's announcement: 'First virtual power plant goes live in SA.' Surely the minister could at least get close to that. The PRESIDENT I0Q There are seven seconds left for the answer to the question. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X There was a very precise question from Senator Farrell, and, to treat it with respect, I had already taken that precise question on notice. 14:46 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I have a supplementary question. On Sunday, the South Australian government announced support for a 250 megawatt virtual power plant involving 50,000 households. Given the project is 50 times the size of that supported by the minister, does he agree the project will 'lower power bills, reduce emissions and provide stability'? 14:46 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia We all look forward to seeing details of Mr Weatherill's announcement and to see what it may or may not do. But I do have some doubts about whether or not Mr Weatherill will be able to achieve all of the things that Senator Farrell has asked about. It was only four years ago, in the last South Australian election, that Mr Weatherill was making a promise suggesting that they would provide solar panels for some 5,000 low-income families. Four years later, do you know what's happened in relation to Mr Weatherill's last promise on this matter? Only 400 of the 5,000 have been delivered. What we saw yesterday was Mr Weatherill engage in another stunt with Elon Musk to try to get a bit of extra attention and media publicity. But we know that when it comes to these promises they don't deliver at the state level. They didn't deliver on their promises at the last election, they no doubt won't deliver this time, and it is a case of playing catch-up—catch-up with Mr Marshall, who had already announced support for battery— (Time expired) 14:48 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I have a final supplementary question. Is the Turnbull government's commitment to the $110 million for the Port Augusta solar thermal plant just as hollow as the commitment to a virtual power plant in South Australia? 14:48 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The Turnbull government's commitment to support investment in solar thermal energy at Port Augusta is a real commitment. It was a commitment made before the last election thanks to the strong and powerful advocacy of the member for Grey, Mr Ramsey. It is a commitment that we have been working to see implemented ever since, and we are determined not only to see that project go ahead but to see an overall fix across the board in terms of the failings in the energy market, which have been contributed to by the poor policy positions of the South Australian Labor government. We want to see, through the National Energy Guarantee, something that provides stability and reliability and the certainty that when you turn the lights on, the lights go on. We want to make sure that we don't have states running away with their own different renewable targets but instead we have a mechanism in place that puts reliability on the same platform as reducing emissions, and does so at the lowest cost to consumers. Because keeping electricity prices down is the most important thing to ensure, alongside reliability. Mental Health 48 14:49 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales My question is to Senator McKenzie, the Minister for Rural Health. Will the minister update the Senate on the coalition government's measures to support mental health? 14:49 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I thank Senator Williams for the question and for his strong advocacy to improve mental health services, especially for those from rural and regional Australia. I think mental illness and ensuring that all Australians have the services and support they need is something that binds every person in this chamber. Our commitment as senators and as a parliament to ensure that Australians have access to appropriate mental health services is crucial, and it binds us together. I feel very, very strongly about this issue as rural health minister and I'm committed to doing everything I can to support and improve the lives of Australians who suffer from mental illness. There are over four million Australians who experience mental health issues. It's something that's present in every family and every community right across the country. Tragically, too many Australians choose the ultimate expression of their mental illness in attempting to take their lives. Nearly 3,000 Australians go down that path every year, and it's too many. The coalition government is committed to supporting those with mental illnesses. There are challenges right across the community. We invested over $4.3 billion at the last budget. This includes an additional $9 million for the extension and expansion of telehealth into rural and regional Australia, $11 million for the prevention of suicide at hotspot locations and $58 million to support current and former Defence Force personnel and their families. Our government is committed to delivering high-quality mental health services for all Australians, no matter where they live. When I was in Broken Hill visiting the Royal Flying Doctor Service last week, the front line of our primary health services, the doctors and nurses who take calls at 3 am from those experiencing mental health issues in the regions, couldn't be happier. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Williams, a supplementary question. 14:51 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales Can the minister outline to the Senate how the government is taking action on mental health to support young Australians? 14:52 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Young people, when confronted with mental illness, often struggle to access the information and the support that they need in a timely fashion. We all know the tragedy of young Amy Everett, the 14-year-old who took her life over summer as a result of cyberbullying. It is something that has impacted all families and communities, as parents and as young people themselves struggle with the impact of cyberbullying. I had the privilege of announcing over the summer break an additional $110 million to expand and extend specific mental health programs to our young people—supporting headspace and supporting beyondblue with their crack team, which goes particularly into secondary schools that have experienced a suicide episode, to support teachers, students and families at a time in crisis, and providing additional money for Orygen, leading world-class research and policy advice in the provision of youth mental health services. I could go on. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Williams, a final supplementary question? 14:53 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales Can the minister inform the Senate of the important work headspace undertakes across the country, particularly in rural and regional Australia? 14:53 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria It is an important topic because it touches the lives of every family and every Australian, particularly in regional Australia, where our suicide rates are 1.5 times higher than those in capital cities. A fortnight ago, I was privileged to visit the 100th headspace, opening in Broken Hill, with the member for Parkes, Mark Coulton. I got to meet the energetic and passionate staff, the headspace providers. They are very keen to engage with young people and the community of Broken Hill by going to the schools to ensure that the young people in Broken Hill, who sometimes experience a waiting list to access the support services they need, can walk through the headspace door and get access to the services they need in a timely manner. This government is committed to ensuring that all young people, no matter where they live, will get the support they need. That's why telehelp is so important at 3 am and headspace is so important to our communities. Defence Industry 49 14:54 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Defence, also representing the Minister for Trade, Senator Payne. My question is about your government's plan to provide a six-fold increase of weapons and defence technology sales from Australia by lending almost $4 billion of public money to the defence industry. Tim Costello, the chief advocate for World Vision Australia, said, Minister: This is a government that has cut humanitarian aid, which saves lives, to the lowest level in our history, and it is now seriously discussing the merits of becoming a major weapons manufacturer and exporter … The government says this is an export and investment opportunity—but we would be exporting death and profiting from bloodshed. Minister, do you agree with Mr Costello? And, if not, why not? Is he right or is he wrong? 14:55 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I respectfully disagree with Mr Costello on this matter, although we have worked together in the past on a number of issues. Let me be very clear about what is in the Defence Export Strategy. It builds on the government's very strong defence industry policies by setting out a comprehensive system to plan, to guide and to measure defence export outcomes. What we are doing is bringing together all the levers that are available to government and to industry to provide end-to-end support for defence exports, from building export readiness to identifying export opportunities, and, ultimately, to realise defence export outcomes. We are also establishing, through the strategy, the Australian Defence Export Office within the Department of Defence, which will provide a focal point for defence exports. The strategy is also creating a Defence Export Advocate, who will support the office by providing ongoing, high-level advocacy for defence exports. They have not yet been appointed but they will be a senior figure with strong knowledge of the Australian defence industry. So what we have committed to—and I emphasise that this is all structured within the defence trade control system, which already applies strongly to what we do when we observe our obligations under that system— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Payne. Senator Whish-Wilson on a point of order? Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 A point of order about relevance, President: I have waited till over halfway through the minister's response— Senator Payne M56 You asked me if I agreed with Tim Costello. I said no. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Can I hear the point of order from Senator Whish-Wilson? Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 I asked him: if not, why not? How is this not profiting from bloodshed and exporting death? You haven't answered that, Minister. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Whish-Wilson, your question was quite lengthy and wide-ranging. The minister is relevant to the terms of the question you asked. Senator PAYNE M56 The senator asked me if I agreed with Mr Costello and I said, respectfully, no, I do not. What we are engaged in is, as I said, managed within the defence trade control system. Our export control provisions reflect our international obligations as a member of global non-proliferation regimes and as a signatory to the Arms Trade Treaty, and are consistent with like-minded countries. We assess all of our exports against five criteria: international obligations, human rights, regional security, national security and foreign policy. One of the challenges for defence industry in the past has been a lack of consistency— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Whish-Wilson, a supplementary question? 14:58 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Minister, you are making nearly $4 billion available to an already very powerful military-industrial complex. Where did this policy come from? Who's been in your ear? How many weapons companies have you talked to? And how many of them have been donors to the Liberal Party? 14:58 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I would refer the senator to the 2016 Defence Industry Policy Statement, which was launched by the government in February 2016—so he has had almost two years to turn his mind to that—which set out our plans in relation to development of defence industry in this country, recognising it is a fundamental input to capability. The export strategy developed by the Department of Defence, the Minister for Defence Industry and me is a significant next step in that process. What the Efic facility does, which the senator has referred to, is to take up Efic's significant experience in complex, large-scale project financing and, as a national interest account facility, while Efic will do the due diligence, the loan structuring and the administration, all final loan decisions will be subject to cabinet approval. And I reiterate: they will all be considered under Australia's rigorous defence export control provisions. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Whish-Wilson, a final supplementary question? 14:59 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I'm sure you'd like to ask one about this, too, Senator Singh. Minister Pyne, when he visited Saudi Arabia to talk about weapons sales recently, met with Saudi prince Mutaib bin Abdullah, who, not long after that meeting, was jailed for corruption. We also know there are serious allegations against Saudi Arabia for giving weapons to Islamic State and committing war crimes in Yemen. How will you make sure that Australian weapons aren't used in atrocities or war crimes or for corrupt purposes? (Time expired) 15:00 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I have already made reference to our quite stringent defence export control provisions, but I can refer to those again if the senator wishes. The assessment of the application considers the goods or the technology, the way it will be used and who it will be used by—the end user. It also includes looking at the risk of it being diverted to another end user. All exports will continue to be assessed under Australia's export control provisions. I would note for the record that in 2015 the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in a bipartisan report, as I understand it, recommended key elements of the Defence industry policy statement and of the export policy. These are matters which have previously been considered by the parliament. Our primary focus is, of course, on our key relationships with the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and like-minded countries such as Canada, and then, of course, into our region. The observations that Senator Whish-Wilson makes in relation to matters concerning Saudi Arabia are not the focus at this stage. (Time expired) Senator Cormann HDA Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 50 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Medicare 50 15:01 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Collins today relating to the Medicare levy. We've seen, time and time again, government senators—even this morning—talking down the fact that this government will increase income tax for Australians. The question that was asked related to the over $1.7 billion a year that Australians pay in Medicare levy and how much of that the Turnbull government's so-called tax cuts will give back to low- and middle-income earners in this country. We know that it's been the government's policy and that it's in their DNA to continually attack and undermine Medicare. It's who they are. It's what we have seen from each and every government of a Liberal persuasion that's come to power in this country since the introduction of Medicare. People in our communities are talking to us about the challenges in getting access to GPs and hospitals. All of this comes down to the fact that this government is bereft of any real policy on dealing with the health crisis in this country and on ensuring that Medicare is available and that people can see a doctor when they need to. We know that because of the Turnbull government here in Canberra and the Hodgman Liberal government in my home state of Tasmania there is a health crisis in that state. Senator Duniam interjecting— Senator POLLEY e5x We have a crisis when older Tasmanians are being left on the floor in accident and emergency. Yes, it did happen. Senator Duniam can confirm that, yes, that is exactly what is happening in the hospitals. Only last week the head of surgery at Launceston General Hospital resigned—he is now heading for Queensland—because the state Liberal minister failed to negotiate with him to ensure that his duties and responsibilities were not taken away. That's exactly what this government has done in Tasmania. What does it all come back to? It comes back to the fact that the Liberal Premier of Tasmania is gutless and is unable to stand up to the Minister for Health under the Turnbull government. What we are seeing in this country is that unless you've got a big credit card and come from the right postcode you don't have the access to health that you should. Australians pride themselves, and have for decades, on ensuring that everyone has a fair go, that they have fair access to health. We don't want an American system. We don't want that in this country. Your credit card shouldn't determine whether or not you are able to access a doctor, get into a hospital when you need to, or access pharmaceuticals. What we see with this government is a government that has its priorities all wrong. It's attacking Medicare. It's increasing the contribution it expects from low- and middle-income earners. It's increasing taxation on these people at the same time that it's giving a $65 billion tax cut to the big end of town. It's really hard, I know, for Mr Turnbull to relate to the concerns of people in this country, but there are far too many people, in particular a lot of older people, who are unable to access good health care. Senator Duniam interjecting— Senator POLLEY e5x For Senator Duniam and others on that side to deny the true and evident facts of what's happening in Tasmanian hospitals is an outrage. I would invite the Tasmanian Liberal senators to go back to our home state, go back during the election campaign, and stand up and defend the Liberal government's cuts to health; to say to the older people who have been left on the floors at Royal Hobart Hospital and Launceston General Hospital—those patients who have had to stay in accident and emergency for up to 48 hours and even beyond—that this is acceptable. We on this side do not find it acceptable and we will always fight to ensure that Medicare is protected. We did it at the last election and we will continue to do it, because we believe in universal health care. We believe that every Australian, irrespective of where they live or how much money they earn, should have access through Medicare, because that's why it was originally introduced—by Labor, I might add. (Time expired) 15:06 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I would first like to say, 'Congratulations and welcome,' to my new colleague, Senator Molan, and also wish the previous Attorney-General, who is also in the chamber, all the best in his new career. Starting off the year on motions to take note of answers, I always find it a little amusing to hear the doom and gloom from those opposite, and this year is absolutely no different. Yes, we all agree with universal health care, but the difference between those opposite and us is the fact that we actually understand that taxpayers' pockets are not a magic pudding. Senator Abetz N26 Oh, aren't they? Senator REYNOLDS 250216 No, apparently they're not. If you want to spend money on health care and the NDIS, you actually have to raise the money first. So I thought, in the context of guaranteeing the NDIS and of the government's bill, the Medicare Levy Amendment (National Disability Insurance Scheme Funding) Bill, I would remind those opposite and those in the gallery of the history to this. This scheme is supported by all sides of parliament, but unfortunately when we came to government it was not sufficiently funded, so the government have worked very carefully to make sure that the program is fully funded for the 460,000 Australians who will benefit from this long overdue scheme. Again, the money doesn't just come out of nowhere. There is no such thing as government money. As those in the gallery know full well, the money the government spends is their money. To help fund this scheme, the government is asking Australians to contribute to it through an increase of half a percentage point in the Medicare levy, from two per cent to 2½ per cent of taxable income. This means that one-fifth of the revenue raised by the Medicare levy, along with any underspend in any year in the NDIS, will be directed to the NDIS savings fund—a measured and prudent approach. Of course, low-income earners will continue to receive relief from the Medicare levy through the low-income threshold for singles, families, seniors and pensioners. This motion gives me cause to reflect on why we've had to do this and the legacy those opposite left us when we came into government. I was working in this place during the years of the Howard and Costello government, and when the Labor Party came into office in 2007 they had a budget surplus and not a cent of government debt—no debt, which meant that the taxpayers of Australia had no debt to pay back. If the coalition had continued building debt at previous levels, the gross national debt would now be over $1 trillion. The coalition has acted responsibly to cut our growth in gross debt by two-thirds to nine per cent in this year's MYEFO. What else has this government actually done that those opposite will never ever acknowledge? It is not all doom and gloom. Some of the measures the government has introduced to actually fund the NDIS have also created jobs. Last year, in 2017, how many jobs do those opposite think were actually created? How many new jobs were created last year for Australians—brand new jobs? What those opposite will never tell you is that over 403,000 new jobs were created for Australians—the most jobs ever created in a single year. In fact, this government has now created nearly, but not quite, one million jobs since it came to office four years ago. Those opposite sit there like Chicken Little, saying the sky's going to fall down, we're going to ruin the earth or ruin the economy, but the statistics speak for themselves. The best form of welfare, and the best way to fund welfare, is by having Australians in jobs: having jobs, paying taxes, being able to look after their own families, having that sense of pride and providing money into the coffers. What else has this government done over the last 12 months? We've cut taxes for 3.2 million small businesses which employ over 6½ million Australians. The instant asset write-off was used by 300,000 small businesses last year alone to invest in their businesses, to buy new equipment, to buy machinery and to employ new staff. We've invested a record $75 billion in national infrastructure, which, again, is money into the Australian economy and money which creates jobs. Rural exports, due to the free trade agreements and other measures this government has taken, went up 19 per cent in the last year alone. That is more money for the economy. (Time expired) 15:11 Senator KETTER 244247 Queensland Whilst I congratulate Senator Cormann on his appointment, I do have to express my disappointment with the rather lacklustre response that was provided today to Senator Collins's very important question. This was the opportunity for Senator Cormann to provide some light on the issue that the Prime Minister ducked yesterday on the Insiders program, where the Prime Minister refused to concede the truth about the impact of the coalition's tax policies on low- and middle-income Australians. On our figures, we've said that income earners of about $55,000 per annum face a $275 tax hike. Income earners on $80,000 per annum face a $400 per annum tax hike. On our figures, this means low- and middle-income Australians face an increased tax bill of $1.7 billion. There was an opportunity—if our figures are wrong, let's hear from the coalition—but instead Senator Cormann resorted to the tired old furphy that taxes will always be higher under Labor. That furphy is just that. I have raised this issue in the chamber on a number of occasions previously. The facts do not bear out that statement. I do agree with one thing that Senator Cormann said: if you repeat a lie over and over, it doesn't make it true. This is exactly what's happening with this particular statement. I refer to the research that's been done by Stephen Koukoulas, which I've repeated in this chamber. I know Senator Macdonald is here in the chamber and I know others who like to make these sorts of stereotypical statements about Labor's economic record. Stephen Koukoulas has shown that if we look at the tax to GDP ratio since 1980, we find that in the 10 years with the highest tax to GDP ratio eight of those 10 years were under Liberal administrations. There were only two under Labor governments. If you look at the 10 years of lowest tax to GDP ratio, you find that 10 out of 10 of those years are under Labor governments. In 1992-93 we saw tax to GDP at 20 per cent, going up to 21.5 per cent under a Labor administration in the 2013-14 year. Whilst I know that this is probably not going to stop Senator Cormann from making the same tired old comments in the future, let's just keep the facts on the table. With this particular issue, it's quite clear that Labor has a record of having a very low level of tax to GDP. Let's not hear that furphy anymore in this place. Now, it's quite clear that this government is looking after the top end of town. They've abolished the budget repair levy. Under the Abbott government, higher income earners paid an extra two per cent on the 45 per cent tax rate, and this has been cut. They're looking out for multinationals. They're attempting to pass the $65 billion in company tax that is a ram-raid on the budget and they've ignored our calls for tax transparency and closing debt deduction loopholes. They've ruled out negative gearing and capital gains tax reforms, despite evidence that these tax breaks mainly benefit the wealthy. Up until recently, they've run a protection racket for the big banks, that have ripped off ordinary Australians, until they were dragged kicking and screaming to a royal commission this year. Why is this stealth attack on the tax of ordinary Australians necessary? Labor fully funded the NDIS in government. The Productivity Commission said that the NDIS costs were broadly on track, and so any claims by this government that the NDIS is underfunded are absolutely not true. Whilst the Prime Minister is making plans to take back what he gives out, workers are suffering. Wage growth is at historically low levels. Penalty rates have been cut for thousands of casualised workers, affecting job security for individuals and families. The workforce is becoming more casualised. Enterprise-bargaining rates, which have proven globally to correlate positively with wage growth, have fallen dramatically. The cost of living is going up—medical expenses, private health insurance, energy bills, groceries and education. Only Labor has a plan to restore penalty rates, cap private health insurance premium increases, address the energy crisis and tackle the rising cost of living. 15:17 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland In my first speech to the chamber this year, I want to wish everyone a very happy and successful 2018. I particularly welcome my new colleague, Senator Gichuhi, to the Liberal Party and to this side of the chamber. It's lovely to have her here. Senator Molan has joined us this morning as well. I wish even the Labor Party all the very best as they try to find some policies that they can afford and that are truthful. I appreciate Senator Ketter mentioning me, pre-empting that I might talk about Labor's financial record. Senator Ketter, I have been here a long time now. I was here in the Hawke-Keating days and then in the Rudd-Gillard days. I've seen firsthand what Labor does with a budget. The bobby-dazzler of all was when Mr Keating legislated tax cuts before an election. He unexpectedly got elected. The first thing he did when he came back as Prime Minister was to repeal the legislation giving the tax cuts. Of course, we all know the famous, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' What was the first thing Prime Minister Gillard did when she was also elected unexpectedly? She introduced a carbon tax. That's just the by the way. My colleague Senator Reynolds has already reminded the House that when the Howard government left there was $60 billion in credit—$60 billion of Australians' money in credit for a rainy day and to allow good things to be done by the new government. What happened was that the Labor government came in and, as usual, spent and spent and spent without any regard for where the money was coming from. As a result of that we ended up in a situation where the finances of our country went from $60 billion in credit to what would have got up to about $700 billion in debt if the Labor Party had continued in government on the same trajectory. The argument, or the mention, today of the Medicare levy and the NDIS is just a subset of Labor's inability to properly manage money. Look, anyone can go out and be popular—go out to the world and promise anybody whatever they want to hear, and win votes from a public that isn't always quite as astute as perhaps they should be. The public doesn't really look at or understand how these things are paid for. So, Mr Shorten goes out and promises his audience of the day what they want to hear—and I know that to my detriment in North Queensland. Mr Shorten is in Batman, where he's having the fight of his life with the Greens political party. So, to try to win or stop the Greens candidate winning, Mr Shorten is now saying he's not going to support Adani. But when he comes to Queensland and Townsville, he's all in favour of Adani. He's all over the shop, depending on which particular audience he's talking to. Similarly with the NDIS: Senator Cormann, on his first day as leader—and I congratulate him on his appointment, and the very lucid, clear and explanatory way he answered the questions—pointed out that the Labor Party had a good idea about the National Disability Insurance Scheme; it's just that they didn't bother to fund it. They went around and said, 'Yes, we're going to do this,' but not anywhere in the budget papers could you find where Labor had set any money aside for what was and is a very, very expensive process. I'm glad the coalition government is proceeding with the NDIS. It is now fully funded, and it means that people with disabilities will actually have a funded scheme that will assist them into the future. That's the difference between coalition governments and Labor. We don't just talk about things; we actually manage the finances so that they can be paid for. (Time expired) 15:22 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria Three-quarters of a century ago Robert Menzies made what became a famous speech about Australia's forgotten people. I've been told by some senators across the chamber that they actually enjoy hearing Robert Menzies quotes from me, because they don't hear them on any other occasion. Robert Menzies said that those forgotten people were forgotten because: … they were not rich enough to look after themselves, but nor did they receive the protection that trade unions gave to the working classes. That speech not only helped shape politics in the postwar years but also, apparently, is a central tenet of the Liberal Party. But here we have today, this year, this Prime Minister, this Liberal Prime Minister, from the party of Menzies—the party of one-time lower taxes—who has actually increased taxation on Australians. They have increased the Medicare levy. The increase in the Medicare levy has the greatest impact on individuals in the third, fourth and fifth income quintiles. The second quintile—those earning $21,000 per annum—will also have their tax burden increased: $21,000 and paying more tax under this government. Let me be clear and give some examples. Someone earning $60,000 will pay an extra $300 in tax. Someone earning $80,000 will pay an extra $400. This is a tax hike on over seven million Australian workers earning less than $87,000 each year. Yet this government, this Prime Minister, is going ahead with $65 billion in tax cuts for big business. It's clear that low- and middle-income Australians are paying for the government's $65 billion handout to big business in the form of rising personal income taxes. Now, those opposite, and Senator Cormann during question time, attempted to rubbish the ALP on some of these figures. But let's go to the Parliamentary Budget Office and the report they put out last July, called 2017-18 budget:medium-term projections—and I'm sure the Minister for Finance has a copy. This is what they said: Personal income tax receipts are projected by the PBO to increase by 1.6 per cent of GDP over the medium term, from 11.1 per cent in 2016-17 to 12.6 per cent of GDP in 2027-28. …   …   … Once the tax 'cap' is reached, personal income tax receipts are projected by the PBO to continue to rise as a per cent of GDP as company tax receipts decline from 2023-24 as a result of the Government's Enterprise Tax Plan. The PBO projects that the average tax rate on personal income will rise from 22.7 per cent in 2016-17 to 25.9 per cent in 2027-28. The report states that in 2023-24, personal income tax is 12.4 per cent of GDP while company tax is 4.5. By 2027-28, personal income tax is 12.6 per cent of GDP, while company tax is 4.2 per cent. So from 2023-24 to 2027-28, when the company tax rate is meant to decrease for all companies, personal income taxes rise 0.2 percentage points of GDP while company taxes decrease by 0.3 percentage points. That position was only reinforced by the PBO at the end of last year, where in another report they showed that middle-income earners are set to suffer the greatest tax burden under this government's policies. What does this mean? First, let's consider how disheartening and frustrating this must be for Australians. What it does show is it's a government with no understanding of the effect that its policies are having on the living standards of lower- and middle-income families, and no amount of bluster from ministers opposite will conceal that fact. Healthcare costs are one of the largest items in the expenditure of ordinary Australian families. Healthcare costs are rising faster than overall CPI and faster than the incomes of most lower- and middle-income families. But I guess if you are a believer in Richie Rich economics, or if you're the Prince of Point Piper, as the Prime Minister is, you don't actually care. (Time expired) Question agreed to. Climate Change 54 15:27 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Di Natale today relating to climate change. Australians have been sweltering all summer. We saw temperatures higher than 47 degrees in Sydney. We've seen records broken; we've seen that right across the country. Indeed, we have had health authorities warn people to check on vulnerable members of their family to make sure they're okay. It's been the story of our summer. Our temperatures have made global headlines. Now, the Leader of the Government in the Senate might like to trivialise this and he might like to call it a weather report. Unfortunately, it's much more than simply a weather report; it is the science of dangerous climate change. It's something that we're facing, it's something that must be taken seriously and it's something we need to act on. Neither the Liberals nor the Labor Party have a plan to clean up Australia's energy system, our transport system or our dirty, polluting exports to start to address the great challenge of dangerous climate change. But the good news is that in a few weeks' time, the people of Batman have an opportunity to put the tired, old politics of the past behind them and to choose a genuine alternative that is up to the challenge to make the transition away from dirty, polluting coal towards jobs-rich, clean renewable energy that is good for the environment, that is good for prices and that creates jobs for the local community. They have an opportunity to say that they want a more equal Australia, where the economy works for everybody; where we have a fairer tax system; where we support Medicare rather than propping up the private health insurance industry through those billion-dollar handouts; where we address housing affordability and renters' rights; and where we make sure our energy system is in public hands. This is also an opportunity to say no to the polluting, jobs-destroying Adani coalmine. The opposition leader has said that for many years he has backed this mine, but now he says, in the midst of this looming by-election, that he is increasingly sceptical. He wasn't sceptical when he was told that Adani's megamine would produce over two billion tonnes of coal. If that were a coal seam a metre deep and 10 metres wide it would wrap around the earth five times. He didn't seem to be sceptical when marine scientists said if you dig up the coal from the Carmichael mine that is the end of the Great Barrier Reef. He wasn't sceptical when we informed him of the history of Adani's corruption, tax dodging and environmental vandalism, right around the world, in projects that it has been involved in. He wasn't sceptical then but, suddenly, now, with the prospect of losing a seat that's been in Labor hands since its inception, he has seen the light. We welcome any change of heart from the government on this because we Greens are very proud to be leading the political agenda. We have seen it with the banking royal commission. We saw it with the bank levy adopted by the Liberal Party. We've seen it with reform to negative gearing and capital gains tax. We've seen it with the recent announcement of a national anticorruption watchdog. And soon we'll see it with the changing position on Adani. Our job is to implement Greens policies, and we are successful as we shift the political dial here in Australia and will continue to be successful in the lead-up to this by-election. We welcome any change. But let's be clear: this must be a fulsome and wholehearted commitment to stop the Adani mine not just weasel words to try and deal with a difficult political issue in the midst of a by-election. This isn't just about Adani. We know that Adani represents a climate catastrophe, should it be approved, but it's also about the future of coal in our energy mix and what it means for Australia's long-term economic and environmental future. We absolutely need a rapid transition away from coal to renewables, battery storage, demand management and energy efficiency. This is a good-news story. This is jobs, this is investment and this is saving the Great Barrier Reef. This is a choice between the past and the future, a choice between an Australia that existed 50 years ago and a modern, 21st century sustainable, clean economy, one that looks after the environment and all of the people that depend on it. The way we get there is we get more Greens in parliament. We elect people, like Alex Bathal, who won't just promise things in the lead-up to an election but be forced to vote against them if elected—someone who will be true to those values, values like showing compassion for refugees and tackling dangerous climate change. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 55 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Mental Health 55 15:32 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I want to correct the record to an answer I gave to Senator Williams. Leave granted. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I answered 'more than $4.3 billion' had been invested in mental health at the last budget. 'Almost $4.3 billion' was invested—to be exact, $4.275 billion. The PRESIDENT I0Q Thank you, Senator McKenzie. CONDOLENCES 55 CONDOLENCES Bjelke-Petersen, Lady Florence (Flo) Isabel 55 15:33 The PRESIDENT I0Q It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 20 December 2017 of Lady Florence Isabel Bjelke-Petersen, a senator for the state of Queensland from 1981 until 1993. I call the Leader of the Government in the Senate. 15:33 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia by leave—I move: That the Senate records its deep sorrow at the death on 20 December 2017 of Lady Florence Isabel Bjelke-Petersen, a former Senator for Queensland and Deputy Leader of the National Party in the Senate and places on record its gratitude for her service to the parliament and tenders its profound sympathy to her family in their bereavement. Alongside her husband, former Queensland Premier the late Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Lady Flo remains, perhaps, one of the most iconic social and political figures of late 20th century Queensland. Yet, despite the heights of political office that she came to attain, she will remain defined by her quiet but fierce devotion to her family and faith, in addition to her home state and regional and remote areas, in particular. Born on 11 August 1920 as the eldest of two daughters to James Gilmour and his wife, Florence Mabel, Lady Flo's childhood years were spent in the cosmopolitan inner Brisbane suburb of New Farm. In those early days she led a close-knit family life, so much so that she would go on to recall her father, an accountant and company director, often walking home to visit his wife and daughters at lunchtime. These experiences helped to inform her strong focus on the family unit that would come to define much of her world view and agenda. However, the onset of the Great Depression and her father's failing eyesight ensured that her childhood years were not free from hardship. Lady Flo was educated at New Farm State School and Brisbane Girls Grammar School, excelling in a range of subjects, but she chose to leave early and commence studies at the state commercial high school, where she passed her public service exams with great success. In short order, Lady Flo found herself working her way up the ladder of the Queensland public service, employed as the private secretary to the Queensland Commissioner for Main Roads. It was in this capacity that she would meet the then 40-year-old Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, an imposing Country Party member for the district of Barambah and a peanut farmer. They married soon after, on 31 May 1952, and Lady Flo's transition from inner city suburbia to doyenne of regional Queensland began in earnest. Years later, Lady Flo would quip to a friend that her initial fear was that she would struggle to learn to milk the farm's dairy cows. Despite these concerns, Lady Flo settled quickly into what would be a happy lifelong marriage to Sir Joh. Children followed in short order, with the young couple raising John, Helen, Meg and Ruth. Lady Flo's youth, often spent at religious retreats at Alexandra House on the Sunshine Coast, had instilled in her a devout Presbyterian morality and she took on her motherly role with gusto as her husband commenced his rise towards the premiership of Queensland. Throughout Sir Joh's 19-year tenure as Premier, many of the locals of Barambah came to refer to Lady Flo as their unofficial MP. She could often be found at community events and functions, ensuring that the district's residents enjoyed the quality representation that they deserved. When asked about this, Sir Joh would readily admit, 'Flo ran the electorate for me.' Their son John offered a more candid assessment when he said, 'Dad was the one elected, but it was mum who did all the groundwork.' During this time, she also developed her reputation as a homemaker, and her now famous recipe for pumpkin scones remains a fixture in many regional Queensland households today. Lady Flo's life was not one spent sitting on the sidelines, and 1981 saw her commence a political career of her own. Appointed to fill the casual vacancy left by retiring National Party senator Glen Sheil in March of that year, she entered the Senate as Australia's 15th female senator and only the third from Queensland. Lady Flo often noted that, in her view, Australia's parliament needed more female voices not simply on the floor but in senior leadership positions as well. In her first speech in this place, she did not shrink from raising her concerns about what she perceived as the declining condition of the Australian family unit and the unfair financial burden being endured by her fellow Queenslanders, twin focuses that would remain central issues for her during her time in the Senate. Brushing past the initial scepticism of some, Lady Flo quickly developed a reputation for her independence of mind and willingness to go her own way in pursuit of what she felt was right. In fact, the first few years of her service saw her cross the floor three times on various votes. However, that independence was never mistaken for a lack of commitment to her party, the National Party. Even in the wake of her husband's split with the National Party in 1987, she remained a fixture in its party room, serving as the party's deputy leader in the Senate between 1985 and 1990. On all sides of politics, Lady Flo came to be well regarded for her non-confrontational senatorial style and emphasis on steadfast service to her state. This strong profile extended outside of the walls of parliament and helped to secure her re-election at both the 1983 and 1987 double dissolution elections. As a passionate advocate for her state, some of Lady Flo's greatest achievements can be traced back to Queensland. She remained committed to securing investment in its struggling power infrastructure, the cutting of death duties and the lowering of taxation levels. In addition, her efforts in support of the World Expo 88 played a critical role in its success, bringing over 15.7 million visitors to Brisbane between April and October 1988 and showcasing the state that she loved to the world as part of the bicentennial celebrations. Reflecting on her tenure in the Senate, she also noted the value of her time spent on numerous Senate committees, including many years as a Temporary Chair of Committees. Retiring from the Senate at the conclusion of her term in 1993, Lady Flo's service was not yet over. When Sir Joh was diagnosed with supranuclear palsy, she was ready by his side. As his battle with the disease took its toll, Lady Flo's undimmed love for and devotion to her husband shone through. The remarkable life of Lady Flo Bjelke-Petersen is of a kind that we are unlikely to see again. In her, we can discern a spirit of humble, unassuming and dedicated service, not simply to her state and country but to her family, friends and neighbours. That she did not set out with such high expectations is something that she would openly admit, once stating: … when I was a little girl, I would have been absolutely amazed if you'd have told me that I would one day be married to the Premier of Queensland and become a Senator in my own right. Nonetheless, her life has left an indelible mark on the Queensland community that she loved and was one filled with so many who returned that affection. Recent weeks have seen that sentiment borne out in the flood of letters to the editor penned to local and interstate newspapers, with many Queenslanders paying tribute to her life and legacy. I also note the fine tribute to Lady Flo and her husband, Sir Joh, from one of Australia's most consequential Indigenous leaders, Noel Pearson. He wrote last month: I pay respect now to the couple who came to know our people after the war, who helped break our exile and returned us to our promised land, on the basis of shared religion rather than politics. To Lady Flo's children, John, Helen, Meg and Ruth, and to all of her grandchildren, on behalf of the government I offer my sincerest condolences. 15:42 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I rise on behalf of the opposition to acknowledge the passing of former senator Lady Florence Isabel Bjelke-Petersen, known to all as Lady Flo, who passed away in late December 2017 at the age of 97. I commence by conveying, at the outset, the opposition's condolences to her friends and family. Lady Flo was an outsized personality in Australian politics. Of course, she is inextricably linked to her husband, Sir Joh, the longest-serving Premier of Queensland, and, of course, she is widely associated with her famous pumpkin scones. There is no doubt that the role she played in Queensland alongside her husband is how many Australians will remember her. However, for this reason, it is easy to overlook her own contribution to national politics as a senator for 12 years. Born in 1920 in Queensland, Lady Flo grew up in the riverside suburbs of inner Brisbane. Educated at the local state school and then at Brisbane Girls Grammar, she refined her shorthand and typing skills studying at State Commercial High School. She went on to pass the public service exam, becoming secretary to the main roads commissioner before meeting her husband in the course of her work. As Senator Cormann has described, religion—the practice of faith, her church—was a central aspect of Lady Flo's life. She held what would be generally understood as traditional values. Many would not share her beliefs on many things, including in relation to the role of women in the home and the homogeneity of the family unit. Many would find some of her statements at best outdated and at worst simply unacceptable, but these views were formed early in her life and were solidified over time and remained a consistent and important foundation for Lady Flo in the approach she took to her political life. Lady Flo won preselection to be a National Party senator, not without controversy given her husband's position, and was subsequently elected, in 1980, to a term commencing in July 1981, although prior to taking her place she was appointed to fill a casual vacancy, so arrived a little earlier. She would go on to be elected in 1983 and 1987 before retiring at the end of her term in 1993. She was the first woman to be elected a senator from the National Party. During her time, she served on a number of committees, in particular the Senate Select Committee on Private Hospitals and Nursing Homes, from 1981 to 1985, and the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare. In the National Party, as Senator Cormann mentioned, she was also Deputy Leader in the Senate and briefly the party's whip. When Lady Flo was first preselected, there were some who commented she would not be up to the job. However, she brought the same quiet determination, discipline and concentration to the Senate as she practised throughout her life. In some ways she might have been old-fashioned, but she was always true to her word and believed in what she did, which earned her respect from other senators across this chamber even if they vehemently opposed her positions. She also brought many years of experience of political life, which made her a perceptive interpreter of the mood of the people in her home state of Queensland, and she channelled this ability to become a politician in her own right. There were times when her strong beliefs led her to cross the floor. For example, she voted three times with the Labor Party when she thought people were getting a bad deal on a sales tax increase proposed by the Fraser government. I'm sure this was not without consequence. Her principles led her to decline to accept the suggestion that she should serve as an Independent after her husband was deposed as Premier, recognising she had been elected as a National Party senator. She believed in keeping faith with the people of Queensland who had voted for her based on this fact. This is a worthy principle. In one obituary she was described as 'the human side of a ruthless and corrupt political machine'. She could be tough, but she could be warm, and in character assessments made of her it is this warmth which shone through. A former Labor leader in this place, Gareth Evans, spoke about Lady Flo on the occasion of her departure from the Senate. In his remarks on the valedictory he commented that since her arrival in 1981 'she has unquestionably been a personality in her own right'. He went on to describe what he regarded as her 'genuine warmth and good humour', and he said this made her 'rather irritatingly someone that is absolutely impossible to be irritated with'. I have to say, knowing and loving Gareth Evans as we do, that is quite an extraordinary thing to say—that he finds someone impossible to be irritated with. In the same debate, the late Senator Pat Giles, whom we spoke about here just a few months ago following her own passing, lamented that Lady Flo's pumpkin-scone-making reputation had overshadowed her own place as the champion sponge maker of Bassendean for many years. Clearly, competition in politics takes many forms! By the time she left the Senate in 1993, Lady Flo had outlasted her husband in political office. She retired at the age of 73 but later lamented that she did not keep going, because she felt fine mentally and physically, and she certainly continued to be politically engaged and remained a source of advice for many within the National Party. The overarching theme from those who served in the Senate with Lady Flo was her humanity. Many senators from across all sides of the chamber spoke about her common touch and her ability to form connections with people from across different walks of life. It was this relational touch, the friendships she formed and the impressions she left which underscored her approach to life. Her colleagues liked her, as did many in the community. She was held in high personal regard, and that is a very good way in which to be remembered. A woman of enduring Christian faith, she would have had no doubt about her next destination. On this day we again extend our sympathies to her family and friends. 15:48 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory I rise on behalf of the Nationals to acknowledge the passing of former Senator, First Lady of Queensland and a giant of the Australian political scenes, Lady Florence Bjelke-Petersen, affectionately known by many as Lady Flo. It's not often that a public figure possesses such and is seen as such a force of life, who is known to so many who have never actually had the opportunity to meet her but who is remembered much by reputation and by her name. Along with her husband, the formidable former Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Lady Flo completely loved Queensland, and everything she said—I was lucky to meet Lady Flo on a number of occasions, and she provided me with such succinct advice, but what was evident to me was the complete love of where she lived and the love of people who identified as Queenslanders. I think she felt an obligation to Queensland because she had such a love for those people and that place. Her time in this Senate was very much influenced by her obligation. That's why she spoke to me—an obligation to look after Queenslanders. She certainly left a lasting impact on the footprint of our nation. Her reputation for elegance, passion and energy preceded her in this place. Anyone who knew her can genuinely say how much she contributed to the political landscape of Queensland and beyond. Lady Flo met her husband when she was working as a stenographer for the Queensland government, and their 53-year marriage was something many would see as a perfect story—although I'm not sure a first date at Parliament House is the romantic setting that many would imagine. As we've heard, not only was Lady Flo the driving force of her time here but she also influenced the Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, during his years of leadership in Queensland. She was a person loved by many—her family, her community and right across the general public. They saw her as someone who would stand up for her country but certainly one who in doing that didn't need to abandon her home life in order to pursue politics. She was known for so much more than just her perfect pumpkin scones; although they were surely Australia's best scones, given their ability to be used to turn a negative story into a positive one with any visiting journalists. They'd get pumpkin scones, and she was associated with turning a few minds in that respect. Her parliamentary career in this place was a remarkable feat of endurance, leadership and commitment. She made a name for herself. She was no longer just the wife or partner of the Queensland Premier. I can recall that when I was a young man, so often I was introduced quite naturally to a woman as the partner—'By the way, this is the wife of someone.' She was like an addition. Obviously, we've changed so much now to acknowledge that. It must have been difficult for her, coming here as the housewife of the Premier of Queensland, but she certainly changed minds then. They recognised that she was, in fact, a hardworking senator, absolutely ruthless in her commitment to her beloved state of Queensland and that she would deliver real outcomes for Queensland. No doubt, some would argue that Lady Flo's initial election was a bit controversial. But no-one could possibly deny that she took her job very seriously. In the early days, it was just about Queensland—what she believed in. Very early, she crossed the floor and voted against the coalition government in this place on a sales taxation bill. That was quite early in her career; I think she was sending a clear signal about ownership, and I think that was very important. I would like to think that if she were here today all senators in this place would respect Lady Flo's values, integrity, conviction and dedication to her position as a representative, first and foremost, of regional Queensland. As Leader of the Nationals in this place, I particularly want to acknowledge Lady Flo's devotion to the National Party. Although a Liberal Party member in her younger years in Brisbane, she adopted the National's brand so naturally and became what we consider to be a quintessential National Party advocate. She fought for families and businesses in regional Australia, and she was a complete National at heart. Sometimes people talk about what the difference is between conservatives: we have Liberal conservatives and National conservatives. Well, we share the same values. We would say, and I'm sure Flo would agree, that the National Party is really focused on contextualising those values in rural and regional Australia. Many people will remember Lady Flo fondly, and we are reminded of her often. I'm sure many people in this place, one way or another, have travelled to Lady Flo's heartland country—South Burnett, Kingaroy, Wondai and some of those surrounding towns. She fought tirelessly for those towns, and, in some ways, she really put those towns on the map. When you go there, they still say, 'Welcome to Joh's country', today. But many say, 'Welcome to Flo's country'. I think that is really a reflection on just how warmly local communities in Queensland felt about their Lady Flo. She showed all Queenslanders and all Australians the importance of fighting in quite a focused way, in her way, for small regional towns. Basically, the fight is, when you say 'for regional towns', the reality is it's against the interests of those people advocating for the larger cities. There are more representatives in the larger cities, and many of those people who represent small businesses and regional Australia in this place would acknowledge that. I particularly would like to acknowledge, as Minister for Indigenous Affairs, that her commitment to Queensland extended to the very challenging practical efforts that she made to support the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. We've just heard a quote from Noel Pearson that the Bjelke-Petersens are 'the couple who came to know our people, to help break our exile and return us to our promised land', which was Hope Vale community. What's not well-known is the work that they did to return it so they could have some ownership of their own land. Perhaps it's not well-known here in this place either that it was actually Bob Katter from that other place who started the DOGITs. These are all small but significant—from Aboriginal peoples' perspective—changes in their lives. Flo was an absolute champion in that time. Lady Flo was a real example to us all—a constant reality check about what we're in this place for. We're not here to agree or argue or disagree. We're here to represent all of those we stand for, no matter how small the population. She was a person who believed in people. She believed and loved her communities. As her daughter recalled—and if you can think about this for a moment—at the age of 90, she drove herself around some of these small towns, playing the organ regularly at nursing homes, and, if one of the local priests became a bit ill, she'd stand in for one of the local priests. This is at 90 years of age. She will always be remembered. Lady Flo made a remarkable contribution to this place and particularly to Queensland. On behalf of the Nationals, I give my deepest sympathies and condolences to her four children and all of her family and friends. Lady Flo was a great lady who we could all learn something from. Vale Lady Flo Petersen. 15:57 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland As a Queenslander, just about everyone knows of Lady Flo. Did I know her very well? No, I didn't, but I took the time to go and visit her towards the end of last year at the nursing home in Kingaroy when I visited Kingaroy. Her son, John, was there as well. I spent some time with her and had a talk with her. I remember, in my 20s, when her husband Joh Bjelke-Petersen was on the political scene in Queensland, I was a big supporter of his. I believed in his politics and what he was doing for Queensland. Lady Flo was a woman who, I understood, started her life and career in the Public Service and then met Joh. Having spoken to her and her family—she was a very caring mother, a very strong believer in her faith and she was a community leader. She worked tirelessly for her community. She then got into politics, and I'd say that was possibly her forte. In listening to people in this House comment on her actions in this parliament, I understand she was a person who stood up for what she believed in—not so much that she played politics, but she played the person who she was elected to be and was representing the people of Queensland. I do thank the government and Annastacia Palaszczuk, the Premier of Queensland, for holding a state funeral for Lady Flo. The community turned out and political leaders from all persuasions turned up to pay their respects to this special woman. I call her special because, when I listened to the comments not only from her children but also from other community leaders and people of the town, they believed she was special. I'm sure other people, including myself, believe that she offered Queensland and the parliament a lot. I do offer my condolences to her children, Ruth, Helen, John and Meg. They were a very tight family. They loved their mother very much. It was quite a blow for them to learn of her death, because it was unexpected. She was quite 'not senile' when I saw her and talked to her. She was still witty and would have a laugh and a joke, and it was only through a fall that she went downhill very quickly. So it was a tragic loss to the family. I would like to offer my condolences, on behalf of the people of Queensland, to the family and to all those who had respect for Lady Flo. 16:00 Senator BARTLETT DT6 Queensland I'd like to speak to this motion as well. It is perhaps apt, as I spoke in this place in May 2005 on the condolence motion for Flo Bjelke-Petersen's husband, Joh—a motion, I should note, that was not moved by the government at the time but by an individual senator. Lady Flo died last month in December 2017, which also marked the 30th anniversary of the end of the Bjelke-Petersen premiership in Queensland. I would like to note the positive comments people have made in regard to Flo Bjelke-Petersen's time as a senator in this chamber. I certainly, in a condolence motion, would join in sending best wishes to Flo Bjelke-Petersen's family in what is always a difficult period. No matter how old somebody lives to, and 98 is a good innings, it is still always hard when a parent or a family member passes away. Flo Bjelke-Petersen's time in this chamber coincided a little bit with my time as a staffer for Democrats senator Cheryl Kernot and Democrats senator John Woodley, who spent a lot of time around rural Queensland. It is certainly fair to say that Flo Bjelke-Petersen's work as a senator in this place, on behalf of her constituents and the party she represented, was such that people had a lot of positive things to say about her, which are consistent with the sorts of comments that have already been made. As has been clear from the comments that have also already been made, her work as a senator can't be disconnected from her role as one half of the Bjelke-Petersen couple that ruled over Queensland for so long and had such a massive impact on Queensland for so long. Some people, understandably, in the context of this debate, want to point to the positives of that partnership. I feel it is very important to put on the record, as politely as I can in the context of a condolence debate, the very deep and destructive negatives of their role in Queensland. I speak as a lifelong Queenslander. I was three or four years old when Joh Bjelke-Petersen became Premier and was about 23 when he finally was kicked out by his own party under a massive cloud. Regarding the Bjelke-Petersen partnership, it is worth noting that in her final interview to the media before her passing Flo Bjelke-Petersen wanted to emphasise again her desire to restore the reputation of her husband. I can understand that. That's good to see such loyalty. But I think it is important for the many, many people whose lives were destroyed—deliberately—by her husband that his legacy is not whitewashed. I think it is important to correct the record in regards to the statements of the Prime Minister, who put out a tweet at the time of Flo Bjelke-Petersen's passing. Again, of course, one should express acknowledgement for the contribution people make and express condolences for their family, but to go on and then say that Queensland's 'success and dynamism owes so much to their vision and leadership' is an attempt to whitewash history. If people are going to use somebody's passing to whitewash history, a legacy of corruption and the deliberate destroying of people's lives, then it is necessary to correct the record. Otherwise, there is a great risk of the enormous injustices of that era being revisited. Of course, good was done but a lot of harm was done. We've had some positive comments with regard to actions regarding Aboriginal people but we have many examples, which I will not detail here, of quite destructive actions towards many Aboriginal people. To use just one example of the stockman, Johnny Koowarta, whose own land in Cape York— The PRESIDENT I0Q Please resume your seat for a moment, Senator Bartlett. Senator Hanson, are you rising on a point of order? Senator Hanson BK6 This is a condolence motion for Lady Flo. It's not to talk about the politics of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Queensland and going over this issue. I'm sorry, this is not respectful to Lady Flo. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Hanson, there is no point of order. Given it is a condolence motion, I'd remind all senators there are many forums in the chamber where political issues can be raised, but I'm afraid there's no point of order to be raised there, Senator Hanson. Senator Bartlett. Senator BARTLETT DT6 Thank you, Mr President. As I say, it is appropriate when people use somebody's death to whitewash history to at least put a small component on the record of the negatives of that person's record when it caused so much harm and so much damage to so many people's lives. I would draw attention to an article in the Courier Mail by journalist Paul Syvret at the end of December with regard to this issue and simply say that the legacy of this era is not something for commemorating. Condolences to a family regarding an individual is appropriate but to use that to commemorate an era that caused so much harm and damage is not appropriate. It must, rather, serve as a reminder that we must never, ever repeat that. When we have a Prime Minister saying that somebody's vision and leadership was so pivotal to the success and dynamism of the state when it was actually a barrier to it, then it is necessary to put that on the record. I'm sorry but I just know far too many people. Thirty years later the hurt is still so deep and so strong as is the damage done to the institution of government. There has never been any attempt on the part of those who were responsible to accept or recognise that. If that is not done, then it is up to others to point that out. Otherwise, we run a much greater risk of repeating the injustices and the deep corruption of that era, the major shredding of civil liberties and human rights abuses that occurred and the politicisation of the police force that was all justified and continued to be justified many years subsequently. 16:08 Senator ANNING 273829 Queensland This is not my first speech. After that thinly-veiled attack on Sir Joh by Senator Bartlett, I rise to support the condolence motion for Lady Flo Bjelke-Petersen. My wife Fiona and I had the honour of knowing Lady Flo and her husband, Sir Joh. Sir Joh was the patron of the aircraft manufacturing company I was involved in, and our families counted Sir Joh and Lady Flo as friends. Lady Flo was a wonderful person, filled with genuine warmth. She possessed a genteel eloquence which charmed even her political opponents. She was famous for her traditional pumpkin scones, the recipe for which still adorns the tea towels in many Queensland kitchens. Like her husband, Sir Joh—who was the greatest premier Queensland ever had in my opinion—Lady Flo was a staunch advocate of families, especially those from the bush and, even prior to her election, was a tireless supporter, along with her husband, of their political interests. Once elected to the Senate, Lady Flo astonished even her strongest political foes as they discovered that, behind her Country Party roots, Flo had a very shrewd political mind. Many people who did not know Joh and Flo well did not realise there was a genuine political partnership between them in which they discussed and analysed political developments together, planned together, and together they best tried to serve the people of their home state. Like Sir Joh, Lady Flo was a committed Christian and, in an age of social ratbaggery, stood firmly for traditional values once shared by politicians across the political spectrum. Yet, despite her long political involvement with the hardened leftists who hated Sir Joh, it must often have been a trial. Lady Flo rose above it all and never lost her kind and thoughtful outlook. In a long life well lived, Lady Flo touched so many people, my family included. It is a great consolation to know that, in passing, she is reunited in spirit with her lifelong partner and soul mate. Rest in peace, Lady Flo, and know that the world is a little brighter and certainly a better place for having had you in it. 16:11 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland On behalf of Queensland's Liberal National Party senators, I rise to support this condolence motion and to indicate a number of us will be making our remarks in the adjournment speeches during the week. Lady Flo was a wonderful Queenslander, a brilliant advocate for rural and regional Queensland. I had the honour of attending her funeral on your behalf, Mr President, in Kingaroy, along with other senators in this place. What was interesting, when we were walking out of the Kingaroy town hall, was the number of people who were crying. There was a genuine sadness at the loss of Lady Flo. But, as I said, we will be making more comments in detail later on in the week. The PRESIDENT I0Q I ask honourable senators to stand in silence to signify their assent to the motion. The motion is carried. Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places. Millar, Mr Percival Clarence 'Clarrie', AM, Conquest, Mr Bryan Joseph 61 NOTICES 61 NOTICES Presentation 61 NOTICES 66 NOTICES Withdrawal 66 16:12 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 634 standing in my name relating to statutory office holders established under the Australian Information Commissioner Act 2010. 16:13 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia On behalf of Senator Di Natale, I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 595 standing in his name for today relating to the introduction of a bill. 16:13 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I withdraw matter of privilege notice of motion No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Cormann for today proposing a reference to the Standing Committee of Privileges. 16:14 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia I seek to withdraw notice of motion No. 545 standing in my name for today relating to the establishment of a joint select committee and I seek leave to make a statement of no more than three minutes in relation to the matter. Leave granted. Senator DODSON SR5 My motion was intended to find a mechanism for advancing the cause of constitutional recognition for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in our Constitution. It aimed to establish a joint select committee on progress towards Indigenous recognition. Any such mechanism, in order to lead one day to a successful referendum, would need to have bipartisan, indeed cross-party, support in the development of options for parliamentary consideration. This parliament, unfortunately, is at a critical juncture on this issue for one simple reason: the government, in its wisdom, has clearly indicated it does not, and will not in the future, countenance any consideration of what first-nations people have put forward in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. The government has emphatically rejected the recommendations of the Referendum Council for an entrenched voice in the Constitution. Without government support, any future referendum proposal will fail. Without cross-party support, any future referendum proposal will fail. Without hearing and listening to first-nation peoples' calls, any proposal for a referendum will be pointless. We need to find an effective way to take on board what has been plainly put to us from Uluru about first-nations people having an effective voice in the parliament on matters that affect their destinies. We need to find a way together to advance these issues and flesh out how first-nation aspirations can go forward with the support of the government, the opposition and the minority parties—and, most importantly, the first-nation peoples. In the current environment my proposal will not achieve these objectives and I, therefore, withdraw the motion. I'll be willing to work with the government and other parties on any proposal for the parliament to advance these issues in the future. 16:17 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory by leave—I'd like to make a couple of comments on my colleague's contribution. What I should point out, and my colleague may not be aware of it, as you rose to your feet, Senator Dodson, and said, 'We support recognition of Indigenous Australians in the Constitution,' is that so do we. I want to make that absolutely clear. What we've indicated is that, in relation to the establishment of this committee, we need to ensure we have some bipartisanship. I understand that we're continuing down that line. Mr Shorten and Mr Turnbull have had an exchange of letters dealing with one thing—that is, the parameters and the terms of reference for this parliamentary committee. It's very important to say that we didn't think we should put something to the Australian people that would fail, because it was simply four words: a voice to parliament. There was not a single piece of information that went behind that, and that's what disappointed us so much. On that basis, we weren't prepared to put that to the Australian people. What we are prepared to do is ensure that the terms of reference consider all of those recommendations. We're not saying to the committee, 'You can't consider these matters.' This is to be a multiparty committee, and we've ensured that that is the case. I think we have got down to six of the 18 terms of reference that were put forward. We'll continue to work in a multipartisan way to ensure that this committee is the committee that can make some recommendations to the Australian people that we can take forward. 16:19 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia by leave—The Greens were prepared to support the establishment of this committee because we felt it was important that we find some way forward through the deadlock that is currently in place in this parliament and, in fact, in Australia. I get a bit touchy when I hear the minister talk about a multiparty approach, when all parties are not being involved in the negotiations over the setting up of any committee that the minister was just talking about. The fact is that, if we are going to proceed and achieve some form of recognition into the future, we need all the parties around this place involved in those discussions. This is not a bipartisan approach. It's a multiparty approach. I'll just put that out there on the table. It is really important that we find a way forward, because things have moved on considerably since the consultation process that was undertaken in 2011, since the expert panel reported in early 2012 and since the latest consultation by a joint parliamentary committee, chaired by Mr Wyatt and Nova Peris, was undertaken. Things have moved on from there. We've had the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I find it difficult to find a way forward, I've got to say, when the voices of a lot of Aboriginal people are not being listened to and when people's understanding of what constitutional recognition now means has shifted so considerably. I was talking to people about this just last week, and it was very strongly put to me that a lot of Aboriginal people—I can't say it's everybody; I know there are diverse views—want to address sovereignty and treaty before recognition. There is a significant amount of work that needs to be done. It's disappointing that we haven't yet been able to reach agreement on what this place is going to work on and, in fact, if we can work together. But I would put to this place that one way forward is to ensure that parties that are not the government and not the opposition are involved in those discussions. Unless we're all on board, we cannot hope to get agreement in the community on where we're moving forward to—whether we're going to move to recognition first or, as a lot of people want, to sovereignty and treaty first—or how that continuum works or how to address issues around the Makarrata Commission and the part of the Uluru statement that addresses truth-telling and justice. Those are all things that need to be considered, and I urge the government to be inclusive in discussions on the committee. BUSINESS 67 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 67 16:22 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators for personal reasons: (a) Senator Cash for today and 6 February 2018; and (b) Senator Sinodinos from 5 February to 8 February 2018. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 67 COMMITTEES Economics References Committee 67 Reporting Date 67 16:23): The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP ( Does any senator request that that position be put to a vote? There being none, that is done. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 68 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Budget 68 16:23 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, four proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Bernardi: Pursuant to Standing Order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: With 3 February 2018 marking the 9 year anniversary of the former Rudd government's $42 billion stimulus package, the urgent need to address the resultant debt and deficit. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today’s debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clocks accordingly. 16:25 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia Conservatives respect history. We mark history, unlike many who prefer to ignore it or not learn the lessons of it. On 3 February 2009 the then Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, who, I might say, described himself as Mr Austerity during the election campaign, said there wasn't a cigarette paper's worth of difference between his economic management and fiscal discipline and that of the previous Howard government. But on 3 February 2009 he launched what became the start of a debt avalanche, if I can say that: a $42 billion stimulus package. It was excessive. It was targeted poorly. It delivered bad outcomes. Significantly, the consequences of that debt avalanche have been compounded by decisions on the so-called fiscally responsible side of politics. It's very frustrating. But before I get into that, I should also note that Mr Rudd is clearly a man who cherishes history, too, because he's now suing the ABC for allegedly misrepresenting his history in respect to this stimulus package. Let's remember, the $42 billion stimulus package was targeted at school halls, which many may say was a good thing to do; but those school halls often resulted in massive cost blowouts, a total of $1.7 billion more than was budgeted for them. They were installed in schools that closed shortly thereafter. They were built where they weren't necessary—all in the name of grandiose stimulus for the economy. There was the infamous pink batts scheme, which I think Mr Rudd is suing the ABC over. Leaving aside the terrible tragedy of the four young men who lost their lives through this scheme, it had an estimated budget blowout of $5½ billion. $5½ billion in rorts and scandalous blowouts because of fiscal mismanagement. Plus there was another $42 million in remediation costs attached to that. Then we had the cheques sent out to millions of Australians, including those who were deceased: $900 cheques were lobbing into people's post boxes, even if they weren't still alive. If you were a backpacker and had been in Australia and earnt some money, you got a $900 cheque as well. They were sent overseas. It wasn't so much a stimulus for us—it was a stimulus for people to go out and buy Chinese televisions, I think it was at the time. I remember we had those on the then government benches defending the statistics which showed a lot of that money found its way into gaming machines in hotels and saying, 'That's okay, people can choose to do what they like.' But the consequences of that were that $42 billion worth of debt was incurred chasing this stimulus dream that resulted in debt, deficit and disaster and sowed the seeds for where we currently stand: $530 billion worth of debt. Now, of course, following suit in South Australia, we have Mr Weatherill installing the laptops of the 21st century, sending computers out to kids. That was a dud scheme from the Rudd government as well. Now they're giving free solar panels and batteries—I shouldn't say it's free: it's taxpayer-funded solar panels and batteries—to Housing Trust tenants to cover up for their lack of management of the electricity grid. Now, we are not simply picking on the Labor Party. I regret the fact that when this stimulus was brought in, the $42 billion stimulus package, the then Labor government accepted that there needed to be a fig leaf, a veneer of fiscal control, and installed a debt ceiling—a debt ceiling that would assuage the concerns of conservatives like myself who saw this runaway train before us, this avalanche of debt, that would only continue to build and build and build because politicians are addicted to doing stuff whether the country needs it or not. We have been told since then that the stimulus package saved us from the onslaught of the financial crisis of 2008. I would reject that in its entirety. There could have been a case made for prudent spending or the application of some of the Howard government's surpluses, to have been invested in infrastructure that was going to increase productivity and that wasn't going to be thrown away to people overseas or wasn't going to be spent in a whole range of other areas. They could have built water pipelines, they could have built dams or they could have built rail lines. They could have built any number of infrastructure projects. But, instead, they chose to build school halls for schools that were closing and to send cheques to people who were deceased. It was wrong. I would suggest also that it was the mining boom—the rivers of gold—and the exports to China as they were building things, that sustained and protected Australia from the more severe ravages of the financial crisis. This is not some great Keynesian triumph. This is sowing the seeds of economic doom for this country until we can arrest this continuing debt problem. I might say, as we're remembering dates, that tomorrow is the 107th birthday of the great American president Ronald Reagan. If I may quote Ronald Reagan: The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is the government spends too much. Very few people in this place actually believe in that. I happen to. I believe that people are taxed too much and government is spending too much. I think we need to cut taxes and we need to cut the size of government. If we don't, we are going to be sentencing our future generations to intergenerational debt and to the greatest moral theft of our time; that is, we are propping up today's lifestyle at the expense of our children and our grandchildren. That's why I'll be introducing a bill to re-establish the debt ceiling that was abolished by the coalition government to make sure government lives within its means for the benefit of successive generations. 16:32 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I find myself again following Senator Bernardi in a debate in the Senate today, and I thank him for raising this important issue. It certainly is a milestone that should not pass without us marking it here in this place—reflecting on it and, as he says, learning the lessons of history. The February 2009 economic stimulus was completely excessive and obviously wasteful. It led to a shocking legacy of debt and deficit, which we are still grappling with today, not to mention the human tragedies that it caused at the time it took place. In size, $42 billion was obscene and, by its very nature, inherently wasteful. As Senator Bernardi mentioned, it led to cheques being paid to deceased people; school halls going up at campuses around the country, regardless of whether they wanted them or not, or whether it was appropriate for their school or not; and laptops being sent to schools, but no support being provided to install, service and maintain those laptops. Those laptops have long since gone, becoming technologically obsolete, and are probably sitting in landfills somewhere, which I know Senator Whish-Wilson would be very disturbed by. They were of no use to the schools for much more than the 18 months or two years they would've been able to use them. And of course, most spectacularly, there was the home insulation debacle which led to the deaths of several young installers and to many house fires. But you don't have to rely on my view that the stimulus package was excessive, wasteful and damaging to Australia because there are many economists who share that view. I turn to the archives to take out an article by David Crowe The Australian. I should note he has since moved on to The Sydney Morning Heraldand Fairfax, and I congratulate him on his new appointment. In 17 August 2013, he was writing for The Australian and wrote an article entitled 'The stimulus we didn't really need'. He quotes a number of economists, and I want to share their views here for posterity. Tony Makin, a professor at Griffith University who wrote three academic papers on the subject in the years following the stimulus package, is quoted as saying: I believe it was unsuccessful and shouldn't be repeated. It sets a precedent that I think is a dangerous one. His view is shared by an economics professor, John Freebairn, at the University of Melbourne, who I was lucky enough to study under when I was an undergraduate student of commerce at the University of Melbourne. The article says Professor Fairbairn 'advised the Labor government on tax policy last year' and quotes him as saying there is no proof the stimulus saved the economy: I would have thought the exchange rate, China, and the flexible labour market did a hell of a lot. Warwick McKibbin from the Australian National University has a similar view. He said: In case the world fell into a hole you had to be ready to put more spending out there, but you didn't need to put it out there all at once. He was a Reserve Bank member during the crisis and he lists a number of factors that he thought played a more important role in helping avoid recession, such as a financial sector that was in good shape and was well regulated; an Australian dollar which responded to events and fell rapidly, which helped local employers and exporters and effectively led to a boost in our competitiveness; The Reserve Bank's timely action in aggressively reducing interest rates, which were cut between September 2008 and April 2009 from 7.25 per cent down to three per cent; and a number of other factors, including the massive stimulus that occurred in China and which led to an improvement in exports of many Australian products and services to China—most particularly from the mining industry, which was one of the shining lights during and after the global crisis. It was not just academic economists who held and shared that view. Others included even the Labor Party's own Treasury secretary, Ken Henry, who, in a number of interviews following the loss of government by the Rudd government in 2013, reflected on his time as Treasury secretary and reflected on his role in the stimulus package, particularly in interviews with ABC's Sarah Ferguson in the aptly named The Killing Season, which looked into the Labor years. He was quoted at saying: My view at the time, and it remains my view, was that there were too many measures. I think there is no doubt the stimulus package in February 2009 was too large, was poorly designed and was hastily executed, and it has left us with a budget deficit legacy that we are still tackling today. We are still tackling the embedded decisions that were made at that time. We have not yet begun the task of paying back the money that was borrowed at the time. We are trying to get the budget package back to surplus so that we can begin paying that debt down, and it is a legacy that has gone on for too long already. We in the coalition would have liked to have brought the budget back to surplus much sooner than we are forecasting, and we have worked very hard towards that goal. But much of the responsibility for our inability to do so unfortunately rests with parties in this chamber and decisions that they have made on savings measures proposed by the government. Time after time after time, savings measures put by the government to the chamber, including ones we have taken to an election and won a mandate for, have been refused. Billions of dollars of spending reductions have been opposed that would have helped the budget get back into shape much earlier and would have resulted in us beginning to pay down the debt much earlier than we will. Nevertheless, we have made some very real and very welcome progress on this, and I want to spend a moment detailing that. Of course, everyone remembers the record of surpluses under the Howard and Costello government, but the Rudd and Gillard governments increased gross debt during their time in office by an average rate of 33.9 per cent per year. If we had continued on that same path when we came to office—if we hadn't changed course in the way we did following 2013—our gross national debt would have reached one $1 trillion by now. Thankfully, it is only a little bit more than $500 billion, although that is far more than any of us would like it to be. But at least it has not gone all the way to a trillion dollars, as it was set to if we had come to office and let the settings stay in place that the Labor government had put there when they lost office. We are on track, as all the budget forecasts have confirmed—including MYEFO before Christmas last year—to bring the budget back into balance in the 2020-21 financial year and into surplus thereafter. That will be the first down payment on that debt that we'll be able to make, and it's a day that couldn't come soon enough. We're projecting that net debt will peak at 19.2 per cent of GDP in 2018-19, an amount which is $11.9 billion lower than the peak estimated just in the budget last year, and it will decline to 7.7 per cent of GDP over the medium term. Gross debt is projected to be $684 billion at the end of the medium term, which is around $40 billion less than was projected in the budget. However, it is still an eye-wateringly high figure of debt that will be a legacy for future generations to grapple with and pay back, if we are not able to make more progress on it in our time in this place. As we know, Labor accumulated $240 billion of deficits in just their six years in office, which amounted to 16.9 per cent of GDP and, with many of those spending decisions being baked in the future when we came to office, we've been able to reduce that. Still, deficits of $80 billion have been racked up, although 30 per cent less than what Labor was doing. Spending of course was rising again, had we made no changes to the policy settings that we were handed, to 26.5 per cent of GDP by 2023-24. Thankfully, in this financial year, it will only be 25.2 per cent and is projected to fall to 24.9 per cent by 2020-21. But it is still a number of percentage points higher than what was left by the Howard-Costello government. If we are not able to address that, we are going to inherit permanently higher levels of debt and tax, which no Australian should welcome. One of the real achievements of this government, which was noted in the most recent MYEFO, was that real spending growth in this government has averaged only 1.9 per cent over the budget and forward estimates, which is significantly lower than the four per cent average that we inherited from Labor. Of course, we're still going to have a cash deficit this financial year. It's expected to be $23.6 billion—again, more than any of us on this side of chamber would like, but we're working to get it down—and, as I said before, projected to return to surplus in the 2020-21 financial year which will allow us to start getting those payments down. Since the 2017-18 budget, because of the good economic news, the 400,000 jobs that were created last year and the positive developments in our economy, we have been making even more progress than we thought we would. That's a very encouraging sign, given some of the scepticism sometimes about budget forecasts. At this stage, on the early figures available, it looks like we are ahead of where we forecast we would be, and that is a pleasing thing. 16:42 Senator KETTER 244247 Queensland I rise to make a contribution with respect to the MPI. I am indebted to Senator Bernardi for raising this issue, and it gives me a second opportunity today to talk about the economic credentials of federal Labor. I think Australia is indeed a lucky country in the sense that, at the time the GFC was heading around the world, we had in place a responsible Labor government which was able to take the appropriate steps to avoid the recessionary impact of the GFC. We know that, in almost every other country around the world, the GFC had a devastating impact on unemployment and economic growth, and yet we were able to avoid the worst impact of that. In fact, we continued to sail through with a period of continuous economic growth of something like 26 years through that period. I think it's important to remember what was in that $42 billion stimulus package. It consisted of $12.7 billion in cash payments of up to $950 to low- and middle-income earners, farmers and families; and $28.8 billion for schools, roads, housing, energy efficiency and infrastructure. It also consisted of tax breaks for small business, and $14.7 billion over two years for the Building the Education Revolution—investment in school infrastructure in every one of Australia's schools. I note that some of my predecessors have indicated they participated in opening many of the school halls et cetera as part of that program, and members of the coalition showed up and were involved in those opening ceremonies. No members of the coalition at any of those opening ceremonies ever complained about the Building the Education Revolution. Those halls—that infrastructure for education—was very well received. In 2011, we know that Wayne Swan was named world's best treasurer, winning the global Finance Minister of the Year award. I think it must really stick in the craw of coalition members opposite to know that the only other Australian treasurer to take out that prestigious award was Paul Keating in 1984 for his work in the Hawke-Keating team, which opened up the Australian economy to the introduction of foreign banks and floated the currency, matters which I think are well regarded. So, two Labor treasurers are the only Australians who have actually won the world's best treasurer award. In the March quarter of 2009, following the stimulus package, the Australian economy grew by 0.4 per cent. In contrast, all of the G7 economies contracted in the March quarter as a group by 2.1 per cent. Of the 33 advanced economies, only two managed to grow in the March quarter. Off the back of that growth, history will record that consumer confidence rebounded. It was a timely response which was, as I indicated, backed up by the opinion of economists around the world. Australian businesses at the time were running down stock. The Australian Treasury estimated that without the package the unemployment rate would have been forecast to peak at 10 per cent instead of 8.5 per cent. With the stimulus, there were estimated to be 210,000 more people with jobs. It's all well and good for those opposite to focus on the fiscal impacts of the stimulus package down the track, but what Labor was focused on at the time was the unknown of this impact on the Australian economy, regarded as being the most significant impact since the Great Depression. We were very mindful of the fact that as a Labor government our first objective was to ensure that we avoided a recession and the terrible consequences that that would bring. A recession has consequences for Australian families. Recessions put people out of work, and that has devastating impacts on Australian society. So I think Labor was absolutely correct to focus on this issue; to go in early with very well-targeted stimulus spending in order to try to avoid the very human cost which would have resulted had the GFC bitten and had Australia gone the way of the rest of the world into recession. I note that there were a number of other economists around the world who praised the Australian approach at the time. Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz is one of those. He said: In Australia the stimulus helped avoid a recession and saved up to 200,000 jobs. And new research shows that stimulus may have also actually reduced government debt over time. Evidence from the crisis suggests that, when the economy is weak, the long-run tax revenue benefits of keeping businesses afloat and people in work can be greater than the short-run expenditure on stimulus measures. That means that a well-targeted fiscal stimulus might actually reduce public debt in the long run. We also note, and I alluded to this, that there was a Treasury briefing paper for the Senate inquiry into the economic stimulus package, and that briefing paper noted very clearly that the package prevented recession. So, once again, let's not be under any misapprehension about this—if it had not been for our timely, targeted and temporary stimulus package we would have been plunged into a recession. I talked about that human cost which not only impacts the unemployed and Australian families in that way but also through the loss of small business. And those opposite who claim to care about what happens to small businesses should be eternally grateful that the Labor government at the time was able to prevent tens of thousands of small businesses going to the wall. I also note that the OECD, in 2009, rated Australia's economic stimulus package quite highly. They said that the package: … seems to have had a strong effect in cushioning the decline in employment caused by the global economic downturn. There were a range of other economists as well that came forward and expressed their support for what the federal government had done at the time. There was an open letter, signed by a large number of Australian economists, which said: We the undersigned economists are convinced by the evidence that the coordinated policies of the Australian Labor Government have prevented the Australian economy from a deep recession and prevented a massive increase in unemployment. That statement was signed by a range of economists, including Raja Junankar, Professor Harcourt, Peter Kriesler, John Neville, Harry Bloch, the late Steve Dowrick, Roy Green, Elisabetta Magnani, Fiona Martin, John Quiggin, Michael Schneider, Roger Tonkin and a large number of other economists. Even back in 2009, in a rare spirit of bipartisanship, to his credit, Mr Abbott said: There's no doubt that the stimulus package has helped in the short term. Once again, I want to reiterate that point: we were saved from a recession at that time. There are a number of other sources that I would go to to highlight the importance of this particular response to a very, very serious shock to the Australian economy, but time doesn't permit me to do that. We're yet to hear about the record of the Australian Conservatives. It's easy for them to criticise what other parties do when they're in government, but they don't have a record themselves. The coalition is not serious about debt and deficit. It is proposing to introduce $65 billion company tax cuts and personal tax cuts, although this is a bit of a farce. This is a lacklustre approach. 16:52 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales Neither Labor nor the Liberals care about living within their means, and neither Labor nor the Liberals care about the next generation. The last decade of fiscal vandalism under both Labor and the Liberals proves this. A decade ago, the Commonwealth government had no net debt. Then, after five years of Labor, net debt rose to more than $6,000 per Australian. Now, after five years of the Liberals, there is more than $12,000 of net debt for every man, woman and child in Australia. And it is the children of Australia that will have to pay this back. This is immoral. The debt has been racked up to provide handouts for the current generation without any accumulation of assets to help the next generation. For all those who have supported continued welfare spending, funded by debt—you are immoral. For all those who have supported a federal takeover of disability services, funded by debt—you are immoral. For all those who have supported ballooning spending on overweaning childcare providers, underperforming school teachers and privileged university students, all funded by debt—you are immoral. Since my election, the Liberal Democrats have opposed all spending increases under this Liberal government, and for this the Liberal Democrats are called 'mean'. If only the next generation could contribute to this debate. 16:54 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I welcome the opportunity to speak on the subject of debt level. The $42 billion of the Rudd government's expenditure is dwarfed into insignificance when one considers the total debt level of Australia as of September 2017. But first let me make comment on the remarks of Senator Ketter. He said that Labor actually stopped Australia from losing 200,000 jobs at the time of the GFC. The fact is: the pink batts and putting money into schools programs were rorted. The whole system was rorted. It would have been better if they'd innovated and put money into infrastructure projects. We would now have dams providing the water; we would have rail; we would have bridges. That would've been far better. We'd have something to show for the money that we spent. From research backed up by the government's own facts, I would list the following. Government debt to GDP in Australia averaged 22½ per cent from 1989 until 2016, reaching an all-time high in 2016. Australia's record government debt is equivalent to 41.10 per cent of the country's gross domestic product in 2016. As at 11 April 2017, our national debt was described by the Commonwealth of Australia as $551.75 billion; however, other verifiable sources have our debt level at over $600 billion. Australia's GDP in 2017 was approximately $1.5 trillion. These are four appalling records. Australia's net debt, which the coalition, in opposition, promised to reduce by $30 billion, has smashed through the $300 billion ceiling. The interest paid in hard cash to mostly foreign investors is now above $40 million per day, and the coalition government's net financial liabilities are nearly $600 billion for the first time ever. As a proud senator representing the great Australian population and our economic future, I believe we need to reintroduce the debt ceiling, which was abolished in 2013, to keep the government's spending accountable so that we are not stealing prosperity from tomorrow and spending it today. A case in point: Julie Bishop, the foreign minister, thought it wise to give $90 million to a foreign education program, despite Australian schools ranking 39 out of 41 European Union and OECD countries. She is a member of parliament and supposed to be representing Australia! As One Nation, our economic policy is to manage the economy in such a way that we can assist Australians and small business so that we can create wealth, not destroy our inherent wealth by debt levels which each and every Australian has to pay back by way of tax. With ridiculous levels of debt spiralling out of control, we are committing economic suicide at the expense of the next generation. Senator Ketter, in his comments, rattled off the names of all these economists. I go back to my maiden speech in 1996, when I said I wouldn't have an economist do my grocery shopping—that's how much faith I put in them. Where the dollars should be spent, how they should be spent, comes down to common sense. They should be put into infrastructure projects that will give Australians jobs. I could show the chamber a graph showing the increasing debt to GDP, which is now at 41 per cent, as I stated previously. It is the duty of every political party to rein in this ever-increasing debt by reintroducing the debt ceiling. The waste must stop. Budgets based on elections must stop. Australia must begin to live within its means. 16:59 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The conservatives' obsession with the stimulus package is deeply cynical and lacks any obvious grounding of any kind in the reality of our recent economic history. The truth is this: if a conservative government had been in power when the financial crisis hit, Australia would probably have looked like parts of Europe—very high unemployment, low or no growth, and austerity measures squeezing the life out of whatever signs of recovery emerged. That's not what happened. What actually happened was this: Australia's performance during the global financial crisis was the envy of governments around the world. They came to us to ask us how it was being done. The stimulus package was held up by economic institutions as a model of how to respond to the downturn. It is astounding that at the same time that the Australian government—the Labor government—was being lauded overseas for its response to the crisis, it was being savaged at home for entirely cynical, partisan reasons by the then opposition. The legacy of that stimulus package ultimately became victim to a strategy of total war waged for cynical, political reasons by the then opposition leader, Tony Abbott. The very great shame is that that attack continues today by people who might actually know better. The Rudd government's response to the GFC was a uniquely Australian achievement. It was something that in another universe, where we had a Liberal Party not quite so obsessed with partisan advantage, Australia could collectively have been proud of as a nation. But that's not the universe we live in. In the universe we actually live in, with this Liberal Party and this government, this party and its supporters have done everything they can to undermine and downplay what is a terrific Australian achievement. The stimulus package worked. Australia survived the GFC, and that was a remarkable achievement. It's one that very few countries managed, and it was in no small part due to the stimulus package. We were one of only three countries out of the 35 most advanced economies that maintained a positive rate of GDP growth in both 2008 and 2009. There were just three countries, and we were one of them. I would have thought that is something to be proud of. The growth rate from 2008 to 2012 was the sixth highest in the group of advanced economies and the second-highest growth rate outside of East Asia. The Australian economy even managed to maintain a positive growth rate at the height of the GFC in 2009, while the United States' economy contracted by 2.8 per cent, the United Kingdom economy contracted by 4.3 per cent—imagine that!—Germany contracted by 5.6 per cent and Canada contracted by 2.7 per cent. People need to think about what that means. These aren't just abstract numbers. What that means in a practical sense is that whole generations of people—young people, middle-aged people—experienced unemployment and prolonged unemployment. It has an economic impact. It has a psychological impact. It impacts on the human capital of those individuals. It impacts on the balances of those families. It impacts on their family wealth. It has a lifelong impact on those humans. It is a human impact that is incalculably damaging for those people. That's why Labor governments will always prioritise employment. That's why we'll always think that that is the single most important thing that we need to attend to when in government. That's why this nonsense about short-term spending measures to sustain economic activity ought to be put to bed. It's borne out by the statistics, and those on the other side who wish for their own narrow partisan reasons to continue to take this apart ought to think very carefully about the legacy that they are leaving. Other people concluded the same thing. The OECD concluded that Australia's fiscal stimulus package 'was among the most effective in the OECD'. It not only 'helped to avoid a recession as usually defined' but also 'had a pivotal role in boosting overall confidence'. The OECD attributed the effectiveness of the stimulus to both the size of the measures and the speed at which it was introduced. The IMF commended the 'quick implementation of targeted and temporary fiscal stimulus' and considered that it provided a sizeable boost to domestic demand in 2009 and 2010. The secretary of the Prime Minister's own department issued a statement a few years ago rebutting criticism of the stimulus package. Dr Parkinson said: Rapid and large monetary and fiscal policy stimulus played a critical role in increasing effective demand and promoting the early recovery of consumer and business confidence in Australia. Chris Richardson, the economist and a partner at Deloitte Access Economics, has described the stimulus program in perhaps the simplest terms as the right thing to do. It worked. Why do we still have a debt? Because it's very convenient for conservatives to blame current debt levels on the Rudd government's stimulus package, but there is nothing in that claim. The numbers just don't bear it out. The stimulus package constitutes less than 10 per cent of our current debt. Where did the debt come from? The IMF examined the financial records of 55 countries, drawing on what it claims to be the most comprehensive database currently available. It has identified just four periods between 1913 and 2011 during which there is what it calls fiscal profligacy in Australia's financial policies, and only two of those have occurred in the past five decades. According to their analysis, both of those periods of fiscal profligacy happened during John Howard's prime ministership, in 2003 and again between 2005 and 2007. Our public sector debt is a continuing legacy of the poor economic decisions made by the Howard government. The mining boom delivered Australia an unusually high economic rate of growth in the mid-2000s. The government was in an extraordinarily strong financial position during that period as a result of increased personal and corporate tax receipts. What did they do with it? They didn't invest it productively. They spent it on tax cuts, middle class welfare and stimulating the economy at exactly the time when we ought to have been consolidating our savings. They did it for cynical electoral reasons, and that spending was only possible because of the mining boom. When the mining boom finished, it became apparent that this expenditure, baked in, was not affordable. Prime Minister Howard used a temporary increase in revenue to fund permanent spending, and this is the cause of the deficit that continues to affect Australia's fiscal position. This government is now in its fifth year of governing and still looks to blame the Labor Party for every single thing that goes wrong, unwilling to take responsibility for its own decisions. This government has made no progress on addressing this in any meaningful way. Why? First, because when they are in trouble they turn first to the handbooks of the 1980s, the economic policies now so discredited, which argue that the way out of any economic problem is to provide more and more economic benefits to the wealthiest parts of the Australian community. People are over that. There's no way that the Australian public is going to sign on to give support for budgets that take from middle- and working-class families and give to very wealthy people. There's no way that the Australian public is going to sign off on $65 billion worth of corporate tax cuts at the same time as accepting a very significant increase to the personal income tax paid by people earning in that $20,000 to $80,000 range. There's no way that you can put that case to the Australian people and say that it's fair when you're in the process of dismantling the deficit levy that was paid by the top two per cent of earners in our country. Everything this government has put forward is profoundly unfair and recognised as such by the Australian people. That's why they can't tackle the deficit. They lack the imagination and the courage to think through an economic program that will not only restore integrity to the budget and tackle the deficit but also share the costs in a fair and reasonable way across the Australian community. Until those on the other side come to grips with that and stop blaming the Labor Party, the government will find themselves without any economic plan, as they do not have at the moment. 17:09 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Debt is not a dirty word and nor is deficit. Deficit is not a dirty word. It's fascinating that this MPI has been brought by Senator Bernardi to the chamber for us to sit here and debate whether or not we have too high a debt and too high a deficit. Quite simply, it actually is—and I heard his contribution earlier today—a debate about small government. He's all for small government, as are Senator Paterson and the Liberal Party. When we think about deficits, I think about the current account deficit. The current account deficit is the one to focus on. Interestingly enough, that's both the private sector and the government sector. We look at their total spending and their total debt across the nation. It includes exports. It includes imports. It includes all economic activity. This country has run a deficit since Federation, and I don't hear them ever mention that. It's okay for private individuals or businesses—and I think everyone in this chamber has had some debt in their life, if they don't already have it, as has just about everyone who may be listening to this debate. Debt is not a dirty word; it can be a very useful thing. Governments and businesses are no different. We've run a current account deficit—big debts—since Federation because we needed that foreign investment to finance the establishment of our industries and ultimately create the employment and the communities that we've got right around this country. Let's talk about small government because that's really what this is code for. It's interesting to hear Senator Leyonhjelm say—it doesn't surprise me, by the way—that anybody who believes in debt being spent on a social safety net is immoral. I would say it's an investment. I would say investing in a social safety net, investing in education or investing in public health care or in public housing is an investment in people and it's an investment in our community. And it pays dividends. It's good for all of us, ultimately even those in the Liberal Party in the language they understand. It's good for the economy at the end of the day. Senator Leyonhjelm also said: If only the next generation could contribute to this debate. I tell Senator Leyonhjelm: if the next generation or the next two, three, four or five generations could be here to contribute to this debate, what they might tell us to do is get on and do something about climate change. If we want to talk about intergenerational equity, they might tell us to act on climate change. They might also say: 'Why don't you invest in long-term infrastructure projects, productivity-enhancing projects, investments not necessarily for monetary gain but for the public good? Invest in long-term infrastructure projects if you really care about my future.' That requires going into long-term debt. I don't think there's any decent economist out there that doesn't believe that investment in capital in long-term spending is also, like an investment in people, good for our economy, good for our community and good for our country. What's important is how you service your debt and debt serviceability, and Australia, on all metrics that measure this, isn't considered to be a risk by the investment community. If you don't want to take that as gospel from a Greens senator, go speak to the ratings agencies. There's a reason that Australian government debt and a lot of our private debt have AAA ratings, and that is that we're not considered to be a debt risk, because we can service our debt. I'd also say here, now that I have the opportunity, that I was proud to be part of a party that led the discussion on debt in the last two years, that led this government to at least state in their national accounts around budget time what kind of debt they are allocating to long-term capital versus the short-term recurrent spending. We can at least get an idea of what they're spending money on for future generation. Unfortunately, at the moment, most of it's on the defence industry. Most of our long-term capital spending has been hidden with defence expenditure, which I don't believe is necessarily good investment for our future either when there are so many other things we could be investing in, especially continuing our record of investing in renewable energy and medical technology. I could stand here for hours and talk about the things we should be investing in rather than becoming a global arms dealer. Nevertheless, debt's not a bad word, if it's spent the right way, and nor is deficit. We need some maturity in this debate. 17:14 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I rise to speak on this matter of public importance submitted by Senator Bernardi which relates to '3 February 2018, the nine-year anniversary of the former Rudd government's $42 billion stimulus package, and the urgent need to address the resultant debt and deficit'. I would like to address this in a few ways. I've heard members opposite talk about the investment by the Rudd government—how successful it was, how it achieved the objective and how it wasn't to blame for today. I'd like to go back to a statement that then Prime Minister Gillard made on 16 July 2010 in an article in The Australian. The article said: Julia Gillard has conceded the delivery of her school-building program was flawed but she has assured voters she has learned from her mistakes. After months of defending the $16.2 billion Building the Education Revolution scheme she oversaw when she was education minister, the Prime Minister said yesterday that errors had been made because the program had to be designed in haste to protect jobs during the global financial crisis. The article quoted Prime Minister Gillard as saying: Looking back now, … of course, there have been lessons learned. The article then went on to say: Ms Gillard said it was now clear to her that it was necessary to apply commercial expertise to the rollout of major building projects. No surprise there. If you were spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' money, you would have thought that the starting point would be to apply some commercial nous for the simple reason that it not only impacts on the efficacy of the program but also on the unintended consequences of that program. One of those unintended consequences, having spoken to a number of people who at the time were seeking to get tradesmen or other things, was that when there was so much focus in specific areas of industry, supply and demand meant that availability and price for everyone else went downhill. It was hard to get someone at a reasonable price because all this work was being rushed out. I was just using that to highlight what members opposite were saying. It wasn't supported by Ms Gillard who herself admitted that it wasn't the success that those opposite have been saying, in fact lessons were learned. It was a failure that she promised never to do again in the context of that election. Governments of all persuasions put funding commitments, recurrent funding commitments or spending commitments into legislation. But what we saw was an incredible increase during the period of the Rudd-Gillard and Rudd governments, which meant that Australia's gross debt was increasing at an average rate of 33.9 per cent a year. If that rate of increase had been allowed to continue unchecked, our debt would now be over $1 trillion. I hear the Greens say that debt is not a bad word, and I agree. Debt doesn't have to be a dirty word but it has to be sensible debt well managed. If you put it in the context that people in most homes and small businesses around Australia would understand, you can use debt for a mortgage on a house—or an essential asset like a car, for example, may be something that is justifiable. But, if you spend money on your day-to-day living expenses, if you end up borrowing money on your credit card to pay for your mortgage and to pay for your living expenses because you have been living above your means, most households and pretty much every small business would tell you that that is a path to ruin, which is why you need to get the spending back under control. That's the thing that the coalition government, since election in 2013, has been very focused on doing. The growth in our gross debt has been cut by two-thirds and so, by the 2017-18 MYEFO, it's been brought back to nine per cent. The Greens were saying the credit ratings say that Australia is not a risk. But it's not because we had huge debt; it's because we have taken steps to manage the growth in our debt. Those opposite would also have you believe that all of these spending measures have been locked in by the coalition. They are anticipating the fact that the Australian public has a short memory. Go back to the period following the election in 2013, when both Treasurer Hockey and Treasurer Morrison sought a number of times to bring legislation before the Senate to introduce savings measures to reduce the extent of government spending, which was increasing our debt and leading to a situation where we were borrowing money to pay the interest on our existing debt. That legislation was blocked, predominantly by the Labor Party and the Greens but occasionally by the Xenophon party. For those opposite to turn around and say that it's the coalition government's fault that debt has continued to rise—they are the ones who locked in many of the measures. They are the ones who blocked our attempts to cut that back. But despite their best efforts we have worked constructively with the crossbench to put in place measures to reduce growth and expenditure by two-thirds, such that we are back on a track to have net debt peak in 2018-19, at 19.2 per cent of GDP. That's about $11.9 billion lower than the peak that was estimated in the budget, and it shows that the measures taken by this government mean that we are on track to achieve a surplus and get debt under control. As Senator Whish-Wilson said, debt doesn't have to be a dirty word, but it has to be spent on something that is useful. Much of the feedback I had during the Building the Education Revolution was that while the concept of school infrastructure was good, the focus on school halls meant that quite often people ended up with halls that they didn't really need or necessarily want at a cost that was far higher than they would have wished to pay. They felt they could have done something better with the money. We've also had criticism from the Greens about the way this government is investing money. We've just had the release of the foreign policy white paper, and last year or the year before we had the defence white paper. Recent developments around the globe show that we live in an increasingly uncertain environment, where great powers are seeking influence and where non-state actors, such as terror groups, seek to disrupt not only our way of life but particularly our economic means of production. Given that Australia is an export nation—most of our exports by volume and, to a certain extent, by value go by sea and our import of critical items such as fuel oils come by sea—safe sea lanes of communication are absolutely important. That is why this government, for the first time, has had a defence industry policy statement and plan that recognises that defence industry is actually a fundamental input to our sovereign capability as a nation to defend ourselves. It recognises that the approach that's been taken in the past, which has seen peaks and troughs in the workload, has meant that companies have been started up, normally with high risk and cost, and then wound down or failed due to a lack of work. This government has put in place plans that will see those peaks and troughs of work levelled out so that we have work flows and jobs that will last for generations delivering the capability that Australia needs to defend our national interests, which include our economic interests. The defence export policy was criticised by the Greens. The 2015 report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, a bipartisan report that highlighted principles that led to the Defence industry policy statement, recommended that Australia move proactively to boost exports in those areas where Defence had identified that defence industry was a sovereign input to our capability. That's actually what the defence export plan does. This is not about wasting money like Building the Education Revolution. This is about a strategic investment in those defence industry sectors that are required to maintain Australia's sovereign ability to protect our national interests home and abroad. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP It being 5.25, time for this debate has now expired. DELEGATION REPORTS 77 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to India 77 17:24 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland by leave—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to India, which took place from 28 October to 4 November 2017. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report. Leave granted. Senator HANSON BK6 I move: That the Senate take note of the document. Just to speak briefly on the matter, when I was first asked to go on this delegation to India I was a bit hesitant about it because India was never on my bucket list. But I thought about it for some reasons. One of them was Adani and the coal mining and comments that I had heard about Adani back in India. I thought it was an opportunity for me to ask questions about that. Also, I wanted to know more about India and its ever-increasing population—how the country was actually moving forward and how they were faring. I'm very pleased that I did go on the delegation with my other colleagues. It was very informative to meet with the Australian High Commissioner. There were many interesting areas, but visiting Dr. Shroff's Charity Eye Hospital, which Australia donates monies to, was very beneficial. I'm very critical about foreign aid. I believe that we need to look after our own, but this hospital receives funding from Australia's Direct Aid Program to assist in training underprivileged women as nurses. It purchases equipment for learning and to support the hospital work. This has taken young girls out of their rural communities, where they'd never have a chance of training or learning, and has given them a life through learning something. But the most important thing of it all is helping the poor who are blind and the aged who would never have a chance of seeing if it weren't for this aid. Australia's aid of around $30,000 a year helps hundreds of thousands of people. That's something that I think is very beneficial. We also spoke to the police and those dealing with counterterrorism about what they are facing in their cities. It was very interesting to talk to the governor of Telangana. We asked him and he told us that they're putting in the NBN—quite interesting. They're rolling out the NBN to 8½ million homes over five to six months at a cost of approximately US$100 per household. And it's not only the NBN; at the same time they're laying the water as well. Here we have a Third World country that can lay it to that many homes. Admittedly, it's not over the same distances as in Australia, but it did amaze me. The T-Hub, in starting up businesses, was very informative, and I think that Australia could work very closely with them in start-up businesses. The population—it was quite amazing to see the poverty and how the people live. I think we need to be mindful of the fact that what's important to Australia is our standard of living. Ever-increasing populations—we have to ensure that we can provide housing, health and education to our own population here without increasing it and seeing poverty. I hope that one day it's not like that of India. I must say that one of the highlights of the trip was to visit the Taj Mahal, but I will also say that it was done on our own time and at our own expense, not the taxpayers'. I'm pleased to have gone on that trip, and I've picked up a lot from my visit to India, which I hope to use on the floor of parliament and in many debates to come. Thank you. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 77 DOCUMENTS Norther Australia Infrastructure Facility 77 Order for the Production of Documents 77 17:30 Senator BARTLETT DT6 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the document. These documents are in response to an order of the Senate moved by my Greens colleague Senator Rice in November last year requiring the tabling of the Master Facility Agreements between the relevant state and territory governments, the Commonwealth government and the NAIF—or the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, to give it its full name. It's good to see the government, at least in this case, complying with an order of the Senate, which is becoming more and more uncommon. I acknowledge and appreciate that. It's worth noting that the Master Facility Agreement between the state of Queensland—that is, the Palaszczuk Labor government—the Commonwealth and the NAIF occurred on 3 April 2017, as did the one with the Northern Territory. The final one was with the state of Western Australia, which didn't occur until 2 November. It took until that was provided and, indeed, an order of the Senate some weeks later, before we were actually able to see these documents. Certainly, I would say as a representative of the Greens and also as a representative of the state of Queensland that this is just another example of the lack of transparency surrounding the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. As people would know, I am just recently back in the Senate and I am following the current Senate inquiry into the governance and operations of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which had hearings just last week in Cairns and in Darwin. I was only able to attend via phone for part of the Darwin one and my colleague Senator Rice filled in for the other part of it. Without pre-empting the findings of that committee, which still has to consider all of the evidence, a very consistent theme from many of the submissions and the witnesses has been around the lack of transparency. Just last week in the hearing in Cairns, we had the strange situation of the Queensland Labor government putting in a written submission but then not appearing at that hearing. It's a matter for the committee as to what it does going forward, but it did not have the opportunity at a hearing in Queensland to hear from the Queensland government when everybody knows there is enormous and valid public interest—not just political wrangling of the day, but valid public interest. This is a huge amount of money, $5 billion, that's being made available to assist in infrastructure development in northern Australia. Certainly, speaking on behalf of Queensland, I can say there are some valuable and important opportunities for investment in sustainable infrastructure that assist the community in Northern Queensland. For example, we heard a representative from the tourism industry in Cairns talk about just how crucial tourism jobs are to all of Queensland—certainly to the northern part of that state. It is a major employer and it is an employer that generates long-term ongoing sustainable jobs, not boom-bust jobs. It's clear, certainly from the evidence to date and looking through some of these Master Facility Agreements, that we have a real problem with a bias towards megaprojects. The obvious one that has got so much attention is rail links to open up the Galilee Basin and new thermal coal deposits there, the Adani Carmichael mine being the one that has got all of the attention. We had the very unfortunate situation at the Senate committee hearing when, as all of us know you only have a limited time to hear from a witness, the first part of the questioning of the NAIF representatives themselves was about the status of the application for funding for the Aurizon project—have they put one in or not? Is it active? Is it inactive? What does inactive mean? All of that's currently a bit of argy-bargy between the state Labor government and NAIF. Frankly, it would be much simpler, from the point of view of all of us following this, if the state Labor government said: 'We're not going to support, we'll veto any public funds being used to assist the opening up of new coalmines in the Galilee Basin.' It wouldn't matter what the status of Aurizon's application was, because they would know, as we now know, thanks to the Queensland government's appropriate, although very belated, decision to veto Adani's application for a rail line, that that would stop funding. The federal government has confirmed that. We need transparency from all sides, frankly, and clarity about the position of the Queensland government, with regard to the opening up of coal deposits in the Galilee Basin. What the Greens would like to see is much greater transparency across the board. We're pleased that these master facility agreements have finally been tabled so that they can be properly scrutinised, but there is an ongoing need for much wider transparency. It's simply about the impact— (Time expired) Question agreed to. Disability Services 78 Consideration 78 17:38 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the response by the Assistant Minister for Social Services and Disability Services, Ms Prentice, dated 4 December 2017, to the Senate resolution on disability advocacy agreed to on 15 November 2017. Leave granted. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I've been back in the building for less than a day and I had been wondering how long it would take for the government, in their infinite ability, to disappoint the Australian disabled community. Sadly, we haven't finished the day before that has occurred. I note the response of Minister Prentice, the letter written to the New South Wales government, in relation to the withdrawal of its funding for disability advocacy services in that state. To be clear, we have a situation in New South Wales in which 50 organisations that serve the primary role of giving voice to people with disability, to the disabled community more broadly, face closure at the hands of a Liberal government which is intent on simply sliding out of its commitments and responsibilities in this place. This is at a time when the disability sector is undergoing one of the largest reforms in its history. Indeed, we are in the middle of implementing and rolling out the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which is the largest social services reform since Medicare. This is a time of great transition and change for disabled people and for the sector, and it is a time when it is most important to place the voices of lived experience at the centre of the conversation and flag those issues which are occurring in the rollout. This is the primary function of both individualised and systemic advocacy, and these are the institutions, the groups, which are being defunded by the New South Wales government—by the sheer, it would seem, pig-headedness of the minister responsible, Ray Williams. Yet all this government can seem to bring itself to do is request that the New South Wales government continue to play 'a role' in the disability advocacy space in New South Wales—not that it return the funding that it proposes to cut, not that it increase funding in line with the increased need for advocacy services given the rollout of the NDIS, but simply to continue to play a role. Well, that's just not good enough. We have a situation where people are about to lose their voice. They will lose people and organisations that, for decades in some cases, have supported them to live full and independent lives. They deserve more than a government which is willing only to mumble in the direction of a state counterpart. I am thoroughly concerned by the lack of rigorous rebuke on behalf of the government and, indeed, more than a little bit disappointed in the general disinterest of the Commonwealth in bringing this issue to light. The disabled people of Australia deserve better from this government, and I intend to continue to hold the government to account and to get the kind of attention to these issues that is so desperately needed and deserved. Question agreed to. Environment 79 Consideration 79 17:42 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I seek leave to move a motion in relation to document 40, the response by the New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries, Mr Blair, dated 4 December 2017. Leave granted. Senator RICE 155410 I move: That the Senate take note of the document. This is a response to a resolution of the Senate of 16 August 2017. The motion, moved by my colleague Lee Rhiannon, was about land clearing in New South Wales. It asked the New South Wales government to delay implementation of its new controls over land clearing because of concerns that they wouldn't meet federal standards in the Commonwealth offsets policy under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act and some uncertainty as to whether the proposed clearing would require Commonwealth approval. The Senate called upon the New South Wales government to delay setting a commencement date until there was more certainty, in particular until the mapping that's required to make informed decisions about land clearing had been completed and until there was certainty about offsets in New South Wales meeting Commonwealth standards. The response from New South Wales government, which we are taking note of today, is incredibly inadequate and does not address the issues that the Senate was asking them to consider. All they have basically said is that they will continue to work with the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Energy to develop clarity for landholders, will work closely with landholders and are working to build general understanding around the requirements and processes for meeting Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation requirements. This is totally inadequate when you think of what the implications of this are going to be. It means there will be land which is going to be cleared with the support of the New South Wales government that has got incredible biodiversity value, that should be being protected because of the national and Commonwealth controls under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, and yet the New South Wales government is going to allow this to occur. Certainly, my colleagues and I will be pursuing this issue because land clearing in New South Wales and in Queensland is continuing apace. It has escalated in recent years, it is contributing to a massive increase in our carbon pollution and the consequences of losing this vegetation are dire. They are dire for the plants and animals that depend upon this vegetation. It means that threatened species are becoming more threatened. They're becoming critically endangered. We are seeing birds and other animals on a trajectory towards extinction because of the sort of land clearing that clearly is going to be approved by the New South Wales government and by the Queensland government And the Commonwealth has got a role. We need to make sure the conditions and controls that are in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act are applied rigorously, and it is very clear that, under the provisos and under the rules that are being set by the New South Wales government, that isn't occurring. So, for the future of our Australian plants and animals, I'm determined that we will continue to pursue this so that we actually will be able to protect these critical areas of native vegetation for our future. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 80 DOCUMENTS Consideration 80 COMMITTEES 82 COMMITTEES Consideration 82 Membership 82 17:47 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees. 17:47 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees in accordance with the document circulated in the chamber: Appropriations, Staffing and Security—Standing Committee— Discharged—Senator Fifield Appointed—Senator Birmingham Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—Joint Statutory Committee— Appointed—Senator Bushby Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Molan Economics Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Molan Education and Employment Legislation Committee— Discharged— Senators Reynolds and Williams Participating member: Senator Gichuhi Appointed— Senators Gichuhi and Molan Participating members: Senators Reynolds and Williams Education and Employment References Committee— Discharged— Senator Reynolds Participating member: Senator Gichuhi Appointed— Senator Gichuhi Participating members: Senators Molan and Reynolds Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee— Appointed—Participating members: Senators Gichuhi and Molan [for the purposes of the inquiry into the 2016 election] Senators Bartlett, Di Natale, Gichuhi, Hanson-Young, McKim, Molan, Rice, Siewert, Steele-John and Whish-Wilson [for the purposes of the inquiry into matters relating to Section 44 of the Constitution] Environment and Communications Legislation and References Committees— Appointed— Senator Farrell Participating member: Senator Molan Finance and Public Administration Legislation and References Committees— Discharged— Senator McKenzie Participating member: Senator Fawcett Appointed— Senator Fawcett Participating member: Senator Molan Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation and References Committees— Discharged—Senator McKenzie Appointed— Senator Reynolds Participating member: Senator Molan Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee— Discharged—Senator McKenzie Appointed—Senator Molan Future of Public Interest Journalism—Select Committee— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Molan Human Rights—Joint Statutory Committee— Discharged—Senator Reynolds Appointed—Senator Gichuhi Law Enforcement—Joint Statutory Committee— Discharged—Senator Bushby Appointed—Senator O'Sullivan Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation and References Committees— Discharged—Senator Fawcett Appointed— Senator Molan Participating member: Senator Fawcett Lending to Primary Production Customers—Select Committee— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Molan Migration—Joint Standing Committee— Discharged—Senator Brockman Appointed—Senator Molan National Broadband Network—Joint Standing Committee— Appointed—Participating members: Senators Gichuhi and Molan National Integrity Commission—Select Committee— Appointed—Participating members: Senators Gichuhi and Molan Parliamentary Library—Joint Standing Committee— Discharged—Senator Paterson Appointed—Senator Gichuhi Political Influence of Donations—Select Committee— Discharged—Senator Brockman Appointed— Senator Molan Participating member: Senator Brockman Privileges—Standing Committee— Discharged—Senator McKenzie Appointed—Senator Bushby Procedure—Standing Committee— Discharged—Senator Fifield Appointed—Senator Birmingham Public Accounts and Audit—Joint Statutory Committee— Appointed—Senator Hume Publications—Standing Committee— Discharged—Senator Duniam Appointed—Senator Gichuhi Red Tape—Select Committee— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Molan Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—Joint Select Committee— Appointed—Participating members: Senators Gichuhi and Molan Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Molan Selection of Bills—Standing Committee— Discharged—Senator Fifield Appointed—Senator Birmingham Senators ' Interests—Standing Committee— Discharged—Senator McKenzie Appointed—Senator Molan Question agreed to. BILLS 85 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 85

Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill 2017

Returned from the House of Representatives 85 COMMITTEES 85 COMMITTEES Joint Select Committee on the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse 85 Membership 85 Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters 85 Membership 85 BILLS 85 BILLS Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017, Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2017, National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Quality and Safeguards Commission and Other Measures) Bill 2017, Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill 2017, First Home Super Saver Tax Bill 2017 85

Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017

Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Bill 2017

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Quality and Safeguards Commission and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures No. 1) Bill 2017

First Home Super Saver Tax Bill 2017

Assent 85 COMMITTEES 85 COMMITTEES Select Committee on the Future of Public Interest Journalism 85 Report 85 17:49 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I present the report of the Select Committee on the Future of Public Interest Journalism together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator BILYK HZB by leave—As chair of the Senate Select Committee on the Future of Public Interest Journalism, I'd like to make a few comments on the report we're presenting to the Senate today. A vibrant, diverse and free fourth estate is an essential component for any healthy democracy. Australians rely on quality journalism to give them access to the information they need. This helps them to make informed decisions about how they participate in democracy, as well as enriching their lives more generally. In short, public interest journalism keeps the powerful accountable. It ensures that both the Commonwealth and parliament are transparent and accountable to the Australian people. The evidence received by the committee was clear: the Australian and global news media sectors still face significant challenges, especially in dealing with the transition to web based news delivery. A crash in revenues from traditional business models has led to the shutting down or restructuring of many news publications. Until recently, newspaper classifieds and commercial ads underpinned the revenue of newspapers. This has shifted quickly, and now online aggregators—especially Google and Facebook—dominate advertising in a way that was unimaginable just a few years ago. This has meant the loss of many journalist jobs. Fewer journalists mean less coverage of important areas of public interest, less scrutiny on public institutions and less coverage of other powerful vested interests in society. This is especially concerning given the recent spread of fake news, and its obvious corrosive effects on democracies around the world. As well as these clear challenges, the committee took evidence of the unprecedented opportunities offered by the digital age. There are now larger audiences for news medias than ever before. Consumers can access information and news from devices they carry in their pockets, and this has led to the democratisation of information and communication. Perspectives that struggled to be recognised or reflected in mainstream media now can find a platform, a voice and an audience. The committee was guided by three questions: (1) What are the challenges and opportunities for public interest journalism? (2) Where can the Commonwealth contribute positively to the health, diversity and financial stability of the sector, without compromising the principal of the freedom and independence of the press? (3) If the Commonwealth can proactively support the industry, how could the costs of any initiatives be offset in the budget? The committee received 75 submissions from individuals and organisations, and held seven hearings in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne. The committee also sought information from relevant government departments on notice. While there was a unanimous recognition of the challenges faced, there was no firm view on how these will play out in the future. But evidence did overwhelmingly support the Commonwealth looking to see how it can assist the sector. This marks a change. Almost six years ago, the landmark Finkelstein review, commissioned by the previous Labor government, noted challenging trends for the industry, but found there was not a case for government support, on the basis that it was too early to reach firm conclusions on the changes that were occurring at the time. Nevertheless, Finkelstein noted that the situation was changing rapidly, and required careful and continuous monitoring and made a number of recommendations that trends in, and the health of, the industry be charted. Evidence presented to our committee suggested there is now a more clear case for the Commonwealth to step in, at least in some limited areas. Indeed, even some witnesses who worked on Finkelstein, and felt there was no need for Commonwealth assistance at that time, told the committee that their opinions had changed. The pace of change in the sector has meant that there have been significant developments even over the course of the inquiry. Journalists have continued to be laid off, both from large masthead newspapers, as well as from the collapse of smaller new players. As this report was finalised we received the sad news that Crinkling News, Australia's only newspaper for kids, had closed down due to financial pressures. 2017 also saw parliament pass the government's broadcasting amendments. This legislation did not address the problem of Australia having one of the highest levels of media ownership concentration in the world. In fact it made the situation worse through the abolition of the two-out-of-three cross-media control rule which, until recently, prohibited a person from controlling all three regulated forms of media—commercial radio, commercial TV and associated newspapers—in the one licence area. By repealing this rule, the Turnbull government handed unprecedented powers to a privileged few media operators—permitting them to consolidate even further in Australia's already highly concentrated media landscape. In order to secure passage of the repeal of the two-out-of-three rule in the Senate, the government had to do a number of deals with the crossbench. Some of these are being considered by other Senate committees at the moment, including the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund that was announced at the eleventh hour as a trade-off for Nick Xenophon's support for the repeal of the two-out-of-three media diversity safeguard. Alas, for outfits like Crinkling News, this short-term fund is a case of too little, too late. The deal done with One Nation is a blatant attack on our national broadcasters, the ABC and SBS, who were used as bargaining chips in the media ownership changes. It is obvious that the measures secured by One Nation, which include three bills to tamper with the ABC and SBS acts and charters and a 'competitive neutrality inquiry', are not motivated by any good policy rationale or public good but, rather, a political vendetta by one party uncomfortable with being scrutinised by investigative journalists. Other developments that have occurred over the course of the inquiry include significant policy announcements by digital platforms on matters which impact the news media, as well as indications that the level of cooperation and partnership between digital platforms and the news media has deepened and will continue to evolve. For example, Google announced the end of its 'first click free' policy in October 2017, Google and Fairfax Media announced an advertising partnership in December 2017 and, in January 2018, Facebook announced changes to News Feed. Most significantly, last year the Commonwealth directed the ACCC to inquire into the market powers of aggregators, and the challenge this poses to public interest journalism. Given the expertise and the resources of the ACCC, this committee has made no recommendations in this area for the Commonwealth, but looks forward to the ACCC's report in 2019. Given the ongoing pace of change, the committee's recommendations have focused on some practical measures for the Commonwealth to bolster public interest journalism. There was compelling evidence that the not-for-profit sector has led a revival in journalism in the US. In particular, private philanthropy has allowed many new or existing organisations to invest more heavily in quality journalism. Given this, the committee has recommended the Commonwealth develop a framework for extending 'deductible gift recipient'—or 'DGR'—status to not-for-profit news organisations that adhere to standards of public interest journalism. The committee has also recommended that the government should investigate the value of offering every Australian the ability to claim subscriptions to trustworthy news providers as a tax deduction. The capacity of the ABC and SBS for public interest journalism has no doubt been impacted by hundreds of millions of dollars in budget cuts under the government. The committee recommended that the ABC and SBS, bastions of trusted, public interest journalism in Australia, be funded adequately. This means resourcing for its service delivery in regional and rural areas, and for its fact-checking capacity. Additionally, evidence suggested that the community media sector should be given some surety for its future funding. This would allow it to plan effectively, especially considering the ongoing rollout of digital services across Australia. The committee also heard that the Commonwealth should consider where legal frameworks could be reformed or harmonised—in association with states and territories—so that journalists can get on with their important work without undue restriction. Where there is a lack of clarity in these laws, there should be more information. Where there is injustice, there should be reform. Any review of defamation laws should look at whether they strike an appropriate balance between promoting public interest journalism and the right of individuals to protection from reputational harm. This would allow journalists to get on with the important job of covering issues that are in the public interest. As the chair for the final stage of the committee, I acknowledge the work of the senators who served on this committee, as well as the committee secretariat. I would like to thank the many witnesses who gave evidence—either through submissions or public hearings. These included, but were not limited to, journalists, academics and representatives of media and technology companies. It's with great pleasure that I commend the report to the Senate. 18:00 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I'd also like to speak on this report. This was an important inquiry. It was far-reaching and looked at the current state and future of public interest journalism in Australia at a time when we know that trust and public belief in politics, in our politicians, in our public institutions—indeed in big business and even our major banks—is so low. We need, more than ever, a robust and well-supported public interest journalism sector. What is very clear from this inquiry is that journalism in this country is under immense pressure. Some of the figures that we got as a committee were very stark. In March last year the committee was told that at least 2,500 journalist jobs had been lost across the country in the past six years. That is, of course, a number that has got worse in the last 12 months. We know that there have been job losses at Fairfax. There have been job losses at News Corp and a myriad of other media outfits and organisations. Senator Bilyk mentioned that Australia's only children's newspaper, Crinkling News, is having to close its doors because it just can't manage to pay the bills and produce good quality journalism for Australia's children. We're at a crisis point in Australia when it comes to public interest journalism. We need it more than ever, and yet it has less support. This report and this inquiry tried to outline a number of different things and looked at a number of different ways that we could support public interest journalism in Australia to recognise the crucial role that it plays in our community, our news and our democracy. If the public are disillusioned with politicians and politics, if they don't believe that we are acting in their best interests and if they don't have access to information about what their democratic rights are, what their parliament is doing and what their elected officials are doing, that discontent is only going to grow. I would put to you that, at this moment, when trust and belief in politics is so low, the best thing that we could all be doing is actually supporting one of those institutions that the public so desperately wants to be able to rely on. Our public broadcasters, ABC and the SBS, are by far the most trusted news services in the country. Time and time again they rate as the most trusted institutions and they rate well above the rest when it comes to trust in news. As parliamentarians in this place and as responsible members of the government on the other side who tick off on their government's budgets year in, year out, I urge you to think about what needs to be done to support our public broadcasters to continue doing the good job of reporting the news, shedding light on democracy and our democratic institutions and ensuring that all of us are held to account to reinstate the trust of the public and the community in our public institutions. Since this committee has been gathering evidence and seeking submissions, there have been a number of key changes. We've seen media reform laws pass this parliament. Some elements of those have been welcomed and others have fallen way short of what is needed to support public interest journalism across the country. One of the most concerning things that has happened since this inquiry has been underway was the tabling of the new espionage legislation announced by the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, in December. It is meant to be about looking at foreign donations but in fact is going to put a spear through the heart of journalism in this country because it is effectively going to outlaw particular parts of investigative journalism and the ability of journalists in this country to inquire into and expose what our governments are doing, what our parliament is doing. In fact, under these new proposed laws, those journalists involved in the extraordinary story of the cabinet files discovered last week would have risked 15 years jail. That is what this current legislation, tabled by the Prime Minister, says. I've heard a lot of the public commentary about this over the last few weeks and I urge the government to think very seriously about how they can amend this legislation to ensure that we allow journalists to keep doing their jobs. We need transparency in politics. We need transparency in the decisions made by the government in the name of the Australian people, and part of that is to ensure journalists can do their jobs without the fear of jail time, arrest and intimidation. In fact, in the inquiry that this report has come from, the suggestion was that the current laws are actually too harsh, that whistleblower protections need to be strengthened in order to allow journalists to do their jobs properly, to ensure that transparency is protected and that journalists are able to report on things without fear or favour. These new laws, as announced by the Prime Minister, currently being inquired by the Senate, will mean that those restrictions and that intimidation is only going to get worse. Turkey, China and Egypt topped the list of countries last year for the worst conditions for journalists and the most jail time for journalists. I say to the government, and I see the Minister for Communications is sitting in the chamber here today, let's not make Australia part of that list in 2018. Let's make sure we protect the rights of journalists to continue to do their vital and important jobs. There are a number of key recommendations that this report has highlighted that go to trying to find ways to support and protect public interest journalism and the very important role that it plays in our democracy. DGR status for non-profits is a good step forward, and I urge the government to think again about how this can be done. I know we've had conversations about this previously. Please consider that this is something that is not going to go away. The calls for proper support for our various journalism and media outlets, particularly those non-profits, are only going to grow louder as the public becomes more and more desperate for truth in politics and truth in our media. There are a number of other recommendations, whistleblower laws, and funding being supported and secured for our public broadcasters—crucial, I would say, in today's age. I urge the minister to look carefully at this report and to consider these issues going into the 2018 budget. As I finish, I want to reflect on one of the saddest things that has happened in the past week. That of course is the passing of the veteran Age journalist Michael Gordon. When we talk about a contribution to public interest journalism, Michael was well ahead of the pack. He was a fantastic journalist, a beautiful storyteller and one of the nicest blokes any of us in this place has ever met. I say to Michael's family and to his friends and colleagues: we're all very sorry on Michael's passing. This place is going to be much poorer now that he's not around. 18:10 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I was intending to rise to speak briefly to the report, but can I commence my comments by supporting those of Senator Hanson-Young in relation to Michael Gordon. He was, as those who knew him know, a wonderful man. He was a thoughtful and an elegant writer, and he was the finest of journalists. His passing is one that brings great sadness to this building and to those who knew him and worked with him. His like comes along very infrequently in journalism. I also want to remember some former colleagues who are no longer with us in this place but who were part of the drive behind this report—namely, Sam Dastyari and Scott Ludlam. In particular, I acknowledge Scott Ludlam, whom I used to have as one of my shadows. He was a very positive, very constructive colleague to deal with in this space. All colleagues would be aware that in parallel with this inquiry work we had the media reform package, which the government believes does some practical and concrete things to help improve the viability of Australian media organisations. We need good, strong Australia media organisations to ensure that we have vibrant journalism. As often as we may be frustrated by what they blog and post and print and broadcast, what they do is nevertheless one of the important underpinnings of our democracy and ensures that we have robust, vigorous and accountable public discourse. For our part, we on the government benches do believe we made some positive contributions. I think that is reflected in the fact that essentially all major Australian media organisations supported the package. It enjoyed the support of this chamber and a number of crossbench senators. I know that we weren't able to get colleagues from the opposition and colleagues from the Greens to join with us in supporting that package, but I acknowledge that there are elements of the package that were supported by colleagues opposite and in the corner. Again, I take the opportunity to say that all of the dealings that I had with colleagues in this place on the package, whether they ended up voting for it or not, were positive and constructive. This area of public interest journalism is one that I'm sure we, as a parliament, will continue to discuss. It is important. I do hope that we can continue to work together to ensure that we have good, strong, journalism in Australia. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 I'm going to take it that Senator Bilyk moved to take note of the report and I'm also going to ask if it is peoples' wish that we seek leave to continue those remarks. There being no opposition to that, it is so moved. Thank you. BILLS 89 BILLS Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2017 89

Statute Update (Smaller Government) Bill 2017

In Committee 89 18:15 The CHAIR 112096 From my understanding, there were amendments circulated in the name of Senator Whish-Wilson— (Quorum formed) 18:17 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Madam Deputy President, I just need to locate my amendments. Have the amendments been circulated? The CHAIR: If I could assist, Senator Whish-Wilson, I think Senator O'Sullivan was going to make a point. If Senator O'Sullivan still wants to do that, it will give you time to find what you're looking for. 18:17 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland I have a question to the minister, if it's the appropriate time. The CHAIR: Yes, it certainly is. Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 I've got quite a bit of interest in this bill, particularly where it relates to any action of government that increases efficiencies whilst at the same time reducing bureaucratic burden. My first question is: to what extent did negotiations occur between the government and the states through COAG for the development of this bill? I ask that question for a particular reason. The states have an interest in the impacts and the delivery of Commonwealth services. We can see that this particular bill covers quite a number of areas that will obviously impact on issues within the states. I also note that this bill has been developed over quite a long period of time. Indeed, it's a product of meeting what have been budget commitments and possibly even election commitments over that same period of time. Before I get into very specific questions relating to specific aspects of the act, I'm interested to know—to the extent that you may have firsthand knowledge—what the process was with the states in the negotiation and the development of matters that have influenced this act that we have before us here today. I'm sure the states have had— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 I'm waiting for the minister; I want to make sure he fully understands the depth and breadth of my question. I'm sure the minister has some knowledge of what that process has been with COAG over the time that has led up to the drafting of this particular act. 18:20 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Thank you for that query. There was consultation, as was necessary, with state jurisdictions. A number of these matters covered by this bill cover different portfolio areas. Just one example where there would have been consultation with the states is in relation to the abolition of CAMAC. 18:21 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Could I reiterate very briefly a few of my comments from the second reading debate about this idea of small government and removing red tape and green tape? It's as though, somehow, by raising a small amount of money, we're going to get a benefit for the Australian taxpayer when what we're actually removing plays a critical role in preventing further costs to the Australian taxpayer and to the Australian community down the track—like having in place a holistic approach to waste management in this country. I'm very concerned that this came from the Commission of Audit and it goes all the way back to the 2013 budget—the zombie budget, the buster budget. I think Senator Bernardi rightly pointed out earlier this afternoon that this is kind of the remnants, the last gasp of the government being seen to be doing something about removing some red and green tape in this country. It's a real shame that they've chosen to target a couple of areas that I'm very passionate about and that I believe are critically important, especially right now when this country has a recycling crisis on its hands. It's not just kerb-side recycling for bottles and cans and cardboard and other products; it's tyres, which are supposed to be covered by product stewardship schemes, and very soon it's going to emerge in photovoltaics. As we start seeing generations of solar panels being phased out, no-one's got any idea on what we're going to do with these kinds of products. A product stewardship scheme is, intuitively, a really good idea. My question to the minister is about this: the legislation before us is removing the advisory groups of the product stewardship scheme. I'll get to some other points in a minute about ASADA and CAMAC, but on the product stewardship scheme the legislation before us is removing the advisory groups. I understand those advisory groups have been defunct now, essentially, for a couple of years, since the 2014 legislation was put before the Senate. There is currently a review underway into the Product Stewardship Act itself. That review, I understand—and please tell me if this is correct—is due to be released sometime this year in 2018. Could you please clarify that for me? 18:23 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia We'll just check on that for you now. 18:23 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania While you do that—take your time—the reason I'm asking this question is that I understand—and senators were given this in a Parliamentary Library brief, and it's something we've requested some information on—that if the product stewardship schemes are going to be wound up, then it's important that the advisory groups play a role in advising the government on that wind-up and in the review. But, essentially, no-one has been active in this scheme for a while now—which, incidentally, is why Labor are saying that they're going to support winding this up, because it's essentially defunct already. I want to put on record that that is not a good argument. We should be revitalising these schemes and advisory groups and getting on with the job of solving the waste crisis that we have in this country. I would be very keen to know what is going on with the review of the product stewardship scheme before I ask my next questions. 18:25 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Speaking directly to the abolition of the Product Stewardship Advisory Group, the act has clocked up several years of operation, so the view is that we no longer need that steering group, which was intended to give direction in the establishment phase. The Department of the Environment and Energy now engages with industry experts on an as-needs basis to gather advice on classes of products to be considered for some form of accreditation or regulation. This is a far more flexible and effective way to engage with the best people at least cost, unlike a standing body, which has an inflexible composition of fixed overheads. This approach to consultation means we can get more diversity of input from people who are highly engaged and effective because they're from the appropriate industry or science fields. The 2016-17 product list, I'm advised, was compiled under this kind of consultation and includes products such as end-of-life batteries, photovoltaic systems, plastic oil containers and the products that Senator Whish-Wilson talked about last year in this debate: products containing microbeads. 18:26 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I'll talk this out until the dinner break, and perhaps over that time you could check on the status of the Product Stewardship Act. My understanding was that a review of that act was part of an omnibus repeal bill in 2014, but there's a compulsory five-year review. The proposed abolition of this legislation that we're reviewing tonight was announced and amending legislation was introduced in 2014, but I'm very interested in the Product Stewardship Act, which is currently under review pursuant to provisions of that act that require the government to initiate an independent review of its operations every five years. My footnote for that was the Product Stewardship Act, section 109. There's a statement from Minister Frydenberg under in the 'Review of Product Stewardship Act 2011' media release from March 2017, and the Department of the Environment and Energy product stewardship website's also got a statement. I want to confirm that that is the case—that the whole act is under review—and when that might finish. That's really important here. Not only are we potentially putting the cart before the horse in winding up what we're doing with this legislation tonight, but the expertise that was critical to at least one product stewardship scheme being successful—I have doubts as to whether anything else was achieved because of a total lack of commitment and leadership from the Liberal government since they came to power in 2013 in fixing the waste crisis that we have in this country. I understand that the e-waste product stewardship scheme was almost too successful. They had such a good result that they almost had too much to deal with. But the Tyre Product Stewardship Scheme, a voluntary scheme, has been a bit of a joke. It hasn't achieved much at all. And other waste streams, like containers, cans and bottles, plastic, aluminium and cardboard—I was optimistic, as were many other campaigners around the country, that they would be included in a full national product stewardship scheme. The Senate Environment and Communications References Committee recommended that we have a national product stewardship scheme for cans and bottles. My fear is that, if we lose the advisory groups, we'll then lose the scheme because there's no-one there with the expertise. After dinner, I'll get into the terminology used by the minister as to how they might go forward with a product stewardship scheme on an 'as-needs basis'. I'm not exactly sure what that means. Are we actually going to have any product stewardship schemes in this country? Are we going to bring in industry and producers of waste and work with stakeholders and recyclers and the community—the consumers of plastic—and fix the bloody problem that we've got? It's enormous. I'm chairing the committee inquiry into this at the moment. We had a full day of hearings in Melbourne in December, before we broke for Christmas. We had Visy; we had all the players there, and everybody was putting their hands up in the air, going, 'What are we doing?' Progress reported. Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 19:30 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I think I might have finished on a question for the minister just before the dinner break, but I will continue until the minister gets here. The explanatory memorandum that all senators have received notes: The Department of the Environment and Energy will engage with stakeholders on an "as needs" basis on the preparation of the list of classes of products to be considered for some form of accreditation or regulation. It also suggested the scope for ad hoc consultations by the portfolio department. I would be very interested to hear whether there are any other product stewardship schemes being looked at or planned by the department. I know COAG looks at these issues regularly in its meetings, but I am keen to know how we would determine that 'as needs basis'. I might also make a few brief comments so I don't have to stand up separately. Actually, to make it easier for you, Temporary Chair Reynolds, I will seek leave to move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8357 together. Leave granted. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I move amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 8357 together: (1) Schedule 2, page 5 (lines 1 to 20), to be opposed. (2)Schedule 3, page 6 (lines 1 to 10), to be opposed. (3)Schedule 7, page 18 (line 1) to page 26 (line 5), to be opposed. I'll continue to talk to them so we can get straight to voting on the amendments, unless anyone else has anything to contribute. I want to talk briefly on ASADA. We support the move to abolish the advisory group on the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, ASADA. We have noted—it's in the explanatory memorandum and we have heard it discussed in second reading speeches today—the group's lack of activity throughout its existence and the fact that there are no current members. But as I know Senator Di Natale, especially, has been involved in issues around the integrity of the current antidoping structures in Australia—indeed, worldwide—we want it noted that questions still remain. It is a bit like the points I've been making in relation to the product stewardship scheme for waste streams. We're abolishing these advisory structures, presumably on the basis that we're going to save a few bucks, but we've still got the issue of tackling the core problems that they were set up to tackle in the first place. You're asking us to support legislation that abolishes the expert advisory groups when we haven't actually solved the problems that they were set up to solve in the first place, so you'll have to forgive us for being a bit sceptical. Minister, I will ask the question I asked before the dinner break: could you confirm that the Product Stewardship Act is currently under review—that's part of an independent five-year review—and when will that review be completed? The TEMPORARY CHAIR 250216 Minister, just to clarify, the Senate's just given Senator Whish-Wilson leave to move all three amendments together. 19:34 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I have been advised in relation to the questions you asked before the dinner break, which I obviously wasn't in the chamber to hear, particularly in relation to whether a review is underway on the product stewardship legislation. You also asked whether this had any implications for the future of the product stewardship model or the direction these schemes will take. In response, I can confirm that there was a review that was announced in early 2017. This was the first review of the act following its commencement in 2011, and it's our intention to conclude that review this year—that is, in 2018. The act has a review provision that requires that a broad review should occur on the fifth anniversary of the act, and I can assure you that the government has no plans or intentions of ditching a product stewardship approach. We have not prejudged the findings of that review. The terms of reference are written quite broadly. They ask the review to look at whether the act is meeting its intention and to look at interactions with state and territory policies as well as international experience in the field of product stewardship. The terms of reference are only narrow in one regard: asking the review to consider issues around the recycling of TVs and computers, and that is an appropriate question addressing a very contemporary pressure point. The review is open to input from industry, the community, state government, federal government, territory government and local government. A consultation paper is planned to be published very shortly, and there will also be public forums as part of this process. I should emphasise that when it comes to the future accreditation and regulation of different waste products, the government intends to continue to use a contemporary consultation approach involving discussion with experts most relevant to each class of product as different products are looked at. This is an approach we favour regardless of the shape of the stewardship scheme. Having a fixed group of people considering accreditation and regulation of all product types is a 1970s model of industry engagement that is no longer suited to the diverse world in which we live today. There are many technologies and products today that can find their way into the waste system, and we need to tap different skill sets to address each of these challenges that are before us. Under our approach there will not be less consultation; rather, it will be better targeted. We've been using that approach already and we believe that it's been working very well. You also asked whether any other schemes have been considered. The government is considering an approach to microbeads at the moment. 19:37 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I understand a voluntary ban on microbeads has been suggested, and there may be a mandatory ban implemented. Will that be a product stewardship scheme or just a direct ban on microbeads? My understanding is that it was going to be a ban rather than incorporating a stewardship scheme, which involves returns and those kinds of things. 19:37 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The plastic microbeads are currently being considered under the Product Stewardship Act; however, the government has indicated that it will act if it is clear that the industry voluntary phase-out will not be effective. 19:38 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I'm potentially straying slightly off topic here, but could you tell us tonight when that decision will be taken? Actually, it's directly relevant. Could you let us know when you'll make that decision or when you'll have assessed whether the voluntary ban has actually worked? 19:38 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Midyear. 19:38 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I just wondered whether it would have been prudent to wait for the outcomes of the review that's due in midyear before you abolish the advisory group. I presume the people that were on the advisory group and their expertise would have been important in that consultation. Have you actually spoken to those people? 19:39 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I'm advised that the advisory group hasn't been in operation for some period of time and wasn't actually an integral part of the review process. 19:39 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania That was my point. I understand they haven't been active since the legislation was introduced in 2014, when it was made very clear the government would be removing those. I am glad that you've said tonight that you are going to continue with the product stewardship scheme model and that you are looking at targeting other waste streams. As I said earlier, this country desperately needs some leadership on waste. It's an issue that cuts across the political divide. It doesn't matter what your political colour is or where you live, no-one likes waste. They especially don't like seeing waste in waterways and in the ocean. It's a critical issue all around the world. The World Economic Forum has issued a call to arms for all governments to tackle this issue and look at economic models that work like product stewardship schemes and refund schemes et cetera. I bang on a lot about it in here, but it's absolutely critical that your government shows leadership on this issue. Very briefly, because I'm moving all three amendments together so we can get through this quickly, I want to make some comments about CAMAC. Our views are very similar to the Labor Party's views on CAMAC. We think it's a shame that it's being abolished. I have heard the second reading speech from the coalition, and there seems to be this assumption, as there is in the explanatory memorandum, that somehow CAMAC is a lobby or—I won't use the words 'advisory group'—an advocacy group for the financial services industry. My experience has been quite different. Actually, they put out independent and very timely research, especially research on legislation and the legality of some of the issues that we've all dealt with in here in the financial services industry in the last five years. I was especially pleased with the report they did on forestry management investment schemes and management investment schemes in general. I must say, the Senate Economics Committee did a fantastic inquiry into that as well—what a debacle they have been and why they shouldn't be in existence. On that note, that's it from me. 19:41 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I wish to put on the record the position of the opposition in respect of these three amendments, which I now note are going to be moved together. Any of these bodies that Senator Whish-Wilson refers to in his amendments have played important roles over their life, but the fact of the matter is that they now exist in name only. These amendments will not see these bodies staffed, funded or tasked for advice and therefore do nothing by way of reinstating them. As a result, the opposition will not be supporting these amendments. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 250216 The question is that schedules 2, 3 and 7 on sheet 8357 stand as printed. Question agreed to. Bill agreed to. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the bill now be reported. I think the ayes have it—the noes have it? Division required. Senator Whish-Wilson, before we go to a division, can I confirm that you want a division on the question that the bill be reported? Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: You should be waiting, in that case, for the third reading. Do you still want to go to a division? Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Division is cancelled. The question is that the bill now be reported. Question agreed to. Bill reported without amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 93 19:44 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP The question is that the bill now be read a third time.

[The committee divided. [19:49]
The Acting Deputy President—Senator Reynolds)]

 41 AYES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Bilyk, CL Brandis, GH Brockman, S Brown, CL Burston, B Bushby, DC Cameron, DN Dodson, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Ketter, CR Kitching, K Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M Molan, AJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Ruston, A Smith, D (teller) Sterle, G Urquhart, AE Watt, M 9 NOES Bartlett, AJJ Di Natale, R Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Whish-Wilson, PS 0 PAIRS

[Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.]

 Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 94

Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017

Second Reading 94 19:51 Senator MOORE 00AOQ Queensland I rise to speak on the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 on behalf of the opposition. At the outset, I wish to indicate that the opposition will be supporting this bill, but we have some concerns about certain elements. We have been in discussion with the government about potential amendments to ameliorate the opposition's concerns. The majority of this bill makes a number of minor, technical and uncontroversial amendments relating to civil justice. The bill amends the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, the Archives Act 1983, the Bankruptcy Act 1966, the Domicile Act 1982, the Evidence Act 1995, the Family Law Act 1975, International Arbitration Act 1974, Legislation Act 2003, Marriage Act 1961 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. The bill, which as you can see is very complex, was carefully scrutinised by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee which reported on 10 May 2017. The committee received six submissions which commented on the proposed changes to five of these acts, and I will discuss these comments in more detail. The committee received no comments on the remainder of the bill which is entirely non-controversial. The committee made four substantive recommendations for improvements to the bill, subject to which the committee recommended that the bill be passed. Labor is pleased that the government is implementing two of the recommendations of the committee to make improvements to the bill. We will continue to discuss with the government two other recommended amendments to the bill that we believe are important. The first recommendation of the committee that the government has implemented relates to amendments to the Bankruptcy Act. Schedule 3 of the bill would make an amendment to the Bankruptcy Act that would clarify that the Family Court of Australia has bankruptcy jurisdiction when a trustee applies to have a financial agreement set aside under the Family Law Act. Some submitters raised concerns about these amendments. The Law Council of Australia noted that the proposed amendments do not provide jurisdiction to the Family Court in bankruptcy in circumstances where a person has been discharged from bankruptcy, albeit that their estate remains vested in the trustee in bankruptcy. To remedy this, the Law Council recommended that the definition of 'bankrupt' and 'bankrupt party to a marriage' be clarified. The committee agreed with the Law Council and recommended the bill be amended. Labor is pleased that the government has accepted the Law Council's advice and acted on the recommendation of the committee by clarifying that a bankrupt 'includes a reference to a person who has been discharged from bankruptcy, and whose property remains vested in the bankruptcy trustee under the Bankruptcy Act'. The second recommendation of the committee that the government has implemented relates to the amendments to the Family Law Act. This bill makes a significant change to Australia's response to international parental child abduction, clarifies the range of persons who may perform the powers of the registry managers in the Family Court or any other court and improves the consistency of financial and other provisions for de facto and married couples. The bill contains provisions that would create new offences regarding 'retaining a child outside Australia' in the Family Law Act. The explanatory memorandum notes that these provisions would remedy a gap in the existing legislation. The Australian Human Rights Commission raised their concerns that there are circumstances where it would be inappropriate to expose parents or others to criminal sanction for taking, sending or retaining a child outside Australia—for instance, where there is evidence that, in some cases, children are taken or retained abroad by parents fleeing family violence. An analysis of return and access applications under the Hague convention revealed that 70 per cent of child abductors were women and the most common reason for the abduction was fleeing from domestic violence. The committee formed the view that the bill should be amended to include a defence of 'fleeing from family violence', to ensure that the existing and proposed offences of unlawful transfer and retention of children abroad do not apply in circumstances of family violence. Labor is pleased again that the government has accepted this recommendation of the committee. Labor is firmly committed to responding to family violence and supporting measures that reduce gender inequality. That is why we believe in supporting legislative reform to better deal with family violence, as well as measures to improve the capacity of the judicial system to deal with family violence. This amendment will ensure that victims of family violence who take their children overseas with them to flee the abuser will not be committing an offence. The Australian Human Rights Commission also expressed their concern that 'consent' is not a defence for the existing international child abduction offences in the Family Law Act or the proposed new offence of retaining a child overseas. The committee recommended that the bill be amended to include a defence of consent, to ensure that the existing and proposed offences do not apply where oral or another form of consent has been provided. Labor believes that this is a worthy recommendation because it acknowledges the practical reality of parenting and relationships in Australia and the agreements that might be reached between parents orally or can be inferred from a person's actions and the facts and circumstances of a particular situation. We will continue to discuss this amendment with the government, to ensure that the proposed offence will not criminalise conduct from parents acting with the oral consent of the other parent. The Family Law Act currently provides that a person who is authorised by the court to arrest another person has powers related to the use of reasonable force in making the arrest and powers of entry and search for the purposes of arresting persons. In its submission, the Attorney-General's Department noted that the current arrest powers in the Family Law Act are subject to fewer limits than the arrest provisions available to the other federal courts, are broader than the arrest powers available to police officers in the Crimes Act 1914 and lack limits and safeguards. This bill authorises additional persons to make arrests under the Family Law Act, including a marshal, deputy marshal, sheriff or deputy sheriff, police officer or the Australian Border Force commissioner. The bill also provides that the power to arrest another person is conferred on 'an APS employee' in the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The scrutiny committee considered this bill and asked whether the bill can be amended to require a certain level of relevant training be undertaken by those APS employees authorised to exercise these coercive powers. The Australian Human Rights Commission shared the scrutiny committee's concern. On this basis, the committee urged the government to amend the bill to limit the delegation of arrest powers so that they only apply to employees of the Australian Border Force who have received appropriate training. This would ensure that coercive powers are only being delegated to appropriate persons. Labor is pleased that the government has proposed amendments to the bill which limit the APS employees authorised to exercise these powers to only employees of the Australian Border Force. However, the amendment does not specify that the powers will only be delegated to those who have received appropriate training. That is why Labor will continue also to discuss with the government an amendment to specify that the arrest powers may only be used by the Australian Border Force officers who have received appropriate training. The bill also repeals section 43 of the Sex Discrimination Act, which exempts discrimination against women in connection with employment, engagement or appointment in Australian Defence Force positions involving combat duties. Labor fully supports this change, which removes gender restrictions from combat roles and is an important step towards equal opportunity for women. Also, this piece of legislation makes some changes to the Archives Act 1983. As I am currently a parliamentary representative on the Archives Committee, I'm very pleased to know that this particular segment of the bill will go through as we support it. It's considered non-controversial, and I know how long Archives have been waiting for this to come through. That was my ad to the process. To conclude, Labor are broadly supportive of the bill but will continue to discuss with the government amendments that we believe would improve its operation. 20:01 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland I am the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, to which this bill was referred by the Senate. The committee did investigate the bill and made certain recommendations. These are numerated in the second reading speech and the minister will no doubt discuss them as well, and Senator Moore has just given a fair summary of the committee's report. I'm pleased to say that the report of the committee was a unanimous report. There were no additional comments or dissenting reports. I do thank members of the committee, who include the deputy chair, Senator Pratt; Senator Fawcett; Senator McKim; Senator Hume; and Senator Watt. I want to thank the committee secretariat: Toni Matulick and the Senior Research Officer and Administrative Officer, Nicholas Craft and Jo-Anne Holmes respectively, who assisted the committee in coming to the conclusions that it did. I also want to thank all of the submitters. There were six submissions made in response to the committee's advertising for submissions. These were from the Australian Human Rights Commission; the Chief Justice of the Family Court, Diana Bryant; the Law Council of Australia; Ms Rona Goold; the Attorney-General's Department; and the Law Society of New South Wales. I think this exercise indicates that Senate committees, when they work together collegiately and with a mind to what is best for Australia, can work in a way that brings in a unanimous report, which, to my understanding, the government has actioned in the bill before the Senate that we're dealing with today. Recommendation 1, which was a recommendation that the bill be amended to reflect the recommendation of the Law Council in relation to the proposed bankruptcy amendments, has been dealt with by the government in clauses 1 and 2 of the bill before the Senate at the moment. The second recommendation, that the bill be amended to amend the Family Law Act to include a defence of 'fleeing from family violence' to ensure that the existing and proposed offences of unlawful removal and retention of children abroad do not apply in circumstances of family violence, is dealt with in paragraph 6 of the bill as an amendment at the end of section 65Y. Recommendation 3, that the bill be amended to amend the Family Law Act to include a defence of consent to ensure that existing and proposed offences of unlawful removal and retention of children abroad do not apply in circumstances where a written consent has not been given but where there is an oral consent in the form of a consent, is referred to in paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the bill before the chamber. Recommendation 4, which the committee recommended be amended to amend the Family Law Act to limit arrest powers and use of force so that they apply only to employees of the Australian Border Force that have received appropriate training—Senator Moore's already mentioned that. The bill before us, in paragraph 5, makes the provision to limit that to those who are in the Australian Border Force. Senator Moore mentions that the comment about having received appropriate training is not there. I'll leave that to the minister, but my understanding is that all relevant Australian Border Force people who are in a position to make arrests do, of course, receive appropriate training, and adding that to the bill would only be superfluous verbiage. But I suspect the minister may explain that further. Suffice it to say that I do have great confidence in the Australian Border Force. They have done a wonderful job in recent years. They were in very difficult circumstances during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd term of government, where there were literally thousands—indeed tens of thousands—of illegal maritime arrivals coming across the border, putting a huge strain not only on the Border Force but also on departmental officials. I've often had occasion, in my committee and particularly in estimates, to thank officers of the Department of Immigration—the Border Force people or whatever name they came under at a particular point in time—for the work they've done under very stressful and difficult conditions at a time when they were simply overwhelmed by the thousands and thousands of illegal maritime arrivals who chose to enter our country illegally, jumping the queue over others. The Border Force departmental officials did a wonderful job at the time and continue to do a great job. This shows how committees of the Senate, when they're working constructively together, can get a unanimous report, which the government then deals with in a very serious manner. I'm pleased that all of the committee's recommendations have been accepted by the government. As a result of that, the legislation will be better than it would've been, without in any way detracting from the government's intention in its amendments to this particular legislation. I recommend to the Senate that the bill be passed. 20:08 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I also rise to speak on the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, which, as senators would know, is an omnibus bill that seeks to amend 10 pieces of legislation administered by the Attorney-General and make consequential amendments to nine acts administered within other portfolios. The majority of amendments in this legislation are largely or predominantly technical in nature; however, some amendments, particularly in relation to the Family Law Act 1975 and the Bankruptcy Act 1966, have been of concern to stakeholders. As we heard from the previous speaker, the bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which reported halfway through last year, in May. The committee made five recommendations, four of which proposed additional amendments to the bill: firstly, to reflect the recommendation of the Law Council in relation to the proposed bankruptcy amendments; secondly, to amend the Family Law Act 1975 to include a defence of fleeing from family violence to ensure that the existing and proposed offences of unlawful removal and retention of children abroad do not apply in circumstances where there is family violence; thirdly, to amend the Family Law Act 1975 to include a defence of consent to ensure that the existing and proposed offences of unlawful removal and retention of children abroad do not apply in circumstances where written consent has not been given but where there is oral consent or some other form of consent; and, fourthly, to amend the Family Law Act 1975 to limit arrest powers and use of force so that they apply only to employees of the Australian Border Force who have received appropriate training. These amendments, as the Greens understand it, are being moved by the government and would implement the recommendations made by the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs. I can indicate that the Australian Greens will be supporting the amendments. In relation, briefly, to the amendment put forward by Senator Leyonhjelm, it is fair to say that those issues were comprehensively examined during the debate at the end of last year on marriage equality. That amendment will be opposed by the Australian Greens. 20:11 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia In making a brief contribution, I want to put on the record my deep concern about this bill that allows women in combat roles in our military. I understand that there are many people who are going to have a different view about this and that this is couched as a striving for equality. But I believe that this striving for equality is more of a political move with the top brass in the military, of whom I note there are some in this chamber—including you, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds, and you have my unending respect for your service to our country. But it's about blurring the lines between political correctness and sound tactics in the name of what I think is social justice. The Daily Telegraph last year reported something that highlights the dangers, if I can put it like that, behind this move to push for females into combat roles in the armed forces. It said: Of 70 women who applied for the Infantry Corps, just 40 progressed to training. Of those 40, just 11 have graduated, seven into the Regular Army. That's A drop out rate about four times that of our male soldiers. Anecdotally, what you hear is that women are "breaking" during recruit training, which includes running up hills carrying 40-60kg packs, the typical load for Afghanistan, and casualty rescue exercises dragging an 80kg mannequin 50m. Officially, says Defence media: "women moving through infantry training are more likely to be injured than their male counterparts." … US Marine Corps studies show a cumulative injury incidence of 80 per cent for females in basic training. How does "breaking" women advance feminism? More to the point, how does it enhance our war-fighting capability? That is from The Daily Telegraph. The same newspaper last year wrote: Five years after the former Army chief and former Sex Discrimination Commissioner Liz Broderick launched a social engineering experiment aimed at stamping out the male "Anglo Saxon" warrior culture, the troops are unimpressed. "People just think it's crap," said one young officer. To overcome such common sense thinking, diversity experts have designed a $30,000 program effectively to brainwash young leaders in the Army to become "champions of change" and stamp out the "white Anglo-Saxon male" culture which no longer has a place in the military. I'm interested to know, from the section of the act immediately before the section that this amendment intends to remove, how this is lawful? It is lawful to discriminate on the grounds of sex, gender or identity by excluding persons from participation in any competitive sporting activity in which the strength, stamina or physique of the competitor is relevant. Let me get that point across: where stamina, strength or physique of competitors is relevant, you are allowed to discriminate and exclude individuals, for sport. But we are not allowed to do that in our armed forces. It's okay to say, 'Yes, women should play three sets of a grand slam tennis match instead of, potentially, five sets.' Or that, 'AFL women players are not to be in the AFL draft because they're women.' It's okay to say, 'You can't have a transgender person trying to get into the AFL women's competition, because physically they are a male.' The list goes on and on and on, because there is deemed to be an unfair advantage. So, I wonder why we are imposing lower standards in order to achieve this goal of equality that is going to put women, potentially, at the front line of war and combat. In the US, there are a number of female officers who have come out strongly against women in frontline combat roles. Captain Lauren Serrano said: Interestingly, most of the people who want to incorporate women into— combat roles— are civilians or young, inexperienced Marines. Most of the more seasoned Marines with whom I have spoken tend to oppose the idea of women in— frontline combat. Colonel Anne Weinberg admits: there’s anecdotal evidence that female Marines, who make up 7 percent of the force, aren’t rushing to serve in ground combat … Acknowledging that women are different (not just physically) than men is a hard truth that plays an enormous role in this discussion. I don't mind saying that I have spoken to serving men and women in the Australian Defence Force and also in the US Army, and I haven't found more than one or two who have supported women in frontline combat roles. And I have spoken to both men and women. I recognise that this is contentious, as are most things I say in this place. Senator Moore, I can see you champing at the bit to disagree, but I'd say this: war is not a fair business; adversaries attempt to gain an advantage over their enemies by any means possible. Enemies do not necessarily abide by their opponent's moral standards or rules of engagement. In today's world, we know there are many gory and violent war tactics that are considered immoral, archaic and banned by international law or the Geneva Convention, but our enemies do not always adhere to the Geneva Convention or to international law. Our adversaries still want to give themselves the greatest advantage possible in order to win. We do too, and that means ensuring the combat units are the strongest, most powerful, best trained and most prepared physically and mentally to fight and to win. On that argument alone, I don't believe incorporating women into combat units is in the best interests of Australian national security. In concluding, there are at least three people in this chamber right now who are far, far better qualified to make these assessments about this circumstance than me, and that includes you, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds, and Senator Molan and Senator Fawcett. But I do want to put on the record that I have deep concerns about this and what the implications may be, notwithstanding the fact that I stand alone right now. 20:18 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I will touch briefly on the issues raised by Senator Bernardi, but only towards the end of my contribution on the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. This bill is an omnibus bill which would amend the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, the Archives Act 1983, the Bankruptcy Act 1966, the Domicile Act 1982, the Evidence Act 1995, the Family Law Act 1975, the International Arbitration Act 1973, the Legislation Act 2003, the Marriage Act 1961, and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. As other speakers have highlighted, the bill would make minor and technical amendments to modernise, simplify and clarify the legislation and to repeal redundant provisions. The combined effect of these amendments would be to improve the efficiency and operation of the civil justice system. We've had some discussion here in this chamber today about small government and the need, where possible, to reduce the amount of government legislation—particularly where it overlaps or it causes unnecessary procedures. One of the early roles of the coalition government when we came into office was actually to set up groups specifically to look at deregulation, to find ways that we could achieve cost savings not only for the public service but particularly for business and people who needed to comply with government legislation. They had great success going through and finding redundant legislation or legislation that could be improved to reduce costs. In the very first tranche of that they anticipated savings of some $700 million. I think that was the figure that was used on the basis of that reduction. So this has been part of a program that, whilst it appears somewhat dry, is actually an important program to make government smaller and leaner and to allow people in our community to get on and do what they do well. I will step through each of the elements of this bill. The amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and the Legislation Act 2003 would clarify the validity of ministerial actions and the operational provisions about the management of compilations prepared for the Federal Register of Legislation. Amendments to the Archives Act would provide the National Archives of Australia with an enhanced ability to manage the high volumes of applications requesting access to records and would make other, minor technical amendments. That is certainly one of the factors that we see in a number of areas of our modern life. As the digital age has come along, the expectations of people to be able to access records, whether they be in archives or elsewhere, has increased exponentially, and we need to have both a legislative basis and systems in place to enable people who are the custodians or caretakers of repositories of information, whether that be archives or other digital records, to manage high workload in that area. The amendments to the Bankruptcy Act 1966 will clarify that the Family Court of Australia has bankruptcy jurisdiction when a trustee applies to have a financial agreement set aside under the Family Law Act. Family law is an area where, again, this government is seeking to bring about reform. Both sides of politics over the years since I started my career in politics in the other place in 2004 have sought to make family law more workable for the tens of thousands of families around Australia who have been caught up when family relationships break down. There are many areas where, in the interaction between various areas of law, particularly the conduct of courts and the conduct of people who are in the legal system, we see that the costs involved, both financial and emotional, mean that anything we can do to make that system simpler and more transparent is a good thing. I note that one of Senator Brandis's decisions late in his term as Attorney-General was, in fact, to launch a review of the actual family law itself. It's been some time since the foundational documents have been considered, so the government will be looking in a holistic way to see how we can make that system better. The amendments to the Domicile Act 1982 amend the act so it applies to territories currently specified. The Evidence Act will have updated presumptions about when post articles sent by prepaid post are received, and that accords with changes with Australia Post's delivery time. Changes to the Family Law Act 1975 would strengthen Australia's response to international parental child abduction, clarify the range of persons who may discharge the powers of registry managers in the Family Court of Australia and improve the consistency of the application of provisions for de facto and married couples. It would update the arrest, entry and search powers under the act and add additional safeguards to the exercise of those powers. We have seen even in recent years international examples where children have been abducted and the kinds of lengths that parents will go to, on one hand, to seek to regain access to their children, particularly to try and bring them back here to Australia, and, unfortunately, on the other hand, to make sure that the other party doesn't get access to the children. That whole area where it intersects with international law and different legal systems is something that is complex, and any improvement is definitely welcome. The amendments to the International Arbitration Act 1974 specify expressly the meaning of 'competent court' for the purpose of model law, clarify procedural requirements for the enforcement of an arbitral award, modernise provisions governing arbitrators' powers to award costs in international commercial arbitrations, and clarify the application of confidentiality provisions to arbitration subject to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law. The final two areas are amendments to the Marriage Act 1961, which remove some outdated concepts and ensure consistency with the Family Law Act in relation to parental consent for the marriage of minors. Technical amendments of minor policy significance will also be made to improve the operation of the Commonwealth Marriage Celebrants Program. Some of these will obviously need to be interfaced with the changes to the celebrants categories that were passed last year. For those who don't recall, the Senate select committee that looked at marriage celebrants found over a year ago now—in fact we reported about this time a year ago—that people had assumed there were just civil celebrants. In actual fact there are a number of different categories of celebrants. That Senate select committee made the recommendation to create the new category of 'religious marriage celebrants' for those people who were the ministers of small congregationally governed churches who weren't recognised as a denomination by the Attorney-General's Department. A new category was created to allow those people to have the same religious freedom protections that were provided to ministers of religion, given that, in practice, those people only fell within the civil celebrant category because they weren't recognised by the Attorney-General's Department even though, for all intents and purposes, they were operating within the guidelines and strictures of their particular faith group. So these changes would need to be cognisant of the amendments that were made last year. Finally, there are the amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, which Senator Bernardi referred to, which remove the ability for women to be discriminated against in connection with employment, engagement or appointment in Australian Defence Force positions involving combat duties. That's an interesting discussion, and it is controversial. But I would note, for those who have missed this point, that around half of Australia's population is made of men and around half is made of women, and if you limit the ability of one-half of your population to do a certain role then you potentially limit the efficacy of your force. What we have seen during my 20-odd years in the full-time military and another three years in the active Reserve as a pilot—I was involved with the Army Aviation Corps—is that we have gone from being what was essentially called a service corps to an arms corps. I note that Senator Molan is also a badged Army pilot, so I'm very pleased to have in this chamber two of us who have worn the blue beret and the Army aviator's badge. Senator Molan, welcome. An arms corps has, along with armour, infantry and artillery, the sorts of roles that people traditionally associate with combat or fighting. Army Aviation Corps also became an arms corps, but we have a number of women—and that number of women has increased—who are pilots, loadmasters, engineers and other professions within the world of aviation. They have operated both in Australia and overseas on operational deployments, and the reports that I have received indicate that they, to the same or greater or lesser extent as men, have operated effectively in those roles. Whether that equates to somebody with a rifle and a bayonet, I will leave others to argue. I come back to the basic premise, which I apply to politics and any sphere of life: if somebody is willing and capable, without lowering the standards, and able to meet the competence requirements then I don't have a problem. But I do have a problem with quotas or programs that are specifically aimed at trying to raise one particular part of our population, if it means that the standards that have been recognised for some time as being required to do the job are lowered. In that regard, I agree with Senator Bernardi that if political correctness drives us to bring in standards that are different just to achieve a quota, that is wrong ethically and it's wrong in terms of the management of a defence force. However, if somebody is capable, willing and able to do the task to the required standard with the same amount of training and support that any other person has, then I don't think their gender necessarily should disqualify them. My experience in the aviation world—after flying specifically for the Army for a number of years and still as an Army pilot—is that I went to work for the Royal Australian Air Force at the Aircraft Research and Development Unit. We had flight test engineers as well as experimental test pilots who were women. It would be fair to say that they did the job as well as any of the men. In fact, in a couple of cases, I could say they were even more diligent, because they recognised that they had some things to prove. They were competent in their role and were fantastic contributors to the unit and its outcomes. I do note also that in 2006, when I was in the north Arabian Gulf on board one of the American command ships, a legal officer, who was giving direction and guidance to the admirals who were running the war effort, was a young woman from the Royal Australian Navy. Women are going to sea with increasing regulatory in a range of roles from seamen officers to legal or medical specialists and providing services in that environment which could be considered a combat environment, and doing it very well. I will conclude that section with the comment, again, that if they are willing to do it, if they can do it without any special conditions in terms of lowering of the standards and the same degree of support, I think that is something that we should be open to, whilst agreeing with Senator Bernardi that politically-correct-driven programs are not necessarily beneficial for the organisation. The Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee did consider this piece of legislation. I was a member of that committee with my colleague Senator Macdonald, who was the chair. We considered this and reported in May of 2017, and we came up with five recommendations on the basis of the inquiry and the half-a- dozen or so submissions that we had received. The first recommendation was that the bill be amended to reflect the recommendation of the Law Council in relation to proposed bankruptcy amendments. The second was that the committee recommends that the bill be amended to amend the Family Law Act of 1975 to include a defence of fleeing from family violence, to ensure that the existing and proposed offences of unlawful removal and retention of children abroad do not apply in circumstances of family violence. Having made that recommendation, I recognise the fact that this is a very vexed issue, with claims being made around violence, some of which are substantiated. People who perpetrate that should be ashamed of their actions and the impact they have, the trauma they cause, particularly to children, if they're involved in that situation. But we also see evidence where there are vexatious claims made in order to gain standing in legal proceedings. Senator Brandis was doing a review of family law, and this is an area where I trust that the experts from the legal community and others who have input into that review will help us find a model of legal intervention in these dreadful cases whereby we can bring justice to those who need it quickly but we can also protect those who have suffered from vexatious claims in this area of domestic violence. The third recommendation was that the bill be amended to amend the Family Law Act of 1975 to include a defence of consent to ensure that the existing and proposed offences of unlawful removal and retention of children abroad do not imply in circumstances where written consent has not been given but where there is oral consent or another form of consent. Obviously, there was significant discussion around what kind of evidence and record is required of that. The fourth recommendation was that the committee recommends that the bill be amended to amend the Family Law Act 1975 to limit arrest powers and use of force so that they apply only to employees of the Australian Border Force that have received appropriate training. I think that's fairly straightforward and obvious. The fifth recommendation was that, subject to the previous recommendations, the committee recommends that the Senate pass the bill. I commend the bill to the Senate. The intent is to simplify and to streamline, and to make processes more accessible and just for people and, as Senator Bernardi talked about, removing an obstacle in terms of the Sex Discrimination Act. Again, I welcome the fact that we remove an obstacle on the condition that somebody is willing, competent and meets the standards. If it is purely to enable a politically correct agenda, where standards are lowered just to meet a quota, then that's an outcome I don't support. I commend the bill to the Senate. 20:35 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia I rise to speak on the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017, which is an omnibus bill intended to make a number of minor, technical and uncontroversial amendments to improve the operation and clarity of a number of pieces of civil justice legislation. Coincidentally, the bill amends the Marriage Act and the Sex Discrimination Act. When this bill was introduced to the chamber last year, my former colleague Senator Kakoschke-Moore saw it as an opportunity to annexe Senator Dean Smith's marriage equality bill. Her amendment to this bill would have spared the LGBTIQ community the indignity of a very divisive postal survey campaign. Unfortunately, the Senate did not support her courage and conviction to bring on the bill last August and debate those amendments. Instead, this parliament was intent on playing Pontius Pilate politics and throwing the lives and love of the LGBTIQ community on the mercy of the Australian people. Thankfully, Australia rose to the occasion and the result was an overwhelming yes for marriage equality. Whilst this bill is essentially non-controversial, schedule 6 makes numerous changes to the Family Law Act. This required referral to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report. I thank the committee for the diligence in which they undertook examination of schedule 6. The Nick Xenophon Team is broadly supportive of the measures contained within the schedule, which are intended to strengthen Australia's response to international parental child abduction; to clarify a range of persons who may perform the powers of the registry managers in the Family Court of Australia or any other court exercising family law jurisdiction; to improve the consistency of financial and other provisions for de facto and married couples; to assist the operation of the family law courts; and to make minor and technical amendments to the various provisions of the Family Law Act. The measures relating to international child abduction include the introduction of new offences for the wrongful retention of a child overseas, in addition to the existing offences for the wrongful removal of a child from Australia where parenting orders have been made or proceedings for such orders are pending; the application of extended geographical jurisdictions to the new offences and existing offences in the Family Law Act for the wrongful removal of a child; rules for the making of arrests under the Family Law Act; and extending the category of eligible people who can apply to the Family Court for location orders. The Nick Xenophon Team is broadly supportive of the proposed measures. The new offences proposed in the bill appear to implement in part previous recommendations or advice of the Family Law Council of the then government in 2011 and 2012 about measures to strengthen Australia's legal response to international parental child abductions. The new proposed offences are also broadly consistent with the recommendations of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee in its 2011 inquiry into international child abduction to and from Australia. Each year, approximately 125 children are unlawfully removed from Australia. In many cases, children are removed to non-Hague Convention countries where there is next to no legal recourse for the parent who has lost their child or children. We all remember the infamous case of the four sisters born and raised in Italy to an Italian father and their Australian mother who, in 2010, brought the sisters to Queensland under the guise of a four-week holiday. When seeking assistance from the Australian embassy, the mother reportedly told staff she was fleeing an abusive husband. Then in 2012, in defiance of orders to return to Italy to resume a shared custody arrangement with their father, the mother hid the children with the assistance of family. Ultimately, the children were returned to Italy to live with their father where they remain to this day. The mother never faced charges for unlawfully keeping the children in Australia. Indeed, Justice Forrest insisted on an undertaking from the girls' father that he would not pursue the mother in Italy for child abduction, despite warnings that an undertaking against prosecution may not be legally binding across borders. The custody battle and media storm surrounding the family is a salient reminder to parents to pursue a relocation case through the courts instead of risking the damaging and unlawful actions of child abduction. Children have a right to a meaningful relationship with both parents. This is in the best interests of the child. This is enshrined in the Family Law Act but, unfortunately, too many parents are so caught up in parental conflict that they lose sight of what matters most—the health and wellbeing of their children. Some here may also remember Sally Faulkner's desperate attempt to retrieve her children from Lebanon during the ill-fated snatch-and-grab with 60 Minutes in 2016 after her husband unlawfully retained their children also on the proviso of a holiday. Lebanon is also not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and, despite Ms Faulkner obtaining court orders in Australia pertaining to the children, her ex-husband will never face justice for unlawfully retaining the children, aged just six and three at the time. I cannot fathom how a father like Ali Elamine can look into the innocent eyes of his children and deny them their loving mother. To break the bond between parent and child is unspeakable and will cause his children lasting psychological harm, and evidence shows will affect their ability to form and maintain ongoing relationships. In our modern age, those children will no doubt reconnect with their mother through social media. But you can't hug a computer. The damage done through forced separation is reckless and irresponsible. Whilst we support the proposed measures, we remain sceptical that parents who seek to alienate children from the other parent will ever face justice. Nevertheless, we agree it is important to tighten the current provisions so that we can have stronger, more robust enforcement in relation to international child abductions. 20:42 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I also rise to make a contribution on the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. This bill, as some other senators have mentioned, is an omnibus bill which will amend a number of acts, including the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, the Archives Act 1983, the Bankruptcy Act 1966, the Domicile Act 1982, the Evidence Act 1995, the Family Law Act 1975, the International Arbitration Act 1974, the Legislation Act 2003, the Marriage Act 1961 and the Sexual Discrimination Act 1984. The bill largely makes minor and technical amendments to these acts in order to modernise, simplify and clarify these pieces of legislation and also to repeal some redundant provisions within these bills. The combined effect of these amendments would be to improve the efficiency and operation of the civil justice system. I regard, in aggregate, these amendments to be largely uncontroversial, although we have seen some commentary by other senators on particular small aspects of the omnibus bill already this evening. One of the objectives of this bill is to make all Commonwealth legislation coherent, readable and accessible to the widest possible audience. To this end, the bill will amend the Acts Interpretation Act and the Legislation Act to clarify the validity of ministerial acts and the management of compilations of legislation on the Federal Register of Legislation. This is a very important part of this omnibus bill. In this place, we pass an awful lot of laws, and some of them, by design, are quite complex. When we're dealing with complex matters, that is unavoidable. But it's our duty as parliamentarians to make sure that the laws that we pass are as accessible and understandable as possible for as many Australians as possible. The reason we have an obligation to do so is that, for any citizen of this country, ignorance of the law is no defence. It is no excuse in any proceedings that might be brought against them. Because there are so many laws and because many of those laws are so complicated, it's quite a task for an average citizen to know what is lawful and what is unlawful. As far as possible, it is incumbent upon us to make sure that these laws are understandable and accessible. I'm sure the government would concede that this amendment in this omnibus bill doesn't complete that task. It only begins that task, and it's a task of quite some magnitude, but I'm very pleased to see that it is a feature of this omnibus bill. It is a principle that I think we should strive to uphold more often in this place if we can. Amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and the Legislation Act 2003 would clarify the validity of ministerial actions and the operation of provisions about the management of compilations prepared for the Federal Register of Legislation. Amendments to the Archives Act 1983 would provide the National Archives of Australia with an enhanced ability to appropriately manage high-volume applications requesting access to records and make other minor technical amendments, including repealing outdated provisions that do not reflect the Archives' current services or technological advances. Australia has an almost peerless National Archives system. It is vital not just to the proper functioning of government but also to the work of future historians in cataloguing why decisions were made and how they were made and, of course, to a public understanding of the law and activities of government. An updated, technologically literate version of the Archives Act is a worthy task. Amendments to the Bankruptcy Act 1966 would clarify that the Family Court of Australia has bankruptcy jurisdiction when a trustee applies to have a financial agreement set aside under the Family Law Act. An amendment to the Domicile Act 1982 would amend the act so that it applies to territories currently specified in the Domicile Regulations 1982. An amendment to the Evidence Act 1995 would update the presumption about when postal articles sent by prepaid post are received, to accord with changes to Australia Post delivery times. Amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 would strengthen Australia's response to international parental child abduction; clarify the range of persons who may discharge the powers of registry managers in the Family Court of Australia; improve the consistency in the application of provisions for de facto and married couples; and update the arrest, entry and search powers under the act and add additional safeguards for the exercise of these powers. The bill would also make minor and technical amendments to the Family Law Act to clarify definitions and remove redundant provisions. I recognise Senator Griff's thoughtful contribution on this aspect of the debate earlier. The details that he was sharing of forced family separation and, particularly, the separation of children from their parents in an unnecessary way were particularly moving and should be on the minds of all of us as we contemplate these amendments. Amendments to the International Arbitration Act 1974 would specify expressly the meaning of a 'competent court' for the purpose of the model law; clarify procedural requirements for enforcement of an arbitral award; modernise conditions governing arbitrators' powers to award costs in international commercial arbitrations; and clarify the application of confidentiality provisions to arbitration subject to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Rules on Transparency in Treaty-based Investor-State Arbitration. Amendments to the Marriage Act 1961 would remove outdated concepts and ensure consistency with the Family Law Act in relation to parental consent for the marriage of minors. Technical amendments of minor policy significance would also be made to improve the operation of the Commonwealth marriage celebrants program. The register of overseas marriages would also be reinstated, remedying a defect in the existing legislation. Finally, an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 would repeal section 43 of that act to remove the ability for women to be discriminated against in connection with employment, engagement or appointment in Australian Defence Force positions involving combat duties. I wasn't in the chamber earlier when Senator Bernardi made comments on this issue. I did hear briefly Senator Fawcett's contribution here and I won't make extensive comments myself, because I have a sneaking suspicion that my friend and colleague Senator Reynolds may do so herself, and she's in a much more qualified position to comment than I am, given her very honourable service to this nation in uniform, like many thousands of women in our Defence Force who've given very honourable service. But it seems to me that a very important Liberal principle is at stake here, and that is that no-one should be discriminated against on the basis of totally irrelevant considerations. No-one would argue that anyone, male or female, should be appointed to a position in the Defence Force or anywhere else where they are not suitably qualified for that position. But surely we would all agree that anyone who is qualified shouldn't be prevented from doing so on the basis of an irrelevant characteristic such as their gender or, in fact, any other irrelevant characteristic. In my very brief engagements in my time here in this place with the Australian Defence Force through the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Program, I have been consistently impressed by the very high quality and calibre of men and women that I've dealt with, and I don't see any reason why anyone who meets the physical, mental and other tests required to fulfil a position should be prevented from doing so. So I look forward very much to Senator Reynolds's contribution to this debate. 20:51 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania It's a pleasure to join my colleagues in making a brief contribution to this debate on this particular piece of legislation, the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. As many of my colleagues have already outlined, it does cover a great breadth of policy and legislative areas. It being an omnibus bill, that's its very nature, so a broad range of topics is covered: everything from the Acts Interpretation Act and mechanical legislation like that to the Archives Act, which I'll touch on a bit later on; the Bankruptcy Act; the Domicile Act; the Evidence Act; the Family Law Act, which I think is probably the most significant component of this legislation, at least on my reading of matters in this bill so far; the International Arbitration Act 1974; the Marriage Act; and the Sex Discrimination Act, about which I too caught part of Senator Griff's contribution to the debate. As Senator Paterson said, he made some very thoughtful contributions to the debate on that issue. Yes, the key underpinning principle of what's to be achieved here is to streamline legislation to ensure that the laws that are passed in this place and the regulations that bind the Australian community are as streamlined and as easy to navigate as possible. Omnibus bills like this one are designed to clean up a whole range of technical and specific elements of varied and very different pieces of legislation. As I said, the one that I took a great deal of interest in was the set of amendments relating to the Family Law Act 1975, which, as has already been explained, would strengthen our nation's response to international parental child abduction, clarify the range of persons who may discharge powers of registry managers in the Family Court et cetera. It would improve the consistency in the application of provisions for de facto and married couples, as others have already described. Family law matters are a very sensitive area of the law. It is something that impacts on a great many Australian families, unfortunately. And parental child abduction is probably one of the worst things, up there with child sexual abuse. Other contributors to this debate have highlighted recent and prominent examples of parental abduction of children, and reading the stories of those particular cases is nothing short of distressing, I have to say. In doing a bit of research on the issue of parental abduction of children, I did come across one report which has been referred to in the media and is by an individual by the name of Professor Marilyn Freeman. It examined the impacts on families: the parents, both the abducting parent and the parent known as the 'left-behind' parent; and, of course, the child or children who were the subject of the abduction. It goes through the causes and the paths that lead to these instances of abduction and the impacts that these sets of events have on each of those individuals. No-one can deny that navigating the family law system in our country is a difficult thing for a number of reasons, not only because it is a difficult administrative system but because the very nature of family law matters are that they are emotionally distressing. So, you're battling with emotional issues at a time when you're trying to navigate the law courts and deal with lawyers and opposing counsel et cetera. It is a very difficult thing to do. Add in, as Senator Griff said a little earlier on, trying to navigate the systems and the laws that apply in foreign nations which aren't signatories to the conventions that relate to our rights of the child, parental abductions and how our law system here in Australia deals with it, and that makes it almost impossible. Taking into account the emotional distress and the already incredibly high level of difficulty around navigating the administrative side of our legal system when it comes to family law, not having cooperating partner nations where children have been abducted to makes it very, very difficult. I'm sure many of us have had individuals in our communities who've shared experiences when it comes to family law matters. Thankfully, I'm pleased I've not had the misfortune of hearing the distressing stories of locals who've experienced this particular crime, but I'm sure it has happened in Tasmania. If we can go some way to addressing the difficulties that these people face by amending laws, making it slightly easier for the system to operate and for these people to get the outcome they need and for justice to be done, I think that is a good thing. As I said, the whole process does cause emotional distress for the children, who have their whole lives ahead of them. Who knows what the impact will be? This study by Professor Freeman does go into a little about that: talking about the confusion, the self-hate and other consequences of having been the victims of this crime and how that plays out in their adult lives; the impact on the left-behind parent; and also the ramifications for the abducting parent as well. There is a huge amount of distress there and, as I said, I'm pleased to see that this bill will go—probably in a very small way—some way to alleviating some of the difficulty people encounter when dealing with the family law system. On the Archives Act, changing topic and pace for a little bit: I am a bit of a history buff myself. I am particularly passionate about local history, and anything that we can do to preserve our historical records right across this country of ours is something that should be commended. We have one of the best collections of historical records in this country, managed so ably by the National Archives, who are doing an amazing job of digitising those collections. I think it is commendable to assist organisations like that, and other smaller organisations as well, to deal with the management of these valuable documents and associated items. History, of course, is critical to us as a nation. It tells us our story and there are things we can learn from it, things we may have forgotten as a nation. In fact, I recall the occasion in Tasmania in recent years when a retired law librarian, the Supreme Court librarian in Hobart, Dorothy Shea, stumbled upon a 200-year-old document from pre-Federation, outlining many of the acts and laws that applied at the time when Tasmania was known as Van Diemen's Land. Senator Seselja HZE They were the days! Senator DUNIAM 263418 They were the days! I long for those days! No, actually I'm happy with Federation. I think Senator McKim would agree with me that 12 senators from Tasmania are a wonderful thing to have. Senator McKim interjecting— Senator DUNIAM 263418 I've deviated now. Senator Seselja HZE Amongst other things! Senator DUNIAM 263418 Amongst other things. As I said, here we have an example from the Supreme Court of Tasmania. Some documents were sitting around in a dingy storeroom on Salamanca Place—a beautiful part of town, but probably no place for incredibly important documents. They were on velum, animal skin, so probably very sensitive to the elements, and they were just sitting around. I'm pleased we have legislation which deals with the management of these incredibly important documents, pieces of our history. Once pieces of history are lost, they're gone forever. You can't get them back. They didn't make carbon copies and they didn't have photocopiers in 1839. So I'm pleased to see that this legislation does contain elements that relate to archives management and that's why I'm so pleased to support this legislation in every element that it touches on. I commend the bill to the Senate. 21:01 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I too rise to talk about the Civil Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Bill 2017. As a Liberal, I know that all of us on this side of the chamber share and value the freedoms of thought, worship, speech and association. They are absolutely fundamental to our own democracy and absolutely foundation principles of our party. But so, too, is equality of opportunity. On this side of the chamber we do believe—all of us, as a core value—in the equality of opportunity for all Australians. Listening to Senator Bernardi tonight I was, unfortunately, in the chair and it would have been highly inappropriate for me to make any comment. Now that I can, I want to say to Senator Bernardi: shame on you! Shame on you for your comments this evening. To come into this place in this day and age, when we have over 400 women serving overseas, and say what you did shames us all, and it is certainly not in line with our fundamental principle of equality of opportunity. For a senator and somebody who was a member of the Liberal Party to come in here and argue for keeping entrenched discrimination in the Sex Discrimination Act, simply for the fact of someone's gender, is a complete and utter disgrace. I'd like to share with this place why I think it is so appalling. The senator may have been somewhat flippant in his comments but he could not have chosen a topic more insulting or demeaning not only to all of our women who now serve in uniform but to all those young women who want to put their hand up. They have a look at the women who've now graduated as fighter pilots. They look at the women who are putting themselves forward to serve in combat roles. Senator Bernardi, I'd say this to you: yes, men and women are different, but hallelujah for that! Throughout all of my career I've had to fight to show—as, I'm sure, has every woman in this place—that difference is not less; to demonstrate the fact that as women we can do things just as well as any man. We do things just as well because we're women, Senator Bernardi, not in spite of the fact that we are women. Again, you seem to think that service in our military is all about brute force. I can tell you that the men and women that I have had the pleasure and the honour to serve with and friends of mine who are still serving, as well as some of the young women I've had the pleasure of meeting in this job, do not deserve your comments this evening. They are some of our brightest and most capable. Service for men and women is not just about brute strength, as you said. It is about courage. It is about loyalty. It is about team work. It is about leadership. And all of those qualities are equally held by women as they are by men. As Senator Bernardi said, it is not about breaking men or women. For him to come in here and say that and trot out some claptrap from unnamed sources degrades us all. I want to share some statistics with Senator Bernardi in particular and anybody else who might want to trot out his—I was going to say 'unconscious bias' but I think it was very deliberate—bias. Fifty-one per cent of our population are women; 51 per cent of our talent are women. For the future of our Defence Force and the security of our nation, we need more women to bring the depth and breadth of their talents into the Defence Force. Yes, we might do it a bit differently than men sometimes but, again, that is a good thing, Senator Bernardi; it is not something to be ridiculed in this chamber. So let's have a look at some of the facts. Last year, 17 per cent of the ADF was comprised of women. There is a lot more talent out there to be had, and I think the defence forces are increasing that percentage in a very considered and a very sensible way. Entry standards have not been reduced. It is still about the quality of a person's intellect and their character, their merit and their ability to serve. Last year, 95 per cent of applicants for combat roles were men but five per cent were women and this year, I understand, it's eight per cent who are women. So far from what Senator Bernardi said—that women can't do combat roles or they don't want to do combat roles—of course women can do and are doing combat roles. Women will keep putting their hands up for combat roles, maybe never in exactly the same numbers as men, and we should be applauding and congratulating those who give it a go and those who get there, and not ridicule them. The Defence Force and, I know, the minister have a very sound policy of not highlighting women in these roles for very good reasons. I think Senator Bernardi tonight has shown us exactly why their privacy is protected from those people in the community, and sadly here in the Senate today, who would say to them, 'You are not good enough because you are a woman.' So I congratulate all of those women whose names, faces and identities we will probably never know. It is for all of those women that this has to be repealed, and the words of Senator Bernardi cannot go unanswered. Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, the Chief of Army, was quoted as saying he wanted to see more women, more culturally and linguistically diverse people and more Indigenous Australians serving in our Army. It was not for any quota or politically correct reason that Senator Bernardi seemed to suggest but because he wants the best and most talented Australians to serve their nation in the Army. I couldn't agree more with the Chief of Army. I also agree with the previous Chief of Army, David Morrison, who said, 'The standard you walk past is the standard you accept.' Today in the Senate I heard words and a standard that I could not possibly walk past or ignore in this place. Too many women for too long in the military and in the Army have had to put up with people expressing opinions like that not just in the workplace, maybe in their families, but also from politicians. As I said, it may have been somewhat flippant but it should not have been said, and I just hope that his comments tonight do not go much further than this because it is just wrong. I hope, Senator Bernardi, you have heard my comments here tonight and I will be happy to have a talk to you about them afterwards. But as I said, we on this side of the chamber, like those opposite, do believe in a just and humane society. We all share those values in this place. The importance of family and respect for the rule of law are paramount and must always be maintained, and this omnibus bill that is before the Senate today does just that. As we've heard from many of our colleagues expanding on the brilliance of archives, the way we do our archival activities and the many other things that this bill changes are all very important. This bill is designed, across a number of bills, to protect the rule of law and ensure that justice is always maintained. Through this bill, I commend the government and also those opposite for their comments and their contributions to this bill this evening because I think it does make the right decisions and take the right steps to ensure that our Commonwealth legislation is coherent, readable and accessible to the widest possible audience so that it can be consistently applied and easily understood. As all of us in this chamber know, it can quite often be very challenging to actually read and see consistency across legislation, and certainly it is not always easily understood. This omnibus bill will improve the operation and clarity of our civil justice legislation by modifying, simplifying and clarifying existing provisions and, wonderfully, repealing redundant provisions to strengthen and ensure our democracy has all the necessary and appropriate safeguards and legislative instruments to ensure that our country remains equitable and just for all—nothing more so than the move out of the Sex Discrimination Act to remove positive discrimination against women simply for the fact that they are women. I do applaud the government and those opposite for supporting this. The bill consists of 10 schedules with amendments to 10 separate pieces of Commonwealth legislation that will ensure we have a strong, just and equitable justice system and a legal framework in this country. I note Senator Macdonald's comments earlier this evening about the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee inquiry into this omnibus bill and its report that it tabled last year. It was pleasing to see that there was support for the bill and that the government has taken up the amendments as recommended by the committee. Some of the impacts, in addition to the ones where I've been so critical of Senator Bernardi tonight, include amendments to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and the Legislation Act 2003. This bill will amend the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and the Legislation Act 2003 to clarify the validity of ministerial actions and the operation of provisions about the compilations prepared for the Federal Register of Legislation. Probably most people listening to this at this time of night might not exactly find it very exciting. But again, in this place it is important. I won't go through the Archives Act amendments because Senator Moore has gone through those very well and explained them with her passion for archival activities of this chamber. But I do support the amendments to the Bankruptcy Act 1996 to clarify that the Family Court of Australia has bankruptcy jurisdiction when a trustee applies to have a financial agreement set aside under the Family Law Act—again, something not significant to all Australians. But for those going through that court and being impacted by this decision, it is a good thing for them. This bill will update the Evidence Act such that the presumption in relation to when postal articles sent by prepaid post are received is in accordance with changes to Australia Post delivery times. Again, it is not necessarily something that those listening will get too excited about. But for those who still do use and rely on Australia Post, you will know that this is actually an important amendment. And others in this chamber tonight, including Senator Griff, have so eloquently talked about the Family Law Act amendments. I think we all support the fact that this bill strengthens Australia's response to international parental child abduction. Many of us have family members—and I've certainly got a family member—who have been devastated by having a child abducted. Any powers, including this one, that can actually assist the process for those parents of an abducted child are to be applauded. What this one does is clarify the range of persons who may discharge the powers of registry managers in the Family Court and improve the consistency in the application of provisions for de facto married couples. In addition, this bill will update the arrest, entry and search powers under the act and add additional safeguards for the exercise of those powers. Again, many people listening at this time of night will not get too excited about that, but, as Senator Griff captured so well, for those who are going through this nightmare, having increased powers, protections and processes is of comfort. I note that this bill will also make some minor technical amendments to the Family Law Act to clarify definitions and remove redundant provisions. I want to conclude where I started. I could not speak any more strongly in my support for the repeal of section 43 of the Sex Discrimination Act. It is not only an anachronism. It is a complete disgrace that it is still there in this day and age. Any young Australian woman can follow whatever profession or pursuit they want to in life, and it is not up to us or anybody else in society to tell them what they cannot do simply because they were born a girl. As I said at the start, women do things just as well as men. We might do things differently, but quite often—and I see it, time after time, on all sides of the chamber—women in this place do an amazing job. It is not in spite of the fact that we're women; women in this place do an amazing job because we are women. We have a different voice. We have a different perspective on life. Certainly diversity in this chamber is to be celebrated, as it is in the military. As I said, shame on you, Senator Bernardi! You might not have meant what you said, but the words you used and what you said tonight have a serious impact. I hope you will come in and address those comments. Debate adjourned. Export Control Bill 2017 107

Export Control Bill 2017

Second Reading 107 21:17 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania The purpose of the Export Control Bill 2017 is to streamline and consolidate existing legislation to create a new framework for regulating the export of agricultural commodities. Labor will be supporting the bill and is pleased to finally see the Turnbull government focus on policies that will benefit the agricultural sector as a whole. I also mention at this point that I will be moving a second reading amendment on behalf of the opposition. The existing agricultural export legislative framework covers primary production and export certification, consists of 17 acts and more than 40 legislative instruments, and is quite complex, duplicative and in some areas inconsistent. Further, many of the legislative instruments in the current framework are due to sunset on 1 April 2020. This new legislative framework will replace the Export Control Act 1982 and the legislative instruments such as orders and regulations. The explanatory memorandum states that the new framework will maintain the existing regulatory oversight and current regulatory outcomes while removing duplication and making export provisions consistent across commodities where possible. Further, the EM states that the new framework will be more flexible than the existing framework, enabling the Australian government to be more responsive and better able to manage changes and issues as they arise. The bill is also designed to draw upon, support and give effect to Australia's rights and obligations under relevant international agreements, including trade-related agreements. There will be no change to Australia's commitment to meet the importing country's requirements of our trading partners. The bill will consolidate existing monitoring and investigation powers into a set of provisions and adopt the monitoring investigation and enforcement powers prescribed by the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014. The development of the bill was undertaken through a consultation process, and stakeholders were able to make comment on the draft exposure of the bill. Whereas most submitters are happy with the substantive substance of the bill, many stressed the importance of ongoing consultation during the development of the rules which give effect to the operational aspect of the bill. The development of the rules will be a time-consuming exercise and will require a focused and engaging process with affected industries. The regulation impact statement highlighted implementation challenges, particularly those associated with the development of the rules. The RIS states that the rules will be developed during 2018 and 2019. Preparation of the rules will require further consultation with stakeholders in affected sectors to ensure the operational details of the legislative framework can be practically applied and that there are no unintended consequences. Drafting and consulting on the rules will require a significant time and resource commitment for the department. If resources cannot be committed or if time frames are let slip, there is a risk that the legislative framework will not be fit for purpose when the legislation commences. The key risk to implementation, the most significant risk from poor implementation of the improved legislative framework, is disruption to Australia's trade. Trade disruptions can result in immediate revenue loss, short-term loss and longer term loss of market access for Australian exports, and damage to Australia's reputation. The risks associated with the new framework are of great concern, and the new Minister for Agriculture must make this new export legislative framework a priority to ensure that Australia is not disadvantaged due to the implementation process. Further, due to the tight time lines, it is a shame that the previous agriculture minister did not focus his attention on this issue but rather forced his department to focus on his ill-thought-out pork barrel, wasting millions along the way. Grain Trade Australia noted in their submission that as part of the draft bill a significant part of the elements and issues in relation to the operational aspects of the legislation will be defined and included in the rules, which are still to be developed as part of the consultation in the implementation process. GTA has noted a number of issues that would fall into the rules and 'would urge the government to ensure that there is close consultation with industry around the rules'. Further, Grain Trade Australia stated: Thus, development of the Rules will be a critically important component of the final Legislative framework, its approval through the Parliament and its implementation. As such, we would seek to be closely involved in the Industry Consultation and development of the Rules by the DAWR and implementation of the new proposed Legislation. Further, we would seek to engage with DAWR in the development of the Rules to address industry specific issues and to identify opportunities for improved and/or enhanced processes within the Act to improve productivity and efficiency for both Industry and Government. The Red Meat Advisory Council has also raised a number of issues which they are seeking reassurance on, particularly on the development of the rules, and stated in their submission: RMAC understands that the cost of transition can be quite high. Whilst RMAC acknowledges that this will be financed not by industry cost recovery arrangements but rather via ordinary appropriations channels, there must be a clear economic benefit to making this investment given the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (DAWR) financial resourcing. They also go on to talk about the consultation: The bill is an extremely comprehensive one and every effort on behalf of industry has been made throughout to highlight any areas of risk or opportunity to the industry to DAWR. However, given the wide-ranging nature of the proposed nature of this legislative reform RMAC recommends that industry be afforded an opportunity to comment on any modified or additional measures before finalisation of this, especially the formation of any new Export Rules. … The Bill proposes giving the Minister the power to temporarily prohibit the export of goods in emergency situations; as well as modifying the roles and responsibilities of the Secretary. As an industry that witnesses immediate and economic impact from interruptions to trade any changes to legislative power of either the Minister or Secretary should have a clear system of checks and balances and no discretionary scope. This requires further consultation and clarification in order to have a system in place that works responsibly for both industry and government. As this is a critical piece of legislation, it is important that all aspects of the bill are properly assessed and stakeholders' concerns addressed. It is also important for the Senate to note that our exporters and agricultural industries are also facing challenges which lie outside the scope of this legislation. These challenges include non-trade barriers, missed opportunities, biosecurity threats, community concerns about free trade deals and labour shortages. Labor announced a number of policies last year, including to establish a joint team made up of officers from DFAT, Austrade, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Industry, to better coordinate the work the Australian government does in helping Australian businesses tackle non-tariff barriers in potential export markets. A lot of Australian businesses tell us the biggest challenge they currently face are non-tariff barriers. At the moment, responsibility for this work is broken up into a number of different government agencies. This will provide a single point of accountability. The team will work with Australian businesses on plans to address non-tariff barrier issues they face and will report to a committee of cabinet. Australia Week in China is currently held every two years. China is our biggest trading partner. Its GDP is expected to triple from $15 trillion to $45 trillion by the middle of this century. According to the government, this event generates $1 billion in export sales and $3 billion in investment. If only a fraction of this is true, it makes sense to make Australia Week in China an annual event. According to ABARES, Australia's agriculture, fisheries and forestry exports are valued at over $53 billion in 2016-17, and our products are sought after for their clean, green and safe reputation. However, without a strong biosecurity framework, this reputation will be put at risk. We see this situation currently playing out in my own state of Tasmania. The export ban to Taiwan is not good for our growers. Sadly, the state Minister for Primary Industries and Water, Mr Jeremy Rockliff, said the closure of the Taiwanese market would have little impact for our growers, claiming that 'only around six per cent of fruit remains on trees and only a small amount of fruit goes to Taiwan'. This lacklustre response does nothing to reassure me that the government is in control of the fruit-fly risk for Tasmania. Further, the reputational damage which Minister Rockliff seems to be ignoring is shocking and could have devastating long-term effects on Tasmanian growers. Finally, recent reports that growers are struggling to find seasonal workers to pick the fruit is also restricting the full potential of the agricultural sector. The ABC reported: In Tasmania, one berry farm has contacted Fruit Growers Tasmania looking for more labour after they had to leave hundreds of tonnes of fruit to rot on the ground because there was not enough pickers available. Phil Pike, business development manager for Fruit Growers Tasmania said the farmer was not alone. 'That's a challenge we're hearing from across the state' Mr Pyke said. In conclusion: Labor will support this legislation, but it is only one piece of a bigger puzzle for agriculture, fisheries and forestry to meet its full potential. The Turnbull government must lift its game and focus on real and tangible policies which will benefit the entire sector rather than wasting money on pork barrelling. I move: At the end of the motion, add: , but the Senate notes that Australian exporters and agriculture industries are facing a number of challenges relating to trade. 21:30 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland I actually concur with some of the contribution of Senator Brown. I do concur with the comments about ensuring that there is sound consultation in the process as we develop these changes around live exports. Mind you, I had anticipated having to defend this Export Control Bill 2017, but I'm very pleased it would appear that the Labor Party are supporting it. I was interested to see what contribution the Greens might make to this legislation but, as at this moment, it looks like they don't intend to participate in the debate, which I take as a positive sign that they find that the amalgamation of the features of legislation brought under one roof here to control and to manage exports is something that attracts their attention. A part of my contribution will concentrate on live exports, and particularly live exports of beef because we have a history in this space that would guide us in what it is we need to do to produce an environment where our reputation as being one of the most prudent exporters of livestock in the world is maintained. There are about 100 countries exporting live product in varying degrees of volume across borders in the world, and we in Australia are proudly at the forefront of best practice when it comes to managing the movement of livestock with our TRACE program, where we follow the livestock all the way to processing to see that world's best practices are maintained. In fact, we committed a long time ago to putting in place world's best practices and we now comply with world standards, one of the few countries that can make that declaration. Let's just go back on a little journey in relation to the live export of cattle. I was very pleased to hear my colleague from the Labor Party saying that we need to go very carefully in terms of measures that we put in place around this particular trade so as it doesn't impact on the industry and the tens of thousands of stakeholders in this country who are engaged in this industry. As we know full well, that sort of care and attention was absent in 2011 when we suspended the live cattle trade into Indonesia, bringing a billion-dollar industry to its knees overnight with no warning and no assistance to the producers who were impacted. Hundreds of thousands of head of cattle stood in the paddock with nowhere to go, nothing to eat and, of course, we all know what happened next—those cattle, for some years, were flooded onto the domestic market in Australia, suppressing prices to unprecedented low levels. I will tell the story of being at a sale soon after this where I had a neighbour who had a pen of Ford heifers and he got 58 cents per kilogram for that stock. Today, the same heifers would bring late 200 cents, perhaps 300 cents on a day when there was good wind in their sails. The price that my neighbour received for that pen of heifers just marginally covered the cost of production, transport and commission on the sale. In effect, his entire property had operated for whatever his economic period was—probably 13 or 14 months, as it is when you turn off cattle—and he and his family could declare that they made absolutely nothing as the result of an atrociously poor decision by the government of the day. That's where I share the view of the former speaker. I'm pleased to see that since 2011 the Labor Party too has come to understand the impacts that bad planning, bad legislation and bad regulation can have on an industry and the impact it can have on the families, producers and broader regional economies that rely upon this. This legislation is driven by a need. There are sunset clauses around any number of pieces of legislation that control exports. They have sunset clauses coming, I think, around 2020. In anticipation of this, a review was undertaken in 2015—a very careful review over a long period of time. It is, in part, the fruit of that review that is driving government to consider the amalgamation of various pieces of legislation so that we have, in effect, a one-stop-shop piece of legislation that governs exports, including live exports. The intent of the review was to scope for improvements in the legislation by amalgamating it, bringing it under one roof. The review sought to verify whether farmers and exporters have been supported by a piece of legislation that might be regarded as contemporary, flexible and efficient. It's my view that this piece of legislation meets that trifecta of objectives. It's significantly important. For example, the cost burden on exporters of live cattle was, as an element of cost in the production and sale of cattle, the biggest single ticket expenditure item related to costs associated with the export of the animal. One of the things that is often lost in speeches in this place is some belief that these industries themselves, almost to a man and a woman in the industry, do not strive to meet absolute world best practice with respect to the production and export of these commodities. We're not a producer on volume on almost all the commodities that we compete with in the world, and therefore we have to take an edge. Our edge is the clean, green, well-produced product and commodity that we sell to the rest of the world. We get paid a premium for that. Our farmers are amongst the best in the world. Our producers are amongst the best in the world. They compete with other countries where there are massive subsidies to farm production, to the extent that some farmers—particularly in the United States—might never plant a crop for two or three years, but make as much and sometimes more with their subsidies than had they planted in the rotational arrangement. I understand that there has been a significant process of consultation to date to develop this legislation in the form that it is, but remember that our producers and our farmers can only do so much. They can do what's within their control and they look to their governments of the day to provide them with an environment that will support them in trying to get an edge on the export of their commodities. We talk about non-tariff barriers. We can impose non-tariff barriers. We ourselves can do that here in this country. We can create an environment that impedes the good and profitable production of goods, if we're not careful. Typically, we do that with decisions of government, not just by the Commonwealth government but at the state level and, indeed, the local government level on occasions. There can be in place restrictions that are industry related. So it's significantly important that we get out of the way of our producers to allow them to do what they do best in a very challenging environment, which is to produce these high-quality products and produce—in this case, the focus of my attention, live animal exports. We need to take a feather touch; we need to stay out of their way. We need to assist them, and I think our export controls play a significant part in that. In this chamber, I think a year ago—the minister, Senator Ruston, might be able to refresh my memory with the exact date—we reformed a lot of the issues around biosecurity to enhance our reputation around the world. They're the sorts of measures that we ought to be focused on. There are those who don't ever want to see any live exports, for example, leave these shores. They don't understand the industry. They don't understand the impacts this could have on domestic production. These people don't want us to grow wheat or cotton, yet they refuse to stand naked in this place or anywhere else in their cotton clothes. They don't want to move around bare foot. They've got leather shoes on. They remind me of the story of the little red hen. There are only a few of us here—sadly, Senator Molan, you may be one of those who are old enough to remember the story of the little red hen. Do you remember the little red hen? 'Will you help me clear the scrub so I can till the land and plant some wheat?' 'No, I won't.' 'Will you help me tend the crop?' 'No, I won't.' 'Will you help me harvest the crop?' 'No, I won't,' her companion said. 'Will you help me grind the grain to turn it into flour?' 'No I won't.' 'Will you help me knead the product and turn it into a loaf of bread?' 'No, I won't.' 'Will you help me bake the bread?' 'No, I won't.' For those of you old enough to remember the tale, of course, when the bread was set on the window ledge to cool down ready for consumption, all of the people who didn't want this to happen lined up one after the other for a slice of this beautiful bread that the little red hen had produced. We have to be very careful, as we bring about legislation, that we avoid everyone but the little red hen. These people would have us not grow cotton. They would have us not export livestock. They would have us not export any commodities, because at some stage we had to disturb the land and plant the seeds and harvest, and we had a puff of smoke coming out of that dirty, filthy harvester as it took the grain off our crops ready for export to another nation. They have nothing to contribute to this debate. They have nothing to contribute to this debate and I'm pleased to see that any number of them haven't made their way onto the speakers list to make a contribution. It's significantly important that we do our job. If I can use the term 'centralising', the guidelines, the support, the measures—each of them giving equal weight to our reputation of being one of the finest producers of agricultural product in the world—can only help our exporters. The fact that we follow livestock, for example, to the point of slaughter to see that this $1.8 billion industry is done in a humane and healthy manner will eventually be one of the sharpest edges some of our exporters have, because it's a world now where those whose purchasing is transitioning from price sensitivity on consumption. My daughter-in-law had my four grandchildren convinced that apricots cut into little pieces were lollies. Thank God grandad came along and set them straight—the apricots weren't lollies—but here was a fine mother looking after the interests of her children. She wanted first of all to know about the product. She wanted to see that it didn't have hormones and didn't have traces of herbicides and pesticides. But, more recently, they're looking for the providence of the product. They're starting to look now at where it was produced and what impact it had on the environment—important questions. What were the labour arrangements around the production of this commodity, this food that I'm going to buy and reward some corporation for the production of? With things like this Export Control Bill, we will reinforce an environment where we see that these animals are kept in a very healthy state and managed in a very humane condition. It's not only about how they're produced but how they're transported, how they're moved to port, how they're loaded, how they fare on the ships, how they're received and how they're cared for at the other end, all the way to a point of humane slaughter. I've seen some of the resisters of this process, in their leather shoes and cotton trousers with their woollen coats, sitting down, hoeing into a big steak. And only the day before, of course, they were somewhere under a placard saying: 'Let's not kill animals. We shouldn't keep cattle in a yard. We shouldn't do this; we shouldn't do that.' It is significantly important that a government of the day, a government like ours, a coalition—and I will again commend the fact that Labor is joining us with respect to the passage of this bill—pays clear attention to the environment in which our goods are processed and the way in which our animals are treated, taking it all the way to the point of sale. People question live exports, for example: why don't we chill the beef? Well, there's a novel idea. Let's chill the beef and send it to Indonesia, one of our biggest trading partners where beef's concerned, a country with 250 million people where virtually nobody owns a fridge. We don't know what they're going to do with the chilled beef. Those of you who've been through Indonesia, the Philippines and many of these developing Asian neighbours we rely upon for trade relations, will know that you'll see cattle and chickens tied up under coconut trees and banana trees, and that's where they'll remain. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 That's right—that's their fridge. That's where they'll remain until such time as they are processed for personal consumption by the people in the village or a community. No longer can we say to people, 'We have a commodity,' and jam it into their marketplace on our terms. Those days have been gone for decades. Now they're looking for the providence of the product. They're looking for these issues—for the ticks around animal health care, transportation, impacts on the environment and labour arrangements for people who are working to produce these articles. They are setting very high standards to be met in the market sphere that we are in. We're not in a volume market. We are producing the best we possibly can, comparable to other points in the world, who are our competitors. We have to produce it at a competitive price because in most agricultural industries we are price takers, not price makers, particularly around beef. If you're starting to sell beef at a premium, above what commodity beef is processed as, then you need to meet all of these very high standards. Through this Export Control Bill, the government is demonstrating that it will create the environment so the producers of these articles—products, commodities, livestock—can get on with the very, very important job of competing in tough international marketplaces, producing that article for which we are so well known, that high-quality, pristine piece. I think the fact that this bill is not receiving resistance in this chamber is evidence that the people who drafted the bill and the people who conducted the review and pulled this together into one piece of legislation need to be congratulated—clearly, given we haven't got a resistance movement on the floor of this Senate. There are those who might wish it to be something else. They might wish it to be, 'We'll stop all of this sort of trade.' But the fact is they know that these measures provide a significant improvement to an already high-quality environment for the production of commodities and the export of livestock. It's a great pleasure for me to first of all thank the drafters and those staff in the minister's office, in the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources and in other departments who've been involved in the production of this. They've done a terrific job. In closing, I commend the adoption of this bill to the Senate. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 111 ADJOURNMENT Molan, Senator Andrew James 'Jim', AO, DSC 112 21:54 Senator ANDREW MOLAN FAB New South Wales I begin by saying that this is not my first speech. It is, however, my first day, and it's going really well and just gets better. A newspaper article was published today with the headline 'New Liberal Senator Jim Molan posts inflammatory anti-Muslim videos'. It was in the Sydney Morning Herald. Adam Gartrell published it at about 1.37 pm today. This article infers a sequence of events which is totally and absolutely wrong. It is duplicitous. It infers I became a senator and immediately started posting racist, anti-Muslim videos. That's certainly what the headline says. It's not true. What is being referred to here occurred roughly a year ago. I have not used Facebook for as long as I can remember. Today, when the article came out, I couldn't remember the videos themselves, but, when I saw them, I was reminded of the nature of them, and the nature of them is about violence and antisocial behaviour. I did not see them and I believe they are not anti-Islam or about racism. I say that because I am not a racist and I am not anti-Islamic as I am accused in this article. Gratuitous violence, antisocial behaviour and rioting are what I am against—not race, not Islam. Supposedly these videos were false, I'm told, because someone in the trail of activities after the videos said that they were false. To me they look to this day very real. I would invite all senators who are interested to look at these videos and judge for themselves whether in fact they have been staged, whether in fact they are faked. I've lived and worked most effectively in foreign countries, and you cannot do that if you are racist. I spent three years in Papua New Guinea. East Timor I've visited at least 20 times, spending long times there. I lived in Indonesia for five years. In the Solomon Islands I commanded the evacuation force from the Solomon Islands. I spent one year in Iraq when I ran the war in Iraq. I fought for Muslims in Iraq, and many Iraqis were alive when I left because of the actions that I took—not racist, not anti-Islam. Linking me to Britain First is absolutely absurd. President Trump brought Britain First to our attention well after I shared those two antisocial, violent videos. Supposedly, according to this article, I commented somewhere that this situation is unbelievable. I find violence such as this, even though I'm a soldier and I have lived and worked in a violent world, totally unbelievable. Supposedly I'm asked to apologise for being antiviolent? Bizarre. A tweet appeared today under the name of 'McKim' saying I was a blatant racist, saying that I bragged about the cruelty of offshore detention, saying that I revel in trampling rights and freedoms. These allegations are totally untrue and should be withdrawn. I've spent all my life working cross-culturally across races and across religions. I've had many Muslim friends during periods of incredibly intense conflict, periods of incredibly intense tension for me and my Muslim friends over many years in many places, and I have been effective. I and others have done more for the most basic human right that exists, and that is the right to be alive—a right which was not granted, in particular, to 1,200 refugees who drowned at sea. As I said before, many people were alive in Iraq when I left because of my actions, and I suspect that I have made a greater contribution to the human rights of many people—particularly the basic human right of being alive—than many of those that criticise me. Thank you. Tasmanian Election 112 21:54 Senator SINGH M0R Tasmania I rise tonight to share with the Senate the exciting opportunity Tasmanians will have at the upcoming state election in voting for a Bec White Labor government. The Tasmanian state election has finally been called. On 3 March Tasmanians will vote on a distinct choice for the future of Tasmania. We are now faced with distinct policy differences between the major parties which will affect all Tasmanians for decades to come. One of the clearest choices will be on whether Tasmania continues to have poker machines in its pubs and clubs. It is increasingly clear that pokies, electronic gaming machines, are a blight upon Tasmania. In pubs and clubs last financial year, Tasmanians lost $110 million to pokies. In the suburb of Glenorchy in Hobart's northern suburbs, more than $20 million was lost, with almost $4.5 million coming from just one pub, the Elwick Hotel. Problem gambling has harmful impacts on people's health, their families and their jobs. Over and over we hear stories not just of people who have destroyed their own lives but of people whose addiction has cruelled the lives of others, of their families—with people losing shared savings and the family home, borrowing money from family and friends that can never be paid back, even stealing from workplaces. Everyone is hurt by pokies addiction. Yet the Tasmanian Liberals have promised to commit Tasmania to retaining pokies in pubs and clubs until at least 2043. Labor's leader, Bec White, on the other hand, has listened to the concerns of the community across Tasmania by committing a majority Labor government to phasing out pokies from pubs and clubs by 2022. Labor's policy strikes the right balance between limiting the harm of pokies while allowing adults the freedom to play them at Tasmania's existing casinos. Of course, Tasmanian Labor has recognised that pubs and clubs are not doing anything wrong by installing poker machines and so is providing a package of up to $55 million to support pubs and clubs to transition out of pokies. The combination of the phase-out of pokies with financial support for pubs and clubs will mean that the addiction to pokies can be overcome for both consumers and those businesses that feel they rely on them for their revenue. Having said that, there are a number of pubs and clubs in Tasmania that have never had pokies and don't know why other pubs are making all the fuss. They continue to exist and run a successful business just fine. But what is so disappointing is to see the Tasmanian Liberals ignoring the wishes of the majority of the Tasmanian community who want to see these pokies out of our pubs and clubs. That said, through ineptitude and disinterest Liberal governments in Hobart and Canberra over the past four years have created far more misery for Tasmanians with the appalling health crisis that is overwhelming our island home. Fixing Tasmania's health crisis has to be a key priority for whoever is elected on 3 March. Tasmanians have been left reeling from the Turnbull government's cuts to Medicare and hospitals, while the Royal Hobart Hospital redevelopment has been plagued by delays and mismanagement by the Tasmanian Liberal government. The Productivity Commission's Report on government services, on health, showed that Tasmania's ambulance response times, emergency department waiting times and triple 0 response times have all worsened under the Hodgman Liberal government. All too often we've seen ambulances ramped at the hospital entrance, not able to deliver their patients and not able to go out into the community to do their job. Meanwhile, the Tasmanian Liberal senators in this place have remained completely silent. Tasmanian Labor knows that a good health system needs to be the No. 1 priority of government. That's why Bec White is committing $560 million to get this system right. This plan will address the immediate health crisis by reducing emergency waiting times, hiring health professionals to clear the beds left in corridors, and ensuring that services such as radiology and medical imaging run on evenings and on weekends. That will allow people to move more smoothly through the hospital and, of course, free up much-needed beds. Labor will also invest much more in the lifeblood of Tasmania's health system: its people. There will be more doctors for hospitals across the state, more GPs in regional areas, more psychiatric emergency nurses for emergency departments, more nurses, more paramedics and more support staff. Labor will also invest in medical health services, a crucial health area that continues to be neglected by the Hodgman Liberal government. Labor will increase mental health beds for the Royal Hobart Hospital and also provide mental health accommodation in communities. This injection in health isn't just about getting frontline staff. Providing community support for people that need it must be crucial for an effective health system. And that includes effective and accessible support services, such as the breast cancer support services that have been championed by Denison Labor candidate Ella Haddad and supported by the Labor team. So this is a choice that Tasmanians will face. While the Liberals have cut health and failed Tasmanians, Labor will invest across the board, end the crisis and ensure that Tasmanians have the access to the health services and support that all Tasmanians deserve. But perhaps the biggest risk to our future is stalking Tasmania in the federal government's proposals to make changes to the GST. A fortnight ago the Tasmanian Treasury released the Revised estimates report 2017-18, which lists the government's proposed changes to the GST formula as a major risk to the Tasmanian state budget. The report says: … Tasmania's share of the GST could fall by $77 million under one scenario … or $168 million— under another. The report continues: Over the Forward Estimates to 2020-21, the reduction in GST revenue is $170 million equalising to the second strongest State, and $639 million equalising to the average. No-one knows the Turnbull government's preferred scenario for changing the GST formula or what impact that scenario will have on Tasmania's budget, and the Hodgman Liberal government is obviously too scared to stand up to this Turnbull government and find out. When the GST was brought in, it set up a system of allocation that was fair and was designed to ensure that all Australians get the same decent access to services that we should expect wherever we live in Australia. If the Liberals undo Howard's legacy and take money off Tasmania, then they entrench inequality and division. Tasmanians need a Premier and a Tasmanian government that will fight for Tasmanians regardless of who is in power federally. This is the choice that Tasmanians will face on 3 March. On the one hand, we have heavy forces of big business intent on taking all they can from Tasmanian communities with the Liberals locked in step behind them. On the other hand, we have Bec White's Labor, committed to restoring the health system and to fighting for the rights of Tasmanians. I hope that all Tasmanians think carefully about the future that we want for our beautiful island state. There is only one party that offers a bright future for Tasmania, and that will be in a Bec White Labor government. Queensland Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People 114 22:04 Senator BARTLETT DT6 Queensland I would like to speak tonight about matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in my own state of Queensland. I begin by reinforcing a point I made in my formal first speech upon my re-entering this chamber towards the end of last year where I began by emphasising the importance of all of us—and I include myself in that—to do a far better job of just listening to what Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are telling us. There is no one single view, of course, across Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities in Queensland but there are very clear, common themes that come forth. We would all recall throughout much of January the discussions that occurred in Queensland and elsewhere around the issue of the future of Australia Day, the nature of the 26 January and what that meant for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It is 80 years now since a major meeting of Aboriginal people declared 26 January a day of mourning. That very clear expression of those feelings of so many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people has not been recognised, has not been addressed and so continues to be voiced. I would remind the Senate of significant extensive periods of public consultation that have occurred around these issues. I can recall back in 1991 when this chamber unanimously agreed to set up the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. The initial chair was Pat Dodson—now we're all on it, I think, and have the great opportunity to learn from him being here amongst us in this Senate chamber. The latter stages of that council were chaired by the late Dr Evelyn Scott, a Queenslander with Torres Strait Islander heritage, and it operated over the course of 10 years. It had representatives from the Liberal Party, from the Labor Party, from the crossbench and so many people from a cross-section of the community. They conducted literally hundreds of consultations all around the country over 10 years and produced a report for this place which contained some core recommendations. It wasn't one of those reports with 500 recommendations; it had just six. One of those recommendations was continuing the work of reconciliation and, hopefully, we can all remember the huge surge of support amongst the Australian community when hundreds of thousands of people were involved in bridge walks of reconciliation. I remember the one in Brisbane that was probably the longest march I can recall, apart from the march against the illegal Iraq War. There is and remains huge public support for reconciliation and addressing the clearly unfinished business and major concerns of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I want to congratulate all of those who turned out on 26 January in Brisbane for the march of at least 5,000 people—up to 7,000 people, according to some estimates—from outside Queensland Parliament House across to Musgrove Park and the Jagera Centre. It was a clear recognition of the growing public desire to have this issue addressed. That Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation report included, amongst its recommendations, for all parliaments, including this one, to support the Roadmap for reconciliation that was provided to this chamber in May 2000. The Roadmap for reconciliation—again, not a particularly long document—contained back then, as an essential action: to sustain the reconciliation process; to sustain that public desire of those hundreds of thousands of Australians to make progress in this area; and for all parliaments to observe protocols and negotiate with local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander elders or representative bodies to include appropriate Indigenous ceremony into official events. This parliament and others around the country have made progress on that. The report also called for governments and organisations to establish and promote symbols of reconciliation. This would include changing the date of Australia Day to a date that includes all Australians. That was the unanimous statement and essential action from that council featuring people from across the community after 10 years of consultation provided to this parliament. And yet each year, nearly 20 years later, when people talk about how much 26 January is an inappropriate day we get such a ferocious backlash from people. We almost think like people are only just starting to mention it. But we had a 10-year consultation process. This was identified as a key thing amongst a whole lot of other areas, and yet not only has nothing happened but we're actually getting increased hostility. You wonder why Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people don't think, 'Why bother? Why bother engaging in all of these processes that this parliament itself set up?' When they tell us what they think, what their feelings are and what they believe will help in moving things forward, we respond by dismissing it out of hand or, indeed, with a volley of abuse. I certainly want to say in regard to Queenslanders that there is a growing surge of support for action. The date, 26 January, is a small thing—a symbolic thing. But, as has been clear, these symbols are important. But if we can't even act on something like that, then how can we expect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to think we are genuine in addressing some of the other major issues on a much grander scale with regard to disadvantage and discrimination, which continue to cause such difficulty? I would also like to mention tonight and to put on the record my concern as a representative of Queensland about the major problems in the Torres Strait. We've again seen reports in the last week of major damage from king tides—in this case on Yam Island. This is a problem that's been identified for many years. I would note the efforts of the member for Leichhardt, the seat that covers that area. Mr Warren Entsch, somebody I disagree with on many issues, has advocated for many years for action on this and did get some funding provided. That funding was able to construct and strengthen the sea wall on Saibai Island. But, as we've seen, that sea wall was still breached by king tides. It would have been far worse if that wall wasn't there, let me say. But that wall was again breached, and damage occurred. There are other islands, including Yam Island, and I encourage all senators—particularly those from Queensland—and anybody listening to this to look at some of the video footage and the messages from the residents themselves. It's another simple example of just listening to Torres Strait Islander people, to those who are directly affected. We can't say we don't know just because it's a long way away. It's very real to those people and it's a growing threat to them year after year. We do have programs and funding available that's meant to support regional and remote parts of Australia, and, as has been noted by others, programs specifically put up to provide funding for infrastructure for regional areas. Somehow or other, it's ended up being spent in government members' electorates in Sydney. Let's actually follow through on some of our rhetoric for once. Let's actually follow through on listening directly to what the views of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are, whether they're about addressing their perceptions about what needs to be done to move our whole nation forward together or whether they're about addressing a very real, very immediate longstanding unresolved problem for residents in the Torres Strait in the northernmost part of our country. That is something that is directly and significantly harming people's lives on those islands right now, and they need to have action taken now. DOCUMENTS 115 DOCUMENTS Tabling 115 Tabling 122