2018-02-08 45 1 0 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 8 February 2018

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:31 The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 1 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Queensland 1 09:31 The PRESIDENT I0Q I inform the Senate that I have received a letter from Senator Brandis resigning his place as a senator for the state of Queensland. Pursuant to the provisions of section 21 of the Constitution, I will shortly notify the Governor of Queensland of the vacancy in the representation of that state caused by the resignation. I table the resignation letter. DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Future Frigate Program 1 Order for the Production of Documents 1 09:32 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales The Future Frigate Program, which is the subject of this discussion, is currently undertaking a competitive evaluation process, a CEP, to select a designer/builder to deliver nine antisubmarine warfare frigates to the Royal Australian Navy and set the foundation of the Turnbull government's continuous shipbuilding plan in Australia. These are ships which will provide the Navy with critical capability that will underpin the defence of Australia into the future. The CEP is on track for the government to make a decision on the successful tenderer before the middle of 2018, enabling steel to be cut on the future frigates in 2020, creating over 2,000 shipbuilding jobs and in conformity with the government's previous commitments on this matter. In relation to the order that was agreed by the Senate on 6 February 2018, I would like to make some remarks and address some of the incorrect claims made in the preamble to the order. On 3 May 2017, then Senator Xenophon submitted a freedom of information request for documents which related to Australian industry content in the future frigate request for tender. At the time, Defence originally declined access to four documents identified as matching the scope of the FOI request on the grounds that, at the time, the procurement was at a very sensitive stage of the competitive evaluation process. At the time of the initial request, tenderers were in the tender preparation phase of the CEP. When the decision was considered again by the department, the department was evaluating the tenders. In September 2017, the Senate agreed to an order for the production of documents relating to the future frigate request for tender, for which the government claimed public interest immunity on 7 and 13 September. Advice to the Minister for Defence Industry was that release of the information at that time was not in the public interest, as it may have compromised aspects of the future frigate request for tender evaluation and may have damaged Australia's national security and defence interests and our international relations. I spoke to the Senate in relation to those matters. At the request of the FOI applicant, the FOI decision was further reviewed. Given that the substantive tender evaluation for the Future Frigate Program is now complete and the project is in the offer definition phase, Defence no longer had any objection to the disclosure of unclassified sections of the request for tender concerning Australian industry content. The documents were sent to the applicant by Defence on 25 January 2018. For the Senate's information, offer definition is a very significant opportunity for Defence to seek refinement of each tenderer's offer to increase certainty and value for money, but it doesn't permit tenderers to, for example, submit a new bid. As such, the release of the request for tender documents at that time is less sensitive. Given that the Future Frigate Program has moved into the offer definition phase, the government will now review the documents sought in the motion agreed to on 6 February 2018 and will table any documents that it is now able to. In relation to any other documentation which is also referred to in the order, I would note that the scope of the documents that were originally sought in order for production of documents numbered 449(2)(e) still requires: (e) any other documentation held by the Future Frigate project that discusses Australian Industry Capability, the partnering or use of Australian shipyards, and how Techport and other Australian facilities might be used in the program. As I stated previously in my statement to the Senate on 13 September 2017, this is a broad range of documents that, if the government were to comply with the breadth of the order, would require us to release parts of the tender responses themselves—that is, those parts of the tenderers' submitted responses that pertain to Australian industry capability and the partnering or use of Australian shipyards, all of which are held by the Future Frigate project, to use the words of the order. Clearly, the release of sensitive material of that nature could not only adversely affect the tenderers but undermine the integrity of the entire procurement process. Moreover, the information that is requested—that is, any other documentation held by the Future Frigate project—would include documents that contain sensitive information with regard to Defence's negotiating position in relation to a variety of issues, including Australian industry capability and a negotiating position of the Commonwealth government in respect of any future contract. Frankly, it does stretch credulity that a sensible person in this place would support the government being required to table our negotiating strategy partway through a competitive evaluation process—unless, of course, the outcome they seek to achieve is actually to delay the project. So I remain to be persuaded. Of course, Defence has already released large portions of the request for tender documents relating to Australian industry capabilities through the FOI process. These are available on the Defence website, and I am happy to table them here in the chamber as part of the return to order. Further, I am always happy to consider any requests, in consultation with my colleagues and in seeking advice from the department, from senators about specific documents that we may be able to release. The government is committed to absolutely ensuring that the Future Frigate Program delivers the best capability possible for the Royal Australian Navy—that is its absolute priority—while maximising Australian industry content. The frigates will be built in Australia, by Australians, with Australian steel. I reject the notion that the public interest immunity claims on behalf of the government were mistaken or unsustainable. As I've set out, the CEP and tender process is progressing, and with the change from tender evaluation to offer definition phase, as I have indicated, the risk of damage to the process has changed and that allows some additional documents to be released. I do think that it is time that everybody in this chamber got onboard, so to speak, with this important project. It's important for Navy, important for our nation and important for thousands of jobs. 09:39 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I thank the Minister for Defence for her response in relation to this matter, which is very important in terms of both the management of the $35 billion Future Frigate Program and the government's responsiveness or otherwise to Senate orders for production of documents—a key process that supports the Senate's scrutiny of public administration and expenditure. The broad outline of the minister's explanation was unsurprising, given that Senator McGrath had defended the minister on Tuesday, reaffirming the claim that the release of the documents relating to the Future Frigate Program had been against the public interest last September but that as the tender process has advanced the government will review the documents and make some sections available if appropriate. That was the government's explanation on Tuesday, and the minister has added little of substance today. Tuesday's Senate motion requiring the minister's explanation was prompted by the Defence department's release last week of almost 300 pages of the future frigates tender documentation. Those documents had originally been sought through a freedom of information request application by former Senator Xenophon in May 2017. The Defence department flatly refused the request. In August, portions of the future frigates tender documents were leaked to the media. Noting that the leaked documents contained nothing sensitive, the Senate made an order on 4 September for all unclassified portions of the tender documents to be released. Minister Payne refused the Senate's request, claiming public interest immunity. In a written statement to the President of the Senate on 7 December, the minister asserted that the release of any unclassified documents—any documents whatsoever—would damage Australia's national security and defence interests and also our international relations. This was a remarkable claim. Unclassified documents, by definition, do not contain information that if released could damage Australia's national interests. The implication: after just three days of deliberation, the minister effectively claimed that there were absolutely no unclassified documents in existence relating to the future frigates tender process. Anyone with knowledge of defence procurement would find this a most unlikely state of affairs. Alternatively, one could reasonably conclude that all unclassified documents must have suddenly and arbitrarily been reclassified to justify the minister's refusal to provide information to the Senate—an unacceptable manipulation of protective security processes and procedures. Either way, the minister's claim for public interest immunity over the entirety of the documentation was extremely questionable. The Senate considered Minister Payne's response and, rightly, did not accept it, asking her to make a detailed explanation to the Senate. On 13 September the minister gave that explanation in a 20-minute speech that made claim that the documents could not be released because the tender process was still underway. The minister stood in the Senate and effectively suggested that the sky would fall if these documents were released. She claimed that the release of any information whatsoever would undermine the integrity of the entire process. The minister also spoke at length about national security implications, claiming that the release of any information whatsoever would 'have potential to damage our national security and the defence interests of our international relations'. With that, the Senate was presented with a blanket refusal to provide any relevant documentation—not a single scrap of paper—because the minister claimed that even a single page would destroy the tender process and jeopardise national security. Successive governments have, of course, claimed public interest immunity in response to Senate orders for production, but this was unquestionably one of the most sweeping. It was also a particularly bold claim given that the documents in question were still subject to a separate FOI process initiated by former Senator Xenophon, a process that's significantly subject to independent review. Notwithstanding the many deficiencies in the current operation of our FOI laws, some 300 pages were eventually released by the Defence department, thanks to pressure exerted by the information commissioner of the initial access refusal by Defence. Confronted with the information of the commissioner's assessment that many of Defence's claims for exemption from release were quite unsustainable, the department folded its cards and surrendered the material. This release, despite the future frigates tender still being underway, shows folly in the minister's argument. That process has not finished yet, and the minister knows it. The fact that the tender process has moved from one phase to another is beside the point, and it was never a valid claim for either the initial blanket refusal of Senator Xenophon's FOI application or the minister's refusal to provide documents to the Senate. The minister's claim that circumstances have now changed since September is quite bogus, nor has the sky fallen in with Defence's release of the documents. What those documents do show is the real reason for the government's refusal to provide relevant information to the Senate. The one upside of the minister's bogus claim is that it shows how easily a government can make a flawed claim of harm to national security or harm to international relations, threshold criteria for the criminal prosecution of journalists under the new secrecy laws that the government is attempting to have passed through this parliament. As mentioned, part of the tender documents were published by The Advertiser in August last year. Tory Shepherd wrote up the story. Under the proposed laws, Tory could have faced prosecution just for doing her job. Why? It is not because what she published was in any way damaging to national security or international relations but because she had exposed bad policy. The minister had determined for convenience only that the documents were of harm. There can be no starker example of why the proposed secrecy laws should not be passed in their current form. I will now move to the substance of the documents denied to the Senate. The documents now reluctantly released by the department reveal the fact that, contrary to the claims of both the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Industry, Mr Pyne, Australia's defence industry has been given short shrift in the $35 billion Future Frigate shipbuilding program. The released documents reveal nothing short of a massive policy failure. Australian shipbuilders have been effectively barred from any lead role in the program and the Defence department has set Australian industry participation at a measly 50 per cent minimum. It is no surprise that government wished to prevent or at least delay the release of this information. The tender, read in its totality, makes it very clear that the three overseas tender respondents—BAE of the United Kingdom, Fincantieri of Italy and Navantia of Spain—need to demonstrate that they can come to Australia, carry out a build in a government supplied shipyard, control the workforce and take responsibility for the entire build process. The tender states this: Tenderers should be aware that the Commonwealth has selected the Tenderers on the basis of their Reference Ship Designs and their ability to undertake the design and build of the Ships. As such, the Commonwealth’s expectation is that the core design work relating to the Ships and the management and supervision of build activities will be undertaken by the successful Tenderer (or its Related Bodies Corporate) and not subcontracted to a third party entity. In particular, while the successful Tenderer may decide to engage a Subcontractor to provide shipbuilding labour resources, the Commonwealth expects the successful Tenderer (or its Related Bodies Corporate) to personally and directly manage and supervise the workforce and, in particular, the shipbuilding activities. This is nothing short of a stab in the back for Australian shipbuilders. In effect, ASC and Austal have been excluded from the role of shipbuilder in that program. Instead, the government has invited a foreign ship designer into the country and will provide them with a taxpayer funded shipyard to build the future frigates. ASC and Austal may be the subcontractors but they will not be the shipbuilders, and the successful foreign tenderer will eventually go on to compete with those Aussie companies. Contrary to the government's announced intention to push defence exports, statements in the tender and the intellectual property terms also make it clear that building a shipbuilding export capability is not part of Defence's game plan. On evidence provided to a Senate committee on the future of Australia's naval shipbuilding industry last September, this approach will cost Australia many thousands of export related jobs. The approach revealed in the tender documents is consistent, however, with Defence's view in their export strategy paper that defines Australian business as 'a business with an ABN'. You can't define an Australian company as one that turned up and registered for an ABN. We need to recognise and support those Australian companies that have been here for years, companies that have invested locally, employed Australians and skilled those Australians, and that are developing their own products and intellectual property. ASC and Austal are both in that category. The tender documents also reveal that the federal government has set Australian industry participation for the Future Frigate Program at a minimum of only 50 per cent. I quote from the tender. It says: The Air Warfare Destroyer Program has achieved Australian contract expenditure in the order of 50% across the whole Program. While the Commonwealth acknowledges there are significant differences between the Air Warfare Destroyer Program and this Project, the Commonwealth expects that this Project will achieve the same or higher level of Australian contract expenditure. Defence industry minister Pyne is certainly the 'Incredible Shrinking Man' when it comes to Australian industry participation in major Defence projects. First he was the '90 Per Cent Man', then he was the '60 Per Cent Man' and now he's down to the '50 Per Cent Man'. But what's more important than the defence industry minister's ever-diminishing credibility is the shrinking opportunity for Australian companies and jobs. There is still opportunity to fix this mess. The contract contains clauses that allow for the tender to be amended. It says: The Commonwealth may amend this RFT upon giving Tenderers timely written notice of an amendment. If the Commonwealth amends this RFT under this clause 1.4.1 after tenders have been submitted, it may seek amended tenders. That is what the government should be doing right now. They should recognise their failure to maximise Australian industry participation and amend the tender to allow Australian shipbuilders ASC and Austal to take full responsibility for the build and for the minimum Australian industry participation percentage to be significantly increased. Such a decision is unlikely to come from the 'Minister of Diminishing Returns', Minister Pyne. What is required is a cabinet-level decision, led by the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, who waltzed into Adelaide a few days ago for a photo opportunity with the state Liberal opposition. It would be much more useful if he returned and spent some time at the ASC facility at Osborne and announced a major boost to the required levels of Australian participation in the Future Frigate Program. Meanwhile, the government should not be playing games of political obstruction and attempting to withhold information from the Senate on bogus national security grounds. Senate orders for the production of documents are a vital part of the Senate's scrutiny of the administration and expenditure of taxpayers' money. In this case, the documents in question relate to a $35 billion project. It doesn't get much bigger than that. The minister's response to the original order for the production of documents and her dubious explanations, then and now, come close to a contempt of the Senate in its legitimate scrutiny function. I'm sure the minister knows better and I have no doubt she would complain bitterly if she encountered similar obstructions from another government. Madam Deputy President, with your indulgence, I direct this to you. This is the second time a defence minister has denied access to documents the subject of a Senate order for production that went on to be released under FOI. In the 44th Parliament, the defence minister, not Minister Payne in this instance, refused access to a Macroeconomics report on the benefits of conducting the Future Submarine build in Australia rather than overseas. It was only released to the Senate after the Information Commissioner had determined that Defence's claims to exemptions under FOI were flawed. Madam Deputy President, I am simply flagging something that you might turn your mind to. In the meantime, as I foreshadowed in my first speech and on other occasions, the responsiveness of the government to Senate orders for the production of documents is one of the things that I and my NXT colleagues regard as demonstrating the government's preparedness to deal in good faith with the Senate crossbench. Openness and transparency are vital foundations for successful negotiations and mutually beneficial outcomes that advance the public good. Obstruction and obfuscation will do the government no good at all. 09:54 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia I too rise to take note of the minister's statement in response to the order this morning. I want to say at the outset that this is the work of the Senate at its best. Scrutiny of the government by the opposition and the crossbench parties is at the heart of good government, I would say, and Senator Carr, Senator Patrick and former Senator Xenophon have led what is actually an extraordinary pursuit of the production of documents which go to the heart of the integrity of this government and a $35 billion expenditure of taxpayers' money. And there should be scrutiny of that level of expenditure. There is concern in South Australia, amongst small to medium enterprises and larger enterprises, about the government's bona fides as to Australian content, and rightly so. I mean, this is the government that walked away from motor vehicle manufacturing in our state and, basically, exhorted them to cease operation and shoot through. There was a proposition at one time to buy off the shelf—to not have, particularly in this area of submarines, any Australian content or any Australian involvement. We have all seen, in estimates, that departments regularly use the public interest immunity argument to cloud or not clarify the most mundane questions; in fact, it seems to be a public service trait that's developing more and more under this government—that you simply claim public interest immunity, commercial-in-confidence, security or whatever just to avoid answering the most simple questions. Senator Carr said, in his contribution, in regard to the minister's proposition that the Senate asked for the disclosure of particular commercial-in-confidence details, that that was simply not true, and the minister has sought to assert that proposition, but what this return to order actually asked, if the government thinks that, is: how are you going to be able to produce capability documents later this year, which public servants have said they will be able to produce, when you can't tell us at the moment what 'sovereignty' actually means? We know that there have been propositions of up to 90 per cent of Australian content, and, as Senator Patrick has said, that has diminished under Minister Pyne to 60 per cent, and now, though he has said 60 per cent, we see a document with 50 in it. We know that there are large, successful organisations. Austal certainly are—they actually compete and win, and build ships for the US Navy, and I think their CEO told me that they're the only one since the Civil War that has actually been able to do that. So they are a large, successful entity. They are Australian. But they're not at the forefront of this process; they're down the queue a bit. We know that ASC, after years of hard work, has achieved—even under the government's assessment now—world's best practice in shipbuilding. I well remember, under Senator Johnston, the audit that came out that actually said the workforce at ASC could not be criticised for a lack of productivity. It was because Navantia and the designers had put up plans which meant that, in the words of the audit's authors, the workers had to do the job once, twice and sometimes three times. So to criticise the workers' productivity was absolutely disgraceful, because it was in the design and the foreign planning of all of that that the lack of productivity was evidenced. So it appears as if there is a contest—and rightly so. There should be a contest. On our side we want clarity, transparency and maximum Australian involvement in all facets of this $35 billion spend—in all facets. Every small to medium enterprise in the country should get a guernsey in competing for this work. Every large enterprise that is competent and in this space that is Australian owned should get a guernsey in this $35 billion. But that's not what we have. What we have is the dry economic rationalists in this government, who didn't want to have Australian involvement at all, pushing parameters around so that, they figure, they might keep costs down. I'm not convinced about that. I'm not convinced that a sovereign capability, an indigenous capability, in Australia won't deliver the best outcome. I'm not convinced that we don't have the wherewithal in Australia to design, build and do great things in manufacturing. I'm certain that Senator Carr would be much more eloquent than me on this point. We actually do believe that we can make things well. We can use Australian products. We may have a design capability shortfall at the moment, but there's no shortage of intelligence and brains in our universities to go on and develop that space. But what we have here is a minister who said the world would fall down if we knew what was in that document and who now says: 'Okay, we've moved a bit further down the path on tendering. It's okay to release that.' But, from the documentation, it looks like her own department didn't agree with her. On referral, they checked it and said, 'We should release this,' and 200-plus pages were released. So is there a contest on that side of the chamber between Minister Pyne and Minister Payne? Is there a willing, cooperative working relationship there or not? Yesterday in question time, my question to the minister was: 'Is it 60 per cent or 50 per cent? Which is right: the tender document or Minister Pyne?' And where are these percentages coming from? Is anybody able to sit down and put a factual, fiscal, evidentiary base under what will actually drive the Australian content argument? I think every dollar in this $35 billion should be tested against a competitive process to maximise Australian dollar involvement. And, if it comes out that we can't do it for the achievable price, then that's an appropriate decision that a government would make. But there's no clarity on that. There's no process for testing it. How do small, medium or large enterprises actually know, when there is this arbitrary figure plucked out of the air and put into tender documents? Where is the evidentiary base for that? There are people who say that the former secretary of Defence was all for outsourcing and buying off the shelf and that the ministers have been dragged into building locally for electoral reasons, particularly in South Australia—and it may be that Minister Pyne's own seat depended on the fact that we built submarines in South Australia. As the major factional leader, it may be that all of his flock in South Australia were under the pump electorally. He was able to convince the government to build locally, and we welcome that. It's a great decision to invest in manufacturing in every state in Australia, particularly in South Australia. We know, with the nature of exactly-on-time logistics and manufacturing chains, that there probably won't be an electorate in Australia that doesn't get a benefit out of this $35 billion. But the average Australian voter understands maximising Australian content. They don't like or don't see how a government in a tender process can pick a figure out of the air—Minister Pyne will tell us 60 per cent, the tender says 50 per cent, and you've got industry professionals saying they put in at 90 per cent. Is this just a simple economic rationalist contest on that side of the chamber? Are Minister Pyne and Minister Payne fighting? Are the Treasurer, Minister Morrison, or the Prime Minister, the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull, putting some arbitrary criteria in here? Or are we simply going to do what we should be doing, which is building sovereign, indigenous capability and having manufacturing sustained into decades in places where we sorely need it? That's the objective that everybody talks about. But, when, through this process, you find the detail of the tender documents, it appears as if people are making interesting arbitrary decisions about Australian content. I think that this is, as I started to say at the outset, exceptionally good work of the Senate. This is proper Senate work and proper scrutiny of a government and an extraordinarily large procurement decision into the next few decades. We all want, and I presume those on the other side want, maximum Australian involvement. It would be counterintuitive to believe otherwise. But they're not, in an evidentiary way, proving that. The simple fact is: this minister—as Senator Patrick has said and as Senator Xenophon has said—and, I will go as far as to say, the previous ministers have been obtuse, recalcitrant and not open and transparent with the Australian public or the Australian Senate, and that's not good government. That is not good government. If their argument stacks up financially, fiscally, then everybody with an ear or an eye will look at it, read it, absorb it, test it against common sense and/or the marketplace and they will probably win the argument. But they're not even mounting the argument; they're hiding behind public interest immunity, commercial-in-confidence, security issues. I have to say, as the Chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, that's an argument I've heard a hundred times at estimates. You hear it all the times in inquiries. Public servants are well skilled at hiding the true motivation of their ministers and, in a lot of cases, the department. That needs to change. I do welcome Senator Patrick's call that the President or the Deputy President actually look at the performance of ministers who, in an evidentiary way, subsequently appear to have failed a public interest immunity test, because if their own department is saying it's okay to let this stuff go then we need actually to test why the minister didn't accept that at the first call. So with those few words I would like to finish by saying: I can speak for South Australia; the maximum amount of Australian content is a burning issue given the treatment of the manufacturing industry in that state. You have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rebuild out of the destruction you caused in motor vehicle manufacturing, the demise of that. So let us get this right. Let's get a really high bar on Australian content—not 50 per cent or some arbitrary figure; let's get our real industry capability assessed and let's get, if we can, 100 per cent Australian capability. If we can't, let's work out what we don't do well, what we can't do efficiently, and contract it out—fine; everybody accepts that. We do some things really well, but we've got a chance here to build, into the future, sovereign capability and indigenous capability in all facets of this project. We shouldn't, at the start of $35 billion worth of expense, say we're only going to do 50 per cent of that. 10:07 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia This morning I rise to share the concerns of Western Australian industry in relation to the complete lack of transparency provided by the government in relation to local content. We know that there are grave fears that Western Australia could be missing out on billions of dollars of work under this significant contract, and that is because foreign bidders have not been required to partner with Australian industry. We know that the tender documents for the $35 billion frigate program showed that short-listed foreign defence companies did not have to include Australian businesses in their proposals. We've heard significant concerns reported in TheWest Australian after conversations with Austal. Austal partnered with the ASC, which is, of course, the government's own defence shipbuilding contractor, to get a major share of the future frigate contracts. But these contracts—indeed, the nature of the tender process—is threatening the viability of this industry and export industries and thousands of jobs that Western Australia desperately needs. We are very well skilled and ready to do this kind of work. We've had a major construction and mining boom, and the people of Western Australia have the skills. We also have high levels of unemployment in these regions. We are ready to do this work. We have significant infrastructure in Henderson, which means we're well placed, and the companies have the expertise, to do it. The simple fact is that the government are not even living up to their weasel words and rhetoric around local content. Austal's Chief Executive Officer, David Singleton, said, 'When the RFT—request for tender—came out, that was really the end of that engagement between us and those companies'—the companies bidding on the tender. He said at the time, 'There was something about the RFT that seemed to draw foreign shipbuilders away from continuing dialogue with ourselves.' So it strikes me that there is good reason for the Senate to be concerned about the failure to produce all of these documents. We know that there were three companies bidding in this process. The government needs to be focused on choosing homegrown, world-class, steel shipbuilding industries here in Australia. I contend that Western Australia, as well as South Australia, will get a raw deal if the federal government is not fair and transparent and does not make good on its local content provisions. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 7 BUSINESS Rearrangement 7 10:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I move: That the business of the Senate notice of motion proposing the disallowance of the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area) Amendment Determination (No. 2) 2017, standing in the name of Senator Siewert, have precedence over all government business until determined. 10:11 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I rise today briefly to inform the chamber that the opposition will be supporting this motion. Given that today is the last day that this matter can be dealt with in this place, it's important that we see this motion succeed to facilitate debate on the disallowance as a matter of priority. Question agreed to. REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 7 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area) Amendment Determination (No. 2) 2017 7 Disallowance 7 10:12 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move: That the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area) Amendment Determination (No. 2) 2017, made under the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, be disallowed [F2017L01170]. I know some people in this place will think this is groundhog day, 'Here she is again, talking about trying to disallow these awful trials.' I make absolutely no apology for making you all debate this disallowance. I will continue to do so while this awful legislation exists and while these trials continue. I will bring this issue back again and again and again. So we're clear, this is to disallow the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area) Amendment Determination (No. 2) 2017. This determination amends the Ceduna and East Kimberley determinations to extend both of the cashless welfare card trials, in the East Kimberley, predominantly centred on Kununurra and Wyndham, and in Ceduna. It extends the Ceduna determination until 14 March this year and the East Kimberley determination until 25 April 2018. I will note that the next debate we enter into after this will be on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 and the government's desire to continue to roll out the cashless welfare card. This instrument was made on 11 September 2017 and registered on 13 September 2017, one day before the Ceduna and surrounding region determination was in fact due to cease. So there are a lot of people on this card thinking, 'Finally, we're going to get off it,' and then, bang, the legislative instrument comes in and furthers the trial. As anticipated, the trials and the subsequent extensions—supported by both this government and the opposition—have turned out to be a rubber stamp on income support, based on reports and evaluations spruiked with premature evidence, anecdotes and ideology. That's what these are based on: anecdotes and ideology. Because if it wasn't, the government and the opposition would not have (a) initiated this program and (b), in the case of the opposition, supported it. The evidence from the Northern Territory is overwhelmingly clear: income management failed. It met none of its objectives. I bet most people in this chamber have not bothered ever to go and look at that final evaluation. It's a very thick report. If you're time-poor, as we all are, go and read the conclusion; go and read the key points. That will tell you the facts you need to know. People in the trial areas were told that they would be subject to the card for one year only. But the government keeps sneakily extending the card through legislative instruments, and the opposition just keeps letting them, as does the crossbench. In fact, when they last extended the trials, last year, participants were given just one day's notice that the trials were continuing. This is no way to treat people, particularly those who feel traumatised and disadvantaged by the card. Despite the heartbreaking, spectacular failure of the 10 years of intervention and income management and then new income management, the government thought they'd give income management another shot. The ideology wins out again! Maybe 10 years worth of failure is just not definitive enough! And the continuing disadvantage in the Northern Territory: I don't know, it's just not definitive enough to say, 'Actually, income management doesn't work.' Quite frankly, it is mind-boggling that the government's solution to helping communities who do have issues with drug and alcohol addiction, gambling and other major problems is a card that quarantines 80 per cent of income support recipients. Somehow this will magically solve the problems of addiction, of disadvantage and those underlying causes of disadvantage. Really and truly, if it were that simple—that you just bring in a card, you quarantine people's finances and you take control of their financial literacy, and that deals with addiction—wouldn't that put a whole lot of our medical professionals out of a job? Now, why didn't those medical professionals think, 'Why don't we just bring in a card where we control people's finances, we control their lives and that will magically fix addiction?' It'll magically fix the intergenerational trauma that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people feel and—as was pointed out at the Close the Gap breakfast this morning—deal with the history of disadvantage and of dispossession. The evidence of the impact of that is ongoing in people's lives today. All that will be magically fixed with this card! Although the government says they acknowledge that it's not a silver bullet, in fact they do think that. From their behaviours, it's quite obvious that they do, that they think this will magically fix it. And that's a belief—not based on evidence. I'm growing so tired of the government just relying on anecdotal evidence and it being presented as fact—when the facts they ignore. They ignore the facts in the Northern Territory. They ignore the fact that 49 per cent of people said that their lives are made worse—and that's from a flawed survey. So, 49 per cent, when it is genuinely acknowledged across the board that the ORIMA valuations were flawed—particularly the push polling, the so-called surveys. Even in that process so many people said that it's made their lives worse. The so-called ORIMA evaluation reports rely very heavily on anecdotal evidence and are based on push poll surveys and skewed data. The reports simply don't stand up to scrutiny, and I can give you quite a significant stack of papers in which respected researchers have gone through and looked at the ORIMA reports and been quite scathing, in many cases, of those evaluations. We've had academics and data experts give evidence at the bills inquiry—we're going to be talking about that as the next item of business in this place—that the reports are flawed. They expressed concerns regarding the research and methodology being used to validate claims that the card is working and needs to be extended and expanded. The list of concerns is long, but I'll note a few. Well-regarded academics—Dr Janet Hunt from the ANU, Professor Eva Cox from the UTS and Dr Elise Klein from the University of Melbourne—have concerns regarding research design, the sampling strategy, questionnaire design, recall bias, social desirability bias, the rising refusal rates of those surveyed, and the combination of longitudinal and intercept data, amongst other things. No baseline data was used and the ORIMA report's authors overlooked or dismissed important data that was not favourable to the trial. East Kimberley and Ceduna were weighted equally, despite the East Kimberley having a much higher rate of trial participants. Many survey participants deemed questions regarding changes in alcohol, drug or gambling behaviours as not applicable because they never engaged in those behaviours in the first place. If you are a vulnerable person struggling with alcohol, drugs or gambling addictions and an authoritative figure starts questioning you about your drug use, it's highly likely that you are going to say, 'I've reduced my drug use' or 'I've stopped using.' Of course you're going to say that. It's a well-known and recognised survey risk. If I think you might take even more money away from me or you're going to take my kids away from me, I'm going to say on the survey, 'Yes, I've reduced my drug and alcohol intake.' If you're asking people if they've drunk less or are looking after their children better, what do you expect people to say? Of course they're going to say, 'I'm drinking less. Yes, I'm looking after my children.' The evaluation claims that public perceptions of safety had increased. However, researchers at the University of Western Australia have demonstrated that public perception of crime is not reliable and rarely correct. But, if people say that to the researchers compiling the ORIMA reports, somehow it's fact, somehow it's correct, even though the research shows it's incorrect. In fact, the same was shown for the Northern Territory intervention. There were perceptions that things were better. However, when the researchers tested that in other regions not subjected to income management, they found the same levels. So, in other words, it wasn't safer. They just perceived it was safer because of income management, although it wasn't. It comes as no surprise that the trial areas didn't see an increase in employment. It's funny—it would be funny if it weren't tragic, I should say—how the government think that giving people a card is magically going to find them a job. There are simply so few jobs available in these communities. Where are people going to magically find these jobs? The government are using a report that they know is flawed to justify the trial expansions. Government senators come into this place and parrot the government's lines with no understanding of the issues on the ground or of the flawed ORIMA report. They have no understanding of the impact of the card on people's lives. One senator claimed that it made no difference if people weren't spending their money on drugs or alcohol or gambling. That is utterly not true. I spoke to a number of participants on the card last week who, in fact, don't drink, don't take drugs and don't gamble, and they said the card has had a profound impact on their ability to manage their money. They gave an example of the shame they felt when they went into a restaurant and weren't able to pay to eat because the restaurant sold alcohol, as a lot of venues do. They couldn't pay. So it's absolute nonsense to say that it makes no difference if you were 'doing the right thing', as the government puts it. That brings me to the point that, apparently, if you're on income support, 'the right thing' is that you're not even allowed to buy a glass of wine. If you're on a DSP, you're not even allowed to have a glass of wine because that's 'the wrong thing'. Senator Brandis, yesterday in his valedictory speech, made the point about the growing authoritarianism of the Left. That's from the party who are telling people how to spend their money and want to control people's daily lives. They take away people's financial independence—control of their finances and control of their life. I found that quite a significant point of interest—that we are the ones being accused of authoritarianism, when they are the ones seeking to control people's lives. Mr Tudge, while Minister for Human Services, kept saying that they will only roll out the card if the community wants it. Well, it's pretty clear from the Senate inquiry that, while some communities are divided on the issue and some are very strongly opposed, the one thing that is universally agreed upon is that they want to be listened to, they want wraparound services and they want to be consulted. If they're on income support, they want to be consulted, and the people in the Kimberley and Ceduna haven't been. People have many problems with the card, and they don't want to be on the card. Over the course of the Senate inquiry into the latest bill, we heard about the lack of consultation with people who are living on the card and with key community organisations. In fact, when I went to Hervey Bay, which is in the region where the government wants to roll out the welfare card, I held a public meeting, and more people attended that than had been turning up to the consultations the government had been running and inviting people to. At one of our Senate hearings, we heard from the Mayor of Ceduna, who said that the 'consultations' taking place in his town were people calling into the office. Apparently that was the process of consultation. The people actually living on the card had not been consulted, and that is just simply not good enough. I'm very glad that community members from the trial areas came to Canberra to talk to the committee. It's time the government listened to them. In November, I also tabled a petition with over 850 signatures from members of the Bundaberg community who do not want their area to be another trial site. And I think we need to stop using this term 'trial', because it's quite clear the government wants to keep rolling this out. You can wear the word 'trial' when they said it was for a year, but they just keep rolling it out in the East Kimberley and in Ceduna—and now they want to put it in other places too. People in those communities in Bundaberg don't want it in their area. They want to see real assistance from the government to tackle issues like substance abuse. Again, people want to deal with these issues of addiction, but they recognise addiction is a health issue. People want help dealing with the issues in their communities, but they want investment in wraparound services and they want to address the underlying causes; they don't want another trial of a card that doesn't work. Of course we all know the card overwhelmingly targets Aboriginal people. We know it was brought in in response to Andrew Forrest's report Creating Parity, which was about creating parity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. He wanted this card for Aboriginal people. We know that there were people who moved away when they heard the trial might be coming to the area. This is particularly devastating for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and for the Aboriginal communities in remote communities. The first peoples should not have to choose between living on country and having proper access to income support. People in remote communities need access to cash. I've heard multiple examples of why that's important. It's just common sense. Banking and card facilities that we have in the city are just not available in rural and regional areas—and I outlined yesterday, in my contribution to the second reading debate on the new rollout of the card, some of the concerns that people have. People simply can't survive on 20 per cent of their income in cash in these communities. The survey data includes significant personal reports of increased hardship, and, in the wave 2 financial evaluation report, many of the surveyed participants said that they ran out of money to buy food or to pay for items for their children. There are a number of reasons why people are running out of cash on their card—and I articulated yesterday the problems with forcing people to use the credit facilities and the problems with the EFTPOS facilities. There is simply no evidence that blanket income management works, and it should be abandoned. Some of the other issues that people have raised with me include, for example, the community panels, where the government has consistently refused to name the people on them. I have a form here that people are supposed to fill in if they want an exemption from the 80-20 rule. You can't get off the card, but you can apply to this faceless community panel, which may include your neighbour, to get the percentage quarantined—reduced from, say, 80 per cent; the lowest is 50-50. The person I was talking to, a person on DSP who does not spend money on drugs, alcohol or gambling, made an application to the panel in their region and asked for 50-50. With no explanation whatsoever, the panel said 60-40. There's absolutely no evidence that this person is suffering from any addiction or that she mismanages her money, yet an arbitrary decision was made of 60-40. They have conditions like: 'I give my consent for the panel administrator collecting the personal information I've provided on this form. I give my consent'—this is from Western Australian, the Kununurra region—'for the Western Australia Police to provide information surrounding any convictions I have.' The Department of Housing, Community Housing Limited, Kununurra Hospital, Catholic Education WA, the Department of Education, the Department for Child Protection and East Kimberley Job Pathways—it says, 'I give my consent to the panel administration providing my personal information received from the above authorities to the community panel.' They're going around asking every single body they can think of about a person's personal life and personal finances. It is an outrageous invasion of privacy. People don't want this card. It doesn't work. This farce should end. I urge this chamber to support this disallowance to put an end to this farce once and for all. 10:32 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I rise to speak on this disallowance motion proposed by the Greens. Based on our extensive consultations with Indigenous stakeholders and communities, we oppose the disallowance motion of the Greens. As I said in my remarks yesterday in the second reading debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017, the cashless debit card is a complex issue. Issues of alcohol abuse, intergenerational poverty and social dysfunction, and the implications of those issues, are extremely complex. Their causes are extremely complex. Equally, the policy solutions that address these issues require careful deliberation and consultation, and that's exactly what Labor have done in determining our position. We need a calm and considered approach on this issue. Labor have consulted with many communities and many key stakeholders both in the trial site communities and around the country. We've received a wide range of opinions from both communities and individuals within those communities. We've heard from some communities and individuals who strongly oppose the cashless debit card. We've heard from some communities and some individuals who support it. To be very clear, Labor does not support a national rollout of the cashless debit card. As I've said many times, Labor believes that the vast majority of income support recipients are more than capable of managing their own finances. I also want to make Labor's position very clear. Labor supports a limited continuation of the existing cashless debit card trial sites in Ceduna and East Kimberley. However, Labor will not support the rollout of the cashless debit card to the two new proposed sites of Bundaberg and the Goldfields. Labor understands that entrenched disadvantage cannot and will not be solved by income management alone. That's why we have always advocated for the government to provide additional wraparound support to the participating communities. Labor believes that there still exists sufficient community support for a continuation of the trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley. Labor knows that entrenched social issues cannot and will not be solved by income management alone. That's why we insisted that the government provide additional community supports for participating communities. We're calling on the government to support our amendment that funding for these critical wraparound services be guaranteed in the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill. Labor will also move an amendment to ensure that no new trial sites can be introduced. In the future, Labor will only consider the introduction of a new trial site if the government can show that they have an agreed, formal consultation process with the community as well as an agreed definition of 'consent'. 10:36 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales The government is moving to block this disallowance motion, because it would jeopardise the cashless debit card program in Ceduna and East Kimberley. Without this legislative instrument, thousands of people who are currently benefiting from the cashless debit card will have their current payments thrown into chaos. The card has been shown to be helping the communities in Ceduna and East Kimberley fight gambling addiction, alcoholism and drug addiction. These communities want this card, and this disallowance motion would mean that the Senate would be ignoring the wishes of these communities. The government is committed to reducing the social harm caused by welfare-fuelled alcohol, drug abuse and gambling in areas with a high level of welfare dependency. The debit card commenced in Ceduna, South Australia on 15 March 2016 and in the East Kimberley region of Western Australia on 26 April 2016. These sites were extended on 14 March 2017. The government announced in the 2017-18 budget that the card would be expanded to two new locations. The government announced the Goldfields region on 1 September 2017 and the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region on 21 September 2017. On 1 September 2017, the government released the independent Cashless debit card trial evaluation,Final evaluation report that assessed the impact of the introduction of the card in Ceduna and East Kimberley. The recently published independent evaluation states the card has shown considerable positive impact in communities, including 48 per cent of drug takers using fewer drugs, 41 per cent of drinkers drinking less and 48 per cent of gamblers gambling less. While there have been up-front costs, the actual running costs of the card are a fraction of this. It is expected those costs will continue to reduce over time. Income management currently supports 25,044 vulnerable Australians. Over 21,000 of these people live in the Northern Territory and 82 per cent are Indigenous. Extending income management allows the government to continue supporting recipients while also testing approaches for the delivery of restricted welfare payments going forward. The extension will include streamlined servicing changes to reduce administrative costs. The Department of Social Services has undertaken extensive consultation across all four sites engaging a range of stakeholders, including local businesses, community organisations, service providers, state and local governments, community leaders and the general public. While the government appreciates the support provided by the opposition on the continuation of Ceduna and East Kimberley, we call on them to support the expansion of the card to the communities that are asking for it. As they know, we will see the best results from communities that want to participate, but more sites will mean that we can get a better evaluation for the card and its successors. There is a large amount of community support for the debit card to be given to communities in the Goldfields in Western Australia and in Hervey Bay in Queensland—just ask the member for O'Connor and the member for Hinkler about what their communities are telling them. As the five shires in the Goldfields told the Prime Minister, they want to see how the card can improve their communities. As the community in Hinkler has told their representative, over 75 per cent of the community want to see how the card can help them. The government will be moving to block this disallowance motion. 10:39 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland One Nation will be voting against this disallowance motion. I actually went to a committee meeting in Kalgoorlie to listen to the concerns about the cashless debit card. It was overwhelming that the community there—businesses, community leaders, the mayor and councillors, and even the Aboriginal community themselves—have actually endorsed the card and are basically pleading with everyone to leave it in place. Yes, there are some objections to it and there were concerns about it, but we have to be responsible here. There are clearly problems in these communities. It's not just targeting, as Senator Siewert said, the Aboriginal community; it's right across the board for everyone. They are still getting their entitlements; it's just being handed out in a different way—in a more responsible way, I believe. Minderoo have done some investigations into it and their findings are that 41 per cent of drinkers on the card said that they were drinking less, 48 per cent of drug users on the card said they were using drugs less, there has been an increase in children going to school and 48 per cent of gamblers on the card said they were gambling less. They still have use of the moneys; it's just that it is not in cash, ready to use. In a lot of ways, it's just saying, 'Take more responsibility and use the money wisely.' A lot of families are not spending the money on their children—to feed them and put food on the table—but the money is used for drink or it's used for gambling, or other family members come along and take the money off them. It's a custom of the Aboriginal people—what is yours belongs to everyone. So I think it's very good that way. There is a huge problem in Kalgoorlie. There is lot of violence on the streets, there is abuse and there is drunkenness. It's going to affect the tourism industry. It has clearly been stated in reports put out by the police that crime is actually down due to the card. Mr Desmond Hill, from Kununurra in the East Kimberley, said: I've actually seen more kids go to school with uniforms. I've had grandparents say that they're happy the cards are there because now their children have food in the fridge, the kids are clothed and they're all going to school. We're living with the changes, albeit it took 18 months to see the changes happening. They are actually happening. Councillor Allan Suter, mayor of the District Council of Ceduna, informed the committee that the cashless debit card trial has been the most effective initiative to address excessive use of alcohol, drugs and gambling products in Ceduna and that it has resulted in significant improvements for families, particularly for children. Yet the Greens stand here and say, 'You're taking away their rights; it's against human rights!' Let me go back to what the committee said: The committee acknowledges concerns that the bill may limit a participant's human rights. However, the committee is satisfied that the bill only limits those rights to the extent required to realise the objective of the card to reduce the social harm caused by the excessive use of alcohol, drugs and gambling. We are sick and tired of the Greens' bleeding-heart attitude because it's against people's rights. It's not against their rights. It's about time we started helping people. Clearly, the way our society is going now, it's not working. If they truly care about the kids and our societies, sometimes tough love is the best way to go with it. That's the best way to help these people. The best way to help the future generations is to take actually take control of it. This is taxpayers' money and it needs to be spent wisely to help these communities, because they are screaming out for it. They said to Senator Siewert at that meeting: 'If this is not the answer, then tell us what is, because you don't live here; you have no idea of what it's like on our streets and in our communities. If you think you know the answer then come here and live here. Don't tell us how to run our communities.' That's how they feel about it. Senator Siewert interjecting— Senator HANSON BK6 Oh yes, they did, because they were quite angry. I was at that meeting. I damn well know what happened there—through the chair. Anyway, I will oppose this disallowance motion. I think it is in the best interests. It has proven its worth. People who live in those communities have stated that it has helped, and it needs to be rolled out in other areas. That is what I'm saying. I do support the cashless debit card and I oppose the Greens disallowance motion. 10:46 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I'm hardly surprised One Nation are opposing this. Why would they actually look at the evidence? Instead they choose to quote from the Minderoo Foundation, who have always supported this, because it was Andrew Forrest's idea in the first place. All they're doing is quoting—misquoting—the ORIMA evaluation, which has been torn to shreds by so many people who have the research qualifications to look at properly designed surveys rather than push polling. I spoke of that earlier. I don't know if Senator Hanson heard that before she came into the chamber. I spoke earlier of the fundamental flaws in the survey design and the ORIMA report. I will acknowledge that it is not just Senator Hanson who misuses those figures; it is also the government and Minderoo, of course, trying to promote their wunderkind answer to significant disadvantage in Aboriginal communities. I say again: it is not that we don't believe that these issues should be addressed. What we disagree with is the approach that's been taken, given that the overwhelming evidence shows that income management does not work. There are many people in the community—the participants, particularly—who do not support this card, both in the East Kimberley and in Ceduna. Allan Suter was quoted. Again, he's always been in favour of this card. He is the mayor. He is the one that refuses to consult with the people on the card. That's on the public record from the Senate inquiry, where he said, as I mentioned earlier, that people can call in, but, since the trial started and, particularly coming up to the rollover, he has not consulted members of the community. I'm deeply disappointed that Labor still refuse to give up their addiction to income management. We all know they had the chance to stop this when they came to power at the end of 2007, but they didn't. They let it roll on and, in fact, they renewed it to the new income management in 2012, a time I clearly remember. But the evaluation shows that it didn't work. That was a proper, independent evaluation. To call the ORIMA report a proper, independent evaluation is a misuse of the word 'independent'. In terms of some of the academic work that has been undertaken, let's look at the wraparound services—which are something that we all agree should have been given to these communities, but they should have been given to the communities right from the start. People shouldn't need the card to get access to better services. I will quote from the most recent evaluation of the cashless welfare card from CAEPR, the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, at the ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences, by Elise Klein and Sarouche Razi. They found in their research on the wraparound services: Even aspects of the experiment that were meant to support people on the CDC were poorly applied. They said: The types of services funded were limited in scope, focusing on treating assumed vices such as drug and alcohol addiction, and an inability to manage finances. This narrow focus overlooked funding for community development initiatives already on tight budgets, which may have more relevance to people on social benefits. The ORIMA final evaluation acknowledged the poor implementation of service funding: Even that report said: Overall, the evaluation found that the support services funded through the Trial had not been implemented in a timely manner. They go on to say: Most notable, however, is the limited reported use of these services by people on the CDC. The ORIMA (2017b) final evaluation found that only 12% of people they interviewed on the card reported using drug and alcohol services, and 10% used financial and family support services. This suggests that the assumption that people on welfare had vices to be serviced by drug and alcohol programs, and money management programs was not justified. As well, for people wanting to use the services, the services were not available in time. They also talk about how it's made money management hard. I talked quite a bit yesterday about how people feel they have less control of their finances. They could be reducing their financial literacy, which is what the final evaluation of the Northern Territory new income management found it had an impact on. There was evidence that they think suggests that people in fact became more dependent on income support because of income management. The report concludes: The trial of the CDC in the East Kimberley is perverse contemporary Indigenous policy. Not only did the trial, by limiting the amount of cash, bring material hardship, it furthered the disempowerment of those marginalised by relational poverty. The terms 'community' and 'consultation' were used by government and advocates of the card as a tactic to give the impression that the diverse populations in Kununurra and Wyndham were unified in approval of the card. They do not reflect the substantive opposition to the card from many people living in the study site; indeed, the White Card— for those that don't know, that's what the communities call the Indue card— has become a symbol for disempowerment and neocolonial government control. Use by the Australian Government of bespoke 'evidence' to tell only the story that the government wants to be heard is disturbing. It has two purposes: to continue the trial and expand the program in other regions— it's quite obvious we're seeing that in the next debate we're about to have— and to obfuscate the reality that the CDC's logic is deeply flawed and reliant on jobs that do not exist. The card cannot achieve the aims it seeks, as the framing is perverse and disconnected from the lives of those on the card. I have to say that reflects what I've heard people say—most certainly in plainer words than that. Overwhelmingly, people who are actually trying to survive on the card have talked about the impact it's had on them, their difficulty in managing their money—and, again, there are many complicated reasons for that. They're reliant on cash and, when you're living on a low income, you do rely much more on cash because you can buy second-hand goods. You also need the cash to be able to send people to school. I spoke to people on the ground in Kununurra who felt shame when they had to get tokens instead of being able to use cash, for example, at the fair the year before last. They spoke again of the shame of not being able to have enough cash to buy things for their children at the school fete and in many other circumstances. They talk about the fact that everybody knows what the card looks like. Again in the debate yesterday I heard from someone who was participating in the debate who obviously hasn't spoken to many people on the card, because that person—it was Senator Macdonald—said the card is just like any other card. That is absolute nonsense. It's not just any other card. On my credit card or on my bank card I can actually BPAY. I don't have to give everybody my credit card number so they can deduct the money for whatever I want to buy off my credit card. Or I can pay my power bill. I don't have to pay my power bill that way; I actually pay mine with BPAY. They can't; hence, it is not the same as for everybody else. It is just not true. And everybody in communities knows what the Indue card looks like. They know what the white card looks like. That's what it's commonly called. They've probably seen a number of people whose card wouldn't work having to stand separately from the queues, because the refusal rate has been high. The government said they've dealt with that. Well, I can tell you right now that that's not true. Just last week I spoke to participants on the card who said they are still getting refusals for use of the card. It does make people's lives harder. The government consults with their hand-picked leaders, who aren't necessarily the people in the community that the community would say are their leaders. They don't listen to the leaders who don't support the card. In fact, some of those in the East Kimberley, who did support the card originally, don't support the card anymore. That is never spoken about in here. It has caused deep division in communities, and we shouldn't be causing deep divisions in communities. We should be looking at the services that work. We should be working cooperatively with and being led by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. At the Close the Gap breakfast this morning, that was the clear message in the report they released today. There are a number of very important points in that report, and I urge people to go and read it. It is a damning report on the 10-year strategy. We haven't met the targets that were set in place to try and close the gap. In fact, they found, this year, the gap has widened. They said the plan was essentially abandoned halfway through the 10-year process. They talked about needing to make sure that from here on in we have a proper strategy; we need the infrastructure in place. But, really importantly, there need to be Aboriginal controlled and led processes. The word a lot of people are using is 'co-design'. We shouldn't be doing things to Aboriginal communities; we should be working with and being led by Aboriginal communities if we are going to close the gap and address issues around Aboriginal disadvantage. The current approach is a paternalistic, top-down approach where people feel disempowered. This is what the report says—that the card has become 'a symbol of disempowerment'. We undermine people's financial literacy and their ability to control their lives. The most personal part of somebody's life is controlling their finances and making those day-to-day decisions. What we've done is taken that away from people. We've made their lives harder. Also, there are innumerable ways that people are getting around the card in the first place. The results that everybody quotes in here are not real results. It is flawed methodology. Please support this. Please end this farce so we can invest the resources that have been wasted—over a billion dollars since 2007—on income management. We still have the same levels of disadvantage in the Northern Territory. In fact, things in some areas have got worse. I keep hearing people talk about school attendance. There was a study released over January that looked at the impact of the Northern Territory intervention on school attendance. It showed that school attendance decreased when the intervention came in. It actually had an impact on birth weights. There are very complex issues here that also relate to the issues of intergenerational trauma, the impact that trauma has and the chaos that it can cause. It is not a simple issue. It is not a simple solution. It is not accepted by all the participants I've talked to—which is probably something you would expect in terms of the people who would contact me. Yes, there are some people in the Kununurra and Ceduna communities who will tell you that things have improved in those communities. I've heard the story about how it is cleaner now. Well, for a start, they actually have rubbish cleaners who, when I went out there, were going around picking up the rubbish before most people got up in the morning. But, secondly, I've been told by people who actually live in Kununurra—as recently as last week—that there are still a lot of the same issues going on that were going on previously. And I heard some specific examples of some troubles, which I am in fact not going to repeat here, because I don't want people using them as stereotypical behaviour. The fact is you don't change issues around addiction by taking over control of people's lives. The sort of evidence you hear about that sort of personal behaviour is the same when you're trying to bring in the drug trials—addiction expert after addiction expert told the committee that was looking into it that it won't work and that it's not the way you address addiction. It's a health issue. Drug and alcohol addiction are health issues, and that's the way we should be addressing them. We need to be providing the services that actually address people's needs. Please: support this disallowance and get rid of this farce so we can move on to the issues that we all agree we need to be addressing. Focus on that. Focus on making sure that we get Closing the Gap right through the refresh process. Make sure that we are focused on the issues that will truly make a difference. This doesn't. It's a waste of resources and it takes attention away from what we should be doing. I urge this place to support this disallowance. Question negatived. BILLS 14 BILLS Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 14

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017

Second Reading 14 11:01 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia As we debate today the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill, I want to say at the outset that Labor's approach to this is to look to community-driven initiatives to tackle chronic alcohol abuse. The key word here should be 'community', not engaging in top-down approaches. Labor has significant concerns with regard to the existing rollout, notwithstanding the fact that we have agreed for the trials to continue. As we heard this morning at the Close the Gap breakfast, what we need to do to be successful in engaging with the prevention of alcohol abuse and other forms of community disadvantage is to listen directly to affected communities. We have to empower them and resource their own solutions, particularly through Indigenous-controlled organisations. We should not be engaging in approaches that take the power away from local communities. We in this place mustn't fool ourselves into believing that income management is in and of itself the solution to entrenched disadvantage, and, most importantly, we mustn't forget that the vast majority of people on income support are perfectly capable of managing their own finances. I can't help but also reflect on the fact that, for many people on income support, their finances are manifestly inadequate, which is a significant driver behind poverty, not poor financial management or alcohol or drug abuse. Labor is not supporting this bill in its current form. I want to take issue with some of the allegations put by the government in this debate yesterday—that somehow Labor had done a backflip because of the Batman by-election. Nothing could be further from the truth. Labor was very clear in its position last year, while parliament was still sitting—long before we looked to a by-election in Batman. We support the continuation of the existing cashless debit card trial in both Ceduna and the Kimberley, and that's not without reservation. But we do understand that the existing trials need to be properly evaluated, so we've looked to amendments to extend the dates of the trial to ensure that proper evaluation can take place to judge the success or otherwise of the trial. On that note, we don't support the further rollout of the card to new sites in Bundaberg and the Goldfields. We certainly don't support the nationwide rollout of a cashless debit card. We also believe that it is of the utmost importance that wraparound services are in place to ensure that families receive the much needed support when participating in this trial. And, as highlighted already in this debate, these frankly are services that these communities should have a right to expect, irrespective of the existence of the card. Our commitment in Labor is to consult with local communities about programs like this. We are committed to listening when they raise concerns. We're not interested in a top-down approach. We can see in the recommendations of the Senate inquiry, and indeed from our own consultations with local communities, that we simply cannot support the bill before us as it stands. The recent Senate inquiry heard that there are huge gaps in the consultation process. For example, witnesses in Kalgoorlie expressed deep concern and dissatisfaction with the consultation process. I was very alarmed to see that consultation seemed to have taken place with local government only and not with people who work with those affected or people who are affected by this card. I was particularly alarmed during the course of the hearings in Kalgoorlie that first nations people were not adequately consulted in this process at all. Equally concerning was the feedback in Bundaberg. What we heard in Bundaberg was that the process was selective and secretive. It was difficult to access and not representative of the community. It's not surprising to me that it was hard for people affected by this card to come forward and participate because, in many of the consultations, people felt stigmatised and unable to express their very real concerns about its rollout. My very dear friend and Labor colleague in the state parliament, Josie Farrer MP, the member for the Kimberley, has raised significant concerns about the trial based on the experience of her community. She has called for proper dialogue with her communities around implementation of the trial. I've spoken to Josie firsthand about how residents in her community have been adversely affected, particularly in the East Kimberley, and I've spoken to some of those residents myself. It isn't worth the cost—some $25.5 million—nor is it worth the potential harm to the community to continue the rollout without being sure that it is delivering meaningful results. The best way to do this is, of course, to have a rigorous evaluation so we can be sure that, before proceeding with further rollouts, it is working. And I have to say, I have been very unsatisfied with the existing evaluations that have taken place. For one, the trials haven't been going long enough to enable a rigorous evaluation, and indeed they highlight the fact that the government is absolutely, doggedly, pursuing the implementation of this, irrespective of the outcomes for communities. There is no evidence base to support their further rollout. The ORIMA evaluation, conducted in both Ceduna and East Kimberley, was flawed and inconclusive, and I support the concerns of the WA Council of Social Services, who raised significant concerns about the representativeness of the evaluations. In their submission to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, they point out that the extension of the trial has ignored the findings in wave 1 and wave 2 of the reports that the majority of participants indicated that their lives are worse since the implementation of the trials. If the government wants to continue with these trials, it needs to amend and change what's going on within them, because the simple fact is that many people have reported increased hardship as a result of being on the card. We know that 52 per cent reported running out of money to buy food and 26 per cent reported doing so fortnightly. Despite claims that crime has reduced, independent research by Monash shows the opposite. The Aboriginal Health Council of Western Australia also said: Since the introduction of the cashless card in Kununurra there has been an increase in crime, an increase around elder abuse, an increase around soliciting and black market trades happening with service providers that can trade off the card for cash. So it hasn't dealt with the contentious issues that were identified; it has actually caused a major influx around other issues. So, I am deeply concerned about the effectiveness of the existing trials and am increasingly concerned about the impact they are having in my home communities in Western Australia. We've seen problem after problem and criticism after criticism, which the government has simply glossed over. Only last week we saw residents of the Tiwi Islands off the coast of Darwin left without power for five days due to storms. This meant residents reliant on the cashless debit card were unable to pay for basics like food and fuel, and were left with no access to buy essential goods. This kind of situation is inevitable when you restrict access to cash. I could see on the television the obvious distress that people on the Tiwi Islands were feeling from not being able to feed their families or buy fuel and other essential items. And what was really apparent—and even worse, when you've restricted people's access to cash in this way—was that the minister and the department couldn't even agree on what to do about it at the time. The simple fact is cash is what gives communities and individuals flexibility. If you look out to the Goldfields, where you want to roll this trial out, you have to look at the microeconomies inside remote locations in places like the Ngaanyatjarra lands, where they have their own internal economies. I admit that I've seen gambling out there, but people also trade and use their cash for other essential items, be that bush tucker or anything else. The rollout is going to have a grave, grave impact on those economies that are very internal and inward-looking and have their own trade that goes on for the community's wellbeing. What we can see is terrible mismanagement, a lack of rigorous evaluation and a lack of understanding of the real situation of these communities from the current Liberal government. I have to say there are significant concerns about the impact of the cashless debit card on family violence. Police data in the East Kimberley shows that, far from being prevented, family and domestic violence rates have risen since the introduction of the debit card trial. There is similar data from Ceduna. This is police data from the state jurisdictions on the increase in domestic violence rates in those locations. Ideologically, the government might like to assume that this card is going to bring domestic violence rates down, but what we know is that financial control is used as a tool by perpetrators of domestic violence. We know that extra financial stress can lead to problems in the home and we know that women are most often the victims of domestic and family violence. We must be sure that no government contributes to this. I'm very concerned that the social and economic harm of the debit card has not been given the consideration that it should have been. The trials have an impact on children. We know that some of our most vulnerable children are growing up in these regional and remote communities. Poverty and disadvantage make life far more challenging for children. I certainly know of situations where women with children were in danger of being evicted from their housing because of difficulties with the cashless debit card. Josie Farrer MLA spoke to me about those concerns. We have a situation here where income support should be about ensuring that everyone, especially children, are able to live life with the basics that we all take for granted. All children, all people, have the right to food, shelter, medical care and education. We're not helping vulnerable families by simply giving them a card and taking away control of their finances. We don't fix disadvantage by stigmatising people who are on welfare. We know factors that contribute to disadvantage are complex. They are often intergenerational, deep and entrenched, so our approach should be about helping and supporting families, not about stigmatising them. It should be one of understanding, empowerment and building resilience in communities, such as we heard in the Closing the Gap approach this morning. We want to see wraparound services and support for people on the trial, but currently they are inadequate to truly address the challenges that the people in these communities are feeling. The government must look to funding for rehabilitation and mental health services and support to accompany its agenda of rolling out this card further, but I sincerely hope that we can stop that from happening. I want to say that, if we are successful in stopping that from happening, the government should put its money where its mouth is and roll out those wraparound services anyway. In addition, I want to see the government be more forward thinking in their approach to these trials. The government should find ways to transition people off using the cashless debit card. They should work with them proactively to lower the proportion of their payments that are on the card, rather than people having to apply to committees. We know that at the core of this we want financial literacy and independence. There should be a plan for people within these communities right now to transition off the trials. There is a long and seemingly ever-growing list of concerns with the cashless debit card. Until these concerns are addressed, we cannot be sure that this very expensive trial is seeing results. We cannot solve entrenched social issues without taking a holistic approach to helping families, and that is manifestly missing from the government's approach. We're moving amendments in the Senate to address some of these concerns. We want to create a new trial end date of 30 June 2019, limit it to two discrete trial areas and guarantee funding for the services in the trial sites. I call on the government and the crossbench to support these amendments. We will consider the introduction of new trials only if the government can demonstrate, in formal consultation with communities, robust and credible evaluation, and sound wraparound services to address the many factors that contribute to disadvantage. It's simply not possible for us to support the expansion of a program without the evidence that it works, and there has not been adequate evidence to show that. You talk about your support from communities but the simple fact is: this is selective; it is coming only from some voices within communities, and you need— Senator Scullion 00AOM The elected leaders of the community in Ceduna! Senator PRATT I0T Are you rejecting Josie Farrer as a leader of her community? Senator Scullion 00AOM She doesn't live in Ceduna. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 111206 Senator Scullion, order! Interjections are disorderly. Senator PRATT I0T I take that interjection. Josie Farrer has many members of her own community and, indeed, her own family who have been affected by this trial. She lives in Halls Creek, very near the East Kimberley. She has children who live in the Kimberley and it is a day-to-day issue for her and her community. I've spoken to people who've been affected by the trial and I've seen examples of elder abuse that have taken place because of it. It is inconceivable that this government would introduce further trials that could increase violence in remote communities, that could increase family and domestic violence, but currently that is what the evidence is showing. We must ensure that evaluation of these trials is robust enough— (Time expired) 11:21 Senator BARTLETT DT6 Queensland I would like to make very clear right from the start my absolute, total opposition to this piece of legislation and the opposition of the Australian Greens party as a whole. I think it is abhorrent, I think it is atrocious, I think it is demonising and I think it is very clear that it will not work. I accept that some, at least, who are promoting this are doing so with good intentions. I think it is very clear that some who are promoting it are doing so with the worst of intentions, to yet again put in place measures to try to blame people who are poor, to blame people who are carers, to blame people who are disabled, to blame people who are sole parents, to blame people who are unemployed, to try to make their lives even more difficult and to build political points around doing so. We can't pretend there is not a very long history of doing that in Australian politics and in this parliament. I am not saying that is the motivation of everybody that is putting this forward, but it is clearly part of what is happening here. I know it's a very wise piece of advice, in regard to articles online in the Murdoch media outrage-generation machine, when people say, 'Don't read the comments,' but these things are specifically generated to create comment and to create outrage, and occasionally it is necessary to read the comments to see what is out there. And you don't need to spend very much time to see, whenever measures like this are put forward, the stream of abuse that comes forward from people vilifying people who are poor, who are receiving income support, who are on welfare—basically revelling in the idea of making life harder for them, of punishing them, of saying they deserve it. If somehow or other we think it's a good measure, for anybody who might have issues to do with money management or issues to do with substance abuse or addiction, to compulsorily quarantine the vast majority of their income, continually, then let's do it to ourselves. Let's see how we like it, even with our oversized salaries, to have 80 per cent of them, 70 per cent of them or even 50 per cent of them quarantined and to be told, 'You can only spend this with a card that will identify you at these particular stores who've got the special contract that's making them lots of profit through the people who own the card, and you don't have discretion.' See how you like it. See how it would make you feel. For those of us who might have issues with money management, substance abuse or addiction: do you think that would actually help? Of course it wouldn't. We've got the evidence. We've got the so-called experiment. We've seen, as my colleague Senator Siewert said. I don't need to have been here for the last 10 years to know she has been going on for the last 10 years about how this does not work and about how it causes more harm than good. Of course it assists some people to have their income managed. Of course it assists some people, whether it's their salary, social security payments or Centrelink payments—whatever it might be. Of course it can help some people. You provide that assistance where it's needed, where they want it, where they ask for it and where they've got support around them. As some might know—I don't know which of you here would—once upon a time many years ago, I was a social worker in what was then called the Department of Social Security. The mechanism to be able to quarantine some aspects of people's unemployment payment or pension so that their rents were paid and so that other things were paid has always been there, and it's done with support specific to the individual on a case-by-case basis. To compulsorily put it across an entire community or, as is attempted through this bill most particularly, across the entire country—and that's where this will end up; let's not kid ourselves—and everybody who receives income support, with the very strong underlying implication that they can't be trusted with their money, or that it's not really their money, that it's somehow or other somebody else's money and they shouldn't really have a say in what happens with this money, because it's provided through government payments? We all get paid through government payments. There's no shame in that. It's something people are entitled to. People are legally entitled to income support payments, whether it's sole parents; whether it's people with disability pensions; whether it's carers; whether it's people with family payments, some of which won't apply in this case but many others will. That's a legal entitlement. It's a lawful entitlement, something our community and parliament have agreed that people should get and for very good reasons. This inference sometimes very explicitly stated—'Well, it comes from a government payment; therefore, people shouldn't have a say on what they spend it on'—is appallingly authoritarian. We had a very eloquent speech from now ex-Senator Brandis—rather long, but eloquent—late yesterday noting the appalling shift towards authoritarianism on the Right. He was misrepresenting it on the Left, I might say, but nonetheless we will take that as a debating point. But what could be more authoritarian than a government saying: 'We're going to tell you how you can spend your money. We're going to tell you where you can spend your money'? This is extremely dangerous in all sorts of ways, but it's particularly dangerous right now for the individuals it will affect. This is particularly relevant to my own state of Queensland because the next places that are being targeted for this include the communities of Hervey Bay and Bundaberg. I would like to really pay tribute to the many people in those communities in my state who are on income support themselves—people who by definition are already struggling; people, some of whom I have met, who in many cases are long-term carers or are on disability payments for the long term. If they couldn't manage their money, they would not be alive. They can manage their money way better, I would suggest, than pretty much any of us. I would like to see any of us in this place try to cope and survive on the amount of income those folks have for more than a month or two. Of course there are individuals who can't do that, and they need support, but, if you want a group of people in the country who are good money managers, go to people who are on long-term income support payments, people who are carers, people who have disabilities. They'll tell you how to do it far better than a government can—particularly this government. I went to Hervey Bay, probably about six months ago, before I was back in this place, with Senator Siewert. I'd like to thank her for her commitment to going to regional Queensland—it's a long way from Western Australia—to hear from the people directly in the community. These people from Hervey Bay and also from Bundaberg—I pay particular tribute to Anne Jackson and others; sorry if I've missed out other names—organised a group of people on a bus to travel all the way down from Bundaberg through Gin Gin to a public meeting in Hervey Bay about this very issue. These were all people directly affected. These were community campaigns by people who, by definition, are battlers, who organised and campaigned because they could see not only how it would affect them but the extreme dangers this measure would have, the damage it would do, the harm it would cause because of its compulsory nature. Let me reaffirm that: it's the compulsory nature of this. It can work for some people in some circumstances with support and with proper analysis of each individual. But to just do this blanket authoritarian control, this delegitimisation of people's control over their own lives on such a monumental scale, honestly, how could anybody think that is actually going to help the majority of people? I would like to thank those people in Hervey Bay and Jenny Cameron, who drove Senator Siewert and me around that day, and Katherine Wilks—I know there are many other names I don't have. I can't remember the numbers, but it would have easily been over 100 people at that public meeting. You've just got to hear their stories of what it would mean, hear what their lives are like, what impacts this would have. People are already copping the crap of being abused, singled out, vilified, misrepresented, stereotyped and demonised because they're a carer, because they're on income support or they're unemployed. There's plenty of unemployment and underemployment in those regions, as we all know. The last thing they need is another volley of vitriol from the shock jocks, the corporate media and everybody else wanting to reinforce some myth that somehow they're a piece of crap when they're actually more resourceful than many. To use another example, the City of Logan, just to the south of Brisbane, as those from South East Queensland would know, is a city and a region that's often unfairly stereotyped as being a high-welfare area and there's all the negativity that goes with that. I would like to mention an event that happened just a few weeks ago on 20 January. A group called the Anti-Poverty Network in collaboration with the 'say no to the cashless welfare card' team organised a day of support for people in the local community. This group has been sitting outside the local Centrelink offices in Logan once a week for many months now, just giving information. They're not handing out party-political information; they're giving information to people about their rights and how to engage with Centrelink. If this government wanted to properly help people who are on income support payments, how about it fix up the outrageous disgrace, the unbelievable disgrace, of the non-existent service for people trying to make a phone call through to Centrelink? And that's not a slur on the hardworking staff in Centrelink, who have to deal with very difficult circumstances, but come on. I've already mentioned this since coming back to this place. But 10 years ago I was in this place asking questions about how outrageous it was—the waiting times, the inability for people to get through. These are people who are already battlers on low incomes, and they can't get through to get information about their own income. I'd like to see any of us anytime we have a problem with our travel allowance, a flight or our salary payments or whatever, sit on the phone for an hour before somebody would talk to us. Let's see how long it would take before we decided to fix that. But, in 10 years, this problem has got a hundred times worse. According to evidence from ACOSS provided to the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry, this mechanism, this compulsory income management trial, costs about $10,000 per person for a 12-month period. The actual cost to the program over the forward estimates is unknown, because it's commercial-in-confidence. Let's not forget that—there's a bit of a commercial deal happening here as well. There's a valid line of inquiry on that, but I'll leave that because I want to talk about and focus on the people who are directly affected—the battlers, the powerless, who are being hit by this. So it's $10,000 per person per year. Newstart for a whole year is $14,000. Yet this government says we can't afford to increase that. It's been disgracefully declining in value for years. Maybe they don't want to put that $10,000 into increasing Newstart. How about putting it into providing proper, tailored support for people? This information day, the community day in Logan on 20 January that I mentioned, simply provided opportunities for people from the community to get support. The event brought people experiencing hardship together with a whole lot of services in the area. There were agencies such as Multilink, whose key focus is on settlement of new people into the community; language support; help for aged and disability sectors; support for children, young people and families; and programs focusing on healthy lifestyles for people. Metro South HHS provided free dental checks to over 20 children and advice to adults and information about oral health. A number of people received professional legal advice. Social workers helped people who needed guidance relating to homelessness and housing. An Auslan interpreter assisted with interviews and general translation. The Life Without Barriers group discussed their foster care program. The Retail and Fast Food Workers Union was available to talk to anyone experiencing workplace difficulties—an area that many people who are underemployed or on casual work and who are on and off income support payments have to engage with. These services were complemented by the Anti-Poverty Network Qld booth, which was run off its feet for most of the day by people needing guidance relating to Centrelink and Job Network agency issues. All of this was done by volunteers, most of them on income support payments themselves. If you've got people in a community like Logan, who are on income support payments themselves, who can organise all of these things in the community for people for free, and the best this government can do is come up with this punitive, controlling mechanism to take away people's control over their own lives and what they spend their money on compulsorily—no way off it—how about you put that money into providing services? Clearly, the need is there. It's left up to the people on welfare to organise it and provide it themselves, because it's not being provided by this government. If you want to try and get it from this government, you spend two hours on the phone to Centrelink, and then your call drops out and you've got to call again. That's about the best this lot can do. This is the same tired old script: pick on the powerless, bash the battlers. We had lots of media coverage about a vehicle called the 'Battler Bus' driving through regional Queensland at the last state election. I'd like to see the folks who travelled on that bus. It will be interesting to see how they vote on this legislation, because it's the battlers in regional Queensland who are going to cop it from these measures. This is a clear test. Do people actually care about the lived experience of the battlers, or is this going to be another huge, monumental Big Brother: 'we know what's best for you'? Even with the best will in the world—let's forget about what is pretty obvious political pointscoring being done here by some in the government. The old pick-on-the-stereotype-of-the-dole-bludger mechanism has been tried and true for many years. Let's put that to one side. Will you actually support the battlers in their community by helping them as individuals, rather than this monumental Big Brother sledgehammer dropping down over an entire region saying, 'This is what we're going to do to all of you?' If you don't support it, it means there's something wrong with you. It means you're part of the problem. Let's see how the crucial people on the crossbenches vote with regard to this. Now, it is important to look at the evidence. I appreciate that some from the government, with good intentions, have pointed to people in individual communities who are supporting this measure. I can understand, on the surface, why people would think: 'Well, this might work. Other things aren't working; let's try this.' But the big thing is it's compulsory. It doesn't work. I'd hate to turn into an old social worker 30 years down the track, but the evidence for so long—so long—has been that, if you do this, it does not work; it does more harm than good. We've got the evidence from the Northern Territory intervention, as Senator Siewert mentioned. You could call that an experiment, which, as usual, was inflicted on Aboriginal people. It didn't work. I'm sure there were some individuals it helped—I'm not disputing that—but, overall, community wise, it did not work. And it cost a fortune. It worked for some of the people who got paid big salaries, coming in from outside. It worked for them; it did not work for those communities as a whole. Talking about listening to the evidence, I will remind this chamber—and I will never forget this—in the period just before I finished in this chamber last time around, of the tabling of the Little children are sacred report and how, suddenly, overnight, we had to have this massive intervention on Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. We had to beg and kick to just get a Senate inquiry on the Friday before the legislation was heard the following week, debated and passed in this chamber. The Senate committee that I was part of—I think Senator Siewert was part of it as well—asked to hear from the authors of the Little children are sacred report, the report that was meant to be the trigger for all this, and the committee wouldn't allow us to hear from them. It blocked us hearing from the people who wrote that report. We had to have a special phone hook-up at lunchtime, outside of the committee, so that we could hear from them directly, and they told us all the things that were wrong with this approach. Sadly, they were proven right. Let's not repeat that mistake again. 11:41 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I'm delighted to have an opportunity to contribute to this very important debate. Before I get to the substance of the government's program and the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017, I want to take the time to respond to two things that Senator Bartlett said in his contribution to this debate. The first I'll deal with very briefly, because I'm sure, and I hope, it was just a throwaway political line designed to appeal to the conspiracy theorists among the Greens membership. Senator Bartlett, while acknowledging there was some goodwill and some good reasons why people would support a policy like this, also said that he suspected that there was another reason why the government was proposing a policy like this—that it was because of the online comments on News Limited websites. It's a fairly extraordinary thing for a senator in this chamber to suggest that the federal government has a major policy for addressing disadvantage, substance abuse, domestic violence and other problems that is motivated or inspired by online comments on news websites. That is, seriously, just gutter politics. This serious issue requires a much greater and more serious engagement than that. But, moving to the more substantive, philosophical issues that Senator Bartlett raised, I noted with interest that, while Senator Bartlett was speaking, Senator Leyonhjelm was in the chair. I assume that Senator Leyonhjelm has just gone to his office to get a membership form to deliver to Senator Bartlett, because many of the sentiments expressed by Senator Bartlett in his speech were very libertarian in nature. He used phrases like 'Big Brother' and 'authoritarian'. He said that it is better for people, rather than government, to have control over their own lives and that people know how to spend their own money better than the government does. These are the kinds of things you expect to hear at a Liberal Democratic Party preselection or branch meeting, not usually from a Greens senator. Of course, the challenge would be to see whether Senator Bartlett holds these views consistently and whether he'd apply them to other areas of policy. If Senator Bartlett really does believe that people know how to spend their money better than the government does, why does he, and his party, advocate higher taxes—taking more money from people so that the government can spend it on their behalf? Why wouldn't he instead argue that the government should cut taxes and return money to people and allow them to spend it in their own best interests, as he says they're better able to do? If he really believed that people are better at controlling their own lives than government is and that they should be allowed to run their own lives then why would he and his party support so many nanny-state, interventionist initiatives in the public health space? Whether it comes to smoking, drinking or eating fatty or sugary foods, the Greens party is a consistent source of more ideas to control people's lives more minutely. It seems the only area— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Paterson, we have reached 11:45. You will be in continuation when debate on this bill resumes. NOTICES 21 NOTICES Presentation 21 NOTICES 23 NOTICES Withdrawal 23 11:45 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia On behalf of Senator Williams, Chair of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, I give notice of the withdrawal of business of the Senate notice of motion Nos 5 and 6 for 28 March relating to vehicle standards. Presentation 23 11:45 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I give notice that I will shortly be tabling a notice of motion on Closing the Gap. COMMITTEES 23 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 23 Report 23 11:46 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia On behalf of Senator Bushby, I present the first report of 2018 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as f ollows— SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Report no. 1 of 2018 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 7 February 2018 at 7.21 pm. 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the provisions of the Clean Energy Finance Corporation Amendment (Carbon Capture and Storage) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 May 2018 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); (b) the National Broadcasters Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Transparency) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 March 2018 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); and (c) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Whistleblower Protections) Bill 2017 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 16 March 2018 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees: Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment (Operational Efficiency) Bill 2017 Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 2017 Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Foreign Media Ownership and Community Radio) Bill 2017 Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding for Proprietary Companies) Bill 2017 Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2017 Export Control Bill 2017 Live Animal Export (Slaughter) Prohibition Bill 2017 National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits—Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2017. 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment (Strengthening the Commitments for Australian Citizenship and Other Measures) Bill 2018 Australian Passports Amendment (Identity-matching Services) Bill 2018 Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment (Debt Ceiling) Bill 2018 Identity-matching Services Bill 2018 Imported Food Control Amendment (Country of Origin) Bill 2017 Road Vehicle Standards Bill 2018 Road Vehicle Standards (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—General) Bill 2018 Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—Customs) Bill 2018 Road Vehicle Standards Charges (Imposition—Excise) Bill 2018 Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 1) Bill 2018 Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 2) Bill 2018 Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill 2018 Treasury Laws Amendment (Reducing Pressure on Housing Affordability Measures (No.2)) Bill 2018 Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment (Near-new Dwelling Interests) Bill 2018. (David Bushby) Chair 8 February 2018 Senator FAWCETT DYU I move: That the report be adopted. 11:46 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I seek leave to amend the motion that the report be adopted. Leave granted. Senator SIEWERT e5z I move: That at the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill 2017, the bill be referred to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 27 April 2018." This is Senator Steele-John's portfolio area. He has had a number of concerns raised with him from constituents about some of the provisions in this bill and he wants to refer it to committee. We know it's on the red for today, and I understand that's one of the reasons why the government isn't keen for this to go to committee. But Senator Steele-John feels very strongly that this should have a relatively short inquiry, given the issues that are involved. 11:47 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria I can appreciate Senator Siewert's concerns, but the opposition is concerned that there not be any further delay in relation to these measures. We had agreed with the government to facilitate as quickly as possible bringing in better arrangements to manage these issues. Unfortunately, this could have been referred back in December, and, had it occurred back then, we might've been in a position to address it in more detail. But I'm sure also, in relation to the Greens senator dealing with this matter, there have been many investigations addressing these very serious issues that have informed this legislation now. In the absence of any particular or specific new matters to justify anything that will cause further delay, the opposition is opposed to this motion being amended. Question negatived. Original question agreed to. BUSINESS 25 BUSINESS Rearrangement 25 11:49 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That— (a) government business orders of the day as shown on today's order of business be considered from 12.45 pm today; and (b) government business be called on after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today. Non-controversial government business— No. 5 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment (Authority Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2017 No. 6 Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2017 No. 7 Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 2017 Question agreed to. 11:49 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland At the request of Senator Birmingham, I move: That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows: (a) general business orders of the day: No. 62 Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017 No. 54 Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2015; and (b) orders of the day relating to documents. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 25 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 25 Reporting Date 25 MOTIONS 25 MOTIONS Wirth, Dr Hugh, AM 25 11:50 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia At the request of Senators Di Natale and Rhiannon, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes:    (i) the passing, on 5 February 2018, of Dr Hugh Wirth, AM,    (ii) that Dr Wirth was a highly-respected veterinarian, including as the resident vet on ABC Radio Melbourne's Saturday morning show,    (iii) that he was President of RSPCA Victoria's Board from 1972 to 2015, and served on the Board of RSPCA Australia for 35 years,    (iv) that he made an outstanding contribution to animal welfare and became the first non-European President of World Animal Protection,    (v) that he was deeply-respected amongst his fellow colleagues and the wider public, was made a Member of the Order of Australia (AM) in 1985, and, in 1997, was named Victorian of the Year, and    (vi) that he will be missed as a passionate and tenacious advocate for animal welfare; and (b) expresses its condolences to his family, and may he rest in peace. Question agreed to. Broadband 26 11:51 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that:    (i) on 30 October 2017, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's (ACCC) draft report for the Communications Sector Market Study recommended that "the Government consider whether NBN Co should continue to be obliged to recover its full cost of investment through its prices", and that other options should be examined, including direct budget funding,    (ii) the requirement on NBN Co to make a commercial return is compromising its ability to deliver a fast, reliable, affordable, and future-proof network to all Australians,    (iii) the connectivity virtual circuit (CVC) charge, levied by NBN Co on Retail Service Providers (RSPs), is necessitating that RSPs choose between quality (reliability, speed and congestion) and affordability of available services, and    (iv) on 16 January 2018, the Government released its response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network, in which it reaffirmed its commitment to rollout the Multi Technology Mix with the existing business model; and (b) calls on the Government to accept the ACCC's recommendations to:    (i) reconsider whether NBN Co should be obliged to recover its full cost of investment through its prices, in light of the impact that this obligation is having on quality of internet services being delivered to Australians, and    (ii) examine other options for funding the NBN, including direct budget funding. 11:51 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The Australian government recognises the importance of affordable access to telecommunications. By rolling out the NBN more quickly and at less cost, millions of Australians now have vastly approved access to high-speed broadband, but the economic reality of building a new generation network means that somebody does have to pay for it. The government has worked to ensure that Australians will pay less for the internet than would have been the case if the previous Labor government's model had been pursued. Through the government's incremental upgrade approach to the rollout, better broadband will be delivered across Australia six years sooner than would have been the case otherwise, at $30 billion less cost to taxpayers and without the need for home internet bills to climb by more than $500 a year. Question negatived. Australia Day 26 11:52 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I, and also on behalf of Senator Di Natale, move: That the Senate— (a) acknowledges that:    (i) on 26 January 2018, tens of thousands of Australians around the country marched in solidarity with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples calling on Governments to change the date of Australia Day, and    (ii) 26 January is a day of mourning for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, as it represents the beginning of colonisation, the theft of their land, the decimation of their culture and the start of ongoing genocide; and (b) calls on federal, state and territory governments to change the date of Australia Day so that everyone can participate in celebrating this national day. 11:53 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The coalition government does not support this motion, as we believe Australia Day should remain our national day on 26 January, as do the majority of Australians. Australia Day is a day where, as a nation, we celebrate our shared values as well as the rich diversity of Australians, from our First Australians to our newest citizens. We are the most successful multicultural society in the world and we should celebrate and be proud of it. 11:53 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Labor will be opposing this motion. There is no doubt that Australia Day is an important national day. It's a source of great celebration for Australians, but we cannot shy away from the fact that for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, 26 January can speak of dispossession and sorrow. On Australia Day, we should acknowledge that we owe our First Australians more than just a few brief words of respect. We are no different to any other country, in that our history has its fault lines. We have our share of triumphs and successes and our share of scars and stains. It is correct to acknowledge that we have had long decades of dispossession and degradation inflicted upon our First Australians by those who came after. We need to recognise the historical truth that our history is one we can be proud of, but also recognise its errors and mistakes. Labor does not support changing the date of Australia Day. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 694, standing in the names of Senators Siewert and Di Natale, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:58]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 9 AYES Bartlett, AJJ Di Natale, R Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Whish-Wilson, PS 46 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Cameron, DN Cash, MC Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Ketter, CR Kitching, K Leyonhjelm, DE Lines, S Macdonald, ID Marshall, GM McAllister, J McGrath, J Molan, AJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Polley, H Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, D Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Defence Industry 27 12:02 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: That the Senate— (a) notes:    (i) the Australian Government's plans to make Australia one of the top ten weapons manufacturers globally, raising us from the 20th to the 10th spot, and    (ii) the dangerous and destructive effects of the global arms trade in fuelling conflicts; (b) re-affirms the comments of World Vision CEO, Mr Tim Costello, that Australia will be "exporting death and profiting from bloodshed"; (c) condemns the fact that the Government plans to loan $3 billion to arms manufacturers, which is equal to Australia's entire foreign aid budget, which has suffered $11 billion in cuts since 2014, and follows attempts by the Government to cut $2 billion from higher education; and (d) calls on the Government to cease immediately this plan to turn Australia into a mercenary nation of arms dealers, and instead use the funds to revitalise our manufacturing industry around renewable energy, electric cars, advanced medical technology and education services. 12:02 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The launch of Australia's first-ever defence exports strategy demonstrates our ambition for Australia as a nation, our Defence Forces, our defence industry and the future of the Australian economy. It is an ambitious, positive plan to boost Australian industry, increase investment and create more jobs for Australians and more opportunities for Australian businesses. The strategic goal is to achieve greater export success to build a stronger, more sustainable and more globally competitive Australian defence industry to support Australia's defence capability needs. All defence exports will continue to be in Australia's broader national interests, including Australia's strategic interest, defence capability, foreign policy and economic policy. 12:03 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The opposition will not be supporting this motion. Labor supports a strong Australian defence industry. This industry must be underpinned by a world-class export capability. Labor will examine the detail of the government's strategy, but the government needs to do much more to invest in skilling our defence workforce. This includes mandating skills transfer as part of any major defence projects led by foreign primes, ensuring Australian defence industry is best placed to compete for projects internationally. Labor has been making the case for assisting small- and medium-sized enterprises, including those in defence industries, for a long time. This is why Labor announced the advanced manufacturing fund, a $1 billion loan program to help firms expand and enter new markets overseas. In addition, Labor has always made the case for designing, building and maintaining ships in Australia and for assisting our shipbuilders with becoming competitive in global markets. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that notice of motion No. 695 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:05]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 9 AYES Bartlett, AJJ Di Natale, R Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Whish-Wilson, PS 46 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Cameron, DN Cash, MC Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Ketter, CR Kitching, K Leyonhjelm, DE Lines, S Macdonald, ID Marshall, GM McAllister, J McGrath, J Molan, AJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Polley, H Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, D Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Mining 29 12:08 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I move: That the Senate— (a) notes, with concern, that the Adani Group (Adani) is on the record blatantly misrepresenting the number of jobs its polluting Carmichael coal mine would create; (b) condemns Adani's deception in inflating its jobs figures sevenfold, until it was forced under oath to reveal that the true figure is in fact 1,464 direct and indirect jobs over the life of the project, rather than the 10 000 claimed; (c) further notes that the carbon pollution from Adani's mine would significantly contribute to dangerous global warming, further endangering the Great Barrier Reef and the 70 000 jobs that rely on it; and (d) asserts that, rather than relying on a polluting, deceitful company to provide jobs for Queenslanders, federal and state Governments should invest in renewable energy, service industries and manufacturing as the best drivers of Queensland jobs. 12:08 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The statements in this motion are factually incorrect. The Adani Carmichael mine project has already created 800 jobs. The Queensland Department of State Development, Manufacturing, Infrastructure and Planning has projected that in excess of 11,000 jobs will be created. Twelve court decisions have found environmental claims such as those in the motion to be without merit. 12:08 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DI NATALE 53369 It was Adani themselves who were forced to correct their claim that the Adani mine would generate 10,000 jobs. Indeed, what we found was that, under oath, when Adani were forced to justify that claim, they were unable to do so. In fact, they had inflated that claim sevenfold. That was a statement made by Adani under oath. This is a project that doesn't generate jobs; this is a project that kills jobs. This will kill the 70,000 jobs on the Great Barrier Reef. This is a project that, if it goes ahead, will ensure that we lose one of the most precious natural assets not just of Australia but of the world. The challenge now is for Bill Shorten to stand up against Michael Danby, his own member for Melbourne Ports, who just yesterday said that they should back the project. Bill Shorten should show some leadership here and stop this carbon bomb from going ahead. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 696 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:11]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 9 AYES Bartlett, AJJ Di Natale, R Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Whish-Wilson, PS 46 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Cameron, DN Cash, MC Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Ketter, CR Kitching, K Leyonhjelm, DE Lines, S Macdonald, ID Marshall, GM McAllister, J McGrath, J Molan, AJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Polley, H Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, D Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Live Animal Exports 30 12:14 Senator RHIANNON CPR New South Wales I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that:    (i) according to the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union (AMIEU), since 1990, more than 40 000 jobs in Australian meat processing have been lost to live exports,    (ii) according to the AMIEU, independent research shows that a sheep processed in Australia is worth 20 per cent more to the economy than one sent for live export, and    (iii) the live export industry has been plagued by horrific animal cruelty; and (b) calls on the Turnbull Government to:    (i) support the development of new meat processing facilities in northern Australia,    (ii) work with industry to end subsidies and tariffs which favour the live export trade,    (iii) provide assistance to expand the boxed meat export trade, and    (iv) work with farmers and industry to develop a smooth and successful transition away from live export by assisting to build new abattoirs, all-weather roads and developing other ways to reduce production costs. 12:14 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The coalition government recognises the positive economic contribution that both the live export and red meat industries deliver to the nation, to local communities and to rural families at the farm gate. We are investing heavily in supporting the improvement of cattle supply chains in northern Australia, through the northern Australia white paper. Australia's red-meat-processing and live export sectors are complementary. The export of livestock overseas increases livestock prices across the entire Australian red meat industry and increases returns to livestock producers and the businesses that support them in their communities. 12:15 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Labor is opposing this motion. Whilst Labor is a strong supporter of our local meat-processing industry and acknowledges that there are labour force and stock supply issues, the current motion is seeking to pit the live export industry against the local meat-processing industry, and this will do nothing to ensure the longer term sustainability and profitability of the local meat-processing industry. 12:15 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator HINCH 2O4 In 1980 I sent to this very parliament a petition containing 30,000 names, calling for a ban on live exports, when Peter Nixon was the Minister for Primary Industry. I have never wavered from that. I support this position from Senator Rhiannon 100 per cent, and I hope the Senate will finally come to its senses. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 697 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:17]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 10 AYES Bartlett, AJJ Di Natale, R Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D McKim, NJ Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Whish-Wilson, PS 46 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Cameron, DN Cash, MC Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hume, J Ketter, CR Kitching, K Leyonhjelm, DE Lines, S Macdonald, ID Marshall, GM McAllister, J McGrath, J Molan, AJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Polley, H Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Singh, LM Smith, D Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

DOCUMENTS 31 DOCUMENTS West Lorengau Haus 31 Order for the Production of Documents 31 12:20 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia I, and also on behalf of Senator McKim, move: That the Senate— (a) notes that:    (i) on 7 December 2017, the Senate passed a motion for an order for the production of documents (OPD) relating to correspondence between the Commonwealth and its Australian contractors on Papua New Guinea's Manus Island, and    (ii) the OPD related to parts of contracts, correspondence, reports, memos or photographs relating to accommodation and services being delivered at West Lorengau; (b) further notes that:    (i) the documents were sought following concerns expressed by advocates and eyewitnesses regarding the standards of accommodation at West Lorengau, including incomplete fencing and plumbing, intermittent power and water, and the sufficiency of the health and other services being delivered, particularly as compared to previous services delivered at the Manus Island regional processing centre,    (ii) according to the UNHCR's fact sheet on Manus Island, updated on 21 January 2018, many of these concerns are ongoing,    (iii) on 17 January 2018, the then-Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Senator Birmingham) released a two-page response from the Minster for Home Affairs (Mr Dutton), but no documents were returned, and    (iv) the response stated that the release of the documents would be contrary to the public interest, and "should be done on the grounds that the disclosure could be reasonably expected to cause damage to Australia's international relations with PNG"; (c) acknowledges the question of what constitutes a reasonable expectation of damage to international relations has been the subject of proceedings in the Federal Court, specifically in Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade v Paul Whittaker (2005), where the court stated that "Damage to international relations might reasonably be expected where the disclosure of a document may disclose sensitive information so as to cause, or reasonably be expected to cause, actual and significant damage...the test is not whether there is a risk of damage to international relations; the test requires a higher degree of certainty of damage"; (d) does not accept that the order for the production of documents made on 7 December 2017 has been adequately dealt with, insofar as the material requested would, by necessity, include a range of information that has no bearing on Australia's relationship with Papua New Guinea; (e) does not accept that public interest immunity has been appropriately advanced, and calls on the Minister to review the nature of the documents ordered on 7 December 2017, and apply a higher test of real risk rather than hypothesised risk; and (f) orders that there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, by 9 am on 19 March 2018, any correspondence requested on 7 December 2017 which meets the proper test. 12:20 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The government does not support this motion. Unilateral disclosure by Australia of information pertaining to regional processing arrangements would undermine Papua New Guinea's confidence in Australia, jeopardising our good working relationship and the policies which operate under Operation Sovereign Borders. Sovereign governments do not expect other governments to unilaterally release information which pertains to important parts of their relationship. The coalition government's strong and consistent border protection policies have saved countless lives. Australia's strong relationship with Papua New Guinea is a critical part of this. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 698 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:25]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 31 AYES Bartlett, AJJ Cameron, DN Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Ketter, CR Kitching, K Leyonhjelm, DE Lines, S Marshall, GM McAllister, J McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Steele-John, J Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 26 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Hanson, P Hume, J McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Smith, D 7 PAIRS Bilyk, CL Williams, JR Brown, CL Brandis, GH Carr, KJ Macdonald, ID Dodson, P Seselja, Z Gallagher, KR Sinodinos, A McCarthy, M O'Sullivan, B Wong, P Cormann,

Senator Duniam did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Kakoschke-Moore
Question agreed to.

 COMMITTEES 33 COMMITTEES Education and Employment References Committee 33 Reference 33 12:28 Senator MARSHALL 00AOP Victoria I move: That the following matter be referred to the Education and Employment References Committee for inquiry and report by 14 August 2018: Work health and safety of workers in the offshore petroleum industry, with particular reference to: (a) the scope and necessity for amending and updating any legislative inconsistencies in the relevant work health and safety scheme, including:    (i) any provisions in the legislation which need to be updated,    (ii) providing for appropriate consistency between the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (OPGGS Act) and the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (WHS Act),    (iii) legislative changes required to the OPGGS Act to provide for appropriate consistency with the model work health and safety laws (as revised in June 2011), and    (iv) legislative changes which recognise that the work is undertaken in remote locations; (b) the effectiveness of the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) and equivalent state and territory offshore petroleum regulators (the regulators) in promoting the work health and safety of persons engaged in offshore petroleum operations; (c) the accountability framework to which NOPSEMA is subject with respect to work health and safety matters, and whether this needs to be strengthened; (d) the role and structure of the NOPSEMA Board and options for improving the effectiveness of their stakeholder engagement; (e) the workings of NOPSEMA's collaboration, and working relationships, with other work health and safety regulators and bodies, including Safe Work Australia; (f) challenges in attracting and retaining health and safety representatives; (g) the adequacy of the protections afforded to health and safety representatives performing their functions under the relevant legislation; (h) policies and practices which could be adopted by NOPSEMA to better support health and safety representatives; (i) factors impacting on the work health and safety of workers in the offshore petroleum industry; (j) Government policies at the state, territory and Commonwealth level which have a significant impact on the work health and safety of workers in the offshore petroleum industry; (k) relevant parallels or strategies in an international context; (l) the role of Government in providing a coordinated strategic approach to health and safety outcomes in the offshore petroleum industry; and (m) any other related matters. 12:28 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The government does not support this inquiry, as it is unnecessary. Australia's offshore petroleum industry is one of the safest in the world, with some of the lowest injury rates. Australia's independent, expertise based regulator, the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority, regulates health and safety in the industry. While broadly consistent with the national Work Health and Safety Act, this regime has additional specific requirements to address the high-hazard, high-risk nature of offshore activities and applies duties of care to a more specific set of persons in more detail. Last year Labor senators Chisholm and Urquhart stated that the Australian offshore oil and gas industry is subject to one of the most rigorous environmental safety and regulatory regimes in the world. 12:28 Senator MARSHALL 00AOP Victoria I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator MARSHALL 00AOP If what the government says is true, they should support this inquiry to reaffirm those claims. Question agreed to. Economics References Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 34 Membership 34 12:29 The PRESIDENT I0Q I have received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees. 12:29 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Economics References Committee— Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Bartlett to replace Senator Whish-Wilson for the committee's inquiry into the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Participating member: Senator Whish-Wilson Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee— Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Steele-John to replace Senator McKim for the committee's inquiry into cyberbullying Participating member: Senator McKim Question agreed to. BILLS 34 BILLS Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017, Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017, Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 34

Imported Food Control Amendment Bill 2017

Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017

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

First Reading 34 12:30 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 34 12:31 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— IMPORTED FOOD CONTROL AMENDMENT BILL 2017 SECOND READING SPEECH Australia has a world-class food safety management system. Our exported food is highly sought after internationally due to our world-class food safety reputation. This benefits our farmers, our economy, and our nation as a leading exporter of high quality safe food. It is essential that we ensure food being brought into Australia is safe. As globalisation changes how food is traded around the world, we need to strengthen our laws to meet the changing landscape. Australia imports food for a variety of reasons. In 2015-16, we imported $16 billion worth of food. In the same period, Australia exported $40 billion worth of food. Some food is imported into Australia as ingredients to be used in manufacturing of food, some of which is consumed in Australia and some is exported, contributing to our prosperity. For both our economic prosperity through exports, and for the safety of Australians, ensuring all food brought into Australia is safe is a must. The hepatitis A outbreak in 2015 linked to imported frozen berries highlighted the limitations in our imported food safety management system in identifying and responding to new food safety risks and ensuring importers are accountable for importing safe food across their supply chain. This Bill will address these limitations to modernise the system ensuring we continue to have a robust world-class food safety management system. Food safety management systems are based on science. Some food risks you can't see. We know for some food, such as raw milk cheese, scientific testing alone of the final product does not guarantee the food is safe to eat. As our farmers know, ensuring every step of the production process, from the grass the cow eats, to the water the cow drinks, to the cleanliness of the dairy, the conditions the cheese is made in, to finally the way the cheese is packaged and transported are all critical. To address these concerns for food where at-border testing alone is insufficient to assure safety, this Bill will introduce a requirement that for certain ready to eat or minimally processed foods, importers will need an internationally recognised food safety management certificate that assures the food's production has been managed safely. One or two times a year there are circumstances where we strongly suspect a problem with an imported food but the scientists are still working out what tests will best show if the problem exists in that particular batch. This was the case with the frozen berries, and we were able to work with the importer to voluntarily hold the food. However, this is reliant on the importer being cooperative. This Bill addresses that weakness by introducing new capacity to hold food at the border until the scientific testing approach is being finalised or the extent of the problem is understood. This capacity will only be utilised for a short period until the scientific testing approach is finalised, then we will use the existing provisions. Under the current system, if we have some information about an emerging risk but the scientific evidence is incomplete, the system is unable to increase the surveillance of that food. This Bill introduces the ability to increase the level of surveillance to monitor the risk for a limited period and gather scientific evidence to conduct a reassessment of that food. This will enable us to better respond to emerging risks proactively before a food safety incident occurs. Australia is a big exporter of food. Our agricultural exports contributed $38.3 billion to the Australian economy in 2015-16. This government has worked tirelessly to develop new markets for our exports. As part of this work we have identified foreign countries who have food safety management systems that are equivalent to our own. Where there are equivalent food safety management systems between Australia and another country, this Bill introduces the capacity to recognise the systems and to reduce intervention at the border. This will benefit both countries, enabling the easier flow of trade between Australia and that country. We are serious about ensuring Australia continues to have a world-class food safety management system. Part of ensuring this is having the necessary tools in place for when somebody tries to break the rules. This Bill brings the enforcement tools available to the department up to modern standards and introduces new penalties to make sure when somebody breaks the law they are dealt with appropriately. That's why we're introducing a full range of penalties, ranging from strict liability offences to up to ten years in gaol and fines greater than $100,000. The Australian Government only has regulatory responsibility for food as it comes over our border. We need to make sure the expectation we have on Australian Businesses is the same as expectations on importers. Australian food businesses have excellent systems in place to be able to trace food, which is essential if a recall is required. To make sure importers are able to do the same, this Bill introduces requirements for importers to be able to quickly identify who they bought food from and who they sold it to in Australia. This will strengthen our ability to respond to a food incident. The food safety management system in Australia is a cooperative system where the states, territories, local governments and Australian Government have shared responsibilities. To enable information to be used easily within Australia for food regulation, we have improved our information sharing abilities with the states and territories. The states, territories and local governments play an essential part in Australia's domestic food safety management system, and the Australian Government will be able to share information to support jurisdictions to effectively perform their role in food safety management. Another limitation with current imported food safety management practices is how foods can be specified. Despite the knowledge in 2015 that only berries from a specific location were of concern in relation to that incident, all frozen berries were required to be tested under current legislation. This Bill introduces the flexibility to specify food in a detailed way. For example, we will be able to narrow holding orders to specific foods from specific locations or even specific factories. This will reduce the burden on importers at the border as we will be able to target the specific food causing concern, and not all food of that type. The changing global marketplace of food supply presents new challenges for managing the risks associated with imported food. As the world's population grows, ensuring a safe food supply is critical. This Bill introduces the ability of Australia to share information with our international trading partners about any food safety issues identified in food arriving at Australia's border. This will a enable safer food supply chain worldwide. Australia enjoys a world-class food safety management system. Through these changes we will strengthen our system, enabling Australians to continue to enjoy a wide range of food from around the world. Our food manufacturers will be able to continue to produce high quality and safe food, which is highly sought after internationally. This benefits our farmers, our economy, and our nation as a leading exporter of high-quality safe food. A strong food safety management system at the border is essential for our nation. MIGRATION AMENDMENT (PROHIBITING ITEMS IN IMMIGRATION DETENTION FACILITIES) BILL 2017 SECOND READING SPEECH In 2013, 99 per cent of people in immigration detention were Illegal Maritime Arrivals. Our immigration detention facilities were flooded by the 50,000 people who arrived on 800 boats under Labor. Since coming to Government, the Coalition has been able to get people out of detention, including every child, and we have been able to close 17 detention centres. At the same time we have strengthened section 501 of the Migration Act to better protect the Australian community from foreign nationals who commit serious crimes. These changes have allowed us to cancel the visas of more than 2,800 foreign nationals who thought they could flout our laws and commit crimes against Australians. Since these changes were enacted, we have cancelled the visas of 54 murderers, 223 child sex offenders and 150 organised crime figures. This action has resulted in a significant increase in criminals in our immigration detention facilities. Immigration detention is necessary for strong border control. Foreign nationals who present an unacceptable risk to the Australian community will have their visas cancelled and they will be detained while their status is resolved, or they are removed from the country. Today, around 50 per cent of the detention population are non-citizens who have had their visas cancelled. And while IMAs now only make up around 25 per cent of the detention population, this cohort is complex and includes people with criminal histories or other security concerns which present a risk to the Australian community. This means that more than half of the detainee population consists of high-risk cohorts. These cohorts have significant criminal histories, like child sex offences or links to criminal gangs, such as outlaw motorcycle gangs and other organised crime groups, or represent an unacceptable risk to the Australian community otherwise. These criminals often have serious behavioural issues and pose a critical threat to the health, safety, security and order of the detention network. I will not tolerate behaviour that is illegal, or that threatens the stability of detention facilities, placing my officers, visitors or detainees at risk. At the moment, the existing arrangements are inadequate to manage the increasing risk of contraband in detention, such as narcotic drugs and the use of mobile phones for the commission of criminal activity. Mobile phones in detention are enabling criminal behaviour. Examples of their use include: drug distribution within detention facilities maintenance of criminal enterprises in and out of detention facilities commodity of exchange or currency – currently, Illegal Maritime Arrival detainees are not permitted mobile phones, but all other detainees are – so mobile phones are now being used as a type of currency in the facilities owners of mobile phones are also being subjected to stand-over tactics (including theft of the phone) facilitation of threats between detainees accessing child pornography The Australian Border Force Commissioner advised in Budget Estimates that one detainee arranged a contract killing on another detainee while in immigration detention. Thankfully, my officers prevented this heinous crime from occurring but I will not stand by and allow this behaviour to continue. We have also seen the use of mobile phones to coordinate internal disturbances and escapes. Two coordinated disturbances, one on Christmas Island and one at Yongah Hill, resulted in riots. This synchronised effort of disruption is threatening the order of the detention facilities and is placing all those who work or reside there at risk. The Migration Amendment (Prohibiting Items in Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2017 enables the Department to provide a safe and secure environment for people accommodated at, visiting or working at an immigration detention facility. The Bill will strengthen search and seizure powers, including the use of detector dogs, in order for authorised officers to restrict things from immigration detention facilities that might pose a risk. These things include mobile phones, SIM cards, narcotic drugs and child pornography. Specifically, the Bill amends the Act to insert new definitions under subsection 5(1), to define detention centres and alternative places of detention, collectively as 'immigration detention facilities', and to define a 'prohibited thing'. A new section, 251A will be inserted to enable the Minister to determine, by legislative instrument, things to be prohibited, in relation to persons in detention and immigration detention facilities. These things will include illegal things, specifically narcotic drugs and child pornography, and things that might be a risk within immigration detention facilities, such as mobile phones and SIM cards. The Government is also proposing amendments to the search and seizure provisions in the Act, specifically sections 252, 252AA, 252A, 252B, 252BA, 252BB, 252C, 252CA and 252G, in order to ensure that we are able to effectively deal with such items. In addition, the Government is proposing to add the ability to use a detector dog to screen for some of these items under sections 252AA, 252BA and 252G of the Act. Even with the removal of mobile phones from detention facilities, detainees will continue to have reasonable access to communication avenues. This includes landline phones, internet access and visitors, in order to maintain contact with their support networks. Migration Agents or legal representatives will also continue to be able to contact their clients. This Bill will ensure our officers can carry out their responsibilities properly, minimising unacceptable risks to the health, safety and security of persons in immigration detention facilities, and to the order of these facilities. TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (BANKING MEASURES NO. 1) BILL 2017 SECOND READING SPEECH In this year's Budget, the Government announced a series of measures that will deliver a stronger, safer financial system, with better competition and consumer outcomes for Australians. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Banking Measures No. 1) Bill 2017 continues the work of implementing these commitments by further strengthening our financial system. Schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill provide APRA with a new reserve power to make rules in relation to non-bank lenders, called 'non-ADI lenders'. This will provide APRA the necessary flexibility to address risks to financial stability if they emerge. This measure also enhances APRA's ability to gather data to monitor non-ADI lenders. Importantly, this new rule making power is not a new 'peacetime' regulation of non-ADI lenders. These lenders are a vital source of competition in the lending market, and they do not rely on ordinary Australian depositors for their funding. Given non-ADI lenders have no depositors to protect, it is appropriate that they continue to run their businesses without being subject to ongoing prudential supervision by APRA. The Government supports this important sector and the competition it provides for customers. However, international experience has demonstrated that risks can emerge from the non-ADI lender sector that threatens the stability of the financial system. It is appropriate for APRA to have the power to move decisively to curb these risks should they ever arise. Having such rules in place should strengthen the non-ADI lender sector, by signalling to market that the sector is well regulated and stable. The Government has often spoken of the need to approach financial stability risks with a scalpel rather than a chainsaw – these powers will provide APRA a new scalpel to deal with risks to financial stability that are specific to non-ADI lenders. Schedule 3 of the Bill lifts the prohibition on the use of the term 'bank', so that all banking businesses with an ADI licence can now use the term. This will encourage competition in the sector by allowing all ADIs to enjoy the benefit of describing themselves as a bank when they offer banking services to Australian customers. This will prompt innovation in the sector by opening the door to new banking entrants who will no longer be subject to the systemic barrier to entry of not being able to call themselves a bank when offering banking services. Schedule 4 of the Bill seeks to modernise the Banking Act by incorporating a reference to the importance of APRA considering 'geographic and sectoral' considerations where appropriate. Government is putting APRA's powers and responsibilities to take account of these considerations - in line with its prudential mandate - beyond doubt. Schedule 5 of the Bill implements a package of reforms to reduce the incidence of consumers building up unsustainable credit card debt and to improve competition in the credit card market. Too many Australians are burdened with excessive credit card debt and incur substantial credit card interest. More than 30 per cent of credit card holders in the lowest income quartile carry interest-bearing debt from period to period. For these consumers, inadequate competition on ongoing interest rates and insufficient protection in the current regulatory framework can contribute to real hardship. Schedule 5 of the Bill implements reforms to ensure consumers can afford credit card contracts, to reduce the barriers consumers face when switching credit cards, and to align the calculation of credit card interest with consumers' expectations. I will now provide more detail on these measures. Since December 2014, APRA has taken a series of steps to address emerging financial stability risks by reinforcing the lending practices of banks and other ADIs, particularly in relation to residential home loans. While these measures are effective in mitigating financial stability risks, the tightening of credit from ADIs creates room for non-ADI lenders to fill in the gap. Although their current share of lending is relatively small, these non-ADI lenders may expand rapidly and their lending activities could potentially pose material risks to financial stability – risks that ultimately fall on the broader Australian community. The global financial crisis showed us how costly these risks can be when left unaddressed. However, APRA does not have power over these lending activities, even where they materially contribute to financial stability risks. Schedule 1 to the Bill will provide APRA with these powers. APRA will be able to make rules relating to lending practices of non-ADI lenders, where it considers that their lending activities materially contribute to financial stability risks. These new rules will be backed by appropriate enforcement mechanisms. If a non-ADI lender fails to comply with a rule, it can be compelled by APRA to comply. If it ignores an APRA direction, the non-ADI lender will face appropriate penalties. Schedule 2 to the Bill enhances APRA's ability to collect data from non-ADI lenders, so it can better monitor the non-ADI lender sector and determine if and when to use its new rulemaking power. In making this determination, APRA will use its independent judgement. However, it is likely APRA will consider a number of factors including: the size of the sector; the nature of activities of non-ADI lenders; and the impact of non-ADI lenders on ADIs. Before it makes a rule, APRA must consult ASIC, and will also ordinarily consult with the other members of the Council of Financial Regulators. The rulemaking power is a reserve power that would only be used when APRA considers that the lending activities of non-ADI lenders are materially contributing to risks of financial instability. In other words, the Government is providing APRA with a new 'tool on the shelf' – rather than requiring the day to day operations of these entities to be regulated by APRA. The Government believes that non-ADI lenders are not currently materially contributing to financial stability risks and therefore the Government does not expect APRA to use these powers on day one. Schedule 3 helps innovative new banking entrants bring new product offerings into the Australian banking system. New entrants to the Australian banking market currently face a significant obstacle – the prohibition on the use of the word 'bank'. At present, only ADIs with at least $50 million in capital are permitted to use the term 'bank'. This has two undesirable effects: - it discourages innovative new players from entering the sector, because they are unable to benefit from the advantages of being able to use the term 'bank' in the critical early phase of their development; and - it may lead the public to mistakenly believe that small ADIs differ from larger players in terms of regulatory protection. In fact, all ADIs are subject to APRA's prudential framework. And deposits at all ADIs are protected by the Government's Financial Claims Scheme guarantee. By lifting the prohibition on the use of the word 'bank', Schedule 2 to this Bill will allow the advantages associated with the term 'bank' to flow to all banking businesses with an ADI licence, especially new Fintech entrants. It breaks the vicious cycle for new entrants, where currently they need $50m to describe themselves as a bank, but must describe themselves as a bank in order to grow. Nothing improves the customer experience like robust competition in a market, particularly from innovative new entrants. Competition in banking drives down interest rates for borrowers, drives down fees, increases interest rates for savers, and leads to advancements in the overall customer experience. This measure will also ensure that there are no misconceptions about the regulatory safeguards that apply to all ADIs in Australia's financial system. Schedule 3 will also reinforce APRA's discretion over whether or not to permit the use of 'bank' outside of the ADI sector, ensuring that this term is limited to APRA regulated entities except in very unusual cases. Schedule 4 modernises the Banking Act by inserting an 'objects' provision. This clarifies APRA's mandate under the Act, clearly setting out APRA's objectives to protect financial stability and depositors. It also makes clear that APRA can consider geographic and sectoral sources of system risks issues as appropriate and respond appropriately. Recent conditions have highlighted the fact that the Australian economy differs considerably from region to region. APRA has broad and flexible powers, but there is no clear statement in the Banking Act that APRA has a responsibility to take account of geographic or sectoral issues where appropriate. Government is putting APRA's powers and responsibilities to address these issues - in line with its prudential mandate - beyond doubt. Schedule 5 of the Bill implements a number of reforms to the credit card market to improve competition in the credit card market and protect vulnerable consumers from building up unsustainable credit card debts. There are many benefits to the use of credit cards for consumers. However, for some consumers very high interest rates and a pattern of over-borrowing and under-repayment can cause them to incur persistently high credit card interest charges. These consumers are often in households with low levels of income, with the lowest income households having credit card debt equal to four per cent of their annual disposable income, compared to two per cent for those in the highest income category. For these consumers, inadequate competition on ongoing interest rates and insufficient protection in the current regulatory framework can contribute to substantial hardship. Currently, credit card providers are only required to assess a credit card contract as unsuitable if the borrower cannot repay the loan without substantial hardship. This means that some credit card providers only assess whether a consumer can meet the minimum repayments when determining if a consumer can afford a credit limit. As a result, consumers can be granted excessive credit limits which can lead to cycles of debt. In addition, the calculation of credit card interest can be overly complex and often does not match consumers' expectations or understanding. Consumers can also face substantial barriers to switching credit cards or lowering credit limits due to onerous processes imposed by banks. These barriers have a substantial impact on competition in the credit card market. Schedule 5 of this Bill addresses these problems by implementing a reform package to reduce the incidence of consumers building up unsustainable credit card debt and to improve competition in the credit card market. This is consistent with the Government's commitment to implementing the first phase of reforms outlined in the Government's response to the Senate Inquiry into the credit card market. Firstly, Schedule 5 will tighten responsible lending obligations for credit card providers by requiring affordability assessments to be based on whether a consumer can repay the full credit limit within a reasonable period. The Bill will provide the Australian Securities and Investments Commission with the power to determine that reasonable period by legislative instrument. This reform is not intended to unduly reduce consumers' access to credit. As such, ASIC is required to balance the need to prevent consumers from being in unsuitable credit card contracts with the need to ensure that reasonable access to credit is maintained when determining the reasonable period. Secondly, Schedule 5 will prohibit all unsolicited credit limit increase invitations including where a consumer has previously opted in to receiving these invitations. The definition of a credit limit increase invitation has also been expanded to include all forms of communication (rather than only written communication) to prevent credit card providers from circumventing the law and making unsolicited offers by phone or over an online portal. Schedule 5 will also put an end to the unfair and complex way that interest is calculated on credit cards and make it easier for consumers to understand and compare how credit card interest is calculated. Credit card providers will no longer be able to charge backdated interest or interest on the balance that has already been repaid if a consumer does not fully repay their outstanding balance. Finally, Schedule 5 will require credit card providers to have online options for consumers to initiate a credit card cancellation or lower a credit limit. Consumers can face substantial barriers when trying to cancel a credit card and this reduces competition and limits how consumers can manage their credit card debt. Schedule 5 requires credit card providers to facilitate any requests to cancel a credit card or lower a credit limit and prevents them from employing tactics to dissuade or impede consumers from cancelling a credit card or lowering a credit limit. These reforms are a necessary and important step in reducing the incidence of consumers building up unmanageable credit card debts and improving competition in the credit card market. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 39 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Due Diligence Improvements) Regulations 2017 39 Disallowance 39 12:32 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales At the request of Senators Brown, Hinch and Rice, I move: That items 1, 3 to 8, 11 to 13, 16 to 19, 21 to 25, 28 to 30, and 33 to 36 of Schedule 1 of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Due Diligence Improvements) Regulation 2017, made under the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act 2012, be disallowed [F2017L01338]. I wish to put on the record that Labor is moving this disallowance motion because illegal logging causes devastating social, environmental and economic damage in source countries and all around the world. I think it is a matter of concern for Australians that this is the case. Illegal logging also very unfairly undercuts jobs in the Australian forestry and forest products industry. This very much matters to Labor, but it matters to regional Australia in particular, which is why this disallowance motion is so important. It also matters where strong governance means that forestry activities occur consistent with stringent procedures. Australia imports a significant amount of logged material—roughly $8.1 billion worth of timber products per year come into this country. According to estimates from the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, up to $800 million comes from sources with some risk of being illegally logged. This is an issue that I think Australians who care about the social, environmental and economic damage that such a volume of movement of illegally logged materials could cause want proper action on. Just to go back over some of the history, a review of the illegal logging prohibition regulation was initiated quite some time ago by Minister Frydenberg, when he was in the role of Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. At that point in time he had specific responsibility for deregulation. In his 11 December 2014 article in the Australian Financial Review he stated that at that time he expected the regulation impact statement with regard to these regulations would be completed by March 2015. I'm sad to say we shouldn't necessarily be surprised that there was a delay in that timeline. It was not March 2015 but, in fact, as recently as 5 October 2017 that the Commonwealth finally announced its reform from the review and tabled its RIS. It's in that context that this disallowance—this partial disallowance, to be accurate—enters. The partial disallowance seeks to disallow items 1, 3 to 8, 11 to 13, 16 to 19, 21 to 25, 28 to 30 and 33 to 36 of schedule 1. It's in that context that this partial allowance deals with parts of the government's reforms with which Labor does not agree. This disallowance will mean that importers and processors who are using timber legality frameworks vital to the sustainability of this industry—such as the Forest Stewardship Council and the Program for the Endorsement of Forestry Certification—as part of their due diligence systems to satisfy their obligations as required by the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act 2012 will still need to do some core essential work to ensure the productivity and value of the materials they're putting into the distribution chain. In order to maintain the integrity of the supply, they will still need to consider any other information the importer knows, or ought reasonably to know, that may indicate whether the product is made from or includes illegally logged timber. So this is about making sure that that protection that came in is maintained. Why is it so important to maintain the integrity that was embedded in the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act 2012? Maintaining it is an important check and balance in the system, and it's vital to maintain the integrity of the prohibition on illegally logged timber and timber products. Timber legality frameworks can be used, in large part, by importers of regulated timber and timber products and processors of raw logs domestically in order to satisfy themselves and the department that they are sourcing legally harvested product, as explained by the Labor government in 2012, when the original regulations were tabled, and again in 2013, after a long period of consultation with the illegal logging working group. That process was quite extensive. I'm very pleased to say that it included representation from all of those who were interested in the sustainability of the sector, such as experts on the logging chain and the identification of the goods at all points of contact and movement. Representatives of the industry were engaged. Clearly, as a vital part of the chain of the delivery of logs and timber products into this country, the importers were also engaged. I'm pleased to say that, of course, the unions were engaged. The impact of this on Australian jobs is something I will say more about a little later on. The unions were involved in the illegal logging working group. Civil society groups were engaged and, indeed, foreign governments were engaged. This carefully constructed set of protocols was widely consulted on and delivered fulsomely to give us the best possible outcome we could have with regard to ensuring the integrity of timber and timber products coming into the country. The statement that they made was: The intention is that an importer may not use a timber legality framework to assure themselves of the legality of a product if there is information known to them that would otherwise call into question the legality of that product. So it puts the responsibility on the delivery chain to check and make sure that they don't just abrogate their responsibility: 'It's not my fault; it's not my responsibility.' This is a requirement that, if they know anything, they are actually responsible for assuring themselves of the legality of the product. There are a number of downsides to junking this principle by removing the additional information gathering elements that were required under Labor's regulation and endorsing, under the regulations, an automatic, deemed-to-comply arrangement for timber legality frameworks. As outlined in the regulation impact statement, there are significant concerns with the government's proposal. One of the major concerns in the RIS was that what the government is proposing could: … lead to situations where a business will import or process a 'certified' product, despite information or circumstances suggesting that it is likely to contain timber that has been illegally harvested. That, in my view, is certainly not something that Australians would think is of benefit to our economy, our environment, our social networks or our work capacity. The RIS outlined the concern that this risk: … is heightened by several factors, including the propensity for corruption in some high-risk nations— nations from which the timber products would flow, and— the possibility of fraudulent documents being provided— That is, it would be just a tick-and-flick process entirely inadequate for properly checking the distribution chain. Another concern was: … misleading claims being made; and the inherent complexity of such systems, which can be confusing or prone to misunderstanding. The RIS further said: It is also worthwhile noting that while both third-party certification systems (FSC and PEFC) have comprehensive systems that are backed up by third-party audit, they have not deliberately been designed to provide guarantees of legality. There have also been reports suggesting that these systems are vulnerable to deliberate fraud. Given that level of concern, it's clear to me that the partial disallowance motion we're putting forward this morning should be supported in this place. The core problems that I've just outlined are not the only ones, though. There are additional shortcomings in the government's approach outlined in the RIS. They include such significant concerns as the fact that neither the European Union Timber Regulation nor the United States' Lacey Act formally recognise third-party certification systems, such as the FSC or the PEFC, as means of ensuring timber legality. Another problem with the government's approach—in addition to not following the best practice approach evidenced by the actions of the European Union and the United States—is that this proposal, which we seek to disallow, moves away from the principle that importers and processers need to understand their supply chain. It shouldn't just be a question of getting a piece of paper, checking it off and saying: 'Yeah, it looks like it's fine. Let it go.' We actually believe that, to ensure the integrity of logging products that come into Australia, we should make sure that our importers and those who are involved in processing are absolutely aware of the supply chain from which they are gathering their raw or partially developed materials. The RIS concluded that another risk, if the government's approach were adopted, would be potential fraudulent activity by certified parties. Yet another concern was that the government's approach might incentivise the misuse or abuse of certification systems. Surely the government don't really want to do that? With this disallowance motion we're helping them to help themselves to a much better outcome. It's not that hard; they should just agree with the Labor Party on this matter of certification. To be clear, the Australian Labor Party does value third-party certification as a means to help demonstrate sustainability and it supports its inclusion in Commonwealth procurement systems, in particular with products that are certified in Australia. But, despite this, we note that in recent times a number of examples of certified products that have proved to be from illegally logged forests have been uncovered. So the requirement to assess whether the information and evidence obtained by using the framework is accurate and reliable, the requirement to identify and assess, by using the framework and the gathered information, where there is a risk that the product is made from or includes illegally logged timber— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 244247 Order! It being 12.45, time for debate has expired. BILLS 41 BILLS Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment (Authority Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2017 41

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment (Authority Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2017

Second Reading 41 12:48 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia This afternoon I rise to discuss the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment (Authority Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2017. Indeed, we support the amendments that are contained in this bill, but we do believe that we should be highlighting in the course of this debate the government's inaction on protection of the Great Barrier Reef. We know we established many decades ago now the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, and I'm familiar with the governance issues that confront the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in the context of the flaws of that act. So we've had significant concern about the current governance structures and their inadequacy for meeting our reef's changing needs, including the response to the challenges of climate change, coastal development and land based run-off. We know that back in March last year the government announced an independent review of governance. That was led by Dr Wendy Craik. We also understand that that report was given to the Minister for the Environment and Energy and it evaluated whether management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park under current arrangements was sufficient to support the performance of its statutory functions. There were a number of public submissions and 55 consultation meetings with stakeholders. The review found that the marine park authority enjoys strong stakeholder rapport, but there are problems within its current structures. It included a most concerning lack of strategic leadership and management, and an excessive workload for the chairperson. This was found to limit its capacity to fulfil its statutory obligations and responsibilities and impacts on its capacity to manage the impacts of climate change on the reef. It was suggested that refreshed governance arrangements would assist in this regard to allow the authority to better fulfil its role as the expert manager of our reef. We were pleased to see that the government accepted all of the 24 recommendations for the new Great Barrier Reef Marine Park governance model. These changes will improve its strategic capability and capacity. The bill seeks to implement the recommendations through the numerous amendments to the act, including separating the existence of the full-time chairperson into a part-time chairperson role and full-time chief executive officer with an additional part-time member position. The capacity of the authority will be enhanced by the separation of and time available for those roles. The act will also be amended in order to strengthen requirements for the appointment and termination of members. Indeed, the bill includes minor technical amendments to clarify the marine park legislation's regulating functions. Labor believes that the passage of this bill supports the transition to new structures without compromising the authority's continued ability to fulfil its statutory functions. We're pleased to see that it provides enough time for the recruitment and appointment of the new chairperson and the new chief executive officer before the expiration of the current term in October this year. We don't believe this bill is contentious but, in supporting this bill, I want to affirm and reiterate our long-term commitment to protecting the Great Barrier Reef and delivering law and policy that promote the reef's long-term health and resilience in the context of climate change. While the government has been saying that the reef is in good health, we on the Labor side are significantly concerned about its health. We want to see more done on run-off. We want to see more global action and accountability on climate change, because we know that that is one of the major risks to the reef. Australia has played a significant role in dragging its feet in action on climate change, which in turn contributes to the global drag on action on climate change and puts our reef, day by day, at greater risk. We know that the window of time, in which we will be able to protect our reef if climate change continues the way that it is, is closing. If we can't make good on global commitments to rein in emissions and address climate change, then we know that there is a great risk to our reef. I know that people localise debates about the impact of the Adani coalmine. But, in fact, we know that the debate about the Adani coalmine and the concerns of the community also relate to the much wider global debates about climate change and how emissions from fossil fuels need to be managed and made accountable, both at a domestic and a global level. I'm proud of the role that Labor has played in protecting our reef. I'm proud to say it was the Whitlam government that implemented Australia's first ever marine reserve over our reef. More recently, it was the Labor Party that established Australia's marine reserve network, which is the largest network of marine protected areas in the world. The attempts of the coalition to undermine the integrity of that network—noting that it is not only the Great Barrier Reef that deserves protection—dismay me. I'm not happy with some of the changes that have been made to marine park boundaries. I believe they're being made without justification or scientific foundation. When the government make decisions like that it leaves me with great concern for their capacity to manage things like the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. I'm heartened, somewhat, by the fact that, because of its significance, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park has independent management structures for its oversight. I can only hope for the same for other parts of our iconic and important marine networks. We know that our responsibility to care for our marine environment is becoming more and more important day by day, as the impacts of climate change and overfishing affect our marine networks. These threats must be taken seriously by our government, and we need to do all that we can to protect the health of our reef. Management plans are an important part of this work. We know that the Senate and the parliament—and, indeed, the government—have been active in recent times in bringing legislation forward in that regard. Late last year, we amended the act—the very same act that we're debating today—to improve the management plans for the parks as well. We need all the practical tools at our disposal to protect our reef, which means we need governance structures in relation to the management of the reef itself but also externally to that, with the concerns about climate change. How do the government and the Labor Party opposition respond to the issues of climate change that affect the long-term health not only of the Great Barrier Reef but of our environmental networks right around the nation? We don't want to see simple management plans that deal with very specific acreage of the reef. We are calling on the government to do more than this and protect the reef from all sides. We want to see the government protecting the Coral Sea, to ensure the rich biosecurity there, on the right side of the reef, is also given adequate protection. I hope that the new governance structures in this legislation mean that there greater capacity to do justice to those important issues. In our view, the government is not adequately protecting the Coral Sea. Currently you're looking at winding back ocean protections in the Coral Sea, proposing to gut half of that area that was put into the marine national parks that I spoke of before. It's taking a significant step backwards. In fact, it's the largest step backwards that has ever been taken when it comes to conservation in the Coral Sea, and I want to put the Labor Party's concerns about that on the record today in the context of this debate. Importantly, we need to make sure that we're protecting the reef on the other side. That is what the Queensland Labor government is doing, and that's by doing things like putting land-clearing rules to parliament and ensuring that run-off from land clearing doesn't negatively affect the reef. Those kinds of things can be done adequately only if the governance of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is adequately legislated for by this place. We are significantly concerned about the fact that the government have not acted on climate change and that they're not acting on the causes of climate change—and indeed that some of the MPs opposite us don't even believe it's real. So, while we've got good bureaucrats who can work on things like these governance structures, do good consultations with stakeholders, do good surveys and take submissions, we are vastly held back in our capacity to protect the Great Barrier Reef by the ideologically driven inaction on climate change that is driven by people in this place and the other place. What it comes down to is that all the good management plans, all the good governance, cannot really do the job if you don't believe in taking strong action on climate change. It simply makes you unfit to protect our iconic Great Barrier Reef. I simply don't trust the government to protect this part of our unique environment. I urge the government to do more to protect one of our most prized environmental assets as a nation. I urge them to stop fighting against responsible land clearing protections and I urge them not to undo protections for the Coral Sea. It's time for them to act on climate change, to address the root causes that will keep our reef healthy. I can say that we in the Labor Party can and will do these things, because our environmental policy commitments go much further in their protective efforts than these amendments that are before us today. We have a plan for the reef that involves more efficient and long-term management of the reef that is appropriately funded and resourced. We look forward to seeing that funding, that resourcing, that planning and that agenda of the Labor Party and a future Labor government coming within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's governance. For example, we have committed $100 million to review and improve the current management practices for the reef in consultation with relevant stakeholders. We also have a comprehensive climate change action plan that will deliver real action on climate change and, in doing so, address harmful effects of global warming and global emissions on the reef, including coral bleaching. What we have here for our Great Barrier Reef is an amendment that helps with governance but doesn't really drive at the key risks to our Great Barrier Reef. This is of extreme concern to the Labor Party and it's something we look forward to addressing in government. 13:04 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland I thank Senator Pratt and the Labor Party for their support for this administration bill in relation to the management of the Great Barrier Reef—the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment (Authority Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2017. I appreciate that Senator Pratt and no doubt Senator Whish-Wilson, who will speak later on this, are correct in saying the Barrier Reef is our Barrier Reef—it's the Barrier Reef of all Australians. But I particularly like to think of the Barrier Reef as my Barrier Reef because I've lived all of my life on the shores of the Great Barrier Reef. I know well the people who operate on the Great Barrier Reef, be they tourist operators, fishermen or scientists out of Townsville, Cairns and Mackay, and over the years I've had a long, long interest in the Great Barrier Reef. I know the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority well. It's based in the city of Townsville, where I have my office, and of course the Australian Institute of Marine Science is based at Cape Cleveland, between Townsville and Ayr, to the south of where I live. I pass the AIMS turn-off every day I go to work. And I'm very conscious of some of the very good work that James Cook University does out of the campuses at Townsville and Cairns in relation to marine matters. Most of their work's good. Some is what I would class as questionable and a bit politically motivated, but that's up to individual researchers. The Barrier Reef is going fine. Senator Whish-Wilson will get up after me and tell the world that the Barrier Reef's dying, it's dead or it shouldn't be visited by the European and North American tourists who flock to that area. The Greens political party seems to have undertaken a campaign to denigrate the Barrier Reef so that one of the great sources of revenue, export earning dollars and jobs in Queensland which come from the reef is decimated. That seems to be the Greens political campaign, because most of the rhetoric that they go on with about the health of the reef, which was unfortunately also mentioned by Senator Pratt, is simply not true. Senator Whish-Wilson will get up after me and tell you it's dead and that all these horrible things are happening, but the fact of the matter is quite different. There are challenges on the Great Barrier Reef. There always have been. But that is well recognised by the government. I know Senator Pratt, who comes from Western Australia, the other side of the country, and Senator Whish-Wilson, who comes from Tasmania, at the bottom end of the country, love the Barrier Reef as much as I do, but they could hardly be said to have the practical involvement with the reef that I've had over most of my lifetime. Senator Pratt was carrying on about how good the Labor Party is with the Great Barrier Reef. I've done this before, but I refer Senator Pratt to a document put out by Save Our Marine Life, an alliance of leading conservation organisations—not normally friends of ours—which is entitled A big blue legacy: the Liberal National tradition of marine conservation. It goes through, in some detail, the work that Liberal-National governments have done over the years: the prohibition of oil and gas operations on the Barrier Reef by the Fraser government in 1975; the end of whaling in Australian waters and the creation of the first stage of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park by the Fraser government in 1979; the World Heritage listing of the Great Barrier Reef and the creation of the Cairns section of the marine park in 1981; the creation of the Lihou Reef National Nature Reserve in the Coral Sea by the Fraser government in 1982; and the creation of further marine parks by the Howard government 1998. Coalition governments have always been more active in protecting our marine environment right around Australia, as this booklet quite clearly points out. I've had a lot of discussions with many directors and chairmen of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park over the years. Dr Wendy Craik has conducted a recent review of the authority, and Wendy is the appropriate person to do it because she was once in the position of chair of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, many, many years ago. The idea of splitting the chairmanship from the CEO is a good one; it's something the park authority itself and other stakeholders have wanted. Most of the amendments contained in this bill, as Senator Pratt pointed out, are issues that would have been determined after long consultation with all stakeholders, and I'm pleased to see these amendments are universally supported. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is not a specific scientific research agency, although they do a lot of scientific research. I was particularly pleased in a Senate inquiry that Senator Whish-Wilson chaired—I don't think he ever made a lot of this particular point—when the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority gave evidence that the Coral Sea was actually cooling and that the waters around the northern section of the Great Barrier Reef were actually cooling. That puts the lie to what Senator Whish-Wilson will tell you: no, the waters are all getting warmer, and there's coral bleaching and all that. Yes, there is some coral bleaching; yes, there has been a crown-of-thorns problem. There have been crown-of-thorns starfish there for 60 years that I can remember. Ben Cropp and his wife were the first ones to try and do something about that. Coalition governments have funded very considerable work for the removal of the crown-of-thorns. I'm delighted to say that just a couple of weeks ago the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, came to Townsville. We went out to AIMS where Mr Turnbull announced to academia, people involved in the reef, tourism operators and other stakeholders in the reef that $60 million for further research and remedial action on the Great Barrier Reef would go to a number of different agencies. We haven't heard a lot about that—and you won't hear about it from the Greens. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 You will hear about it! Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Oh, we will. Well, that's good. Well, make sure it's truthful, Senator Whish-Wilson. So there will be an extra $60 million for research on the Great Barrier Reef. Importantly, scientists now understand that what they have to do is help with the resilience of the reef. These are my terms, not theirs, but I understand that what they're doing is looking at genetically modifying the reef to give it strength, to give it resilience, to help it progress and continue in the years ahead. They're looking at bringing embryos of warm-water corals into the Barrier Reef. Generally speaking, they are now doing what they should be doing in relation to climate change—that is, understanding that climate change is apparently real and, as I always point out, that, ever since the earth has been going, the climate has continued to change. Once upon a time, the world used to be covered in ice; it's not now. So, clearly, over the years, the climate continues to change. That's an accepted fact. What sensible scientists are now concluding is that we've got to see how we can help the reef resile from, deal with or cope with that climate change. I'm delighted that scientific work is now being directed more towards that area, rather than the philosophical political argument about whether climate change is real or true, or who's causing it. They're actually doing things, and that's how it should be. I'm delighted AIMS is heading that way and the CSIRO is heading that way, so that we can do something practical about changes that occur in our climate. Senator Pratt and Senator Whish-Wilson no doubt will go on about climate change. I keep saying to them: can someone tell me how Australia, which emits less than 1.2 per cent of the world's carbon emissions, can stop what Senator Pratt and Senator Whish-Wilson say is causing climate change? Carbon emissions? Well, if they are, it's not Australia that's doing it. Senator Pratt says, 'Labor has a plan to stop climate change.' Well, I don't know how Labor can do that, because Australia's contribution to emissions is less than 1.2 per cent of the world's emissions of carbon. So how Labor is going to deal with that, I'd be very, very interested to see. I've digressed slightly from this bill and what's happening but I do want to say that I've spoken with administrators, managers, at the Marine Park Authority for some time, and these reforms are what will suit them. I do want to mention there Dr Russell Reichelt, who is the current chairman and CEO. I think he is now retiring after long, dedicated, tremendous service to Australia's marine science, particularly to the Barrier Reef, to GBRMPA and to AIMS. He is a dedicated marine scientist, one of the most knowledgeable. He understands how the whole thing works, and I do want to pay tribute to Dr Reichelt for the research work he has done at GBRMPA and elsewhere. I return to the issue of climate change and repeat: with Australia emitting less than 1.2 per cent of carbon emissions, if there are things happening, it is not Australia's fault. How the Labor Party are going to stop that, how the Greens would stop it, apart from rhetoric and a few demonstrations up and down the streets, I'm not sure. I want Senator Whish-Wilson to tell me how Australia, which emits less than 1.2 per cent of the world's carbon emissions, is causing the climate change which the Greens and some in the Labor Party would have you believe. I refer anyone who is interested to a very good article by Julian Tomlinson in today's Cairns Post about the issue of the Barrier Reef and academic freedom, research and the quality of research. It brings to mind the unfortunate situation which has happened at James Cook University. Professor Peter Ridd, a very well qualified scientist in marine matters, had a different view on the Barrier Reef. He had the temerity to suggest that some of the researchers simply use research—these are my words, not his, but this was the theme, a theme I've had in the past—they know that their future depends upon getting research grants. It used to be under the Labor years that they had to mention climate change or they wouldn't get a research grant for anything. Nowadays that has moved on. They've got to mention the Barrier Reef or they don't get research funds for anything. Professor Ridd had the temerity to inquire why a lot of the work that was being done by fellow scientists at JCU was not properly peer researched, and because of that he has been sacked by JCU. That's a shame, because I'm a great supporter of JCU. I wrote to the vice-chancellor about the issue when it first happened. I got a response from her, I might say, but I think it's unfortunate. Professor Ridd, as I understand, according to newspaper reports, is before the Federal Court now in relation to his sacking for what he says and what I think is an expression of opinion. I thought universities were there to encourage different views and different approaches and to challenge accepted norms. I thought that's what universities were about, but apparently not at JCU, and that distresses me because, as I say, I'm a great supporter, a great fan and great advocate for JCU. An interesting thing that Julian Tomlinson mentioned was that Professor Ridd in this court case—and we all know that court cases are very, very expensive—wanted to take action but couldn't afford it. So they did one of these crowd-funding appeals and, within two days, raised $100,000 to help Professor Ridd with his court case. As Julian Tomlinson says, this just demonstrates that people around Australia are getting sick and tired of the Greens continual rhetoric—unsupported, I have to say, by any genuine scientific fact about climate change and its being caused by Australia. Senator Pratt went on about Adani. Adani is 500, 600 kilometres west of the Great Dividing Range, nowhere near the Barrier Reef. How that mine is going to destroy the Barrier Reef, as Senator Whish-Wilson and Senator Pratt have suggested, simply beggars belief and is beyond comprehension. They then say that there'll be more ships going through the Barrier Reef. Well, that's been happening for 100 years and, with a couple of very minor exceptions, one of which was Bob Brown's boat, there has never been any problem with ships going through the Barrier Reef, because it's so well managed. The marine safety aspects there, the pilots that take everyone through the Barrier Reef—we've got that very well managed. So the arguments about Adani destroying the Barrier Reef just don't stack up. Any serious, sensible person could never make an argument for that, because the facts just don't support them. But it's an interesting article by Mr Tomlinson, and I'd recommend anyone who's interested in this to have a look at it in the Cairns Post today. I will leave it there, again emphasising what the marine conservation societies say in A big blue legacy about the legacy of the Liberal and National parties and their tradition in marine conservation over decades. That is demonstrated. One of the things I didn't mention which I perhaps should have is that the Green Zones were an initiative of David Kemp and Robert Hill as ministers in the Howard government. All of the practical, positive enhancements to the Great Barrier Reef have been done under Liberal and National Party governments, and that was even further demonstrated just a couple of weeks ago, by this allocation of some $60 million to do further research to help the resilience and the continued operations of the Great Barrier Reef—a Great Barrier Reef that all Australians love. Many, I have to say, from Melbourne, Tasmania and Western Australia read the rhetoric; they don't really understand it. But those of us who live there understand just what a special place it is, how it contributes so much to the Queensland and North Queensland economy and how it gives so much pleasure to tourists and locals alike to experience the Great Barrier Reef. Particularly these days it brings joy to northern Europeans and North Americans, as they flock, with others from all over the world, to see this wonderful example of a natural asset that Australia has. I will just say, before Senator Whish-Wilson speaks—and again he will try to denigrate the reef and try to turn tourists away, contrary to all the facts from people who actually work on, live near or research the Great Barrier Reef—that I believe the Great Barrier Reef has a great future. With the careful management being provided by the Turnbull government and previous Liberal-National Party governments, we will continue to have this wonderful natural asset which is a joy for the world. I encourage anyone who may be listening to this or who may have an interest in this to visit the Barrier Reef. It is an experience worth having. It is an experience that will be there forever, and it's an experience that is world-class. I urge people to take advantage of it. 13:23 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I might start my contribution on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment (Authority Governance and Other Matters) Bill 2017 with a question to the Australian people: who would you rather believe? Would you rather believe a Liberal senator whom I think Senator Brandis labelled—correct me if I'm wrong—as the grandfather of the Senate, a Liberal senator who is a self-confessed climate change denier, who doesn't believe in man-made climate change? He is the best the Liberal Party could put in here today. The best they could do was put up Senator Macdonald to speak on behalf of the Great Barrier Reef. He is a self-confessed climate change denier. Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 244247 Order! Sit down, Senator Whish-Wilson. I just remind the chamber that interjections are disorderly and senators are entitled to be heard in silence. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Especially, Acting Deputy President, as I sat through Senator Macdonald's contribution almost completely silently. Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting— Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I can't even begin to say how many lies you told, Senator Macdonald. Who would you rather believe? Senator Macdonald, the grandfather of the Senate, who's been here way too long in my opinion and in the opinion of many others, who is a climate denier who says— Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 That's a lie and you know it! Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Here we go, Australia! Here's what he just said in here in the Australian Senate on behalf the Liberal Party: 'The Great Barrier Reef is going fine.' It's going fine! There was an article this week, because there is a meeting in Sydney this week of scientists from all around the world, the Global Climate Forum, that said very clearly that the reef is in 'deep trouble'. That quote came from one of the leading scientists at the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 Name him! Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I'm very happy to name him. His name is David Wachenfeld. I will send the link to you, Senator Macdonald, so you can read it yourself. Get your head out of the sand, you and your government, and do something about climate change and the Great Barrier Reef. As chair of the environment committee that went to the Great Barrier Reef, I pushed the committee to go diving on the reef. Senator Macdonald directly threatened me that he would get stories run in the Queensland press about me taking a joyride when all I wanted the committee to do was stick their head under the water and see the coral for themselves, which is exactly what I did. Do you know what Senator Macdonald said to me, Acting Deputy President? He said: 'If you want to see coral, go to the AIMS laboratory and have a look at it there. They are growing perfectly good corals in the laboratory.' That's what he said the committee should do. This is the quality of the people that the LNP have in this parliament on one of the biggest issues of our time, an issue that will impact future generations of Australians. This is the quality of the people—the best they can do in a debate on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and how we need to enhance its effectiveness. He comes in here and attacks scientists, a coward punch, because those scientists don't agree with his climate-denying view of the world. An absolute bloody disgrace—that's what he is and it's about time someone called him out on it. The reef is in deep trouble. Fifty per cent of the corals are now scientifically classified as having been bleached, and that excludes the damage to the corals done in the zone by Cyclone Debbie. I went to four different sites and saw it for myself. If you don't believe climate change and warming oceans are impacting the Great Barrier Reef, go and stick your head under the water and have a look for yourself. I challenge every politician in this parliament to do exactly that: go up there and have a look for yourself. It's not just the Great Barrier Reef. In my home state of Tasmania, the south-eastern section of Tasmania and the Tasman Sea is the global hot spot for warming oceans on this planet. We have just lost our giant kelp forests, a 10,000-year-old ecosystem that stretched from the north-east tip of Tasmania to the south. They are gone. They were older than the Great Barrier Reef. They were nurseries to so much marine life and biodiversity. They are gone because of warming waters, storms and invasive species—very similar pressures and stressors that the Great Barrier Reef is facing. For Senator Macdonald to come in here on behalf of the Liberal Party and claim—this could the biggest quote of the year, or the biggest I've ever seen in this place—that 'the Great Barrier Reef is going fine' is an absolute lie. It's a dangerous lie because it underlies the action that we need to take. I know this because I chaired the Senate committee that took significant evidence on this. The report is there for anyone who wants to read it. We need to do everything we can across the board to help the Great Barrier Reef. Senator Macdonald said the coral reef was cooling on the particular day we happened to be up in his hometown in Cairns. The coral reef is cooling? We've had unprecedented back-to-back bleaching because of record water temperatures. February is the critical month for this year—fingers crossed that we don't get a third consecutive bleaching event. No-one thought it was even possible we could get two in a row. The models were predicting that that couldn't happen until 2045, yet it happened. These corals will not recover. It takes 15 years for them to recover. The dare that Senator Macdonald put to you in this chamber today is that I wouldn't talk about the $60 million—$60 million!—that this government is putting towards the Great Barrier Reef. I ask every senator in here and the Australian people: what is the Great Barrier Reef worth? What is it worth to you? Just in tangible economic measurements, it is in the billons of dollars. As an economist, I know too well that even though we try and price ecosystem services we can't possibly even begin to value the Great Barrier Reef for its biodiversity. Who can even put a price and value on what's important, the thousands of creatures that rely on the reef for their survival? It's not just the reef. It's the rainforests and the mangroves. They're all part of the same ecosystem. If the reef dies, if those corals crumble—which they will after they've bleached—it removes cover for the thousands of species that are protected from predators. It will impact the rainfall over the rainforest, because the reef is actually what creates the rain, and the rain creates the mangroves. The mangroves are the nurseries for small fish and they are essential for crocodiles, which actually protect the small fish. That's why it is such a successful symbiotic relationship and one of the greatest ecosystems on this planet. David Attenborough this year is going to be releasing in Australia Blue Planet II. It was the leading TV series in the UK last year. The rest of the world cares more about the Great Barrier Reef than most Australians—certainly more than Senator Macdonald. People are waking up to this, and they want us to do something about it. I'm sorry if I am so fired up and passionate about this, but I am sick to death of hearing the crap that I hear in here from climate change deniers like Senator Macdonald. I think that Australians are as well. I'm sick of scientists being attacked by people who are funding them. It's just not acceptable. I digress. Let me get back to the bill. Senator Ruston, the minister at the table, will be pleased to know that the Greens will be supporting this bill. This bill will enhance the authority and functions of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. It will replace an existing full-time chair chairperson with a part-time chairperson position. It will establish an additional part-time member position, bringing the total membership of the authority to seven—that includes the chairperson and the CEO—and it will: Strengthen requirements for the appointment and termination of members by: specifying the general skills required; limiting the number of consecutive terms served by an individual member; providing for termination of members by the Governor-General for underperformance— I'll be interested to see what benchmarks are going to be put in place for that underperformance— and reducing the potential for conflicts of interest. If this wasn't in non-contro, Senator Ruston, I would take you into the committee stage to find out exactly what those performance benchmarks will be, but I will ask you instead outside the chamber. Importantly, the parliamentary briefing that we've been given acknowledges the reason for this legislation. The authority's key functions are to: … advise and make recommendations to the Minister in relation to the care and development of the Marine Park … zoning plans and plans of management … It acknowledges that, while they're managing the Marine Park collaboratively with the Queensland government, the review into the governance of these arrangements has found that the scale and workload of the chairperson position has become 'too large for a single person' and: The legislated size of the Authority and background requirements of the … members limited the capacity to provide local, national and international perspectives and diversity of expertise required … This is what I'd like to finish my contribution on. I think this is what got Senator Macdonald so fired up in our Senate inquiry when he came up to Townsville and Cairns: we might only be 1.2 per cent of global emissions, but of course Senator Macdonald forgot to tell you that, if you include coal exports, we're up around nearly 5 per cent. We are the Great Barrier Reef's custodians. If we are going to get action on reducing emissions, if we're going to get countries around the world to meet their Paris targets, if we're going to show any leadership on the climate debate, it fascinates me when people like Senator Macdonald infer that we shouldn't do anything on cutting emissions because we're only 1.2 per cent. I believe in obligations, as I'm sure Senator Paterson in this chamber does. If I choose not to pay my tax because I contribute only 0.0000-something per cent of the tax taken in this country, that's not acceptable. How is it acceptable to be saying that because we're only a minor offender or because my offence is only minor it doesn't matter? It all matters. This is what got me fired up and Senator Macdonald fired up during the inquiry. Last year the World Heritage in Danger committee looked at listing the Great Barrier Reef—and believe me, this is the main game from here on in. I understand, and it was confirmed through questioning through the Senate inquiry, that the tourism industry lobbied against an endangered listing because they felt it might turn away visitors to the Great Barrier Reef, although we had witnesses saying there was no evidence to support that at all—quite the opposite, in other cases. But I was told by someone very senior, whom I won't name in here, that the reason the Great Barrier Reef was not put on the World Heritage in Danger list was that if the Barrier Reef was put on the in-danger list then nearly every coral reef system on this planet would need to be included as well. The Great Barrier Reef is so significant, but another 40 or so reefs are listed. And I've gone and done my homework on this. I've been to Japan and talked to them about their coral reef systems. They are all in significant trouble. They feed nearly half a billion people on this planet. They rely on these reefs for their livelihoods. No bigger signal could we send the whole world than to get our reefs put on the in-danger list. I can't think of a bigger thing we could do to actually get this world and governments around this world to take action on climate than to sound the loudest possible siren, ring the loudest possible bell on the fact that we are warming our oceans and destroying the ecosystems within these oceans. And ultimately that will backfire on us—and not just the tourism industry but also the fisheries industry. We heard evidence that there are already impacts of coral bleaching and warming on commercial and recreational fishing industries on the Great Barrier Reef. I have seen this firsthand in my home state of Tasmania. Warming waters in Tasmania not only have caused enormous problems for the salmon industry, which Senator Ruston will be well aware of, but also have helped cause outbreaks of viruses that have been devastating for scallops, as well as Pacific oyster mortality syndrome. We've seen significant problems with the productivity of our abalone industries and our rock lobster industries. People who are ignorant, like Senator Macdonald, believe climate change is just a greenie thing. Well, I've been saying to people until I was black and blue that this is not just about ecosystems, biodiversity and greenie issues; this is about your livelihood and the livelihoods of people who fish the oceans, who depend on it. Oddly enough, if Senator Macdonald actually understood—and I do believe he actually does care about the fishers—he might get it and understand that if we don't take the strongest possible action we are letting these people down. This is not just a political thing for me. I know that in my home state of Tasmania this is resonating. People are seeing it. I have been along the coastline in the last 12 months. Everyone knows I'm a surfer; they know I'm a diver. And I do a bit of fishing myself. Everyone I talk to is telling me about changes they see in the ocean. And this is happening all around the world. To me, it's the first real, tangible sign of a changing climate—and a negative one, at that. Then we can add the fact that the ocean dictates our weather patterns, such as extreme weather and drought. Warming oceans and changes in ocean temperatures are impacting on us right across this country. If you need a bigger signal that we need to take action, put our differences aside and actually get on with doing everything that we can, just look at what is going on in the oceans. This is very important context for this bill—I'm nearly finished, Senator Ruston. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority co-manages with the Queensland government many of these issues. It was involved in the List of World Heritage in Danger discussions and assessments, and there are more coming. We need good people who can make good decisions. I understand why some in the tourism industry don't like this. I've had tourism operators say to me that it's too late. They openly spoke at our Senate inquiry about what they call 'last-chance tourism.' It's better to make a fuss about this now and get some action than lose everything for future generations. I'm sorry it is a hard decision to make, but it is a really important one. The Greens and I fully support these changes, and I will say one more time that $60 million for what Senator Macdonald called 'remedial action' is nothing but a bandaid solution. We've had very good scientists say, 'Thanks for the money, we appreciate it, but it may save one area if it works, an area where there is a platform where divers or boats are coming.' It may help us, but this is the biggest ecosystem on the planet. You can see it from space. It stretches for thousands of kilometres. The only thing we can do is to continue to take action on climate, because the rest of it, getting rid of the starfish— Senator Williams I0V It's the rest of the world, too, Peter. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 The rest of the world needs to take action, too. I totally agree with you, Senator Williams. Whatever happened to leadership in this place? We used to lead the world on climate action, until this government got in power. We used to lead the world. Senator Ruston is probably saying to Senator Williams: 'Don't provoke him. He was going to wind up.' I have a minute and 45 seconds left! We used to show leadership on climate. What are we showing leadership on now? Becoming a global arms dealer. That is this government's answer to showing leadership. That's not going to help the climate and it's not going the help the Great Barrier Reef. I'll get back to that another time. We need to take action. To anyone who is listening to this debate, I urge you to go to the Senate Environment and Communications References Committee report on the impacts of warming oceans on our fisheries and biodiversity. There is all of the evidence you need there from an excellent inquiry with a lot of good witnesses. Both sides of the story are in those transcripts. There is nothing more important we can do now than take action on climate to help the Great Barrier Reef. 13:43 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I thank senators for their contribution and their support of this bill. It is a very important bill because it seeks to implement a new governance model for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority by replacing the full-time chairman with a part-time chairman and a full-time chief executive and establishing one additional part-time member position. It strengthens the requirements for appointment and termination of members. The bill also makes minor technical amendments to clarify the relationship between the suite of legislation underpinning the functions of the authority. The bill will strengthen the strategic capacity and capacity of the authority to respond to challenges that face the marine park. The Australian government is absolutely committed to protecting the Great Barrier Reef. We understand the importance of this World Heritage site now and for future generations, and we believe that the effective operation of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority is absolutely central to being able to deliver on that commitment. I commend this bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 49 13:44 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 111206 As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 13:44 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2017 49

Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2017

Second Reading 49 13:45 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Radio is an important service that has been providing information and entertainment to Australians for over 90 years. In government, Labor introduced digital radio in Australia to supplement rather than replace traditional analogue AM and FM services. Digital radio offers many features and benefits including enhanced choices of stations, clear reception, exceptional sound quality, song and artist information, and pause and rewind functionality. In order to receive digital radio services, Australians need a digital receiver or a device with a digital audio broadcasting DAB+ chip in it. Digital radio services from commercial radio broadcasters and national broadcasters have been operating in the metropolitan licence areas of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth since 1 July 2009 as well as in Canberra and Darwin on a trial basis. The rollout of digital radio across regional Australia involves significant cost and complexity, and it's been planned by the Digital Radio Planning Committee for Regional Australia. This committee was formed in September 2015 following a federal government review into digital radio. The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2017 stems from reforms identified by the completed statutory authority reviews of digital radio. The measures in this bill arise from consultation with the key digital radio industry stakeholders and recommendations contained in the digital radio report following the completion of statutory reviews of digital radio. One of the digital radio report's recommendations was that the government consider minor amendments to the existing digital radio regulatory regime to create a simpler, more flexible process for the planning and licensing of digital radio in regional Australia. The bill contains a package of measures designed to simplify the digital radio framework and help expedite the rollout of digital radio to regional Australia by shortening legislatively prescribed time frames associated with the rollout and removing unnecessary or redundant steps in the digital radio rollout process. The measures in the bill are further steps towards implementation of the recommendation to simplify and improve the operation of the digital radio framework and also address issues that were identified by the Australian Communications and Media Authority, more commonly known as ACMA, and the planning committee. Labor supports these measures and Labor supports this bill. We are keen for more Australians to enjoy the benefits of digital radio in regional Australia. 13:48 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I thank senators for their contribution to the bill and for their support and I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 50 13:48 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 111206 As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 13:48 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 2017 50

Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 2017

Second Reading 50 13:49 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Today Labor supports the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Amendment Bill 2017. We understand the aims of the bill in terms of improving governance, transparency and accountability for our nation's National Capital Authority. What is important about this bill is that it gives the NCA board responsibility and the power to govern the agency. What has been of concern is that the current arrangements mean that it is the NCA's chief executive and not the authority itself that is accountable under the Public Governance and Public Accountability Act. What is of concern here is the need to see better arrangements that provide decision making within the NCA with sufficient oversight and transparency. The current arrangements don't provide the requisite support to the minister for the kind of advice that the minister needs. I can note from my own experience on the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories that, as they currently stand, these governance arrangements are problematic. I could see that in the occasional disconnects between the chief executive officer and the board. I'm pleased to see that, in time, consideration has been given to those issues and so these amendments are before us. We know that establishing the authority as the accountable authority and enabling it to give specific directions to the chief executive allow it to become involved in NCA operations and clarify the current authority-chief executive relationship. Again, I reflect on my time on the joint standing committee. Certainly, there were a number of issues of concern to the committee—I'm not even going to mention what they were now, because they are a long time ago: a number of boards and chief executives ago—about the relationship between the board and the chief executive. What is clear is that in putting these new arrangements forward, people have learnt from the arrangements in other agencies. We note, for example, that the Organ and Tissue Authority has similar governance arrangements, with accountability of the board and not just of the chief executive. What we have before us is also the provision of amendments that support the authority in satisfying responsibilities as the accountable authority, indeed, updating the PALM Act to make it consistent with established policy on public sector governance. This includes making all authority members officials of the NCA so as to engage the PGPA Act provisions concerning the duties of officials, notably in relation to care and diligence. Related amendments clarify the minister's existing powers by obliging the authority to comply with a ministerial direction, other than where this conflicts with its performance of powers under the PGPA Act, and by specifying that such amendments are legislative instruments. What is important is to see the clear line of direction from government through to the National Capital Authority while keeping the authority in balance with its obligations under the act. We note that the bill also includes amendments to delineate the different responsibilities of the authority as the accountable authority under the PGPA Act and of the chief executive as head of the statutory agency for the purposes of the Public Service Act. In closing, I want to reflect on the importance of the NCA's role in Canberra—the planning decisions it makes that maintain areas of national significance in Canberra's streets and precincts whilst ensuring that the residents enjoy the amenities of a liveable city. It's a really important role and it's a role that is quite distinct, I think, from the way local governments and other state governments have to manage their operations, because we have the NCA, on behalf of the Commonwealth's interests, sitting alongside the territory government, managing things for the city here in Canberra. It has got an incredible job in needing to look after our national capital estate where, indeed, we have embassies, official residences and a lot of public civic spaces for the Australian and international public to enjoy. Canberra is a delightful place to visit and to live, and it's important that the vibrancy of the city is maintained. I don't think it was of any surprise to people who spend time in Canberra that Canberra was named as travel publication Lonely Planet's third-best city in the world to visit. In large part that's because of the good oversight of the NCA of many of our national institutions—everything from the libraries to the galleries, museums and all of the beautiful civic spaces that surround it. In commenting on this legislation, I'd like to wish the board, in taking on it new responsibilities and its new accountabilities, all the best for continuing to effectively manage our public open spaces, lakes, dams, memorials, infrastructure and buildings—all the things of significance here in the NCA's jurisdiction. Thank you. 13:56 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I would like to thank the senators for their contribution to this bill and their support. I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 51 13:56 The PRESIDENT I0Q As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 13:56 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 52

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017

Second Reading 52 13:57): The PRESIDENT I0Q ( I call a very patient Senator Paterson, who will likely be interrupted for a second time shortly. 13:57 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria To avoid that eventuality, I am going to be very brief. I appreciate the opportunity to sum up this wonderful bill. In short, the cashless welfare debit card trial is changing people's lives for the better. It is saving lives. Communities across Australia are crying out for it. They are desperate for it. They have seen its success and they want it to be brought to their own towns and their own communities too. I call on the parliament and this chamber in particular to very seriously consider supporting this bill so that the good work that already has happened—the 41 per cent reduction in drinking, the 48 per cent reduction in drug taking and the 48 per cent reduction in gambling that we have seen in the early trial period of this program—can be rolled out to other communities so that we can continue to learn from the successes of this program. We can continue to refine it to ensure that it is rolled out successfully in other communities so that the people, particularly in remote and regional Australia, who are suffering very much from the ills of welfare dependence and the lack of employment, can find a pathway back to dignity, can find a pathway back to control over their own lives. This is how we can help them to do that. We can help them to do that by supporting this bill, by allowing these trials to expand, particularly into Queensland in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay regions and of course into Western Australia in the Kalgoorlie region. I visited Kalgoorlie for a Senate inquiry very recently, and it was very sad to hear the stories of abuse, neglect and addiction suffered by many people in those communities. This is one very powerful step that we can take to help that community tackle this problem. It is no wonder that so many community leaders are calling on the government to expand the trial to their communities. It is no wonder they are begging us to have it introduced. I ask the Senate ignore those hysterical contributions to this debate by the Greens earlier, who are opposed in principle to this, not at all just because of the way it's been rolled out or the way it's been implemented. I conclude by saying that I hope the Senate seriously considered supporting this very worthy bill so that this program can continue to improve lives and Australia. The PRESIDENT I0Q It being 2 pm, we will move to questions without notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Indigenous Affairs 52 14:00 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Health, Senator McKenzie. The Close the Gap Campaign Steering Committee today released its 10-year review of the Closing the Gap strategy. Given the review states that the strategy has been 'effectively abandoned amid extensive funding cuts', can the minister confirm that the government has not allocated a single dollar to the Implementation Plan for the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan 2013-2023 in the three years since it was released? 14:00 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I thank Senator Dodson for his question. Our government is committed to effecting much more rapid change to close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous health. Despite the obvious challenges in trying to turn around a 200-year-old disadvantage gap in just 10 years, we have made real progress after the last decade in improving the lives of our First Australians. Of course, I won't be pre-empting the Prime Minister's Closing the Gap update on how we're tracking the targets, but we have learnt a lot over the last decade, building on solid foundations to create a truly productive— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Cameron on a point of order? Senator Cameron AI6 Yes, a point of order on relevance. This is not about what the Prime Minister may or may not do. What has been asked is: can the minister confirm that the government has not allocated a single dollar to the implementation plan? The PRESIDENT I0Q The question included a preamble making assertions about government policy, and the minister is addressing that part of the question. I can't direct the minister how to answer the question. The minister has been reminded of the terms of the question. Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU Mr President, perhaps you could direct the opposition's attention to which part of the preamble discussed government policy. The PRESIDENT I0Q I try to take notes as accurately as I can. There were assertions around funding cuts, I believe, and— Senator Wong 00AOU That's the point of order of direct relevance. The PRESIDENT I0Q The point of order— Senator Wong 00AOU The direct relevance point goes to the dollar— The PRESIDENT I0Q The minister is allowed to address the preamble of the question. Senator Wong 00AOU I invite you, Mr President, after question time to consider your statement that the preamble went to government policy as a basis for ruling against the opposition on the point of order. The PRESIDENT I0Q I will do that, Senator Wong. Senator McKenzie. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I was actually going to talk about some of the improvements that have been made over the decade in this area and to acknowledge that we all need to do more, not just at a Commonwealth level but, importantly, given the constitutional areas of responsibility in the Closing the Gap targets, with our states and territories. But, in terms of the implementation plan, it is core business, and the Indigenous Australians' Health Program provides $3.6 billion over the forwards to assist with this target. I could go on more. I'm not sure whether the senator would like me to talk about where we have made a difference in child mortality rates, in trachoma—and we've done that in partnership with Indigenous communities— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator McKenzie! Senator Wong, on a point of order. Senator Wong 00AOU Given the minister's invitation, I raise the point of order that Senator Cameron raised on direct relevance, which is the proposition that the government hasn't allocated a single dollar to the Implementation Plan for the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Plan since it was released. That was the only question asked. The PRESIDENT I0Q On the point of order, Senator Wong, I believe the minister is being relevant to the terms of the question asked when the question is considered in its totality. I will do what you asked after question time and review the Hansard. Senator McKenzie. Senator McKENZIE 207825 Again, my advice from the Minister for Indigenous Health is that the implementation is core business. We've provided $3.6 billion, which compared with previously is a significant increase. Implementation plan deliverables are also delivered through mainstream programs such as the MBS, the PBS, public hospital funding, aged care and health workforce, for which we are providing record funding to each and every state and territory government. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Dodson, a supplementary question. 14:04 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia Can the minister confirm that the government has delivered on just four of the 106 deliverables in the implementation plan since its release in 2015? 14:04 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria As to details of the implementation plan, I will be happy to go back to the Minister for Indigenous Health and seek more technical advice on that. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Dodson, a supplementary question. 14:05 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia The Close the Gap co-chair, Mr Rod Little, has said that the government: … must get the engagement on this right. Not preconceived policies that are imposed, rather than respectfully discussed and collectively decided. How is the Turnbull government adjusting its past failures to ensure it gets engagement with Australia's first peoples on the Closing the Gap 'refresh' right? 14:05 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I thank Senator Dodson for his question. He is absolutely right: we need to be engaging with First Australians and ensuring, when we're implementing our Closing the Gap targets, that we're working with our First Australians and their Indigenous communities—and, indeed, the states and territories. That's why the discussion tomorrow is so important, around the health council and these specific issues. When it comes to consultation, my advice is that in 2017 the Department of Health and the Implementation Plan Advisory Group, made up of Indigenous health experts, met with over 600 people, received 102 submissions and led an extensive national consultation process, with over 13 face-to-face forums right around Australia. So we do indeed take very, very seriously the need to engage consistently and holistically with Indigenous leaders and communities in the implementation plan. Broadband 54 14:06 Senator GICHUHI 270552 South Australia My question is to the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield. Can the minister advise the Senate of the jobs and future opportunities created by the rollout of the Australian National Broadband Network? 14:06 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I thank Senator Gichuhi for her question. Building a next-generation national communications network in a country the size of Australia is a massive venture, due to its engineering and logistical complexity. Despite that. the NBN has powered ahead. In terms of connections, what it took NBN a full year to do in 2014 now takes a bit over six weeks, and I'm very pleased to advise Senator Gichuhi that in her home state of South Australia the rollout is now 66 per cent complete and that 273,000 South Australian homes and businesses have an active connection to the network. At the heart of that success is a massive army of subcontractors. There are now more than 30,000 workers across the country who have been accredited by NBN to build and maintain the network, including more than 2,500 in South Australia alone. NBN estimates that there are around 3,600 mum-and-dad subcontracting businesses working right now on the NBN, and more than 200 of those small businesses are based in South Australia. The project's field workforce has been skilling up and working hard to build and switch on services in more than 1,500 suburbs, towns and cities right across the country. In addition, NBN's internal workforce now stands at more than 6,000. Significantly for our farmers and rural communities, the network has already reached many parts of Australia that were traditionally at the back of the queue when it came to telecommunications. Close to 80 per cent of regional Australia now has access to superfast broadband and well over half the nation overall. So there have been great strides across South Australia, from Mount Gambier to Coober Pedy to Port Lincoln. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gichuhi, a supplementary question. 14:09 Senator GICHUHI 270552 South Australia What steps have NBN and its contracting partners taken to ensure there is a skilled workforce available to complete the NBN by 2020? 14:09 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria The scale of the project, as I said, and as we all know, is unprecedented. What took the PMG, Telecom and Telstra the best part of 70 years to do will be completed in just a handful of years with the NBN. In this year alone, more than two million homes and businesses will be directly touched. The NBN is investing close to $30 million in skills capability for the telco industry. School leavers are being recruited into the workforce, and training is being offered right across the country to upskill field technicians who will build and maintain the new broadband network. To date, more than 2,300 workers have received accredited training and upskilling, and many thousands of jobseekers have entered the industry. The NBN is a terrific national venture, not just in terms of connecting Australians but also in terms of employing Australians and skilling Australians. Senator O'Neill 140651 It's a disaster! People are asking for their ADSL back! The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator O'Neill! Senator Gichuhi, a final supplementary question. 14:10 Senator GICHUHI 270552 South Australia How is the coalition's multitechnology approach identifying better economic opportunities for Australians? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left! 14:10 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria The answer is pretty straightforward. Connecting more premises sooner and keeping internet bills low are key to supporting the small business sector, which is the engine room of the Australian economy. As I mentioned earlier, more than two-thirds of homes and businesses in South Australia can now connect to the NBN, and a further 64,000 premises have work underway in their streets and towns. As we know, when it comes to the NBN, the speed that counts is the speed of the rollout. That's because the whole nation only gets the full social and economic benefits of fast broadband once the entire nation has it. As a result of the approach that this government is taking, the NBN will be completed by 2020, which is six to eight years sooner than would have been the case under our predecessors, as I often say, and at $30 billion less cost. The good news is that because it will cost less to build, people's monthly internet bills will be lower than they would be under those opposite. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left! Goods and Services Tax 55 14:11 Senator SINGH M0R Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. A fortnight ago, the Tasmanian Liberal government released the revised estimates report, which lists the Turnbull government's proposed changes to the GST formula as a major risk to the Tasmanian state budget. It says: Tasmania's share of the GST could fall by … $168 million. Does the government agree with the Tasmanian Liberal government's report? 14:12 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Let me point out again what I've pointed out all week: right now, all that is happening is a Productivity Commission inquiry into the effects of horizontal fiscal equalisation on national productivity and wealth. That is because this federal government wants to ensure that the pie that is available to be shared around Australia, across all of the states and territories across Australia, is as large as possible. We want to ensure that our economy is as strong as possible, which is why we are wanting to make sure that policy settings facilitate stronger growth and, also, a bigger pie of GST revenue to be distributed among all. There has been no final report. There have been no final recommendations. There is no government position in relation to a report that has not yet been received. The whole question is hypothetical, it's academic and I've addressed it in detail over the past week. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Singh, a supplementary question. 14:13 Senator SINGH M0R Tasmania Given the minister has twice, if not more than twice, ruled out severe cuts to Tasmania's share of GST distribution, which scenario will the Turnbull government use to change the GST formula and what impact will it have on Tasmania's budget? 14:13 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia You can ask the question in whatever way you want, but there is no proposal before government. The process that is underway is very transparent. When there is a report with recommendations in front of the government, we will consider them and, of course, we will seek to secure consensus among all jurisdictions in relation to those matters that we think are sensible. Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my right. Senator Singh, a final supplementary question. 14:14 Senator SINGH M0R Tasmania With Turnbull government members, like Warren Entsch, calling for Tasmania's share of the GST to be cut, and Tasmanian Liberal senators saying absolutely nothing, why isn't this government prepared to tell Tasmanians how much they will lose under its changes before they go to the polls on 3 March? 14:14 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The first thing I would say is that obviously the re-election of the Hodgman government is what is in the best interests of the people of Tasmania, because, if you look at the economic growth achieved under the Hodgman government, it leaves any previous Labor-Green administration absolutely for dead. So I would strongly encourage the Tasmanian people to re-elect Will Hodgman as the Premier of Tasmania. The next thing I would say is, from a national point of view, we want all states and territories and the people in all states and territories to have the best possible opportunity to get ahead. That is why we want to ensure that horizontal fiscal equalisation arrangements will achieve the largest possible pie of GST to be shared around. Now there is no report before government. When there is a report before government, we will consider it and, in relation to any recommendations that we may decide to support, we will seek a consensus with all states and territories. Member for Cook 55 14:15 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania . My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Fifield. Minister, documents released last week show that the former immigration minister, Mr Morrison, asked his department for ways to delay the applications of people seeking asylum in Australia. The documents show the options included asking ASIO to delay security checks and instructing the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to hear cases in a particular order to slow down processing and delay justice. Did the minister instruct or request ASIO and the AAT to act in this way? Were these instructions or requests acceded to? 14:16 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Thank you, Senator McKim, for your question. I don't think I can do any better than to quote the Treasurer, the former Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, himself who said: … what the report in the ABC failed to point out, about that memo, was that memo to me said that the Secretary of Immigration had already written to the Director General of ASIO. It wasn't seeking my approval. They were simply implementing government policy which was what we took to the election. We said, permanent visas would not be given to people who came to Australia illegally by boat, the Department was acting in accordance with Government policy that had just been confirmed thumpingly in a federal election so - headline – public official implement government policy approved by the Australian people. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McKim, a supplementary question. 14:17 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Well that was no answer at all to the majority of my question. The AAT, of course, didn't get a mention there. Minister, I will repeat: was the AAT requested or instructed to hear cases in a particular order to slow down processing and delay justice and, if so, why did the government act with such reckless disregard for fair process, natural justice and the rule of law? 14:17 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria This government makes absolutely no apology for doing everything it possibly can to ensure that Australia's borders are secure, that people smugglers do not have a business model which is supported by Australian government policy. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McKim on a point of order? Senator McKim JKM Thanks, President, it is a point of order and it goes directly to relevance. I've been very patient. That's the second time I've asked Senator Fifield whether the AAT was requested or instructed to slow down processing of particular cases. It is clear his first response didn't address that in any way. I've asked it again. He is well into his answer and he is yet to even mention the letters AAT, so I ask you to remind him of the question. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McKim, I cannot instruct the minister how to answer the question, as long as the minister is relevant to part of the question or the preamble asked. I believe he is actually answering part of your question. I call Senator Fifield. Senator FIFIELD D2I Thank you, Mr President. As I was saying, as a government, we want to do everything we possibly can to ensure that people smugglers don't have a business model which is supported by government policy. In terms of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, I'm just harking back to my memory. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal as it is today is differently constituted to 2013 when we came into government, where there were a number of different elements in different portfolios. I think there was the old Social Security Appeals Tribunal in the social security portfolio and, I think, there was the Migration Review Tribunal— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McKim, a final supplementary question? 14:19 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania No answers. Minister, in his valedictory speech yesterday, former Attorney-General Senator Brandis said that powerful elements of right-wing politics have abandoned the liberal tradition 'in favour of a belligerent, intolerant populism which shows no respect for either the rights of individual citizens or the traditional institutions which protect them.' Can you confirm that this is the government's official ideology now that he is gone? 14:20 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria This government is deeply committed to the rule of law. This government is deeply committed to fairness and deeply committed to justice. We are also deeply committed to ensuring the security of Australia's borders and deeply committed to ensuring that we do not have people smugglers who are putting people at risk on the high seas. I might just take the opportunity to pick up where I was finishing off in answer to the second question, in relation to the AAT. I would have to check in terms of the jurisdictional responsibilities that the AAT itself had back in 2013. It's not something I have direct knowledge of. If there is anything I can add further, then I certainly will. Tasmania: Biosecurity 56 14:21 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, Senator Canavan. In January, adult fruit flies were detected on Flinders Island and in north-west Tasmania. There are daily reports of additional fruit flies being detected. People are still arriving in Tasmania by sea and air without biosecurity checks. As the federal minister responsible for biosecurity, what advice has the minister sought about the consequences of the Tasmanian Liberal government cutting $1 million from Tasmania's biosecurity budget and people arriving from mainland Australia without biosecurity checks? 14:21 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I thank Senator Urquhart for her question. Not being the minister directly responsible, I have not myself sought advice, but I do have some information here for you, Senator. We are working in close collaboration with our state governments, who are managing detections and outbreaks of fruit fly. On-the-ground management of native pests is a responsibility for state governments and landholders. You mentioned Tasmania, Senator Urquhart, and the information I have here is that it is providing a $2 million support package for growers, distributors and retailers of fruit. Tasmania and other states with fruit-fly-free areas have a long and successful history of maintaining freedom from fruit flies. They have well-established monitoring systems to allow early detection, significant public awareness campaigns to facilitate the reporting of fruit flies and well-developed response plans to eradicate fruit flies quickly. State governments managing outbreaks have implemented measures to control the movement of fruit fly host produce from affected areas and are working— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Canavan, please resume your seat. Senator Urquhart on point of order. Senator Urquhart 231199 A point of order, Mr President. My question was: what advice has the minister sought about the consequences? I know the stuff he is talking about. I've heard from the Tasmanian government about their package. I've heard about the fruit fly traps. My question was: what advice has the minister sought about the consequences of the Tasmanian Liberal government cutting $1 million from Tasmania's biosecurity budget and people still arriving in the ports in Tasmania from mainland Australia without biosecurity checks? What's the advice that the minister has received in relation to those issues? The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Urquhart, points of order are not a chance to re-state the question. Ministers are allowed to address part of the question. I cannot instruct— Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Can I please complete what I say before you rise, Senator Wong. Ministers are allowed to address parts of the question. I cannot instruct them how to. I take the opportunity, as I let you then, to remind the minister of the terms of the second part of your question. Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU Mr President, it is customary for a questioner to be able to refer to aspects of the question to enable you to rule on the point of order. There seems to be some reflexive suggestion from the chair that we are not allowed to refer to a question that's been asked. That is germane to making the point of order on direct relevance. The PRESIDENT I0Q Absolutely, Senator Wong. As has been the ruling of people prior to me, that does not necessarily constitute the re-reading of the question. I let Senator Urquhart— Senator Wong 00AOU She didn't re-read it. The PRESIDENT I0Q In that case, my apologies. It seemed very similar to the notes I had. Senator Canavan. Senator CANAVAN 245212 As I mentioned, I have not done that myself. I thought the question was: what advice have I sought? I'm happy to answer that, but I have not sought specific advice, not being the direct minister. But, as I have said, we are working with state and territory governments to make sure we manage these very important issues, including with the Hodgman government, which is investing $2 million to do so. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Urquhart, a supplementary question? 14:25 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Has the Tasmanian Liberal government made any representations to the Australian government for additional support for this biosecurity emergency? If so, what did it request and when was the request made? 14:25 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I'm not aware of any such requests, but I'll take that on notice and provide what information I can. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Urquhart, a final supplementary question. 14:25 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Doesn't the discovery of fruit fly show that the Turnbull and Hodgman governments have failed to safeguard Tasmania's vital agricultural sector? 14:25 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I reject that assertion. We are investing significant amounts of money in biosecurity. I think we can agree that biosecurity is one of the most important things. We must protect in this nation to maintain our image as a clean, green supplier of food and agricultural products. That is why we committed an additional $200 million to build a modern biosecurity system, as set out in the Agricultural competitiveness white paper. It is also true that the total expenditure for biosecurity this financial year is $752.7 million. That is an increase of $149.3 million, or 25 per cent, since the coalition government came into power. We are taking these issues very seriously and will continue to work with state and territory governments to keep our borders safe from pests and disease and to keep our image strong as a country that delivers clean, green and safe agricultural products to the world. Defence Facilities: Chemical Contamination 58 14:26 Senator GEORGIOU 269583 Western Australia My question is for the Minister for Defence, Marise Payne. Minister, my question relates to the issue of PFAS chemical contamination found in numerous defence sites across Australia, including those in my home state of Western Australia—especially Perth's Garden Island and Pearce air base, which I note is in the electorate of the new Attorney-General, Christian Porter. My office has written to your office on two occasions, the first being almost two months ago. We outlined the affected resident's proposal to install water tanks on contaminated property or to connect them to scheme water, at the department's expense. Can you confirm that your office has received our letters and explain why you have not provided us with a response? 14:27 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Georgiou for his question and for some notice of the question. As I've said in the chamber before, this is a very complex legacy situation, faced not only by the Commonwealth's Department of Defence. I can confirm that I received Senator Georgiou's original letter, which I believe was dated 21 December, but it wasn't received in my office until 4 January. We have been in the process of investigating the issues which were raised in that letter, and I am finalising a response to the senator now and also to Minister Porter in the other place, who raised the same issues with me. As part of the environmental investigation that's been conducted at RAAF Base Pearce, the particular bore, which is located on the senator's constituent's property, was sampled on 18 October 2016. On 28 October 2016 the constituent was advised that the bore result was below the limit of detection—that is, a 'non-detect'. That means that their bore is also below the FSANZ—the Food Standards Australia New Zealand—base guidance value for drinking water of 0.07 micrograms per litre In July of last year, the Defence department made follow-up contact with the senator's constituent, seeking consent to undertake further sampling of the bore. On 29 August last year, the department was advised that the constituent was seeking legal advice and that Defence should not engage with the constituent in any way. Defence has respected that request from the senator's constituent, and since August 2017 has not been in direct contact with them. I can advise the chamber and the senator that Defence would still like to re-sample the bore that is located on that property to confirm the initial results, if permission were to be given. I'm more than happy to discuss that matter further with Senator Georgiou. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Georgiou, a supplementary question? 14:29 Senator GEORGIOU 269583 Western Australia While affected families are being provided with bottled drinking water by Defence, apparently as a precautionary measure, residents have told me that they have no choice but to wash themselves and their children in water that potentially causes cancer. Why hasn't the department taken further precautionary steps to ensure that Australian children aren't being poisoned at the hands of the Defence department? 14:29 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales As is the case in a number of investigation areas, I can advise the Senate that bottled water continues to be supplied to Senator Georgiou's constituent as a precautionary measure until the completion of the investigation, when the extent of the contamination will be known. I do note, for the record, that the current Department of Health advice—the Department of Defence is not a health authority; we work in conjunction with the Department of Health on these matters—is that there is no consistent evidence that PFAS causes any specific illness, including, as the senator has adverted to, cancer. For further information on the Department of Health's response to PFAS contamination, I would direct the senator to the Minister for Health. In the letter there are two possible solutions for drinking water mentioned at the property. While I do note that request, such solutions are usually only provided to properties that have a bore sample that exceeds the health-based guidance values recommended by FSANZ. There is a human health risk assessment currently underway, which will consider drinking water in the whole of the Bullsbrook community. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Georgiou, a final supplementary question? 14:31 Senator GEORGIOU 269583 Western Australia I note, Minister, that last year you responded to a question during question time from my colleague Senator Burston that you would raise the prospect of creating a relief fund for affected residents of the PFAS task force. Have you done so, and what has been the response from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet? 14:31 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I, of course, continue to have ongoing discussions with my ministerial colleagues across a range of portfolios on this issue, and the Defence department stands ready to assist in whatever capacity it is asked to do by government. As the senator has alluded to, the task force managing the PFAS issue is a Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet task force, which is leading the whole-of-government response to contamination across Commonwealth sites. Its work was adverted to in the response tabled by Senator McGrath earlier this week. I note, as I said in my earlier remarks, that this is a very complex legacy issue. It doesn't just impact Defence sites. In fact, around Australia we know that it is impacting aviation sites, industrial waste facilities, fuel storage facilities, chemical storage facilities, fire authorities—and there have been a number of reports on that. The department works closely with other members of the Commonwealth agencies that form the task force, and we'll support communities as best we can. (Time expired) Employment 59 14:32 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales My question is to my fearless leader in the Senate and Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion. Can the minister outline how the coalition government's recently announced regional jobs and investment package for the North Coast region of New South Wales is unlocking jobs and economic opportunity for the communities across regional New South Wales? 14:32 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory I thank Senator Williams for his question. Can I say, with a great deal of confidence, that there is no greater advocate for regional New South Wales than Senator Williams. Like myself, he's focused on delivering more secure jobs and greater opportunities for all those who call regional Australia home. It was fantastic to recently see the Minister for Regional Development, Territories and Local Government join the members for Page and Cowper, both valued National Party colleagues of both Senator Williams and myself, to announce the successful recipients of the coalition government's regional jobs and investment package for the North Coast region of New South Wales. Each successful project will help to generate more jobs and more opportunities. After an extensive assessment process, involving strong community input and more than 70 applications, 23 projects totalling $25 million will be delivered across the North Coast of New South Wales, providing residents with a range of employment and investment opportunities. The success of this program is that it's built on partnerships with local communities and businesses, which are matching the support they are receiving from the coalition. This means that, across the New South Wales North Coast, a total investment pool of almost $53 million will flow through the shops and the main streets of the North Coast. This includes transformational projects like $4.7 million to deliver a new 23-bed wing at the Kyogle aged-care centre, $2 million to upgrade manufacturing capacity at a local air conditioning manufacturer in Coffs Harbour, and over $1 million for a blueberry cooperative near Woolgoolga to help streamlining and updating the equipment to increase processing capacity. This upgrade will actually increase their competitiveness and their efficiency, because they are actually competing with places like South-East Asia and Canada. They're a local example of the projects delivered by the coalition. These projects are the types that have helped 403,000 more Australians into jobs in just a year, with around three-quarters of them being full-time jobs. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Williams, a supplementary question? 14:34 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales I thank the minister for that answer and I ask: how is this announcement supporting local jobs across northern New South Wales? 14:35 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory The coalition is committed to supporting regional Australia. As part of that commitment, it is absolutely essential that we help regions like the North Coast unlock their potential, by investing in key projects that support their economic future. We are supporting transitioning economies to help them seize immense opportunities that exist in regional Australia. More than 500 new jobs will be generated through the construction phase, and a further 500 ongoing jobs will be created, thanks to the North Coast Regional Jobs and Investment Package. That means 500 families confidently spending more, and local businesses investing more across the local communities of Coffs Harbour, Port Macquarie, Lismore, Kyogle and many other communities in between. Over the last 12 months, the coalition has delivered over 100,000 jobs in regional Australia. Some 42,000 have been, in fact, in regional New South Wales. That's the equivalent of the entire population of Lismore, Grafton and Kyogle, and they've all been getting more jobs in the last 12 months. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Williams, a final supplementary question? 14:35 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales I thank the minister and I ask: how does this link into the coalition's broader commitment to deliver jobs, investment and economic security for all those who live, work and invest in regional New South Wales? 14:36 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory This effort builds on previous support for important local projects delivered by the coalition across northern New South Wales. They include the Taree roads and bridges program, the Port Macquarie indoor sports stadium, the Oakes Oval upgrade in Lismore, the Casino saleyards upgrade, the Clarence Valley Regional Airport upgrade, the Maclean river precinct, and a significant investment in the clinical and allied health building at Southern Cross University in Coffs Harbour. The coalition is the only party that can be trusted to, and does, deliver for regional Australia. The coalition party room is full of regional champions who fight every day to deliver for those who work and invest in rural, regional and remote Australia. I continue to look forward to working with Senator Williams and all those regional senators, who, like me, are committed to making regional Australia an even greater place to call home. Influenza 60 14:37 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia My question is to Senator McKenzie, representing the Minister for Health. There were 745 deaths from the flu last year. It was a shocking season, with many young and healthy people dying. What were the key lessons learnt from last year to prepare for this year's flu season? 14:37 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I would like to thank Senator Griff, through you, Mr President, for the question and for the advance notice. Indeed, that was a tragic result of the flu season, and immunisation is critical for maintaining public health and preventing the outbreak of infectious diseases such as the flu. The National Immunisation Program provides a free seasonal influenza vaccine to a range of at-risk cohorts, including those over the age of 65 and pregnant women. Through the NIP, distribution of over 4.6 million doses of seasonal influenza vaccines occurred in 2017, and, as a result of last year's flu season, Minister Hunt tasked the Chief Medical Officer with investigating ways to ensure all aged-care workers are properly vaccinated against seasonal influenza. The government is also committed to exploring enhanced vaccination program arrangements through the NIP, including making available advanced vaccines for those aged 65 years and over. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Griff, a supplementary question? 14:38 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia One of the flu vaccines that was not available last year was the high-strength vaccine that is indicated for people over 65. Given that people over 65 accounted for 91 per cent of flu deaths last year, will the high-strength vaccine definitely be available in Australia and will it be made exclusively available for over-65s or available to all who request it? 14:39 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Thank you, Senator Griff. I have sought advice from the Minister for Health on your question. As you may be aware, in order for a vaccine to be included on the NIP, it must be registered by the TGA and recommended by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The committee has agreed to expedite its consideration of this vaccine ahead of the flu season for this year, and the outcome of their consideration will be communicated publicly as soon as it's finalised. The government worked with companies to ensure that expedited submissions were provided to the PBAC so that they could be made available to the Australian community as soon as possible. In January 2018, the committee considered applications for the two strengthened vaccines for use in Australia for adults aged 65 years and over. Following the announcement of the outcomes of this PBAC meeting, administrative arrangements will be progressed for listing on the NIP. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Griff, a final supplementary question. 14:40 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia Does that actually mean that the high-strength vaccine will effectively be registered—unlike last year, when the issue was that because companies hadn't registered it it wasn't approved? Will it be actually registered ahead of any company application to ensure that it is definitely available for over 65s? 14:40 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria There are two advanced trivalent influenza vaccines currently available internationally that elicit an increased immune response from the elderly. The government has been working with companies to make these available to Australians aged 65 years and older. One is FLUAD, which contains an immunity-enhancing ingredient and is for specific use in individuals aged 65 years and over. I note that you're writing that down—it's F-L-U-A-D. The other one is Fluzone High-Dose, which contains four times the antigen of the standard seasonal influenza vaccine and is also indicated as being specifically valued for people aged 65 years and over. All the vaccines registered in Australia by the TGA have been evaluated to make sure they're safe for use, and that's our primary concern. The government and the department have worked with sponsors of these vaccines to have them registered on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, and I'm pleased to confirm that the TGA has registered both of these vaccines. And when speaking to the minister he's assured me they will be available for this flu season. (Time expired) Energy 61 14:41 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Energy, Senator Birmingham. Last year, with much fanfare, the South Australian Liberal opposition leader, Mr Steven Marshall, announced his energy policy, promising that it would deliver South Australian households a saving of $302 per year. Has the federal government undertaken an analysis of the proposal? If so, will the federal government confirm that the Liberal opposition policy in South Australia will deliver savings of $302 per year? 14:42 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Gallacher for his question and his understandably strong interest in the South Australian Liberal Party's energy policies. I'm sure that Senator Gallacher, like most South Australians, would be thoroughly fed up and frustrated with the problems that have beset the South Australian energy market over the last few years and the difficulties that these problems have set for households and for businesses in having the most expensive, least reliable energy in the country. Senator Wong 00AOU It was an embarrassment. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Indeed. Senator Wong is right: it has been an embarrassment for South Australia to have a state government who can't keep the lights on— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong on a point of order. Senator Wong 00AOU On direct relevance: the embarrassment is the Liberal Party's policy, which is why he's been asked about it. He has been asked whether or not the federal government has done any analysis of the $302. We look forward to your answer, Minister. The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind the minister of the terms of the question asked by Senator Gallacher. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Thank you Mr President. In terms of Senator's Gallacher's question, I'm not aware of whether or not the federal government has modelled the state Liberal Party's policy. It would be unlikely, but I'll happily check and give the chamber extra information if that's the case. However, I am aware that, indeed, the state Liberal Party's policy to provide a fund to encourage a further interconnection of South Australia into the rest of the national electricity market was something that was promised 16 long years ago by the state Labor government. Sixteen years ago the South Australian Labor Party, when they were elected, said they were going to build the New South Wales interconnector. And do we have it yet? Sixteen years later, no, we don't. Mr Marshall at least has put money on the table in his policy and the state Liberals policy to be able to build that interconnector, to be able to finish it and to be able to ensure that, when the wind is blowing so strongly in South Australia and the turbines are generating more energy than the state needs, the state will be able to export it. But, when the wind is not blowing in South Australia, the state will have greater certainty that it will be able to draw its power from other parts of the National Electricity Market. Of course, elsewhere Mr Marshall has led the way in promising to put battery support into households, which just last weekend Mr Weatherill played catch-up politics on. I am thrilled, Senator Gallacher, that you have such a strong interest in Mr Marshall's excellent electricity policies. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gallacher, a supplementary question. 14:45 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia Within days of announcing the Liberal energy plan, South Australian opposition leader Steven Marshall was forced to admit that, in fact, his plan would deliver as little as $60 per annum. Is the Turnbull government willing to confirm that even this meagre promised saving of $60 is achievable? 14:45 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I am delighted to say that we trust that the economic modelling that I know the South Australian Liberal Party have had done by Frontier Economics—an organisation that, indeed, the Labor Party have been happy to use themselves—is credible. I am sure their modelling is credible, demonstrating that households will save under their policy. I tell you what, households and businesses have been paying a lot more under Jay Weatherill's policy. I know that households and businesses will be happy to save every single dollar possible on their electricity bills. Senator Gallacher might wish to come in here— Senator Gallacher 204953 Mr President, I rise on a point of order going to direct relevance. The question was whether we can expect $60 of meagre savings? The PRESIDENT I0Q I'll call the minister; he's in order. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australians will be happy to save every single dollar possible—I am confident of that—and the modelling demonstrates it is $300. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gallacher, a final supplementary question. 14:46 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia Given the South Australian Liberal Party's plan collapsed within days of its announcement, isn't it clear that when it comes to modernising our electricity sector the state Liberal opposition is as hopeless as the Turnbull government? 14:47 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia We have a clear plan with the Turnbull government's National Energy Guarantee that will also save households. The Liberal Party have developed a plan that shows a $300 saving. It of course is going to be delivered, unlike 16 years of empty promises and failures by Jay Weatherill and his team. Pyeongchang Winter Olympic Games 62 14:47 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Sport, Senator McKenzie. The 2018 Winter Olympic Games begin tomorrow. Can the minister please update the Senate on the Australian Winter Olympic team travelling to Pyeongchang to participate in the games? 14:47 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Thank you so much, Senator Brockman, for your question. I am really looking forward to staying up late and watching our athletes in action, as I know everyone in this chamber will be. Australia will be represented by 51 outstanding athletes at the Winter Olympics commencing tomorrow in South Korea. The Australian team are already amongst the best in the world. Australia was fifth on the medal tally at the Freestyle Ski and Snowboarding World Championships in Spain last year, claiming five medals. Despite being one of the driest nations, we have great representation at the Winter Olympics. We are a nation of just 27 million people but, when it comes to international sport, we certainly achieve beyond expectations. Our athletes are supported by the Olympic Winter Institute of Australia and the Australian Sports Commission's annual investment of $5.5 million. Last year, the Sports Commission provided a boost of $845,000 to give our athletes the best shot for these Winter Olympic Games. And what a shot we have! We have emerging athletes competing in their first Olympic Games, such as Jessica Yeaton in cross-country skiing from the great state of WA. Senator Brockman, I know you will be staying up late to watch that event. There is Kailani Craine from Newcastle in figure skating, who I am sure Senator McAllister, Senator O'Neill, Senator Payne and all New South Wales senators, because we know that sport unites, will be barracking on loudly. Reigning world champions Scotty James in the halfpipe and Britt Cox in mogul skiing are strong medal chances, as are our aerial skiers Danielle Scott and Lydia Lassila. Lydia will be competing in her fifth Olympic Games, which is an absolutely amazing achievement. Making it onto the Winter Olympic Games team is a huge achievement, and every athlete has such a great personal story of their dedication and commitment to get there, not to mention the support of their coaches, communities, support staff, families and friends. I encourage all senators and Australians to watch them on free-to-air TV or to follow them on Twitter and cheer our team on. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Brockman, a supplementary question. 14:49 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Thank you, Minister. I hope everyone in the chamber wishes our athletes well. What are the government's plans to assist athletes in the future? 14:49 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria The federal government has a leadership role to promote sport at all levels for Australians of all abilities. We know with respect to the Winter Olympics that over one million people every year visit the snow in Australia. This helps the local economy with jobs and small businesses such as in areas in my home state of Victoria—Mount Buller, Mount Hotham and Falls Creek—where some of our athletes got their start in snow sports. Acknowledging the important role that participation plays, the government announced last May that it would be developing a sports plan for release in 2018 that covers all levels of sport, from physical activity right up to high performance such as participation in Olympic Games. The government wants to ensure its investment in sport benefits our communities. We know the important role sport plays in social cohesion and improving mental, physical and emotional health. We also know it is a significant economic benefit to our nation. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Brockman, final supplementary question. 14:50 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia What government assistance has been provided to the Australian athletes? 14:51 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria More than $100 million in grants is directly invested in Australian sports and our athletes each and every year, but we also want to provide a strong integrity environment for our sports, and I know that's been a particular concern around the Winter Olympics internationally. We know there are concerns about integrity, and this government is committed to ensuring we maintain Australia's sports integrity to the highest level. We have asked an independent expert panel, chaired by the Hon. James Wood AO, QC to review Australian sports integrity arrangements, examining antidoping, match fixing and illegal gambling This report is expected to be handed to government for consideration in the next month, but, for all of us here at the last question time before the games start tonight and tomorrow, we wish all of our athletes the absolute best representing their nation on behalf of all of us. Donations to Political Parties 63 14:51 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory My question is to the Minister for Rural Health and Minister for Sport, Senator McKenzie. What proportion of Australians living in remote and regional areas smoke, and what is the cost to the Australian health system as a result? 14:52 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Thank you very much, Senator McCarthy, for your question. We know that we lead the world in smoking cessation here in Australia. It was as a result of a campaign that began in my home state of Victoria through VicHealth many, many, many years ago. But, whether we look at the changes that state governments have made, implementation of a variety of tax regimes on the purchase of cigarettes or the plain-packaging legislation introduced by the former Labor government, at every single step of the way state and territory governments and federal governments in this country have been committed to reducing smoking rates in this country. In my home state of Victoria we had a great tobacco industry. The production of tobacco ceased as a result of decisions taken by state and Commonwealth governments. So reducing smoking rates in Australia is an important task at hand, but I do recognise, Senator McCarthy, that the smoking rates in particular for Indigenous Australians are of a particularly higher rate than is acceptable and that we are doing everything that we can to seek to reduce those. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McCarthy, a supplementary question. 14:53 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Given that the latest records from the Australian Electoral Commission show the Nationals accepted $15,700 from big tobacco in the 2016-17 financial year, what action will the minister, who is also the Deputy Leader of the Nationals, take to end this unhealthy practice? 14:53 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Thank you very much for your question, Senator McCarthy. As you know, for each and every one of us that represents a political party in this place, any questions around donations are a matter for our federal organisations. But I am very, very happy to go in a very detailed way through the variety of measures that our government and former Labor governments have taken to reduce the level of smoking in this country. The PRESIDENT I0Q Final supplementary question, Senator McCarthy. 14:54 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Mr President, how can the minister expect the Australian people to take her seriously when, instead of promoting good health and healthy lifestyles, the minister is a leader in a party addicted to big tobacco cash? An honourable senator: You do have a smile! 14:54 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I do have a smile. Thank you very much for your question. For the chamber, I will declare an interest. For a long period of time, I was also one of those Australians who did smoke cigarettes, so I think I've paid my fair share of tobacco cash and tax. At one point in my life I did smoke cigarettes, but I also played sport and tried to be healthy. Thanks to the great work of former Labor governments and the great work of former Liberal-Nationals governments, I am now a reformed smoker. I am reformed. I am committed to a healthy lifestyle and smoking cessation. Australian Defence Force 64 14:55 Senator MOLAN FAB New South Wales Thank you, Mr President. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator MOLAN FAB My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left. Senator MOLAN FAB Can the minister please update the Senate on the operations of the Air Task Group in Iraq? The PRESIDENT I0Q Excuse me. I asked for order during the question on numerous occasions. I did not hear all the terms of the question. Can you repeat the question please, Senator Molan. Senator MOLAN FAB My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. Can the minister please update the Senate on the operation of the Air Task Group in Iraq? 14:56 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Let me acknowledge that this is newly inaugurated Senator Jim Molan's first question in the Senate. I thank Senator Molan very much for his question. My New South Wales confrere, a decorated senior military officer, is very welcome here on the government side of the Senate chamber. Almost all of the territory in Iraq seized by Daesh and their terrorist network has been liberated by the Iraqi security forces, and that is very important progress. On 9 December last year, Iraq's Prime Minister al-Abadi declared the collapse of Daesh in Iraq. Although small pockets of influence in rural and desert areas remain to be cleared—we are very cognisant of that—any claim to Daesh's so-called caliphate no longer holds. Given the progress against Daesh, on 22 December last year the Turnbull government announced the decision to cease the F/A-18 air strike operations in the Middle East as part of Operation OKRA. Australia's strike aircraft flew their final mission as part of the operation on 14 January, and with the Prime Minister I was proud to welcome home to Australia the strike aircraft and their crews at RAAF Base Amberley last month on 24 January. In the period of the ADF's air strike operations from 8 October 2014 to 14 January 2018, almost 3½ years, the Air Task Group's six F/A-18F Super Hornets flew over 21,200 hours on combat operations and conducted 2,799 air strike sorties over Iraq and Syria. This was a significant and sustained operational effort that was highly regarded by both our Iraqi and US partners. It provided a direct and tangible contribution to the collective self-defence of Iraq again Daesh. I note the courage and determination of those Iraqi security forces in their stand against Daesh and their efforts in destroying the myth of Daesh's so-called invincibility. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Molan, a supplementary question. 14:58 Senator MOLAN FAB New South Wales Can the minister update the Senate on Australia's further contributions to the fight against Daesh? 14:58 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales While our air strike operations against Daesh have ended and our hornets, as I said, have returned home, the ADF Air Task Group remains on duty. The KC-30A air-to-air refuelling aircraft plays a vital role in keeping coalition strike aircraft airborne for long endurance missions, which in turn allows them to make immediate responses to Iraqi calls for air support against the last remaining pockets of Daesh resistance. In fact, our KC-30A has flown over 1,200 sorties and offloaded more than 43 million kilograms of fuel to coalition aircraft. Our E-7A Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft is conducting an operational pause for several weeks after a sustained period of operational activity and will return to air operations shortly. I want to thank those men and women of the ADF who remain engaged in the Air Task Group. I also particularly want to bring to the attention of the Senate the work of Task Group Taji, which has now trained more than 30,000 members of the ISF including over 4,500 police. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Molan, a final supplementary question? 14:59 Senator MOLAN FAB New South Wales Can the minister please update the Senate on any other ADF contributions to maritime security in the Middle East? 14:59 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales It is notable that under Operation Manitou, the regional maritime security operations in the Middle East, where HMAS Warramunga is currently deployed, that warship and its crew have recently made their seventh narcotics intercept at sea, last week, bringing the total seized over the last few months to more than $1 billion worth of narcotics seized and destroyed. This very important work is destroying the terrorist model—the pirate business model—of using the drugs trade to fund their weapons, their explosives, their transport and their terrorist training camps. We should all be very proud of the work that the members of our ADF do every day while deployed on operations, and HMAS Warramunga is a good case in point. It is the 66th RAN vessel to deploy to the Middle East region since 1990, continuing our very proud history of supporting regional security. As part of the global coalition, the ADF has made a very valuable contribution to the campaign against Daesh. (Time expired) Senator Cormann HDA I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 65 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Goods and Services Tax, Health Care 65 15:01 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria During question time on Tuesday, I agreed to seek advice from the Minister for Health on whether he'd held certain discussion with his state counterparts. I also agreed to seek advice in relation to Senator Brown's question with respect to South Australia and Tasmania, which I have done. I've been advised that there have been no formal discussions between the minister and his state counterparts in relation to the GST. Commonwealth payments to the states and territories through activity based funding for public hospitals are not affected by changes in the methodology adopted by the Commonwealth Grants Commission in making recommendations on the distribution of GST revenue. Further questions relating to the GST should actually be directed to the Treasurer or his representative in his place. The Turnbull government is continuing to provide record funding to state and territory public hospitals under the national health agreement. The Commonwealth support for state and territory public hospitals has grown from $13.3 billion in 2012-13 under the former Labor government to $22.7 billion in 2020-21 under the Turnbull government. The Commonwealth funding for public hospital services in Tasmania has increased from $299 million to $441.6 million in 2021, a 47.7 per cent increase over that period. In South Australia, the Commonwealth funding for public hospital services has grown from $1 billion in 2013 to $1.5 billion in 2021, or a 47 per cent increase over this period. Any assertion that there were any cuts is an absolute fallacy. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 65 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Goods and Services Tax, Tasmania: Biosecurity 65 15:03 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) and the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia (Senator Canavan) to questions without notice asked by Senators Singh and Urquhart today relating to the distribution of GST revenue and to funding for biosecurity measures in Tasmania. We've already given this government ample opportunities through the course of this week to rule out, once and for all, that Tasmania and South Australia have anything to fear when it comes to their contribution of the GST being cut. The question asked today by Senator Singh referred to the revised estimates report to the Tasmanian Liberal government Premier, Mr Will Hodgman, which stated that our great state of Tasmania's budget was at risk and is at risk if this federal government cuts any distribution of Tasmania's share of the GST whatsoever. It's important that we put this into perspective. What does it really mean for the people of Tasmania? The report refers to $168 million—$168 million is what this government is planning to cut from Tasmania's budget. What that means is that more than 1,611 teachers would have to be sacked in Tasmania. Twelve primary schools would have to shut. The health and hospital system is already in crisis in Tasmania. There would have to be a cut of 1,507 nurses. That's what it would equate to. That would be the real impact on Tasmania. We know there are about 1,334 police officers on the front line that would go. These are the priorities that this government has when it comes to the people of Tasmania. We know that the Prime Minister is still hurting and that he still wants to punish Tasmanians because they didn't vote for his weak team. But what is really so disappointing is that you have the two senators from Tasmania, Senator Abetz and Senator Bushby, who were sitting there with their heads bowed, sitting on their hands saying absolutely nothing. It's not good enough for you go back around the communities in Tasmania and say, 'No, no, we won't do this; we will cross the floor. We won't take this. It's not going to happen.' But in this place they have had the opportunity, as they do every day, to talk to the Prime Minister; to talk to the Treasurer; to talk to the finance minister, Senator Cormann; and ask them to rule out emphatically once and for all that there would be no cut to Tasmania or to South Australia. But, no, we haven't heard one word from the Tasmanian Liberals. Now we know they're weak. We know they have no influence, because neither of the two that were in the chamber supported the Prime Minister when he rolled the former Prime Minister, Mr Abbott. So Tasmania's not getting the support and certainly not getting the representation that it deserves from the Liberals. The other important issue facing Tasmania at the moment is fruit fly. Biosecurity is so critically important to Tasmania's reputation. It's taken years and decades to build up our international and national reputation for having clean green fantastic food, fantastic wine, fantastic berries. These industries are so important to the state's economy. And what have we seen from the Liberal state government under Will Hodgman? A million dollars cut from Tasmania's biosecurity in his first budget. They have been slack. The minister's taken his eye off the ball when it comes to biosecurity in our state. As I said, this is not just about the dollars that are going to be lost to those producers and those farmers. The real impact will be on the reputation of Tasmania in markets such as Taiwan and China. They've already responded. Only today we saw reports of how fruit fly has been found in Spreyton, another community in Tasmania that is a fruit-growing area. The impact will be devastating. I have to say the response from the state minister was pathetic. The response to the question that we asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries in the other place was terrible. This is a huge issue for Tasmania, and he wasn't briefed. He wasn't prepared to answer those questions. There's one thing the Tasmanian people can be very clear about—they cannot count on the Liberals at either a state or the federal level. (Time expired) 15:08 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria It's quite encouraging that we're having this conversation in the Senate in particular today, because the Senate is where states are best represented. I note that Senator Polley is in here batting for Tasmania, and that's exactly what she should be doing as I should be in here batting for Victoria, because that's what I'm here to do. It's understandable. This is the appropriate forum to be having this discussion. However, that said, I do feel that the entire discussion about the Productivity Commission's draft report is only politically motivated. I do note that it is of course Tasmania and South Australia where we're having state elections—they are the noisy states in this particular debate. I don't think it would come as any surprise to know that fiscal equalisation, as you well know, has been a feature of Commonwealth-state government relations since the early years of Federation. This is nothing new. Under Australia's current approach, the Commonwealth Grants Commission recommends a GST distribution to the states that provides each state with the capacity to provide its citizens with a comparable level of government services—that's what it's here to do. The current system was agreed by all states prior to the introduction to the GST in the year 2000. In recent years, clearly, views have been put to the government that the current approach to horizontal fiscal equalisation potentially creates disincentives for reform, including reforms that enhance revenue-raising capabilities or that drive efficiencies in spending, and they argue that any gains from reform are effectively redistributed to the other states. So, in commissioning this inquiry by the Productivity Commission, the government has sought an examination of the issues that underlie those particular claims. It's absolutely vital for Australia's future prosperity that the system that underpins the Commonwealth-state financial relations supports productivity, efficiency and economic growth across the entire country, not just in one or two specific states. Ultimately, it is all Australians that will benefit when the states actively pursue reforms that seek to improve productivity, efficiency and economic growth within their own jurisdictions. It is absolutely critical that all Australians are entirely confident that our GST-sharing arrangements are working. And the recent circumstances that have resulted in one particular state having an extremely low relativity and therefore a low share of the GST revenue have undermined faith in that GST system amongst some Australians, although, interestingly, not those that we heard from today. That is why in April last year the Turnbull government commissioned the Productivity Commission to review Australia's system of horizontal fiscal equalisation. That particular inquiry was undertaken to find the impact on the national economy of Australia's system of horizontal fiscal equalisation, which underpins the distribution of GST. Now the report has come back. It is a draft report only; I think that's been said at least two dozen times in the chamber in the last couple of days. The final report is due to be handed down to the government early this year. The Productivity Commission is currently consulting extensively on that particular report. The government is not ruling anything in and it's not ruling anything out. It would be foolish to do so, and the opposition knows exactly that. It would be foolish to do so. This is the normal process with any Productivity Commission report: we let the commission complete its processes and then we will discuss and consult with the relevant state and territory governments, engage with the Productivity Commission and let everyone have their say on the contents of that report. The findings and recommendations in that report have found that the current system of GST distribution has served us very well indeed during periods when state situations are relatively similar, but it has not been able to deal with the extremes of outlier circumstances in one particular state—in particular those that have occurred recently in WA. We are the only federation in the world that takes equalisation this far and stretches the rubber band to these kinds of extremes. So the Productivity Commission has recommended revising the objective of the horizontal fiscal equalisation program from the same standard to a reasonable standard. These recommendations are going to be considered before the government makes any recommendations whatsoever. The scare campaign that is coming from the other side of the chamber is entirely due to the upcoming state elections in both Tasmania and South Australia. I thank those opposite for their the advocacy for their states, but I find it disingenuous. 15:13 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I also rise to take note of the answers by Minister Cormann and Minister Canavan—in particular, the appalling response from Minister Canavan in response to three simple questions about the fruit fly emergency that we're facing in Tasmania at the moment. I note that in January, adult fruit flies were detected on Flinders Island, on one of the eastern islands of Tasmania and also in the north-west of Tasmania. We're getting daily reports of additional fruit flies being detected, both larvae and the adult flies. People are still arriving in Tasmania by sea and air without biosecurity checks. There's a fruit fly emergency. We haven't had fruit flies in Tasmania until just recently, when they were found in January. This threatens the future of our state's relative pest- and disease-free status, which then affects the markets that we send our fruit and vegetables off to—particularly in Japan, China and a number of Asian countries, but all over the world. This is a biosecurity emergency that the Tasmanian Liberal government has completely failed to provide any adequate resources for. This emergency is the latest in a chain of biosecurity disasters for Tasmania under the Liberals. We've had Norwegian salmon on supermarket shelves, blueberry rust, Pacific oyster mortality syndrome—and now a fruit fly emergency. What was particularly appalling about Minister Canavan's response was the lack of simple information from the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources. Minister Canavan responded to my first question by reading his brief word for word. My first question specifically asked about what information the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, who is responsible for biosecurity in this country, had sought about the fruit fly emergency, the consequences of the Tasmanian Liberal government cutting $1 million from that biosecurity budget and the consequences of people arriving from mainland Australia without biosecurity checks. Minister Canavan did not dispute that the Tasmanian Liberals cut $1 million from the biosecurity budget. No, he didn't say anything about that. He didn't dispute that people are arriving in Tasmanian airports and seaports from mainland Australia without adequate security checks. He just read the lines. At one point I heard him say that there is well-established monitoring in Tasmania. I pay tribute to the hardworking men, women and dogs from Biosecurity Tasmania, but to say that there is well-established monitoring does not specifically answer the question about how the crisis is being handled in Tasmania. As I explained to the chamber in my question, people are still arriving in Tasmania by sea and air without those biosecurity checks. Last week I attended a Senate inquiry in Melbourne. When I flew back into Devonport on Thursday afternoon there was no-one at Devonport airport undertaking any biosecurity checks—not one person, not a sniffer dog—in the middle of a fruit fly emergency and at the one airport that's actually within the control zone. How is that allowed to happen? How can that happen? It's clear that the Tasmanian Liberal government are out of depth in protecting Tasmania's interests. Again, the Tasmanian Liberals are not communicating with their colleagues, otherwise Minister Canavan would have been able to answer the questions that I asked. Labor, on the other hand, has a very strong relationship between federal and state branches of our party. I know that our Tasmanian shadow minister for primary industries, Mr Shane Broad, and the member for Braddon, Justine Keay, are working hard on consulting with industry and holding the weak Tasmanian Liberal government to account. My second question to Minister Canavan requested information on whether the Tasmanian Liberal government had made any representations to the Australian government for additional support for the fruit fly biosecurity emergency. Just as he had read the brief, word for word, for the first question, his complete nonanswer to the second question demonstrated that the Tasmanian Liberals have not picked up the phone and not put pen to paper to get the Australian government involved. If they had have done then it would have been contained in the brief that he referred to. The Tasmanian Liberals have failed business, failed the community and failed our farmers. Their budget cuts to vital biosecurity services, coupled with the ridiculously slow place of their response to this emergency and not ensuring we have biosecurity checks at our airports at the most vulnerable time, is incomprehensible. (Time expired) 15:18 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Clearly there is an election in the air in both Tasmania and South Australia, because all we hear from the other side are scare campaigns to try and convince the voters in those states to vote for the Labor Party. Let's take the example of fruit fly. If you believe the senator opposite in the contribution that she just made, it is the presence of a Liberal government in Tasmania that has caused a fruit fly emergency. Heaven forbid she should look at South Australia where there's a Labor government! At the moment, unfortunately, despite the best efforts of state and federal governments, Queensland fruit fly has been detected in the Riverland, in the pest-free area. That hasn't triggered an outbreak, but one of our trading partners—Indonesia—has expressed concerns, and that's resulted in new biosecurity measures being required before we can export there. So we're working to try and get that status, as a fruit-fly- pest-free area, restored. There was also an outbreak of Mediterranean fruit fly in February in Adelaide, in the suburbs. We've implemented in South Australia the eradication in accordance with the codes of practice. But what I'm getting at is that they choose to ignore an outbreak in South Australia, where there's a Labor government, and they talk only about an outbreak in Tasmania, because there happens to be a Liberal government there, rather than accepting that this is a fact of agriculture in Australia and that we have a program at both federal and state level, regardless of who is in power, to empower our agencies to take measures to reduce the risk of fruit fly infection or the occurrence of an outbreak. We've already committed some $200 million extra to building a better biosecurity system, through the Agricultural competitiveness white paper. As a result, the total expenditure for biosecurity this financial year is $752.7 million. That's a 25 per cent increase in this area since the coalition came to power here in Canberra. I'd encourage people who are listening to this debate to realise that much of what they're hearing from the Labor Party is purely a scare campaign and it ignores the realities. When it comes to South Australia and GST, the Labor Party again is trying to launch a scare campaign that some change is coming to the GST and that South Australia is going to be worse off. In South Australia, ever since the scheme started in 2000, there has been a trend upwards in the amount of GST we have received. From 2013, when the coalition came to power, the amount of GST in South Australia has continued to increase. The state government is receiving more money through the GST than it's ever had. The question South Australians should be asking is: with this money coming from the GST rolling into the state, how well is the state government spending it? There are a few good examples that people should be looking at and asking questions of Premier Weatherill and his government as to whether he has made good use of that money. They should be asking why, in the middle of the blackout in South Australia, when all the lights went out, he didn't work with Alinta—who had highlighted the risk of blackouts, the risk of not investing in baseload power, and had asked for a contribution by the state government of just over $20 million to keep the Port Augusta power plant operating—and instead Premier Weatherill pursued what he calls his great big experiment of renewable energies. We ended up in a situation where the government came up, after that blackout, with a plan to spend $550 million, and hundreds of millions of dollars of that was on diesel generators—diesel generators! Look at Transforming Health. Transforming Health has resulted in a huge amount of expenditure in South Australia, including the world's most expensive hospital. And yet we are hearing from health professionals that the level of health care available to South Australians is decreasing both in quality and in scope. The very basis that was used by then Minister Snelling to justify that expenditure—mortalities in care—has been shown to be flawed and false. Here is a government that, driven by ideology rather than science, is wasting the GST that is going to South Australia. On 17 March the people of South Australia have a very clear choice. If you want a strong government for a strong future, vote for Steven Marshall and the Liberal Party. 15:23 Senator SINGH M0R Tasmania I rise to take note of answers provided by Senator Cormann to my questions asking him to rule out any changes to the GST distribution to South Australia and Tasmania. Today he certainly refused to rule that out or answer the questions, even though this was yet another opportunity for him to do so. He's been given several opportunities this week by other South Australian and Tasmanian senators on this side of the chamber, and today he had yet another. We know that Treasurer Scott Morrison used the cover of the summer break to announce that the Turnbull government had extended the deadline—this is a very important point that some government senators seem to forget—for the Productivity Commission inquiry's report into the economic impact of horizontal fiscal equalisation from January to 15 May. That ensured that this really important report would be delayed until after both the South Australian and the Tasmanian elections. That was a decision made by the Turnbull Liberal government to clearly show that, between now and then, in both Tasmania and South Australia, we will not know the size of the intentions of the Turnbull government to change our horizontal fiscal equalisation distribution of the GST. They buried this report until after the elections because they cannot guarantee to the people of Tasmania whether we will be worse off. What we know, though, is that with the Turnbull government's changes to the GST distribution scenario, Tasmanians will be worse off. I asked a question today and referred to the Tasmanian Treasury's Revised estimates report, which lists the Turnbull government's proposed changes to the GST formula as a major risk to the Tasmanian state budget. I quote: 'Tasmania's share of the GST could fall by $168 million.' On top of that, the Productivity Commission's interim report shows that GST revenue for South Australia could fall by $557 million. To the senators opposite who think this is some kind of election ploy, it is all happening on your side. You're the ones keeping Tasmanians and South Australians in the dark. This report was supposed to be handed down in January. We would then go to the state election knowing full well what the Turnbull Liberal government had proposed for the bottom line in Tasmania's budget and, indeed, also in South Australia's budget. But, no, they have decided to instead help the Liberal Party in Tasmania win the election on a false promise. In doing so, they have avoided the necessary scrutiny. Tasmanian voters have the right to know before they go to the polls on 3 March. We won't give up on this. We won't give up on the way that the Turnbull Liberal government is trying to hide, obfuscate and hoodwink the Tasmanian electorate on this. This is fundamentally important. We talk about horizontal fiscal equalisation. It's something that John Howard certainly supported. He didn't touch it in the way that the Turnbull Liberal government is doing. All week, my Tasmanian colleagues have been interrogating the Liberal leadership in both houses on their plans, but what we haven't heard is anything from the Tasmanian Liberal senators. They have been completely quiet on this issue. Where are they in standing up for Tasmania, Tasmania's revenue and a fair share of revenue from the federal government? Absolutely silent. Tasmania's Leader of the Opposition, Rebecca White, has been doing everything she can since the Treasurer first proposed these changes and will continue to do so, to fight for Tasmania's share of the GST and ensure that our schools and hospitals are funded adequately. (Time expired) The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Polley be agreed to. Question agreed to. Member for Cook 69 15:28 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Communications (Senator Fifield) to a question without notice asked by Senator McKim today relating to the processing of applications of people seeking asylum. I use the word 'response' advisedly because in no way could Senator Fifield's response be categorised as a meaningful answer to the question I asked. Let's be really clear about this. The Australian people have a right to know whether the government asked or instructed ASIO or the AAT to slow down the security assessments for people seeking asylum and to slow down quasijudicial consideration for people who were making claims for permanent protection in Australia, and whether those agencies acceded to those requests or instructions, and, if so, how many people's lives were impacted. Justice delayed is justice denied—and I don't think there would be anyone in this chamber who would argue with that. It is on that basis that we need to find out how many people were affected by this secretive government plot. I do want to repeat the words of former Attorney-General Senator Brandis, who delivered his valedictory speech in this place last night. He said this: … increasingly, in recent years, powerful elements of right-wing politics have abandoned both liberalism's concern for the rights of the individual and conservatism's respect for institutions, in favour of a belligerent, intolerant populism which shows no respect for either the rights of individual citizens or the traditional institutions which protect them. He also said this: I have not disguised my concern of attacks upon the institutions of the law: the courts and those who practice in them. To attack those institutions is to attack the rule of law itself. I don't often agree with Senator Brandis, but in this case he is absolutely spot-on. The attacks we have seen from government members, including the Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Dutton, on our institutions and on the independence of our judiciary and the AAT, constitute an attack on the rule of law itself. Make no mistake: the rule of law is one of the absolute foundations of our freedoms and liberties in this country, and an attack on the rule of law constitutes a slow march down the road to totalitarianism and authoritarianism in this country. We don't have to look too far to learn who, in fact, the Attorney-General was talking about. He was far too coy to name them, but I am not. So here they are: Minister Scott Morrison; Minister Peter Dutton; former Prime Minister Tony Abbott; and, most recently, our newest senator, Senator Molan. What we are seeing is the slow march towards authoritarianism in this country under a Liberal-National government. We have seen the extraordinary expansion of Minister Dutton's powers and an extraordinary increase in the control he has over people's lives, when he has consistently and repeatedly demonstrated that he cannot be trusted to responsibly exercise the powers that he already has. We've seen illegal deportations. We've seen the appalling treatment, ongoing, of people seeking asylum and genuine refugees on Manus Island and Nauru. We've seen the Prime Minister—an alleged small-l liberal—try to introduce the White Australia policy, by stealth, and by radically redefining what citizenship is in this country, and putting barrier after barrier, or attempting to do so, in the path of those who want to become Australians and enjoy the benefits and responsibilities that citizenship has. We've seen wave after wave of laws that strip away freedoms and rights. In fact, there are laws right now before this parliament which would criminalise whistleblowing and public interest journalism. We've seen racially-motivated attacks from Liberal MPs who want to deport non-white children as part of a cynical attack on migrants and multiculturalism. Well, we, the Australian Greens, are here to say that we're not going to allow this government to sleepwalk this country down the dangerous path of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. We will fight you every step of the way. We will stand astride that path and fight you. We will fight for a charter of rights in this country to enshrine fundamental rights and freedoms, and we will stand with the people of Australia to defend the rights and freedoms that so many Australians have gone to war to defend—and, in many cases, tragically, been wounded or killed defending. Our freedoms need to be protected. They need to be defended from this government. And the Australian Greens will stand with the Australian people and do just that. (Time expired) Question agreed to. NOTICES 70 NOTICES Postponement 70 15:34 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia by leave—I move: That business of the Senate notice of motion no. 3 standing in her name for today, proposing the disallowance of the Basin Plan Amendment Instrument 2017 (No. 1), be postponed till the next day of sitting. Question agreed to. BUDGET 70 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 70 15:34 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania I present additional information received by committees relating to estimates: Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. COMMITTEES 70 COMMITTEES Intelligence and Security Committee 70 Report 70 15:35 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the report of the committee on the review of the listing of Islamic State Khorasan Province and the re-listing of al-Murabitun as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code, and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I'm pleased to present the committee's report on the listing of Islamic State Khorasan Province and the re-listing of al-Murabitun as terrorist organisations under the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code enables the committee to review the listing of terrorist organisations and report its findings to the parliament within the 15-day disallowance period. This is the first time Islamic State Khorasan Province has been listed as a terrorist organisation. Islamic State Khorasan Province is a recognised partner of Islamic State, with an estimated membership of up to 11,000 members. The group's primary objective is to establish the province of Khorasan—a region encompassing Afghanistan, Pakistan and Central Asia—as part of the global caliphate of Islamic State. Since 2015, the group has claimed responsibility for a number of attacks, including suicide bomb attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Al-Murabitun is an al-Qaeda-aligned Sunni Islamic terrorist group that is committed to enforcing sharia law in West Africa and uniting Muslims and Islamic movements across Africa against non-Muslim and secular influences. The group was first declared a terrorist organisation by the Australian government in November 2014. Since then the group has reaffirmed its alliance to al-Qaeda and continues to conduct attacks in West Africa. The group funds its activities through smuggling, connections with other terrorist organisations and kidnappings for ransom. In 2016 the group kidnapped Australian citizens Jocelyn and Kenneth Elliot. The group claimed the primary motive for this kidnapping was to gain the release of their captives. Jocelyn Elliot was released, but Kenneth Elliot has not yet been recovered. In conducting its review, the committee considered publicly available information and carefully reviewed the procedures followed by the government and the merits of the listings themselves. The committee was satisfied that appropriate processes had been followed and that both organisations should be listed as terrorist organisations. The committee therefore supports the listing of Islamic State Khorasan Province and the re-listing of al-Murabitun, and finds no reasons to disallow the legislative instruments. I commend the report to the Senate. Question agreed to. BUDGET 71 BUDGET Proposed Expenditure 71 15:38 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I table particulars of proposed additional expenditure for 2017-18: PARTICULARS OF PROPOSED ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE 2017-18— ESTIMATES OF PROPOSED ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE FOR 2017-18— PORTFOLIO ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES STATEMENTS— PORTFOLIOS AND EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS—DOCUMENTS I seek leave to move a motion to refer the documents to legislative and general purpose standing committees. Leave granted. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I move: That the documents I have just tabled, together with the final budget outcome 2016-17, tabled on 16 October 2017 be referred to committees for examination and report. Question agreed to. 15:42 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I also table the portfolio additional estimates statements 2017-18 in accordance with the list circulated in the chamber. 2017-18 Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements (PAES) Agriculture and Water Resources portfolio. Attorney-General's portfolio. Communications and the Arts portfolio. Defence portfolio. Department of Human Services. Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. Department of Jobs and Small Business. Department of Veterans' Affairs. Education and Training portfolio. Environment and Energy portfolio. Finance portfolio. Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio. Health portfolio. Home Affairs portfolio. Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities portfolio. Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. Social Services portfolio. Treasury portfolio. REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 72 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Due Diligence Improvements) Regulations 2017 72 Disallowance 72 15:39 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Just because of the hard marker in the Senate papers, I was making some remarks about Labor's reason for moving this partial disallowance motion, which relates particularly to our concerns about illegal logging and the devastation that it causes in the social and environmental contexts as well as the economic damage that it does. When my time this morning concluded, I was at a point where I was talking about Australian Labor Party values with regard to third-party certification as a means of helping demonstrate sustainability, and I was supporting its inclusion in Commonwealth procurement systems, particularly for products that are certified in Australia. But one of the concerns that we have with this particular construction from the government is that there are a number of examples of certified products that are proving to have been sourced from illegally logged forests in recent times. Having now been uncovered, this cannot be ignored, and that is why this partial disallowance is being put by Labor. The requirements assess whether the information and evidence obtained by using the framework are accurate and reliable, and we are concerned that this should remain. We believe that we need the requirements to identify and assess, by using the framework and the gathered information, whether there is a risk that the product is made from or includes illegally logged timber. We also consider that the requirements should be used to consider any other information the importer knows, or ought reasonably know, that may indicate whether the product is made from or includes illegally logged timber. We also consider a written record should be kept of the process used to make the assessment. These sorts of conditions are not unduly onerous. These are practical ways of preventing illegal logging and interrupting the trade in illegal logging. For the processing of domestically harvested logs, where there is a pretty strong understanding of local supply chains, we think that these provisions should remain. These requirements are not worth removing when it entails a heightened risk of the penetration of illegally logged timber and timber products into the Australian market, which we know would undermine the Australian industry and Australian jobs. This is at the core of why Labor is making these partial disallowances today. Australian jobs matter to us. Making sure that we don't undermine the supply chain and that we support Australian industry is a critical business that we take very seriously in this place. The matter of the make-up of the regulations is finally concluded, more than three years after Minister Frydenberg initiated the government review. It is slow, but Labor plans to focus on encouraging a greater emphasis on compliance with the law and regulations, and will explore options to enhance the department's capacity to ensure adherence to the law. I thank the chamber for its attention to these matters. 15:42 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I rise to speak on this disallowance motion moved by me and by Senators Brown and Hinch. The Greens do not see amending these regulations of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment as justified, and we have concerns that they weaken the provisions that we have in place. We have those provisions in place for a very good reason: to tackle the major global issue of illegally logged timbers circulating in the marketplace. Australia must maintain high standards in order to play our part. It is not okay for us to squib on our responsibility to address the scourge of illegally logged wood products. The environmental costs, not to mention the social and the economic costs, are too high. I want to start by setting the scene as to why this is important. The work that has been done in recent years by this government and the previous government has made it clear that illegal logging is still a huge issue in forests around the world. It is estimated that almost 10 per cent of the timber being imported into Australia may have come from wood sources and forests that have been illegally logged. This is huge. Almost one piece in 10 of every piece of timber being imported is likely to have been illegally logged—which almost certainly involved trashing forests that are critical for animals and birds, destroying forests that should be kept to soak up carbon, destroying forests that would otherwise be providing clean water, and, in many cases, destroying forests that are home to and provide the livelihoods for indigenous peoples around the world. Just in our region, illegal logging in Papua New Guinea, West Papua and Indonesia is still a very significant issue, destroying the lives of people and forests and the animals that live in these forests. There was a 2013 report of logging in PNG by the non-government organisation Global Witness, which looked at logging occurring in their special agricultural and business leases, which they found was the source for around one in every 10 tropical logs entering the Chinese market. Global Witness concluded that most logging in these special agricultural business leases had violated laws designed to protect land rights for indigenous people. According to the report, time after time villagers denied that they had given permission for their land to be included in the leases. There is not only the impact of illegal logging on communities around the world but there is another reason right here at home why we need to tackle overseas illegal logging: that is because timber and paper from this illegal logging undercuts our own wood products industry at home. We shouldn't be in a situation where timber and paper that is coming from well-managed Australian plantations has to compete with artificially cheap forest and livelihood-destroying illegally logged timber. But here we have this government wanting to water down the regulations that have been established to ensure the best chance of reducing illegally logged timber coming into the country. The change appears to be motivated by an overall ideology from this government to reduce red tape. It was back in 2014 that the environment minister, Mr Frydenberg, in his then role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, kicked off this push to deregulate our framework to address illegally logged products. Of course, we have seen many spheres where this government has hacked away at sensible, robust regulatory frameworks in the guise of cutting red tape. But in doing so in this instance, we risk becoming a global dumping ground for illegally logged timbers, weakening the overall global framework. Driven by this agenda, the government kicked off a regulatory impact statement process to review the regulations, aiming at finding ways to reduce unnecessary costs from the framework. That was then put in place to ensure due diligence was exercised by importers of timber products. This regulatory impact statement process examined six options to try and carve out savings and then recommended two of them. The statement came out in October last year and it proposed to streamline the processes for businesses, subject to the regulations, but undertaking the regulatory amendments we are discussing today. What is being proposed via this regulation change is to allow importers and domestic processors to use third-party timber specification frameworks to assess the risk associated with a regulated timber product, specifically the FSC and PEFC certifications, the Forest Stewardship Council and the Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification. This change will create a new deemed-to-comply arrangement for products that are certified under FSC or PEFC. Any products imported that have either of those figures will automatically be deemed to be okay to be imported and not linked to illegal logging activities, and, in doing so, will remove the due diligence requirement which is in place in order to make sure that there is a robust examination of the supply chains for imported timber products. As Greens, we don't support this is a good change because it is not justified when compared to its impact on the global and domestic timber trade. In taking this position, the Greens recognise the important role that certification schemes play in the timber and wood products markets and that as the most robust and credible certification, FSC certification in particular is a really important scheme that signals to importers and consumers that the product they are buying comes from well-managed sources. Globally, FSC sets the bar very high for ecologically and socially responsible forest management. It is worth noting for reference that there is no logging of native forests on public land in Australia that meets the FSC certification standards. FSC recognises that logging that is putting birds and animals, like Leadbeater's possums and swift parrots in Australia, at risk of extinction because it doesn't meet their standards. I am going to talk more about this when we come to general business later this afternoon. PEFC, on the other hand, is an industry-led certification scheme that's got much weaker standards, and it's been criticised for being a tick-box exercise that excludes social and environmental experts from its processes. There are a lot of complexities when it comes to talking about forest certification standards, but primarily I do want to make this distinction between FSC and PEFC. I also want to note that both standards, to different degrees, have come under scrutiny over time. For this reason, we need to maintain a safety net of a due diligence process for any importers sourcing timber products certified under these schemes. The government gives two justifications for weakening the regulations. The first is the cost imposition on Australian timber importers. The second is that being certified under either FSC or PEFC effectively means all of the due diligence has already been done, so requiring extra work to be done is just doubling up. I'll deal with each of these justifications separately; firstly, the cost imposition on Australian timber importers. The government claims that this change would save the industry $4.2 million annually, but that is a tiny proportion of the overall value of the industry. The government's own regulatory impact statement tells us that we have an $8 billion timber import industry in Australia and, as I've already noted, a risk of up to nine per cent of the timber imported being illegally logged. Yet the government's own regulatory impact statement notes that keeping the status quo of continuing to require due diligence had an average compliance cost per importer of around $1,500 a year, and that it took about 23 hours each year to undertake that due diligence for each importer. So, to meet the current due diligence requirements, we're talking about a cost, as a percentage of the total value of regulated imports, of 0.0037 per cent, based on 2015 import values. And the regulatory impact statement tells us that these figures are potentially overstating the costs. The impact statement says: … these estimates may overstate the overall cost of compliance for importers. In practice, a sizable number of product lines, once their initial due diligence process has been completed and they have been determined to be low risk, are likely to require only minimal intervention by an importer. This is the government's own regulatory impact statement. So, in the context of this industry, we cannot see that this very, very small cost burden, when spread across all the businesses in the industry, is significant enough to warrant the risks of removing a safety net that guards against illegal products entering our market. The government's second justification is essentially that the due diligence has been done with FSC- and PEFC-certified wood products, so it's just doubling up. Firstly, it's worth noting that this would be a novel approach from Australia in a global environment where other countries are facing the same issues. It was highlighted in several submissions to the regulatory impact statement process that neither the European Union nor the United States formally recognises third-party certification systems as a means of ensuring timber legality, although notably both do allow them to be used as part of a system of due diligence or due care. So, if we loosen our requirements in comparison to those markets, we're going to risk becoming a dumping ground for illegally logged timbers. The reason that the US and the EU don't accept these certification schemes is that these certification schemes are not fail-safe. There have been two recently publicised examples of the failure of these schemes. One was illegal logging in Romania. Despite the products being sourced by an Austrian company with FSC chain-of-custody certificates, FSC took a long time to revoke the certificates and rectify the situation, despite being presented with the evidence of illegal logging. There is also a current example in Peru, where one of Peru's largest exporters was blocked from US exports under their prohibition despite having two valid FSC certificates. A month later, the US government banned all imports from this company because they found massive amounts of illegal timber in their shipment. So if we had changed our regulations now, that company would be free to send all of that timber to Australia instead under the new deemed-to-comply provision. That's two examples of where the FSC certification has failed. The FSC is extremely robust compared to the PEFC. Many PEFC schemes have much lower standards and hardly any independent controls. I certainly don't think that, overall, PEFC certification is worth the paper that the certificates are printed on. The Australian version of PEFC is the Australian Forestry Standard, which certifies as legal and attempts to greenwash clear-fell logging in Australia, which has been challenged time and time again in the courts and been found to not be legal. You only need to look at the court successes of Environment East Gippsland over illegal rainforest logging and logging which is destroying the habitats of threatened species and the lack of proper surveys in previously unlogged forests—such as in the Kuark forests of East Gippsland—to see that PEFC certification, even based on the Australian version of it here, cannot reliably be used for due diligence. The other thing to bear in mind with certification and whether it's good enough for due diligence is that where you've got strong certification, such as FSC certification, it actually makes the required due diligence much easier. Where there is a robust certification scheme with robust chains of custody, then it is actually easy to check the certificates. It will streamline and considerably reduce the cost of undertaking due diligence. If a company is importing FSC-certified timber, the cost of that due diligence, I'm sure, will be far, far less than what was estimated in the regulation impact statement. As such, I expect that maintaining due diligence, even on certified products, will in fact encourage the use and the import of FSC-certified timber as opposed to PEFC-certified timber and, indeed, uncertified timber. That is a good thing. If supporting and reinforcing the Forest Stewardship Council brand then flows on to increasing the use of Australian FSC-certified timber, which is almost all sustainable plantation-sourced timber in Australia, then that will be an absolutely welcome bonus of maintaining these regulations as they stand. I want to conclude by emphasising that our role in these global supply chains is crucial. Illegal logging is a global problem, and Australia must do its bit to uphold a robust framework to address it. The Greens cannot see any good reason to allow these regulation changes to be implemented. For this reason, we have co-sponsored this disallowance motion, and we are seeking the Senate's support for the maintenance of a sensible and robust approach to keep illegally logged timber out of the Australian market. 15:58 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Before I make some comments about why the government believes that the regulation amendments that we are seeking to put before this place are sensible and balanced, can I just make a few comments about some of the comments that have been made about this disallowance motion by those who have spoken before me. It comes as no great surprise that it is of great concern to me that Senator Rice would actually suggest that the federal government's position of having a desire to reduce red tape for Australian businesses is somehow a bad thing. I would have thought it was eminently sensible for us to be constantly looking at ways and means by which we can reduce the financial and cost burden on Australian businesses if there is demonstrated fact that the cost of the regulation far outweighs the benefits of anything that it's trying to achieve. It's also interesting that Senator Rice makes many comments about the Greens not being satisfied—that she's not satisfied. I absolutely assure this chamber that the very extensive review that assessed the need for and impact of the regulations that were brought in in conjunction with the illegal logging legislation that was brought in by this government at the start of our term was undertaken by a number of independent assessors. It was a very robust process. It sought to speak to people across the entire supply chain: importers, domestic operators and unions. So to suggest that somehow what the Greens say or what Senator Rice thinks is a more robust way to assess the efficacy of a particular regulation—I'm sorry, I'm going to have to say that I would rather take the word of and outcomes that have been delivered to us by an independent, transparent, robust and scientifically based process than what she may think. I'd also draw to the attention of this place to the fact that it is incumbent on every government, no matter of what persuasion, and everybody in this place to understand that nothing is ever going to be perfect. What we're entrusted to do is make sure that we strike a balance so that we are not, as in the old saying, smashing a walnut with a sledgehammer. If, as legislators, we believe that the burden of the regulation far outweighs any benefit that the regulation puts into place, then it's incumbent on us to assess that and make a decision that you cannot possibly regulate the Australian economy out of existence just because you want to deliver an absolutely perfect environment, where absolutely nothing ever has any risk. You cannot triage by legislation all risk out of existence in Australia. First of all, I congratulate the Australian forestry industry for their response to the introduction of illegal-logging regulations. They have worked extremely hard to make sure they've got their businesses and their importing businesses up to speed so that they can address the very serious issue of illegally logged timber, seeing that Australia is doing everything that's reasonably possible to make sure that we're not a country where illegally logged timber is imported. The coalition government, by its very actions, has demonstrated that it is absolutely committed to combatting illegal harvesting of timber. But we recognise that the importance of preventing illegally logged timber being imported into Australia has to be balanced by making sure that the regulatory burden we place on importers is at a relevant and an appropriate level so that we combat the illegal logging but don't destroy our businesses in the process. I'd also draw to the chamber's attention that when Senator O'Neill was making her contribution to this particular disallowance motion, she made a comment about $800 million of timber that's being imported into Australia and that there was some risk of it being logged illegally. Again, Senator Rice drew attention to the estimate that up to nine per cent of timber that's logged internationally has some risk of having been sourced illegally. I'd like to point out to the chamber that just because something is averaged across the whole of the world doesn't necessarily mean that Australia has to accept its proportion of that particular issue. In many instances, Australia is a world leader in how we go about things, whether it be in our forestry sector, our fisheries sector, our water management sector or our agricultural sector. We have some of the most robust regulations in place to ensure that we hit well above the average in making sure that we are very compliant in many of the things that we do. So to pluck a sum out of the air and say that because the world has up to nine per cent illegally logged timber—it's in our report and I admit it's in our report—is not a direct correlation to saying that nine per cent of wood that's imported into Australia being illegally logged. I think this probably highlights very clearly one of the most insidious things that are seeping into our country at the moment, and that is that you can twist and distort facts. You can twist and distort the science, and in many instances you can actually tell untruths to try to argue your point. And we see time and time and time again from the Greens where the inconvenient truth is completely disregarded because it makes a much better argument for us to come in here and twist the facts so it looks like a much worse situation than really exists on the ground. All we serve to do by this false information, this misrepresentation of the facts, is to damage our industries—our industries that are recognised, if you look at peer group review of the science, as some of the best and most effective, efficient and sustainable in the world in just about everything we do in Australia. And yet we seem to think that it's okay to come in here and spread misinformation to the rest of the world so they actually think that Australian industries are not the fantastic industries they are. I can assure you I will, day in, day out, never fail to stand up in this place and defend the amazing environmental credentials of all of our agricultural industries and sectors, because they are the best in the world. They deserve to be supported and they deserve to be protected against the misinformation that's often thrown our way by those that sit opposite. But I move on to the actual disallowance. I'm disappointed that those opposite are choosing to move to disallow this. I would question particularly the Labor Party and their support of this disallowance. Does their hypocrisy know no bounds? I can assure you that I've been working on this particular issue with industry, with importers in the Australian domestic timber industry, for a number of years. In fact, it was one of the first chores and tasks that I undertook when I was appointed to this particular position. The Labor Party had been out amongst industry up until the last week of 2017, spruiking their support for these particular amendments and changes to the regulations. And then, lo and behold, somehow over the Christmas period we found that someone, whether it's the CFMEU or whoever, had somehow got into their heads, and now they don't support these regulations. I generally thought, from the comments that I had been hearing and receiving as I had been travelling around the country, talking to our timber industry and consulting on this particular issue, that those opposite actually also understood that, if you go through the rigorous process of getting yourself certified by an independent certification standard, particularly FSC in the case of the Greens—FSC is auspiced by the World Wildlife Fund, about whose credentials they seem quite happy to crow at every other instance, particularly when there's money at the other end of it. They then come into this place and say that it's not good enough anymore. I don't know what went on, but all I can say is that this just seems to me to smack once again of the 'no' politics we see from those opposite. All we're doing is, in effect, stopping the release of nearly $5 million back to industry that's been independently assessed as being an unnecessary regulatory burden on the Australian forest-products-importing industry. So it is with great disappointment that I find that the Labor Party, the Greens and Senator Hinch have chosen not to recognise that there is very, very little risk of any further imported timber into this country having been illegally sourced after the addition of a deem-to-comply condition on the two internationally recognised standards, FSC and PEFC. The benefits of this arrangement would be simply to reduce an unnecessary cost on industry and, in the process of doing so, make very little difference to the outcome. So it is with great regret that it appears to me as if these particular very small changes to regulation that we have before us will not pass this place. All I can say is: shame on those opposite for the hypocrisy that they have shown in not supporting these amendments. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2, the disallowance motion standing in the names of Senators Brown, Hinch and Rice, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:13]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 34 AYES Bartlett, AJJ Burston, B Cameron, DN Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Gallacher, AM Georgiou, P Griff, S Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lines, S Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Steele-John, J Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 25 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Gichuhi, LM Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID McGrath, J Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, D (teller) Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 COMMITTEES 77 COMMITTEES Publications Joint Committee 77 Report 77 16:16 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That the Senate adopt recommendation 5 of the report of the Publications Committee of the inquiry into printing standards for documents presented to Parliament. Recommendation 5 5.6 That the Senate and House of Representatives pass the following resolution: That unless otherwise ordered, and provided that they conform to the printing standards, the following documents shall be made Parliamentary Papers upon their presentation to the Senate/House of Representatives: substantive reports of parliamentary committees; annual reports of Commonwealth entities; a report of a royal commission; a report of the Productivity Commission; a report of the Auditor-General; a report of the Australian Human Rights Commission; a report of the Australia Law Reform Commission; a report of the Australian Electoral Commission on the redistribution of electoral division boundaries; Australian Government white papers; a report in a series that has previously been included in the Parliamentary Papers Series on the recommendation of a Publications Committee; and budget papers and ministerial statements presented following the presentation of the appropriation bills. Question agreed to. BILLS 77 BILLS Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017 77

Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017

Second Reading 77 16:16 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I rise today to speak to the bill which I introduced into this place, the Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017. This bill seeks to end the destruction of Australia's native forests by repealing the act which enables logging to continue with exemptions from, and without the oversight of, our country's environmental protection laws. These logging laws, the regional forest agreements, are outdated, they are destructive and they are not achieving the environmental or economic purposes for which they were intended. For me, this is a question of justice across generations. I challenge all of us in this place to consider how we would feel if we couldn't offer our children and our grandchildren the same experiences in the natural world that we have experienced. What if they couldn't enjoy camping by a crystal-clear river, fringed by magnificent forest, camping at night around a campfire, listening to the sounds of the night, listening to the owls—the boobooks, the mopokes—listening to the screeching of gliding possums? What if our children and grandchildren couldn't marvel at birds like swift parrots and be amazed by creatures like the giant freshwater lobster of north-west Tasmania? What if our children and grandchildren couldn't be inspired by gorgeous creatures like the Leadbeater's possum? What if our children and grandchildren don't have those experiences? What if they don't know those animals as precious animals and birds, because their homes, nesting sites and food supplies have been destroyed? Beyond experiencing magnificent forests, what if they couldn't ski on our alpine slopes deprived of snow? What if they couldn't snorkel a reef filled with colourful coral off the Queensland coast? Logging has wide-reaching impacts, contributing to the further warming of our planet. It's not just the immediate destruction of areas of forest—and destruction it is; intensive, industrial-scale clear-fell logging—and it's not just the destruction that that wreaks on our forests but the impact of those forests no longer being there to soak up carbon, no longer playing their bit in the critical role of tackling dangerous climate change that is the issue. I remember very well the first time I saw a clear felled forest. I was 23 years old. I had just finished university and was working out what I wanted to do for the rest of my life. I visited some forests in East Gippsland which had been clear felled and then had been burnt. They were totally destroyed. For me, it was this awareness: why was this happening? So I did a bit more research and discovered the justification for it was to be producing timber that was largely, even then, only going to very low value purposes. It was being used for housing construction timber for which even then, 30 years ago, we had plantation pine that was going to take up that market. It was being used for tomato stakes; it was being used for pallets. I asked myself: why are we are causing all of this destruction for such little ends? As a rational person, I said, 'But we need timber. We need wood. Surely we must need to be doing this.' I did a bit more research and found out that, no, we didn't. I found out that virtually all of the wood that was coming from this incredible natural heritage, this precious natural heritage that we have here in Australia, we could be getting from other, much less precious places—certainly not the old growth forest that was being logged then and that is still being logged now. I did the research then, and the research continued for the last 30 years to show that the forest destruction that's occurring isn't occurring because we need the timber. It's not occurring because we need the jobs. It's occurring just because we this attitude: 'Well, we've got forests there, so we've got to do something with them.' We are increasingly getting a much greater proportion of our timber and wood product supplies from sustainable plantations. That's the direction of the industry for the future. And yet with the regional forest agreements that this government is rolling over, we are pretending we are right back where we were last century, not acknowledging that we can be protecting our forests and maintaining a viable wood products industry. Let me lay out what this bill seeks to achieve, with the principle in mind that our precious places should be properly managed for all of the values they hold, including their value to our future generations. For the past two decades our native forests have been managed under the banner of these 10 regional forest agreements that were established between the federal government and the states. These agreements cover significant tracts, all of potentially economic, so-called productive, forests in Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia and New South Wales. This bill would wind up each of the 10 regional forest agreements at the time of their expiry dates. I note the Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement has been subject to a variation which was signed last year by the Prime Minister and the Tasmanian Premier, and this was presented to the public as a variation. But the actual outcome is a substantial rewriting of the RFA, which was undertaken without any engagement of this parliament, despite the significance of the extension of this RFA to 2037. In effect, it makes future extensions automatic into perpetuity. That is staggering. When the RFAs were introduced 20 years ago, they were meant to provide long-term sustainable forest management to protect these complex ecosystems and to ensure the viability of threatened species living in the forests as well as govern production of timber from these forests and maintain jobs. They have failed in every regard. And the government have indicated that, like they've done with the Tasmanian agreement, they intend to just roll over the existing 20-year regional forest agreements when they come up for expiry. The lack of rigour and reflection in this position is astounding, and it demonstrates that the government do not have any commitment to safeguarding our carbon stores, our clean water, our water supplies, our tourism hot spots or our wildlife habitat or the current and future jobs of locals who rely on all of these. Across Australia, the evidence of the last 20 years is that the Regional Forest Agreements have failed and continue to fail in their goals of providing security to industry and workers and securing a reserve system to protect species. When then Prime Minister John Howard and the Victorian Premier signed the Victorian Central Highlands Regional Forest Agreement in 1998, the Howard government environment minister stated that the RFA would ensure that 'the whole forest will be sustainably managed for future generations'. And yet under the Regional Forest Agreements these forests are logged, pulped and burnt. The story is exactly the same across the other nine areas subject to RFAs. Yes, under the Regional Forest Agreements there were some areas of forest that were reserved, but there were vast areas of forests of equal value and of equal significance that have not been protected and have been subject to ongoing, intensive logging in the 20 years since. The Regional Forest Agreements are outdated, impotent and costing us irrecoverable species, taxpayer dollars and extensive forgone opportunities. We need to scrap them. As I've already said, over 80 per cent of the wood products that are being produced in Australia are now being produced from plantations. The remaining native forest timber industry is just the rump of the timber industry. It's not the direction that the industry is headed in. It's not where all of the excitement of, say, having timber for multistorey buildings is coming from; that's timber coming from plantations. When you look at the latest announcement of a new sawmill, Hermal mill, in north-west Tasmania, that is going to be a hardwood plantation based sawmill. This is the direction that we need to be continuing in, transitioning all of the industry out of our native forest so we can have that sustainable plantation based industry, protecting our precious native forests for so many values that they also hold. One of the most appalling parts of the Regional Forest Agreements and of our current logging laws is that they exempt logging from our national environment protection laws. When an area is logged under an RFA it's deemed to be occurring in an ecologically sustainable way even where there is ample evidence this is not the case. There are no grounds for our environment protection laws in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to apply. Think of that. These complex native forest ecosystems are not protected through our national environment protection laws from the destruction of logging. This means that even if a critically endangered species is found in a forest valley or ridge, under an RFA it's still okay to go ahead with the logging. All that needs to happen with regard to any endangered species is that there needs to be a recovery plan in place—or not even in place, but being planned. It doesn't matter whether this recovery plan, at the end of the day, is shown to have been totally inadequate to protect the species. All that's required is to get a recovery plan in place, and then logging can continue to occur under the rules that are set out in the recovery plan. In fact, they're not even rules but only guidelines for how logging could occur. So there is no rigour and no ability for the EPBC Act to overrule the logging operations occurring under an RFA even where the evidence is there. As it is, you have threatened species that are being driven towards extinction by those logging operations. How can it be possible that native forests get such special treatment? Other extractive industries such as mining are required to justify their impact on the environment, but not the native forest industry. They get to carve out sections of precious forests to destroy them. They're given carte blanche to destroy animals, plants and vital habitat. Let me remind the chamber that the Commonwealth has a duty to protect our environment for all Australians. Yet, in continuing the regional forest agreements and their exemption from the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, this government is shirking that responsibility and is allowing an extractive industry—because that's what it is—to carry out its business with no regard for the long-term damage this does to our forests. For all the talk of 'Oh, the forest will regrow,' when you are logging a forest that has got trees in it that are hundreds of years old, such as with the logging that is currently occurring in East Gippsland and in Tasmania, you cannot say that you are replacing this forest, because you cannot replace an old-growth, unlogged forest—a complex, ancient forest—with essentially just a plantation of young species. It will not provide the habitat for those plants and animals for hundreds and hundreds of years, and certainly won't provide the nesting hollows in those trees for the species that rely on them and need hollows in old trees in order to survive. It is an extractive industry. It is destroying that forest's value for those precious and threatened animals. As a nation we have the worst rate of mammal extinctions in the world over the last 200 years since colonisation. We have forest-dependent species that are headed to add to those extinctions: the critically endangered Leadbeater's possum, the critically endangered swift parrots, the giant freshwater crayfish and Carnaby's cockatoo. These animals are threatened and are becoming more threatened, and yet logging is allowed to continue to occur in places where they live. It's a shameful position to be in, particularly as a wealthy, developed nation, particularly as a nation with so many unique species that are found nowhere else in the world and particularly as a nation that has only seen just over 200 years of this atrocious use of our land—just over 200 years. In the forests such as at Granite Mountain in East Gippsland, with trees hundreds of years old, those trees were old when Captain Cook sailed past just over 200 years ago. These extinctions are not a trend we want to continue, particularly with our unique plants and animals serving as a backbone for our incredibly valuable tourism industry and the many communities whose livelihoods rely on the protection of these precious places. The sheer enormity of past extinction rates and the tiny amount of pristine native habitats remaining in Australia means we need to fight to conserve every remaining piece. I have already mentioned the Leadbeater's possum in my home state of Victoria,. It's critically endangered. Its primary habitat, the beautiful mountain ash forests, are in such dire condition that the animals and the whole ecosystem are listed as critically endangered. We have a government that is saying, 'Oh, the Leadbeater's possum is having a massive population increase,' which is based on absolutely farcical data. If you look at the most thorough review of the science with Leadbeater's possums, you see that it shows that they are in dire straits. Yes, we may have observed more Leadbeater's possums over the past year, but that is because there have been more people out looking for them. It does not mean that those populations have increased. The forests of the planned Great Koala National Park in New South Wales, the Great Forest National Park in Victoria, the Tarkine in Tasmania, Western Australia's South-West Forest and the incredibly biodiverse and beautiful East Gippsland are hugely valuable parts of our natural heritage and must remain so for future generations. A recent assessment of Victoria's Central Highlands forest using ecosystem accounting methodology and which was published in the prestigious journal Nature Ecology and Evolution clearly demonstrated that there are considerably greater benefits in soaking up and storing carbon, water, habitat provision and recreational amenity if logging ceased compared with the economic value of logging these forests. And this work also clearly shows that the economic benefits of native forest logging are small compared to other industries in the region and that the economic impact of ceasing native forest logging could be more than offset by increases in other industries such as tourism and by entering the carbon market. Native forest areas have got enormous tourism potential, which is undermined by destructive and unsightly logging practices. The people and small businesses of regional Australia would stand to benefit hugely from increasing the amount of forest being protected and stronger government plans promoting tourism and recreation over logging. Jobs are vital in the regional communities living near and in our forest areas, and we need to face up to the reality that direct employment in the forestry industry is already drying up. It has been drying up for the last 20 years, due to its economic and environmental unsustainability. Many mills are just scraping through on direct and indirect taxpayer subsidies. We've had the Victorian government paying $50 million to buy the Heyfield mill. We know that logging in East Gippsland costs us, the taxpayers, $5 million a year. So it costs us for the logging of our forests. Just think about what else that money could be spent on. Think about: what if you spent $5 million a year, or more than that, on improving the tourism infrastructure, the recreation infrastructure—upgrading walking tracks, forest drives and bicycle touring tracks? There are many, many more jobs in really valuing the forests as a tourism resource than in their ongoing logging. Industrial logging in our public native forests has had its day. It has failed to protect our environment and it has failed to protect jobs. The future for the Australian wood-products industry is in a sustainably-managed plantation industry. So, in order to achieve this vision for long-term sustainability for the Australian wood-products industry, and to protect our native forests, with all their unparalleled values, we must scrap the Regional Forest Agreements. This bill to repeal the RFAs does what the government has failed to do. This bill would protect our forests in a way that all Australians, now and into the future, would value and really appreciate, well into the future. 16:36 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I'm sure it will be no surprise to those who are in the chamber or listening to this contribution to know that the Australian government will not be supporting Senator Rice's, on behalf of the Greens, Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017. The coalition government does not subscribe to the theory that we just lock up our forests and throw the key away and wait for a fire to come through and burn them down. We don't subscribe to the theory that you do nothing in your forests and wait for the feral animals to come in and eat our endangered species. We subscribe to the theory that you can actually manage all of our forestry estates in such a way as to strike a balance between making sure you keep a certain amount of it in a pristine state—we are absolutely committed to that—and having a place in the Australian landscape for a forestry sector, and that that forestry sector also includes an amount of native regrowth harvest. And we believe that's sustainable into the future. Just to give a shout-out for our friends the trees, I'd like to put on the record that trees are renewable and they are recyclable. We believe that we will manage them in a sustainable way. They are carbon-positive and they are a resource that belongs to all Australians. If you were going to go out and invent the absolutely perfect product—as the big man who invented trees in the first place did—you would invent a tree. I'm sure that trees were put on this earth in the very first instance because they were able to be cut down, because they would grow again and because they would provide a resource for myriad different things—not just for possums and for people to go and look at for a tourism adventure, which, Senator Rice would have you believe, is the only purpose for a tree to be in existence. There is actually a place on earth for trees to be cut down and used for myriad different purposes, because they will grow again. Also the suggestion, for some reason, that forestry and ensuring a sustainable environment and sustainability of our native animals are somehow mutually exclusive is just ridiculous. They can coexist side by side. It is also extraordinary hypocrisy to suggest that we can't use native timber. So much of our magnificent appearance-grade timber that we, as Australians, are absolutely delighted to have as part of our lives—the beautiful furniture; the beautiful floorboards; the things that you can't actually get from plantation timber—we value. But I would also say that I believe Australians value sustainability in the harvesting of our forests, just as we believe in sustainability in everything we do, whether it be our marine environment, our beautiful Murray-Darling Basin or the sustainability of how we manage our agricultural sector in Australia. To suggest that somehow we can completely replace this beautiful appearance-grade timber, which many, many people in Australia are able to enjoy every day, by using plantation timbers is just a stretch too far. They aren't the same thing. Senator Rice, on behalf of the Greens, says that she believes the RFAs have failed, that they haven't protected endangered species. I would say that I absolutely dispute that. I believe the RFAs have stood us in good stead and I also believe that they have acted, and assisted us, in the protection of our endangered species. But that's not to say that, as part of an iterative process of the rollover and renewal of these RFAs, we can't make them fit for purpose for 2018 and into the 21st century. As Senator Rice rightly points out, these agreements were first brought into place 20 years ago. We've learnt a lot in the last 20 years, so what we are seeking to do, as part of an iterative process of the rollover of these RFAs, is to make sure that the lessons of the last 20 years have been learned. At the same time, we want to enable a sustainable forestry industry to go forward in a practical, sensible and realistic way without destroying the livelihoods of many communities that rely on the timber industry or taking away the delight that many Australians have in the beautiful appearance-grade Australian timber they have in their homes and their lives. It seems somewhat ironic that we were talking just a minute ago in relation to illegal logging. We know that in Australia we have such strict regulations and rules that demand Australian timber is harvested in a very sustainable way. So we're making it as difficult as we possibly can to import timber into Australia, while at the same time we're going to stop the Australian timber industry from being able to progress—it does seem a little hypocritical. There does seem to be an overall theme going on with the Greens when it comes to Australian agriculture—that is, they actually don't want us to have any. The coalition government believes that Australian forestry industries are absolutely vital to this country and they are an absolutely integral part of our regional communities. The forest industry directly employs over 67,000 people Australia-wide and it contributes nearly $24 billion to the Australian economy. This is no lightweight industry. And the benefits of this competitive, sustainable, renewable forestry industry in our regional communities cannot be underestimated. For this reason, the Turnbull government believes that it's absolutely important that we put the right tools in place to ensure the sustainable management of these forests but at the same time make sure that we don't place an unreasonable burden on them—this balance in making sure that our regulation and our legislative burden is commensurate with what we are trying to achieve. We are not a government that smashes walnuts with sledgehammers; we are a government that makes sure the tools we put in place are appropriate for the job we're trying to do. So we believe that the RFAs are undoubtedly the best mechanism by which we can manage our native forests in a sustainable way, and we believe this is an effective framework for achieving the balance between the economic outcomes that we want for our regional communities, the environmental outcomes that we all seek for sustainability—because we all love our beautiful environment—and making sure that we deliver a socially appropriate outcome for all Australians, in particular the Australian communities that rely on our forestry sector. We have 10 RFAs in Australia. They were signed progressively between 1997 and 2001. Over $1 million was invested in ensuring that our native forestry management was balanced across the environment and making sure that the environmental, social and economic outcomes were achieved. To quote you, Senator Rice, in your explanatory memorandum: The intention of the RFAs was to provide long-term forest management to protect these complex ecosystems. Well, Senator Rice, I believe that's exactly what has happened here. More than 3.3 million hectares of native forests have been transferred back into Australia's reserve estate over the time the RFAs have been in practice. That is an increase in the reserve estate of 46 per cent in the last 20 years. If you look at a state-by-state breakdown: the area in New South Wales increased by 1.334 million hectares; in Victoria, nearly a million hectares; in Tasmania, 684,000 hectares; in Western Australia, 338,000 hectares. That is 3,320,000 hectares, or a 46 per cent increase in our forest estate that is under reserve. That is a fantastic outcome for the environment, but have I ever heard you, Senator Rice, come in here and talk about the positive result of the increase in the amount of the forest reserve as a result of the actions that have been generated by the RFAs? Not a word. I assure you that the reason you do not do that is that it does not suit your argument—your argument of scaremongering. In the first 20 years of operation, the RFAs have delivered long-term certainty to regional communities and the forest resource and the timber industry. They have improved the regulatory processes for businesses that operate in this industry. They have increased the identification and protection of old-growth forest values and the protection of 100 per cent of old-growth forests that are rare or depleted, and there have been significant advances in our approach to ecological, sustainable forest management. With RFAs, we have a timber industry that operates with some of the highest levels of biodiversity protection in the world. The EPBC Act continues to provide a level of assistance in ensuring that we have world's best practice and we can put our hand on our heart and say that we are appropriately managing our forest system. Logging activities in Australia's native forests are not exempt from environmental protection laws—although you would believe they were if you listened to some of the things that come from the other end of the chamber. The act recognises that, in each RFA region, a comprehensive regional assessment was undertaken to address the environmental, economic and social objectives of the EPBC Act. So the establishment of RFAs actually constitutes a form of assessment and approval under the EPBC Act. Senator Rice interjecting— Senator RUSTON 243273 It absolutely is a recognition that the RFAs have established comprehensive reserve networks. This is another feature of the RFAs that you wilfully continue to ignore, another inconvenient truth for the Greens. Another inconvenient truth for the Greens is in relation to threatened species. We do have a series of obligations and requirements that are set forth in the state based legislation that we have to adhere to. The RFAs do not exempt forest operators from obligations in state based legislation for the protection of threatened species and communities. This includes the application of forest management strategies to protect rare and endangered species. The management of threatened species within the RFA regions is consistent with the objectives of the EPBC Act. According to the Australia's state of the forests report 2013, the most significant threats to forest-dwelling animal species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act are historical land use changes and forest loss caused by clearing, predation from introduced predators, illegal collection and genetic or breeding issues. It doesn't say anything in there about forestry. Just last year in a Senate estimates hearing the Threatened Species Commissioner stated that no Australian mammal has become extinct due to forestry operations. That's another inconvenient truth for you, isn't it, Senator Rice? I know that you love the Leadbeater's possum, and I have to say I don't know any Australian who wouldn't love the Leadbeater's possum if they saw that cute little thing. But, despite the continued dire warnings by those who are paid to research these things, in fact it would appear that the Leadbeater's possum is a rather adaptable little critter, and it seems that, the more we look for them, the more we find. We are able to come in here and say that the recovery plan that's been put in place for the Leadbeater's possum is working, and we're really pleased that it is working. There's nothing that gives me more pleasure than when I get a report sent to me saying that we've had another sighting of a Leadbeater's possum in any of our forests. Everyone rejoices in the fact that this little critter is being seen in greater and greater numbers. Contrary to the doom and gloom that you hear from the other end of the chamber, this is a positive story and one from which we can learn. We should all be looking at what's happening when we're seeing increased populations of any of these species and looking at what we're doing right. We should be working together so that we can make sure that we continue to be able to get positive outcomes for all of our species. Sitting at the other end of the chamber and complaining and whingeing and twisting the thing is not going to save one more possum. Senator Rice 155410 Listen to the science! Read the science! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 204953 Order on my left! Senator RUSTON 243273 I do read the science, Senator Rice. The problem we have here in Australia is that we have an industry of scientists who have made a fortune trying to come up with inconveniently ill-informed and unfactually based misinformation because it suits their purposes. It's about time somebody started calling out some members of our environmental scientific community for the rubbish that they put out in the marketplace, believing that the word 'professor' or 'doctor' before their name somehow gives them some sort of legitimacy to say things. But that is another story, and I won't waste the chamber's time with it now. When you look at this, this is a really good story about the success of adaptive management work. For instance, when it comes to the swift parrot, researchers have shown that it actually isn't forestry that is causing the threat to the swift parrot; it's predation from sugar gliders. We need to make sure when we come in here and make these statements that we use the facts behind the reasons for these things happening—for it to be the truth. It is just convenient for you to say it's forestry. It's not forestry that is causing these problems; it's myriad other things that are much more difficult to deal with. So, once again, the inconvenient truth of the situation seems to be lost—or not provided—by those at the other end of the chamber. It is the belief of the government that the creation of RFAs has made considerable advances in the identification and protection of old-growth forests. We believe that they are working extremely well in setting specific protection targets for particular ecosystems. We believe this is a great result for the Australian forestry sector, the environment and the people who depend on it. We also believe that the timber industry is a hugely important source of wood products in Australia, and Australian native forest remains a primary source for durable, high-strength, appearance-grade timber. This is not the kind of stuff you can get from growing a pine tree. It includes solid wood flooring, panelling, furniture and fine crafts. Some magnificent products are coming out of Tasmania; you have only got to go down to the Launceston wood products display centre to see the magnificent artworks that are being achieved by using this magnificent timber in a sustainable way. Australia's plantations are not able to replace the type and quality of wood that comes from using native timbers. This is, once again, something you refuse to accept. To stand in here and say, 'We'll move to plantations and we won't use native timber anymore,' is absolutely ridiculous. You know it is, but it's not convenient for your argument. You also ignore the fact that our downstream forest industries are fully integrated; they use every single piece of wood from both plantations and native forests. Wood from our native forests complements that sourced from our plantation industry. I know you want to get rid of the RFAs, claiming they are preventing Australia from moving out of forest logging, but why would we want to move out of forest logging when we've already demonstrated it's renewable, recyclable and carbon positive, and we are managing it in a sustainable way? Why would we want to wilfully cripple our forest industries? I don't understand it; maybe you can explain it to me. Why would we want to destroy jobs in regional communities? Why would we want to shut regional communities down? Why would we want to decimate regional communities? You only have to look at the disallowance motion that Sarah Hanson-Young moved in here in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin plan to see that you don't care about our regional communities. You only care about your own ideology. There is not a care in the world for the fact that people like me live in regional communities, and those communities would be shut down by the actions of the legislation and regulations that you constantly come in here and try to have passed. The Tasmanian RFA is a fantastic example of what 20 years of learning has done for us. We were delighted to sign the new RFA recently. There was an 80 per cent increase, or 800,000 hectares, in the reserve estate. Fifty-eight per cent, or 1.778 million hectares, of Tasmania's forest is now protected in reserves, including the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. More than a million hectares of old-growth forest are now permanently reserved, and world-benchmark, ecologically sustainable forest management has been implemented. At the same time, significant business savings have been enabled for industry. These are significant achievements, and we were delighted in 2017 to sign an extension for a further 20 years rolling. In conclusion, we believe the management of Australia's native forests is being undertaken sustainably. What's more, far from an industry in decline, we believe our forestry industry is a sunrise industry. The RFAs set the framework for that sustainable management and the conservation of our native forests. So what's at stake? If the RFAs were repealed, jobs would be lost and communities would be destroyed, and for what environmental gain? Do we really want to put Australian Paper's Maryvale Mill out of work—is that really what you Greens want to do? Do you really want to make sure all those people who work in the Gippsland no longer have a job? I don't think it's what the Australian public wants, and it's time we called you out for the scaremongering and, often in cases, the lies that are put out into the marketplace to try and make people think that Australia's native timber industry is not a sustainable industry—it is. You have absolutely no regard for the tens of thousands of families whose livelihoods you actively seek to destroy or the hundreds of regional communities that would cease to exist if you had your own way. This is deliberate ignorance, and it is absolutely reprehensible. The coalition government does not support the repeal of the RFA Act. The repeal will not help the environment. It will not help business. It will not create jobs. It will not help our regional communities. This coalition government stands for every single one of those things. We believe the environment must be sustainable, and our actions, legislation and regulations support that. We believe that we should be helping business, and our legislation and regulations support that. We believe in creating jobs. We created 400,000 of them last year and we are committed to making sure it's another 400,000 this year—over a thousand jobs a day. We will not destroy our regional communities with ridiculous Green ideology with absolutely no basis. It is absolutely our longstanding position that the RFAs are the best mechanism to balance the economic, social and—(Time expired) 16:57 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I often remember the times before I came to parliament. My encounters with the Senate and the House of Representatives, before I got the key to my office when I became the member for Robertson in 2010, were through the radio soundwaves across this country, particularly Radio National. You'd hear all sorts of conversations and your life, as you're driving your kids from one activity to another, would be informed by the conversations we are having here. This conversation is about a very important industry—the forestry industry. It is also a very important conversation about how we manage our environment and that precious resource that we have: the trees that Australians enjoy throughout the country. Why is this such an important discussion that we're having this afternoon in the Senate? The forestry industry provides not only jobs for 67,000 people, but also a range of absolutely essential products that integrate themselves into people's lives. We know Australia generates a very significant export outcome from our produce in this sector, from sales to international markets. But the sorts of products that this reaches out to extend to sawn wood and wood based panels for constructing our homes. That's often what people in the cities think of wood: it's simply the timber that comes in the frames they see of the houses that spring up on the edges of our cities. But this debate touches on so many more uses for sustainable forestry industry in our country, including furniture, printing and writing paper for our homes and our offices, sanitary paper products for everyday use, and paper and paperboard for packaging many of the products we consume. We even have wood derived products such as cellophane, rayon and ethanol involved in this industry. If I can, I want to make some remarks about the capacity for innovation in the way that we might be able to use this amazing renewable resource to create new types of technologies and new applications that will improve lives not just here in our country but around the world. We know that carbon fibres that are derived from wood are used to make lightweight parts for things as diverse as motor vehicles and packaging for food and beverages—another wood product that comes into our lives. Solvents made from wood fibre are used instead of petroleum, and that's got to be a good thing. Wood also has the potential to generate renewable energy through the combustion of wood pellets, liquid biofuels and any other adaptation modern technology can make of this very precious resource. As esoteric as a discussion about the Regional Forest Agreements Legislation (Repeal) Bill 2017 might sound, its intersection with the lives of Australians goes right into the cabinets in our bathrooms and the cupboards in our kitchens. The current private member's bill that's before the Senate, on this occasion put forward by Senator Rice, seeks to repeal the Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002. The agreements are known as RFAs. I know that Senator Ruston has made some significant comments about this and celebrated the recent signing of another agreement in 2017 to provide some stability to the sector. But this bill is trying to do something entirely different. The bill itself, in its explanatory memorandum, acknowledges that for the past two decades, our native forests have been managed under the banner of 10 regional forest agreements that were established—and, I'm sure, not easily at the time—between the federal government and the states. I am one of the Australians who's been very lucky to have travelled through every single state of the country. In fact, my husband and I took a year off, before we were grey—we were certainly nomadic—and spent it travelling around Australia. The great forests of Australia that we saw were covered by these 10 agreements in Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia and New South Wales. As a New South Wales senator I am all too aware of how critical the management of the forests of our native timbers, and also our plantation timbers, is to regional economies right across this state. I note and agree with the statistics that were put forward by Senator Ruston, that in the course of the previous RFA there was a 46 per cent increase in the forest estate under reserve. This is an important measure of the success of what the RFA achieved. To have 46 per cent more forest in reserve is a great outcome that I think Australians would be proud of. Being a legislator for the period of time that I've been here, I'm aware of the many failures of legislation, but surely that has to be applauded as a great outcome. As a senator for New South Wales, it is with great pride that I stand here on the back of work that's been done by previous governments and celebrate as a New South Welshwoman that there are 1.334 million hectares of New South Wales land under reserve in forest estate. That's a great outcome. We need to be mindful that, despite its imperfections, the Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002 is not an entirely failed piece of legislation, and it should only be an entirely failed piece of legislation that should be repealed. That is not the case with this piece of legislation. The intention of these RFAs, which were established between the federal government and the governments of Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia and New South Wales, was to provide long-term forest management to protect these very complex ecosystems, to ensure the viability of threatened species in the forests and to govern the production of timber from these forests. They also have that very worthy aim of maintaining jobs to maintain the economy and the viability of communities across the country, especially those in regional areas where these forests exist. The bill that's before us from the Greens party claims that the RFAs have failed to meet the intended goals. Well, much legislation, sadly, doesn't always meet its goals, but I don't think we should be discarding this piece of legislation. The Greens' EM argues that the environmental and industrial context of the RFAs has substantially changed since they were commenced in the late 20th century. A lot's changed since that time, but I don't believe that in this case that provides sufficient argument for the repealing of this forest management framework. The fact is RFAs have had exemptions from the EPBC Act, and this bill would see the application of the EPBC Act to forestry operations and ensure the same level of environmental approvals and protections are applied to any other extractive industry. But, to be clear, I want to put it on the record that Labor will not be supporting this bill, and we believe that the Greens position with regard to the RFA doesn't make sense in the context of the current situation of this particular industry. The RFAs, in addition to delivering that 46 per cent increase in reserves in estate, is in fact the important current and legal framework that we use to manage our forests. To repeal such a framework without another framework adequately formed, considered and in place to replace it would in my view be an irresponsible act. In common parlance, it would be akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. These regional forest agreements, which are 20-year plans for sustainable management and conservation of Australian forests, across the four states cover large native forestry regions. Five of those forestry regions are in Victoria. Three are native forestry regions in New South Wales, and there is one in each of Western Australia and Tasmania. In a sensitive way, the RFAs seek to—and in many, many instances have delivered—a balance between the competing industries of the economy, the society and the environment. Balancing economic, social and environmental demands on forests by settling obligations and commitments for forest management delivers great outcomes. One of the things that the RFAs have delivered, and need to continue to deliver, is certainty of resource access and supply to industry, building investment confidence, which matters to all of us everywhere, including in the cities, not just where these forests are. The RFAs seek to balance ecologically sustainable forest management issues, ensuring forests are appropriately managed and that they are regenerated to benefit young Australians and those who come after us. The RFAs also seek to make sure that we expand the permanent forest conservation estate, and on that measure, given the statistics that there's been a 46 per cent expansion, you'd have to say that the RFA has most certainly achieved the outcome that was set. We know that the RFAs, in their formulation, are informed by scientific study, that they were the product of significant consultation and negotiation and that they cover a diverse range of interests. Labor is prepared to work responsibly with regard to the management of our forests. However, in our view, this bill before the Senate does not take a sensible approach. I want to restate the love that Australians have for wood. My father loved wood, and the smell of him working with wood in our garage in suburban Sydney is a beautiful olfactory memory for me. As a former teacher, I know that students who didn't necessarily enjoy my English classes absolutely delighted in their capacity to work with their hands and their talents in woodwork classes on the Central Coast. We need to make sure that that passion and love for wood is not just translated into the joy of small enterprise but continues to be a vital and growing part of our economy. To do that we need to find a sustainable and balanced way of going forward to make sure that we create jobs that are innovation-based jobs, backed up by adequate research, and make sure that there are technologies that we can discover through proper investment in innovation policy. In closing, I simply indicate—and I am citing a very useful document from the Forest Industry Advisory Council—that internationally significant research and technological advancements have resulted in the development of innovative applications for wood fibre and are enabling producers of emerging products to gain scale and improve cost-effectiveness in overseas markets. And let's be clear that timber is a renewable resource that can meet with innovative capacity. However, while we're not supporting the proposals as they're put before the Senate today by the Greens in their private members' bill, I cannot indicate that I think the government is adequately responding to this sector. In fact, in terms of innovation right across every sector, we've had a lot of noise from this government but very, very little careful and considered investment in a way that is actually delivering jobs growth and economic growth for this country. So in some ways I guess I've tried to walk the Buddhist path, somewhere down the middle between the Greens and the conservative representatives on the other side of the chamber. The Labor Party is truly the centrist party of this nation, and we have the sensible policy that balances all the things that we need to balance carefully. It balances the things that are at the heart of the regional forest agreements. It balances the need to make sure not only that we have sustainability and look after our economy but also that we look after our community in all its forms, in terms of its needs for resources, and that we look after the people in those communities, so they have jobs with decent wages and decent and fair working conditions, in such a way that this becomes a sustainable and long-term contributor to our local economy and our international participation. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2015 86 Second Reading 86 17:12 Senator RHIANNON CPR New South Wales Today I will revisit the Greens Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2015. We first introduced this in 2015. We've taken the call for an independent office of animal welfare to a number of elections. The Greens are very passionate about the issues of animal welfare and animal rights. In Australia the need for this office has really become more pressing. You really need to go back to 2013 to look at some of the developments then. There was a real wind-back on animal welfare issues. This was a huge setback because at the time there were a number of bodies in place at a federal level that allowed for consideration to be given to the protection of animals. There were advisory bodies that did actually exist, but under the Abbott government all that was removed. It was a messy structure, but there were means for stakeholders to come forward at the federal level to have some input. But these structures went, and since 2013 there's been no way for stakeholders to engage with industry for there to be some cross-fertilisation of ideas for people to raise their concerns. That's very serious. From 2013, because of that shocking step backwards, many animal organisations such as Animals Australia, Voiceless and others have raised a voice very strongly calling on political parties to come forward with an independent office of animal welfare. I emphasise the word 'independent' because that's really what's critical here. We understand that, in terms of how governments work, they can set up such bodies. So what we were left with was that the Labor Party did move on an office of animal welfare but not an independent one. I'll come to this in more detail, but I just wanted to give some framework to how this has played out in cent years. Sadly, what they did was say: 'The office of animal welfare? Yes, it's needed, but it will go in under the Department of Agriculture.' That is totally inappropriate. This is where there's a huge conflict of interest, with the department of agriculture having failed in so many areas for so long to adequately ensure that animals aren't exploited, don't suffer and are not abused in how they're used in various production processes. That's been a very big issue in how we've approached the urgent need for this office to be established. We need to ask ourselves: how many animals must suffer cruel and torturous conditions in how they live and die? How can it be that those charged with protecting animals from abuse are too often the ones who benefit most from it? I urge that senators, in considering this bill before them, give some thought to those important questions, because this independent office of animal welfare is, in the scheme of things, very mild. It's not about to change agriculture. It's not about to change how everything works when it comes to the use of animals in this country. But it allows the different people who are concerned about this to engage with government and industry. I'm fortunate to have this portfolio, and one thing that comes forward so often when I engage with this work is the range of people from such diverse parts of our society—politically, socially, where they work—who are deeply concerned about animal welfare, but they're frustrated by how animals are handled in this society. They feel they have nowhere to turn. A federal independent office of animal welfare is urgently needed to help people engage successfully, get this national conversation going and get some strategies in place so we can ensure that the suffering of animals does not continue. The essence of this bill is the establishment of a Commonwealth statutory authority that would have responsibility for advising about the protection of animal welfare in Commonwealth-regulated activities. How would it go about that? It would establish an office of animal welfare that would be an independent statutory authority. It would have a CEO, and that person's functions would include the reviewing and monitoring of live export standards and the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, known as ESCAS. ESCAS alone shows why this office is needed. It was set up apparently to ensure that the suffering that we have seen so graphically many times on our TV screens when animals are exported overseas would not continue. But ESCAS has been a failure. We're told it works, but so often we see the proof in a very graphic way that that's not the case. This office would also report on animal welfare issues that impact the Commonwealth, report on the work of animal welfare committees and review animal welfare laws and policy that impact on the Commonwealth. That's what I wanted to emphasise. We'll probably hear some speeches in this debate that get all outraged about what Greens and animal groups have said about live exports and trying to end cruel cosmetics. Senator O'Sullivan 247871 You're going to hear that next—just be patient! Senator RHIANNON CPR I acknowledge that the interjections have already started from the Nationals. We have a bill that we could all unite around because it's about bringing forward adequate processes. Surely nobody wants animals to suffer in various production processes. That's all it does—use various means through this statutory body. The CEO will report to the minister. They can put forward recommendations to the minister, and those recommendations and their reports need to be tabled in parliament. The minister will be required to respond to those recommendations. It's not just a fancy little body that sits there and sounds good; it actually has follow-through. We, as parliamentarians, can scrutinise it, and the public can be fully aware of what's going on. As I said, the bill is an opportunity for Labor and the coalition to really show that they are committed to working in a collaborative way to establish an independent office of animal welfare that has the power to bring forward strategies and talk with those involved with animals in all sectors and different industries so we can lift our standards in this country. This is something that is happening in many other countries; they're starting to recognise that in the 21st century we need to show that we do care about animals, that we do understand that they have rights and that we have a responsibility to promote their welfare. With an independent office we can achieve that. As I said in my opening remarks, Labor have come forward with a policy of an office of animal welfare, but for various reasons it sounds like they're trying to walk down the middle of the road again, trying to give a voice to those in animal groups who are agitating around this issue. They've come forward with the office, but because they're keeping it under the department of agriculture it is effectively sending a signal to certain sectors of the industry, particularly the big agribusinesses, that nothing really has changed. We know that if you walk down the middle of the road you're going to get run over. Labor really should be showing some leadership on this, working with those people who are advocating for an independent office of animal welfare. They're saying they want one, but why put it in the department of agriculture? It's not the way to proceed. Senator O'Neill 140651 Because it's a balanced approach! Senator McKenzie interjecting— Senator RHIANNON CPR I am again happy to acknowledge the interjections coming from both sides of the chamber. In 2012, I understand, the federal parliamentary Labor Party caucus endorsed the Live Animal Export Working Group of caucus to develop a model for the office of animal welfare. I understand it reported to the Labor agriculture minister in 2013. So they've been working on this for six years, and again I commend them for that. It seemed to be going somewhere, but then things started to slip. What happened was that when the Greens questioned the Labor minister of agriculture about the office, they said: I recognise that there is work to be done in this area but the primary responsibility for animal welfare issues does remain with the state and territories. I've got to say that when I heard those words coming from Labor it was a real worry because they're weasel words. That's pollie speak for not wanting to get caught out. But these days people are cluey and they can see what's going on there. Labor were wanting not to say, 'We're not going to deliver on an independent office of animal welfare,' and so they tried to get out of it by passing the buck. I'm not letting the coalition off the hook; we're about to hear from Senator O'Sullivan and he'll give a big blast to this whole idea, going by previous track records. That's deeply appalling, but again it's a reminder that Labor should have some backbone on this and show some leadership. You can't just talk about an office of animal welfare, thinking that'll get you through the next election and you'll have some talking points around it; you have to be serious about it and make it independent. The bill that we have before us does allow a constitutionally valid federal response to animal cruelty issues that tragically continue to occur at alarming rates in Australia. What it does—this is where the coalition should actually wake up to themselves—is reinstate the coalition government's dissolved Australian Animal Welfare Strategy and its advisory group and begin the long but easily doable task of protecting animals in this country. I think it's worth reminding ourselves why this office is needed. This is where we do actually need to think of the animals involved—the suffering of animals like poultry hens, dairy cows and beef cows. The list goes on and on, sadly, and it doesn't have to be like that. Senator O'Sullivan 247871 And Leadbeater's possums! Senator RHIANNON CPR I'm always happy to take your interjections, Senator O'Sullivan, because you expose where you're coming from. Let's just remind ourselves of the depth of the failure of the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, the ESCAS. I imagine most, if not all, of us have seen the harrowing images of cattle cowering, slowly dying under the blows of sledgehammers, throats sawn agape, eyes gouged and tendons slashed; and of sheep kicked, trussed together, thrown on the top of car roofs or thrown in the back of boots when it's baking hot—suffering an appalling death. That's how it's been for too long. These are the things that we should be dealing with and working out how we can end them, not coming up with an ESCAS scheme that is really nothing more than a PR exercise so when the exporters are caught out again, the government can get up there and say, 'We've got rules. We'll have to investigate why they were broken. They've broken Australian rules.' We know now that that's absolutely ridiculous. How can you control animal welfare from behind a desk in Canberra? It's not possible. Different countries have different rules. Just on the issue of live exports, I can never understand why Labor go along with live exports. We know why Liberals and Nationals do, because they're locked on to the rich pastoralists. Senator McKenzie 207825 They're sovereign nations. Senator O'Sullivan 247871 That is ridiculous. Senator McKenzie 207825 Are you serious? Senator RHIANNON CPR I'm happy to take your interjections. But let's remember that none of those pastoralists involved in the live export trade rely solely on live exports. And this is where these Nationals are such a sellout to regional Australia. Where these Nationals are such a sellout to regional Australia is that if we built the abattoirs, if we got the infrastructure in place so there were all-weather roads leading to those abattoirs, then we could create tens of thousands of jobs in regional Australia. Again, they voted today. We had a motion in parliament today about live exports. Again, Liberal, Labor and Nationals all voted against it, with the Greens and Derryn Hinch standing up for what should be a win-win in transitioning away from live exports to developing chilled box meat in Australia. In doing that, we would create these thousands of jobs. You all get up there and beat up on the Greens about jobs. When we recognise that an industry is in transition, we have a jobs plan, and this is certainly one where we have worked with the meat employees union and worked with animal welfare groups, recognising that this is where something can be achieved for animals, for regional Australia and for jobs, bringing back dignity to people who, in many places for generations, haven't had work because of policies that come from the Liberals, Labor and the Nationals. When we saw that vision, Australians were rightly outraged. I think it's worth revisiting what happened in May 2011, when we saw the first very graphic vision of the live export trade. The Gillard government were in office and they did listen to public opinion. They suspended the trade. They did the right thing. But rather than hold on to the decision that they had made, they just weakened. They gave it away. They didn't look to the future in transitioning out of the live export trade to the boxed chilled meat trade in Australia. We clearly would be able to develop it in a way that the suffering of the animals would be drastically reduced, jobs would promoted and we could boost the economy of Australia, so a win-win-win. It is a fantastic plan, a plan that still should be adopted and, one day, I'm sure, it will be. But because Labor went weak there, we ended up with a shocking decision for the animals, for regional Australia and for the economy. The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union has identified that 40,000 jobs were lost due to the live export trade over a number of decades. And independent research also shows that livestock processed in Australia are worth more to the economy, in the case of sheep 20 per cent more. Senator O'Sullivan 247871 Who's going to eat it? Senator RHIANNON CPR Yeah, okay, that's a great interjection. It shows how ignorant Senator O'Sullivan is about this. He thinks he's being smart by saying, 'Who's going to eat it?' You're the one telling us about how the world wants to eat Australia's meat. The box chilled meat export trade is expanding around the world, and Australia is missing out on it because of the failure of successive governments to get behind it. Government senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order on my right! Senator RHIANNON CPR What a silly question: who's going to eat it? It's about the export trade. Surely, you must have examined it? Again, it's just that you're locked on to a few pastoralists and also that you're obsessed by the whole issue. It is clear that trying to reform and regulate the live export industry has failed. Again, this gives further weight to the Greens' call for an independent office of animal welfare. I acknowledge that we're not going to solve this issue overnight, but we need to look at a strategy for what works best for this country. This country includes the people, it includes consideration of their jobs and it includes consideration of animal welfare. The office would be integral to the welfare of animals across Australia. The committee—which is part of what we would be setting up in this bill, along with the CEO—would consist of scientists, consumer groups, non-governmental animal welfare groups, the department, commercial producers and purchasers of animals and animal products. These stakeholders, collectively, would have a seat at the table together. That would allow for reasonable debate. At times it would be challenging, but you could have a balanced debate surrounding animal welfare and animal rights. That really is the direction that we need to be taking, for so many reasons. We still have before us—this fell over at the end of last year—trying to deal with cruel cosmetics. It looked like the Liberal-National government was running a bit of a scam on that one. We need to get back to that, so that we can stop cosmetics and ingredients coming into this country that have been tested on animals. Then there's the issue of the management of our poultry, both for egg-laying poultry and poultry that is eaten. In too many areas there is extreme cruelty continuing, and something needs to be done about this. Right now, the situation is leaving Australia very vulnerable. We've seen reports of dairy cows having their calves removed moments after birth, as surplus to requirements; hens in artificially-lit sheds and overcrowded cages where they are constantly standing on sloping, wired floors, never able to rest their legs; and mother pigs confined to pens too small. There are so many reasons why an office of animal welfare is urgently needed, an office that is independent, that works with all stakeholders and that can ensure our economy develops in a proper way. (Time expired) 17:32 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland If I nod off during this presentation, I'll need my whip to keep an eye on me, because I have delivered a response to these sorts of arguments from the Australian Greens so often I'm tired of hearing my own voice. If I look like I'm nodding off, Senator Williams, you need to intervene. My favourite story—and we'll start on where the good senator finished; she's well aware of this—is about the chicken prosecution in Western Australia. The chickens are in these big sheds with adequate space that is air-conditioned and climate-controlled. They wanted to free range them, so they hunted all the chickens outside, but as quick as they could get them out the chickens wheeled back in. The chickens preferred that environment—the environment that you don't want them to operate in. They preferred it over free range. Let's get all this in perspective. I decided the other day that I needed to understand the green movement, the environmental movement, better than I have. You've heard the senator say that I've been labouring under ignorance. So I found what the equivalent is of a peak body for the environmental movement worldwide, and I went to their site. It was very illuminating. Here's where they think the problems are in the world, in part. They tell us that we need to make sure that we don't offend and displace the hidden people, the elves in Ireland or the hags. I didn't know until I read their site that there are not just Italian fairies; there are Welsh fairies, there are Irish fairies and there are Transylvanian fairies. They have big red eyes, the Transylvanian fairies. There are fairies from the Isle of Man. We have wall-to-wall fairies in the environmental movement in this country. I'll laugh as I go through this, but this is serious stuff. This is what you have to do to get inside their heads. This is what's in their heads as they're going through the process to determine what should happen. You are a lone voice in this room, senator—through you, Acting Deputy President. Not even your colleagues have come down to support you, as you try and present this legislation. The chamber's as empty as I've ever seen it. Then there are the Brazilian shape-shifting dolphin men— Senator Williams I0V The what? Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 The Brazilian shape-shifting dolphin men, and then—you'll recognise this one—there are the gnomes. They are, I'm told, not related to the Russian firebirds or the West African evil tree spirits. We're all familiar with goblins. I've seen the odd goblin myself, as I've left, later than I should, from some of my local pubs! We've got hobgoblins. Now, they're not related to goblins, apparently; they're a whole other species. We've got gremlins and harpies, otherwise known as the Greek wind spirits, and we've got nixies. This is all off a credible site, according to them. This is what's in their minds—these fairies and hobgoblins and goblins and gremlins and tree nymphs and wood nymphs. There are also skinwalkers, vampires, gryphons. Then there are the dodore, Solomon Islands' little people. They've got one eye, one leg and long red hair. They're automatically qualified for membership of the Greens! There are Tibetan disease demons, and we've got pixies and trolls. We can have some fun here, but my all-time favourite question is: how does it impact? In Iceland—Senator Rhiannon, you'd be aware of this, because it's close to where you spent a bit of time being educated—there is a road there that they've been trying to build since 1930, but they haven't been able to because it's referred to as 'the world of the hidden people'. There are no photographs. They're a bit like the one we've got running up at Nambour—a yeti or something. But this was a serious discussion in public discourse that affected the development of sites. I had my ear up to the glass one day when the Greens were developing policy on what they'd do with something in this place. On the whiteboard, they had this big word: 'no'. They hit the printer button and they printed off 100 pieces of paper with the word 'no' on it. That's their policy on everything: no jobs; don't support rural industries and remote communities like ours; don't support industries like the cattle industry. I'll be honest; I do find the good senator the most honest of the Greens. I think she's a true warrior and a true believer, but she has got too many elves running around in her head when she starts to make recommendations. They are anti sugar; they are anti cropping; they are anti development; they are anti progress; they are anti breathing; they are anti animal flatulence. This would be laughable, hilarious, if it were not so serious. So, what's happened in Iceland as a result? Companies planning large-scale projects try to pre-empt problems with the supernatural world. I'm serious; you can go and check it out. One company planning a significant dam project in the east of Iceland consulted with clairvoyants. Clairvoyants' skills were engaged by the company to do a report for its planning application. Honestly, I don't know whether to laugh or to break down and cry as I deal with what these people want—this lone voice, who I debated on ABC Rural, who would tell all the Australians who were listening that the kangaroo population was under risk of being wiped out completely, a population that the good senator knows full well is ten times larger than it would be if natural circumstances applied. I invited her, as I've often done the Greens, but they've never taken it up, on air—thousands of Australians heard it—'Senator, I've got a few bob. Let's do something. The next time you get a new car, I'll pay to ship it up here to Longreach, and we'll sip a bit of coffee until it just gets on dark and we'll go for a drive to Ilfracombe.' But the good senator has never contacted me, and I can only assume she has not bought a new vehicle recently. I said, 'Make sure you don't insure it, though, before you get there.' This is crazy, crazy, crazy stuff. It's crazy and it's deceptive. Last year alone, the RSPCA and other organisations dealt with 350,000 complaints of cruelty to domestic animals. We all find it abhorrent, including you, Senator, I suspect. Listen again: 350,000 complaints about the welfare of domestic animals. Has one word ever been spoken by Senator Rhiannon or her colleagues in relation to that? Not one single word. But where do they want to go? They want to go to the live export cattle job. Again, Senator, you need to start being totally honest with the people of Australia. You don't want to change the way that we export live animals out of this country; you want it to stop, full stop. You've got no plan for the tens of thousands of people employed in the industry— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Senator O'Sullivan, I remind you to direct your comments through the chair. Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 I will, Sir. Through you, Senator Rhiannon has a zero plan for dealing with the economic impacts that will wipe out northern Australia. There will be tens of thousands of families losing their properties, as they almost did in 2011. Let's have a look at how that happened. This very chamber that we stand in gave due consideration to the circumstances of that and made a very measured decision. I don't know whether you were here, Senator Williams. They made a measured decision to withdraw four licences out of Indonesia for the processing of these cattle. And then, somewhere that night, some hairy armpit sitting in Melbourne or somewhere hit a send button and put 48,000 emails into the Australian Labor Party, and they buckled. They made a decision that wasn't taken through this chamber to cease the live cattle trade. That decision brought devastation to large tracts of northern Australia. It drove cattle onto the domestic market. These are the cattle that Senator Rhiannon doesn't want exported—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President. She wants them slaughtered, chilled and then put on a shelf where no-one's going to buy them. If all of the cattle that were exported live were slaughtered and chilled for the local markets here in Australia, there would be no buyers. I can't imagine that she wants to take a live beast that's going to Indonesia, put it into a box and chill it and deliver it to the Indonesians where it will rot at the port. These poor people have no refrigeration. Large parts of China where our live export goes have no refrigeration. Senator Williams I0V And Vietnam. Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 For centuries in Vietnam—thank you, Senator Williams. I've got to say, in the same period that there were 350,000 complaints of welfare issues around domestic animals, there were 145 ESCAS regulatory complaints—millions of cattle, handled for tens of millions of hours from when they come off the properties and get into the export system, and there were 145 ESCAS regulatory complaints. I'm going to tell you something. I've got an advantage, Senator Rhiannon—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I am a cattleman. I've been a lifelong cattleman, and I will not be lectured by you on the welfare of looking after beef cattle. Most cattlemen—and we've got Senator Williams here, who reputedly takes lambs into the house with him when they're in distress. Is there any truth in that, Senator Williams? Honourable senators interjecting— Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 No, no; he's not a Kiwi. He's from Inverell. He's okay. It's just a welfare thing. But, through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I will tell the chamber: cattlemen and cattlewomen have monstrous respect for these animals. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 I don't think you have ever been outside, through you Mr Acting Deputy Chair—I corrected myself. I know that the only kangaroos that the good senator has seen are at Taronga Zoo, and she thinks that's all of them! She thinks that all their brothers, sisters and cousins have gone! I've got to say to you: you've got no regard for the 167 staff, for example, in the packer industry near Caboolture, who process kangaroo and leather hides; you've got no regard for them. You were actively part of pulling down the industry that exports hides into California, successfully—two years now. That's a company I think will survive. It's third generation—decent men and women. They will survive because they're people of that type. They're not your type of people. But, I'll tell you what: you're making it awfully hard for them. You sit there in your cotton clothes, but you don't want us to disturb one square metre of earth— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order! Senator O'Sullivan, resume your seat. The words 'you' and 'your' shouldn't be part of your speech if you're referring to someone in the chamber, because you should be directing your comments through the chair. Use the third person if you must. Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Senator Rhiannon sits here in her cotton clothes, yet she would not have us disturb one square metre of the earth to move the trash, to plant the seed. She would not have us take one cupful of water from the river to irrigate the cotton. As I said in a speech just the other day: God forbid the filthy puff of smoke that comes out of the harvester, which takes the cotton to the gin to be processed so that we senators, including Senator Rhiannon, can come here in our cotton garments—and our woollen garments, Senator Williams—and our leather shoes and our cotton socks, and sit on these leather or vinyl chairs, whatever they are. There's not a single thing within sight of any of us that has not been produced, in part sometimes, from the gift that animals provide as we propagate them for food and clothing and as we take the land, disturb it, and irrigate it in some instances, to provide food, fibre and all the other necessities of life. There's not a single thing! We would all be naked, standing in a virgin forest and sucking on day-old tofu if some of these Greens had their way with respect to how we are to live. This is very serious. They get up with a bland face as if they're serious and, in their narrative, they pretend to believe what they're saying, when none of it is true. It is a gross act of dishonesty. There was not one single phrase in the speech by the senator—and I listened very carefully—about what alternative provision she may have for the 200,000 coalminers in Central Queensland who'll be displaced, and their families, and the businesses that rely upon them, the industries that employ— Senator Rhiannon CPR That's not true! You know that. Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Mr Acting Deputy President, she shouldn't be speaking to me; she should be speaking through you. Senator Rhiannon does not, on any occasion, make any reference to the alternative plan. Here they are, wanting to create yet another bureaucracy. We have got some of the sharpest regulations and legislation around biosecurity and the management of animals, the welfare of animals, anywhere in the world. We are world leaders in these areas. And don't take my word for it; you need to take the word of a number of your colleagues. At the live export exchange conference, held in Darwin in November 2015—I'll bet you a carton of beer that nobody from the Greens was in attendance to have a look, to meet the people, to come to understand the industry, to make a contribution; I'm happy to be proven wrong but I'm pretty certain about that—Dr Temple Grandin, who's a world-renowned animal behaviour expert, in reference to Australia and the conditions in which we operate, stated that we were light-years ahead of anyone else in the world with our handling and animal welfare under the Export Supply Chain Assurance System—anyone else in the world! What gets a bit inconvenient for the contributors to this debate is PETA—and we all know about PETA. I'm not talking about Peter Pan; I'm talking about P-E-T-A, an organisation that I think it should be illegal to participate in. Nonetheless, PETA and the Humane Society of the United States give an award. Ingrid Newkirk, the president of PETA, said: I applaud Dr Grandin … I admire her work— I'm sorry; I referred to her before as a gentleman— in the field of humane animal slaughter. So, as I close, let's consider something. Senator Rhiannon has made a contribution in the chamber. It is crystal clear that none of her colleagues agree with her and they have not joined her in this enterprise. They're listening—they can scurry down here in their dozens if they think they can. Nobody here agrees with Senator Rhiannon. Nobody in the Labor Party agrees with the thrust of her arguments here today. The crossbench is absent; nobody from the crossbench agrees with her. The humane society for animals in the United States doesn't agree with her. PETA doesn't agree with her. Leading world experts don't agree with her. The people don't agree with her. The industry doesn't agree with her. Australians don't agree with you, Senator Rhiannon, otherwise you'd have seats in the bush. You need to give away your soft little seat in the Senate—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—and I'll give away my soft seat in the Senate, and both of us will run for the seat of Kennedy. How's that; you, me and Bob. We'll have a crack—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President. We'll see just how many votes you garner in Kennedy. You'll have to put a mo and a wig on, otherwise, if they recognise you up that way, you'll be riding on the tail of the kangaroo on the back of the plane! You wouldn't be on the inside! This is ridiculous. This is a consistent thing. Senator Rhiannon reminds me of one of those toys I bought for my kids, where you punch it, it goes down and up it comes—those ones that are weighted in the bottom—because this isn't the first time this argument has been made and it's not the first time it's failed. It will fail each and every time that she brings it into this chamber. Through you, Mr Acting Deputy President: all the Greens should stop listening to the elves and the gnomes and start listening to the Australian people and people in industry, and maybe at some stage they'll get something right. 17:52 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I want to go immediately to the opening statement of the policy that Labor took to the last federal election to try and restore some order and seriousness to the show that we've had here this afternoon. Our comments commenced with this statement: Protecting animal welfare and boosting agricultural profitability aren’t competing aims—they support one another. The growing demand for high quality food produced in an ethical way means Australia’s agricultural producers must embrace the highest animal welfare standards to stay internationally competitive. That is where we need this piece of legislation to go, and it just doesn't go there. We've been using the analogy of walking the middle path. I note Senator Rhiannon's comment in response to my contribution earlier on forestry that, if you walk the middle of the road, you end up getting run over. I don't agree, Senator Rhiannon. I actually believe that finding a sensible way to balance competing interests in the best interests of the nation is a good goal to seek and achieve. Instead, we've seen the Left heading off the path, bush-bashing, and we've heard the Right argument heading off in the other direction doing the same thing—both of them completely off track, both of them completely out of touch with the genuine and real concerns of ordinary Australians who want to ensure that businesses, like agribusinesses, can be successful in our regions. But those businesses should not be relying on any form of animal exploitation. This private senator's bill that's been introduced by the Greens this afternoon, the Voice for Animals (Independent Office of Animal Welfare) Bill 2015, aims to establish the office of animal welfare as an independent statutory authority and seeks to have the CEO responsible for reviewing and advising upon the protection of animal welfare and Commonwealth-regulated activities. The office, as it's presented in the bill, appears only to focus on one element of massive concern: live animal export and the issues affecting the protection of animal welfare and Commonwealth regulated activities. It is far too narrow and it doesn't attend to the realities of modern Australia. The bill claims that the office of animal welfare will assist its CEO in his or her functions, which include the review, inquiry, monitoring and reporting of the Australian standards for the export of livestock and the export supply chain assurance system, known as ESCAS. Whilst Labor is not opposed to the establishment of an independent office of animal welfare, we certainly cannot support the private members' bill that is currently before the Senate. For the office of animal welfare to be a success it not only needs to be established by the government of the day but has to deal with the reality that Senator Rhiannon failed to confront: that it does actually have to be supported by the states and territories. Ignoring the reality of the federation—ignoring the states and territories—simply will not resolve complex issues. Putting somebody in at a federal level to lord it over the others is an absolutely unsuccessful strategy to pursue. This bill will not achieve these two very important requirements, and Labor has a very different view about what should happen. In fact, the Labor view was well documented and well distributed prior to the last election. It was a comprehensive animal welfare strategy that Labor took and it outlined a pathway that would provide for the establishment of an office of animal welfare, but in a very different iteration from that which is proposed in this private members' bill. Labor had a six-point plan for animal welfare, and we sought to boost Australia's agricultural capacity by making it more productive as well as sustainable and ethical. Our plan aimed to attract investment and to grow markets for Australia's agricultural products, because when we successfully do that in an ethical way we grow our community capacity to create jobs for ordinary hardworking Australians. Our agribusinesses, we know, compete in a very rapidly changing world, and we know that consumers and investors alike are demanding the world's best animal welfare. In the contributions that we've had this afternoon from Senator Rhiannon representing the left and Senator O'Sullivan representing the conservative right parts of this place, we've seen a failure to find a way to balance the competing needs in a way that advances the benefit of both the animals and the general community. I go to a report by the Rural and Regional Affairs Transport Legislation Committee, which looked into the voice for animals bill 2015 and the careful work that was done there. The arguments that have been put forward this afternoon indicate there is no way we can find a way to create best practice, and get both farmers and animal welfare activists into the same room and get a good outcome. Mr Glyde, the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, told the committee: We try in our submission to outline the reasons why we think it is not a simple as that. He was referring to the conflict between animal welfare outcomes and livestock profitability. There is certainly a tension between welfare and profitability, but in our experience, if you improve animal welfare outcomes, you have increased productivity and you have improved competitiveness – for us, particularly, as we are a high cost producer and increasingly our markets are demanding good outcomes, whether it is sustainability in an environmental sense or good animal welfare practice or good supply chain management to ensure the quality and healthiness of our food products that we export. That is one of the keys: good animal welfare practice is a key to improve competitiveness. The Australian Labor Party absolutely understands that. We know that consumers are voting with their wallets, demanding that food and other products are made in ways that match their expectations of animal welfare. The Labor Party is committed to making sure that we win in the country, in our regions and that we also win for all those who live right across the country and care about animal welfare. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 93 DOCUMENTS President's report to the Senate on the status of government responses to parliamentary committee reports 93 Consideration 93 18:04 Senator BARTLETT DT6 Queensland This is the President's report to the Senate on the status of government responses to parliamentary committee reports. It is something that's provided twice yearly. It's one of those documents that would seem to be fairly dry and that often become routine and pass rapidly into the dusty places wherever these reports get filed away. But, since returning to this place, I have had a regular need to look at what things have changed in the 10 years since I was last year and what things are the same. I actually encourage people to have a look at this report. It's not particularly long. It's 17 pages. It simply lists all of the outstanding Senate committee reports and joint committee reports where the government has yet to respond to the recommendations. It's not the sole purpose of a Senate committee inquiry to produce recommendations for a government to decide whether or not then to act on, but it's a pretty important part of it. All of us here know that we get great value out of hearing from the community, of going to places and seeing what's happening on the ground, and of looking at all those submissions and considering things in more depth. But the end result is often but not always a report which makes recommendations—often unanimous, sometimes not—proposing that the government do things to address the problem that the committee has identified and the solutions they've identified based on the public feedback. It's one of the best mechanisms for the public to have an input into the issues that affect them and for people in the community who have expertise—whether academic, theoretical, practical or lived expertise—to have a say on important policy issues that affect them or that they have an interest in. I'm sure all of us here would recognise that we are not the experts on everything, and often are not experts at all on some matters. So it is very concerning to see just how many reports have not been responded to. The Senate has a convention, I guess, that the government should respond within three months. I think the House of Representatives convention is six months. This report lists—in a 16- or 17-page-long table—all of those Senate committee reports where the government has yet to respond. Most of them are well over six months. There was a very significant report, for example, on certain aspects of the Queensland government administration related to Commonwealth government affairs. A special Senate special select committee reported nearly three years ago now. No response has been received. I'm just picking a few of these at random: The effectiveness of special arrangements for the supply of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) medicines to remote area Aboriginal Health Services. That one was tabled in 2011. There has been no response, over six years later. That doesn't mean nothing's happened in that area; I am not saying that. But I am saying that a fundamental and very basic part of accountability to the community—not just for government but for all of us; we all get paid to conduct these Senate inquiries, and there is public money spent on them—is that there be a response, even if the response is, 'Yeah, we're already doing that, thanks.' It's not that hard. Well, apparently it is that hard, because we have reports like that that haven't been responded to in over six years. There are many here in the community affairs area: another one from 2012, one from 2013, three from 2014 and two from 2015. It's not good enough. It might seem like a really dry and tedious thing to be talking about government responses to committee reports, but when a Senate committee brings down a report that's usually what we all talk about. We'll talk about plenty of other things, but the one thing we will almost always talk about is what the recommendations are for action. I have spoken a number of times since I've been back here about housing affordability. There was a report from the economics committee inquiry into the Australian housing affordability challenge tabled in May 2015—still no response. A report on the exploitation of temporary work visa holders, a major issue in my state of Queensland, was tabled nearly two years ago-no response. The impacts of mining in the Murray Darling Basin, a topic we're talking about now, was tabled in 2009–no response. This is across the life of the Labor government as well, of course. It's a joke. The fact that it happens every six months shouldn't be a reason to ignore it. I really would like the government to do better, and all of us to do better at insisting that we get better responses. (Time expired) Question agreed to. Northern Australia 94 Consideration 94 18:10 Senator BARTLETT DT6 Queensland I would like to speak to another document that I think is important enough to merit some debate, and that is the annual statement for 2017 on Our north, our future: white paper on developing northern Australia. Senator Canavan is in the chamber at the moment, and I'm sure he'll be pleased to know somebody is looking closely at the report that he's provided, although I have to say it's a pretty disappointing one. It's just six pages and it's really like a six-page press release ranting on about the government's magnificent achievements. I'm not going to be mindlessly partisan and suggest that the government haven't done anything, because they have done some things, but a lot of this, frankly, is sloganeering from the minister, and it's a pretty disappointing statement in terms of the content of it. There are aspects that are specified with regard to better roads and rail, and that is certainly something that, as a Queenslander, I do support in general. The issue, of course, is where those rail lines go and where those roads go and who benefits. As we all know, rail lines are being proposed to open up new deposits of thermal coal in northern Queensland. That might benefit a small number of people—it might benefit a massive multinational like Glencore or Adani, maybe Gina Rinehart or Clive Palmer—but for the vast majority of people in northern Australia, in the long term it is not what is needed. When we have money that is available to invest in northern Australia, as is needed, then it is crucial that it is done effectively for the sustainable long-term good of those communities. I was in Rockhampton and I saw Senator Canavan's office—there's a very nice big picture of him out the front there, I must say, in the street! I met with a number of people there, some of them very publicly, some of them not so publicly, some of them in areas of business, some of them environmental campaigners, some of them in community service organisations. All of them had ideas about areas where often quite small investments in their community could bring significant economic benefit and significant community benefit so they would not have to rely on the boom-bust cycle that has caused significant damage to some communities and towns in the regions. They were unanimously appalled that the Rockhampton City Council, for example, was spending ratepayers' money on an airstrip for Adani well outside the council area, as are the people of Townsville, whose council is doing the same thing. The fact that there needs to be government support for projects and infrastructure and sustainable long-term, stable jobs that will build communities in a region is not controversial. Everybody supports that. The key issue is how that money is used. Unfortunately in Queensland, as in many other areas, there's a sad history of misguided megaprojects that are just wastes of public money at best and often deliberate pork barrels to benefit party donors or key constituencies at worst. We need to do much, much better than that. There is one area in this report that I'll try to say something positive about, and that is the area of research and innovation. A lot of people don't realise that one of the biggest employers in Rockhampton is the university there, the Central Queensland University. It's been there a long time now and has developed some very significant and very valuable programs, not just for people in Rockhampton and Central Queensland; it has campuses in many other parts of the country—it has a campus in Mackay. It plays a very significant role in skilling people in the region to meet needs that are there, and that includes significant social service areas like aged care, like workers to meet the need that is already there and will be greater as the National Disability Insurance Scheme is rolled out. The investment needs to be put in there, and, in a way, it's positive to see a recognition that we need world-leading research and innovation in the north. Further north, in Townsville, James Cook University is a world leader, particularly in marine park research, which is why they can tell us repeatedly with great expertise how much danger the Great Barrier Reef and the marine park surrounding it is in because of the refusal of this government to do anything other than continue to try and burn more and more coal. Unfortunately, if you look at some of the research centres that are being supported, you've got to question whether that's the best place to be putting it. That sort of detail in this report gives me great cause to think that the government's priorities are very much in the wrong place when it comes to Northern Queensland and northern Australia. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 95 DOCUMENTS Consideration 95 COMMITTEES 97 COMMITTEES Education and Employment References Committee 97 Government Response to Report 97 18:16 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I seek leave to reinstate two government responses that were on item 16 on yesterday's red: responses to the Education and Employment References Committee reports, Getting our money's worth: the operation, regulation and funding of private vocational education and training (VET) providers in Australia and Technical and further education in Australia. Leave granted. Senator CAMERON AI6 In recognition of the hour and the long week that it's been for most senators, I'll just briefly speak to both of these reports and then I'll seek to continue my remarks. I move: That the Senate take note of the documents. The inquiry into the operation, regulation and funding of private vocational providers was an inquiry that was referred to the committee on the 24 November 2014. The report was finished on 10 August 2015, and the government responded in February 2018. This report and the response by the government maintains the government's position that competition, contestability and choice are fundamental to the future of the VET system in this country. It also dealt with the regulator, ASQA, and it briefly dealt with the VET-FEE HELP fiasco that built up to a crescendo under the coalition government. We had four ministers in a period of 12 months in this area under the coalition, and we've had huge problems in the for-profit sector of the training providers. This is a terrible situation that we find ourselves in in this area. We've had significant funding go to the for-profit sector, we've seen the for-profit sector gouge the Australian government and the public of Australia, and we've seen some of the most egregious rip-offs take place in this sector, and yet the government wants to continue with competition, contestability and choice—a mantra that even ACCI, the Business Council of Australia and academics and experts across Australia who have researched this for years have said has left the system in a mess. If the Productivity Commission, an organisation that I'm not a great fan of, is saying the system is in a mess, then we really do have a mess that needs to be fixed. The government's response is inadequate. I seek leave to continue my remarks because I would like to deal with this in more detail at another time. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator CAMERON AI6 The second government response is on technical and further education in Australia, similar to the government response on the VET inquiry and providers. The government talks about competition again in this area, along with contestability and choice. It simply wipes its hands of the TAFE system in this country by saying it's fundamentally the states' responsibility. Here we have the government, regardless of the ethics of the issues that arise from it, saying that they're going to set up this defence export industry. In relation to that, the OECD recently has said that we don't have the skills to access the global value chains across the world in either that area or any area. So the TAFE system is absolutely important. The TAFE system is fundamental. The TAFE system is where working-class Australians go to advance their training, go to advance their skills and go to advance their careers, yet this government has reduced funding in the TAFE sector to an extent where the TAFE sector is trying to compete in this flawed competition and contestability sector. We've seen problems across the TAFE sector but still huge problems in the for-profit sector in this area. The government's response to this was the Skilling Australians Fund. The Skilling Australians Fund says, 'We will fund totally our training system in Australia through a charge on visas in this country.' Again experts, again business, again the BCA and ACCI are saying this is a flawed approach and we need guaranteed funding. So this government under Minister Birmingham and Minister Andrews do not have a clue how to deal with the skill acquisition in this country. And with those few remarks, I would seek to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Environment and Communications References Committee 97 Government Response to Report 97 18:23 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On 29 April 2016, the Senate committee tabled the report Game on: more than playing around—the future of Australia's video game development industry. I chaired this committee at the time, and the report contained eight unanimous recommendations to advance the games development industry. Despite an open letter from the Interactive Games and Entertainment Association, it took well over 600 days for the Turnbull government to produce a substantive response. A motion from earlier this week that I co-sponsored with Senator Steele-John details the complete failures of the government and the minister when it comes to the interactive games industry. The response from the Turnbull government is a massive disappointment for the games industry development. The simple fact is video games are big business, both in Australia and throughout the world. But we need a government that is prepared to work with the games industry and support the games industry, not just provide it with lip service. The video games industry faces the same problems as many in our knowledge economy—an inability to keep professionals here in Australia. There is immense competition across the world for video game design studios. As a result, the 2012 former Labor government created the Australian Interactive Games Fund to support the ongoing development of the video game industry in Australia. The $20 million fund was working and working well. It was helping to build a sustainable base for the Australian games industry, partnering with investors, and it was also creating jobs. But of course the fund was a victim of the ridiculous 2014-15 Abbott-Hockey purge budget. While the government announced a National Innovation and Science Agenda in late 2015, it has no explicit references to the video games industry. It's an overarching policy without complementary policies included within. This inquiry found that there was a strong economic return from funds provided as grants and loans during the Interactive Games Fund's existence. The fund was cut because of the Abbott-Hockey era ideological warfare on Australian jobs. We saw it with the car industry; we have seen it in the construction industry. Their war on workers was littered throughout their 2014-15 budget. In the government's weak response to this report, the current Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, demonstrates that he is not innovative, that he is not agile and that he is just as bad as Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey. The Turnbull government response merely notes or rejects most of the unanimous recommendations of the Game on: more than playing around report, and doesn't even support the recommendation that the government commit to rolling out 21st century broadband infrastructure. Games have the capacity, as I learnt through the inquiry—and I'm sure there are people younger than me that would have known this—to solve high-value problems across health, education, defence and numerous other sectors. Australia has the potential to lead in the development of games for entertainment and non-entertainment purposes alike. We must support our creative industries to grow and employ more people in Australia. Bandwidth-hungry technology such as virtual reality and augmented reality, potential applications for so-called serious games and educational games, will only continue to increase. Australia is on the cusp of the fourth industrial revolution and cannot afford the ongoing ineptitude of the Turnbull government, which overpromises and underdelivers in the communications space. Not only is the Turnbull government ploughing billions into the 19th-century copper broadband network but it is neglecting the video game development industry that will help transform our economy and society into the future. The game industry deserves much better, so much better. The value and importance of the video game sector is clear. Currently there is no policy leadership to support the future of Australian game development from the Turnbull government. They are happy for these excellent professionals in these fields to just get up and leave. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. National Broadband Network - Joint Standing 98 Government Response to Report 98 18:29 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Three-quarters of all fibre-to-the-node premises will not be able to reach 100 megabits per second. Over 200,000 premises on copper will not be able to receive the minimum 25 megabits per second promised by the Turnbull government. There are around 80 million hours of network downtime per year across the multitechnology mix and about $100 million has been spent purchasing almost 17,000kms of copper wire. Those are not my numbers. I haven't just made these up or plucked them out of the air. They're numbers that have been provided by the government and NBN Co. And yet despite this clear failure the Turnbull government are hell-bent on their ideological rollout of copper. The joint standing committee gave the Turnbull government an opportunity to stop this mess—to stop the copper and to do what Australians want, and that is to take fibre to their homes. One of the first recommendations of the joint standing committee, supported by all parties on the committee, including a member of the Nationals, was for the Turnbull government to abandon the copper rollout, and, at a minimum, to take fibre to the kerb, where feasible. Instead of taking this opportunity, what did we get from the Turnbull government? A repeat of the ridiculous line that the multitechnology mix, also known throughout the company as the 'multitechnology mess', will see the rollout of fast broadband as soon as possible, at affordable prices and at least cost to taxpayers. What a ridiculous statement! It is proven so by the statistics provided to the Senate by the government and NBN Co. The copper-reliant network is not fast—three-quarters of premises won't be able to access the very fast speeds that the NBN was designed to do. It is not more affordable for consumers than fibre; the pricing review from late last year demonstrated that. Finally, the Turnbull NBN is not the least cost to taxpayers. The Turnbull promise was the least cost to taxpayers, but blowout after blowout has seen the cost push up to around $50 billion while the internal rate of return has halved in comparison to the original fibre-to-the-premises NBN. In Tasmania, the Turnbull government claims that the network is complete, but thousands of premises still can't get connected. No matter how many phone calls people make, and despite NBN promising the micronodes would be connected by October last year—yes, last year: 2017—it's still not finished. Worse still, for most on the north-west coast, one of the poorest parts of this country, there is no upgrade path from fibre-to-the-node to full fibre. So while the big cities of Launceston and Hobart skate ahead with gigabit connections, the north-west coast, where I live, is left behind. It is appalling conduct by this government and this Prime Minister. On the remotest part of the north-west coast, people in the communities of Queenstown, Rosebery and Zeehan, which I have spoken about many times in this chamber, literally had to beg just for fixed-line and not to be put onto satellite. And when this government announced fibre-to-the-kerb for one million premises across the country, do you think they included Tasmania's west coast? No. At every point when I asked a question they ducked and weaved, they claimed design work had started and that it was all too late, yet construction work only started on the west coast around November last year, six months after the big one-million-homes announcement for fibre-to-the-kerb. It's clear with this government response that this Prime Minister has taken one of the great nation-building projects of the 21st century and turned it into a complete mess. There is no plan for upgrading the inferior copper network, and I haven't even got to the appalling customer service record. I just want to repeat four important statistics: three-quarters of all fibre-to-the-node premises will not be able to reach 100 megabits per second; over 200,000 premises on copper will not be able to receive the minimum 25 megabits per second which was promised by Prime Minister Turnbull; there are around 80 million hours of network down time per year across the multitechnology mix; and about $100 million has been spent purchasing almost 7,000 kilometre of copper wire. As I said, they're not my numbers; they're numbers that have been provided by the government and by NBN Co. So I urge the government to listen to the joint standing committee—to listen to the people of Australia that we took evidence from all around the country when we did the inquiry—and to end the copper mess so that Australians can get on and become part of the new century. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. Economics References Committee 99 Government Response to Report 99 18:34 Senator BARTLETT DT6 Queensland I'd like to speak about the government's response to the Economics References Committee Report, Australia’s general insurance industry: sapping consumers of the will to compare. This response was tabled earlier this week and there have already been some speeches on it. I'd like to firstly relate it back to my comments on an earlier document about how disappointing the length of time the government takes to respond to important reports and recommendations is. The government's response to this report and this issue has been fairly disappointing. I particularly want to go to one part of this inquiry and how it relates to another report from another inquiry that occurred a couple of years ago: insurance premiums in the northern part of my home state of Queensland. As senators would know, I've only been back in this chamber a few months and I'm still getting across the finer details of issues affecting people around the state. One issue was brought to my attention very quickly by a woman from Airlie Beach named Margaret Shaw—I expect many of us have got emails from her over the years—wanting to ensure that we're all aware that this problem of high insurance premiums in Northern Queensland has not gone away and has still not been adequately addressed. It's not just a matter of high insurance premiums. Their premiums are much higher relative to other parts of the state and the country. It's also been the rapid rate of increase. If they'd always been high or they'd gradually increased, perhaps people could have adapted. There have been extremely rapid increases in insurance premiums for many people. This isn't just individuals in homes. It's also particularly affecting people in unit blocks with body corporates or strata titles. Of course, it also affects businesses—small businesses, in particular. Their ability to function, as any small-business person would say—at least the ones who work from a real-world premises rather than online—insurance for that premises can be a major cost. To have them go up so substantially and so quickly in such a short period of time has caused major harm and disadvantage to many people. It doesn't take much imagination to think why. If you're a person on a fixed income, particularly a retired person, and you're living in a unit with a body corporate or strata title, you're required by law to have that property insured. If your premiums double or more in a short space of time, you suddenly can't afford your premiums. That has an impact on the value of the property, so people then lose value on their property because it's uninsurable or the premiums are so high that people don't want to buy it. It's put some people in an appalling bind. This isn't a problem with an easy solution, I'd have to say, but it's certainly a problem where more can be done than what has been done. I want to point to the report that was brought down in November 2015 by the Northern Australia Insurance Premiums Taskforce. The government finally did a response to this. They did it in that typical—and, sadly, very cynical—way of releasing the response by the minister, Kelly O'Dwyer, in the week before Christmas. People in Northern Queensland were waiting two years and saying: 'What's happening with this? What are you going to do? What's your response? What's the action? It's urgent. We've been talking about it for years.' The government takes two years to respond and then slips it out just before Christmas. They obviously gave a heads-up to the insurance industry, though, because the insurance industry was out within a minute with a press release congratulating the government on their response, which was not to intervene in the insurance market at all. I'm not saying government intervention is the sole solution to everything, but when you have market failure on a massive scale, as has happened here, then clearly there is a role for government—or there should and can be a role for government—to play in intervening. That is something that the Greens certainly believe needs to be given much stronger consideration. Unfortunately, with regard to this report, when the terms of reference were set up they were explicitly set up with the requirement that, when considering the options for action, the task force had to look at how any role of government involvement could be reduced. Even if they were to suggest or consider government intervention, it had to be on the basis of how the government could get out again as quickly as possible. So it had one hand tied behind its back before it started. The government's response has been partly to blame the states—a time-honoured federal government response to anything—and partly to suggest that more money might be invested in mitigation of cyclone damage, to make buildings more resilient and the like. That certainly is welcome, but it is very clear that mitigation alone is not going to fix this issue, and the suggestion that mitigation—unless it's on a massive scale—is in itself going to drive down insurance premiums is nonsense. So I would say to the government that this is an issue that I, on behalf of the Greens and as a Queensland senator, will be focusing on quite heavily, to try to push them to do a lot more, because there is more that can be done. I would like to commend the Liberal member for Leichhardt, Mr Warren Entsch, who has been going on about this issue for at least six years. Margaret Shaw, in amongst all the documents she emailed around, included many speeches from Mr Entsch about this. I also will be seeking his expertise with regard to best ways forward, because I certainly don't pretend to have all the solutions. But what I do say quite clearly is that there is more for government to do, especially if the insurance industry is going to continue to gouge people or continue to skyrocket insurance premiums. That might be justifiable according to the internal maths of insurance actuaries, but it is not justifiable in terms of the basic principle of fairness. In that circumstance, if the market is failing, either those companies need to be required to change their behaviour or the government needs to take over from them. There used to be a direct role for government in insurance. I can remember in Queensland—and in other states, possibly all of them—we had the State Government Insurance Office, which specifically ensured that affordable basic insurance was available to everybody, in particular to battlers. I'm not saying we have to go back precisely to that model, but let's remember that this federal government's predecessor the Howard government introduced an insurance pool, a direct government intervention, in regard to terrorism situations because insurers wouldn't insure against them and people were unable to cover costs in the rare circumstance of an incident designated to be terrorism. So we already have the precedent of the government doing that. Let's not ignore the elephant in the room here. A very clear reason why insurance companies are, in some respects quite logically, hiking insurance premiums enormously is climate change. Scientist after scientist has said that there will be more severe weather events. People in Northern Queensland, of course, say, 'We've always had cyclones through here,' and they have. But the frequency, and particularly the severity, of them is undoubtedly going to increase. Scientist after scientist is saying that. The government might be quite happy to ignore scientists and ignore the facts about climate change, but insurance companies, who actually have money on the line, are not ignoring the science; they are quite clearly indicating a recognition that the damage from intense weather events, such as cyclones, is likely to be worse because those events are likely to be more intensive. That basic reality is being ignored, and that clearly is one of the reasons why there's been inadequate action from this government. Of course, over some of this period the previous Labor government was also in power. I'd like really to urge more focus on the human reality of this. Last week I was in Northern Queensland—in Cairns, Kuranda and Ingham—asking people about this very issue. Quite a lot of them, unprompted, could give stories about huge hikes in insurance premiums and how difficult it had made things for them. In one case somebody had had to close down their business because they couldn't afford it. So it's something that is having a direct effect on many people's lives. We spoke before about the long-term economic viability of Northern Queensland; well, this is a key issue that's got to be addressed. To its credit, the government already kicks in a lot of money after disasters, so, if there's spending happening anyway, putting some money into intervening in the insurance industry— (Time expired) Question agreed to. Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters 101 Report 101 18:45 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia As Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I rise to speak on the report on the inquiry into decisions made by the Court of Disputed Returns. I've got to say up-front that I am bitterly disappointed in the stunts that those opposite pulled on an inquiry as important as this one. As chair, I'd like to go through why I think it is very unfortunate behaviour. Those opposite know that the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is a significant committee that's tasked with very important responsibilities to ensure the integrity of our electoral processes and to make sure, on behalf of all Australians, that the process runs smoothly, particularly so that all citizens can have confidence not only that their vote has been counted but that, even if they don't like the result, the result accurately reflects the votes that were cast in the election. We have a number of very significant inquiries underway at the moment, and I couldn't be prouder of the bipartisan—in fact, multipartisan—way every single member of that committee engages in the debate and in the reports for this committee. As those opposite well know, the committee has been tasked by the Prime Minister to conduct a very comprehensive inquiry into the operation of all of section 44 of our Constitution. When this inquiry was referred to the committee on 6 December—the last sitting week of this place—with a reporting date of 6 February this year, it could not be construed as anything other than a cheap stunt designed to interfere with the operation and conduct of the section 44 inquiry. Of course, the committee complied with that date, but it meant that submissions were due by 22 December. Clearly, when those opposite referred this matter to the committee, they knew that it was an impossible task for the secretariat staff, let alone the members of the inquiry and the people who should've put submissions in. Not even the subjects of this so-called inquiry, Rob Cullerton and Bob Day, had time to put in submissions on this most serious of matters which has seriously impacted on their lives and their families' lives. Both a number of their supporters and their detractors did put submissions in, but it was after the submission deadline. Only one submission was received in time for the committee to consider it—clearly a ludicrous proposition to do anything like justice to the seriousness of the issues that were referred to the committee. Not only do stunts like this on such an important issue cheapen us all in this place, but it is also incredibly inconsiderate to the secretariat staff who had to go through the process—very professionally—of processing this inquiry. They did a magnificent job to do that on top of all the other serious inquiries we've got going on at the moment. It's also quite disappointing that those who supported the motion for this referral to the committee used this of all issues—one that is of such importance to the effective conduct and operation of our democracy and our electoral processes—to do what they did. I still can't work out exactly why they did it, because nobody who supported it has shown the slightest interest in this inquiry or put their hand up to assist with the almost impossible deadlines. Coming to the substantive issues that the committee is actually inquiring into, the committee is looking into section 44 of our Constitution, which has caused serious issues and concerns for not only people in this and the other place but also Australians more generally. The committee has had, I think, five hearings, and we've heard from at least 14, if not 15, constitutional experts, who were very clear in their advice to the committee about the gravity and further implications of section 44. Section 34 of the Constitution outlines the qualifications for any Australian citizen to nominate as a candidate in our democracy. When you think about it, there is probably no more important democratic right for all Australian citizens, in order to have the opportunity to engage fully in our electoral processes and our democracy, than to be able to put their hand up as a candidate. In their great wisdom, our founders acknowledged and accepted that, over time, the conditions in the Constitution would not continue to meet community expectations, and that has been the case. As with a number of other sections in the Constitution, they put a clause into section 34: 'until the parliament otherwise decides'. That meant that our founders understood that the parliament, on behalf of Australian citizens, would have to update the qualifications to meet community expectations, and that's exactly what's happened. The parliament has decreased the age from 21 to 18 and got rid of the somewhat outdated provision of having to be a subject of the queen at the time, Queen Victoria. But, unfortunately for us today, while the vast majority—probably over 99 per cent—of Australian citizens would qualify under section 34, there is no such provision for the parliament to update section 44 as community and societal expectations change. This has now resulted in the High Court being the only jurisdiction that can interpret that section, which has led to the current circumstances—and the minister here at the table, the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, knows only too well the impacts of that. What the committee has found so far, and will be reporting on, is that—in my words—this has allowed for a second class of Australian citizen. You have the 99-plus per cent of Australians who would qualify under section 34 to put their hand up as candidates, but then you've got at least 50 per cent of Australians who wouldn't pass the disqualification test under section 44. They would have to take active steps, sometimes impossible in their own family circumstances, resign their jobs or do things that other Australians simply do not have to do. Personally, I believe that is profoundly unfair. Australians, with the different backgrounds that we've got, increasingly will be unable, and in many cases never able, to qualify or overcome the barriers outlined in section 44. That is the first issue that we're examining further. The second issue—which is a little bit of a sleeper issue, but I think could have a profound impact on the conduct and the results of the next federal election—concerns the consequences of section 44(i), which relates to the ability or the eligibility of a candidate to nominate and be on the ballot paper. That is still being played out in the High Court at the moment in terms of MPs who have already been elected. At the last election there were some 1,600 Australians who nominated to be candidates, but I'm certain many of those would never have gone through the process of ridding themselves of the disqualification barriers in section 44. The implications for the next election, now that this is known, are that, even where a result has been declared in a House of Representatives seat or in the Senate, if there is a single candidate in that Senate team or on the House of Representatives ballot paper who hasn't won above the line or over the 50 per cent and hasn't had to go to preferences, who is subsequently shown to have never been qualified under section 44 to be on the ballot paper, that could well result in a by-election for an otherwise completely valid declaration of the poll in the House of Representatives seat or in a Senate team. Start to think about the implications of that, which the committee is currently doing. I conclude on this thought: this is too important an issue in relation to the operation of section 44 to remain politicised. When those on all sides have a look at this issue, we will need to address this not only as a parliament but as a nation. Our committee is making sure we do it justice. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 102 COMMITTEES Consideration 102 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 104 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Consideration 104 ADJOURNMENT 104 ADJOURNMENT Science, Questacon 105 18:58 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory Tonight I wanted to put on record some of the great work that is being done by some of our scientists and some of our institutions within government, within some of our universities and, indeed, working with the private sector. I've had the opportunity in my new portfolio in science, jobs and innovation to get to know some of these great areas. This is something the government really wants to build on. I want to pay tribute to some of the great work that is being done. At the University of Sydney I had the opportunity to visit their Nano Institute, one of our most state-of-the-art scientific research facilities. The Nano Institute is on the University of Sydney campus in Camperdown and was built to the most strenuous engineering standards so it could house labs that do the most precise quantum measurements possible. Dr Gunther Schmidt and Professor Ben Eggleton first showed us their labs at the Centre for Ultrahigh bandwidth Devices for Optical Systems, which is research into the possibilities of optical computer chips. We then met with Professor Saleh Sukkarieh, who leads a team of very industry focused researchers in robotics. His work is helping agriculture and mining industries to be more efficient in their work, not just in terms of productivity but also in terms of the effect on the environment. Finally at that facility, I met with Professor David Riley, who leads the partnership between Microsoft and the University of Sydney to work on the development of a quantum computer. This visit was particularly auspicious in light of the announcement a few days later of Professor Michelle Simmons as Australian of the Year, and I again congratulate her on that achievement. David's work is similar to hers. That we have such a wealth of expertise here in Australia in the cutting edge of computer science is a testament to the government's investment in science and research. Quantum computing is absolutely critical to our future, and the science of that is something that so many Australians are leading the way in. Supercomputers, which we are also investing in—we recently announced a $70 million investment in a supercomputer here at the ANU in Canberra—are so critical because of the amount of data that we have these days. Making sense of that data takes amazing computer capacity. At the moment, we do that with supercomputers. Of course there will be similar, though different, uses once we really crack the code when it comes to quantum computing. In Sydney I was also able to visit one of Australia's best kept secrets—that is, the National Measurement Institute. The concept of measurement might seem a bit plain and boring but the fact is that measurement is at the foundation of so many parts of our lives, and measurements have to have standards and tests to be effective. At their main facility in West Lindfield, the CEO of the NMI, Jane Coram, showed me around some of the labs that housed some of the most important measurement instruments in the country. Dr Jan Herrmann showed me the atomic clock, which is the clock against which every clock in the country needs to be set to be accurate. Dr Lindsey Mackay took me around the North Ryde NMI facility, which houses the chemical testing labs. This is where our official sports drug testing takes place, as well as where much of the criminal testing is done. A real highlight was to tour the headquarters of the Australian Astronomical Observatory, also in North Ryde. Professor Andrew Hopkins showed me some of the amazingly precise astronomical measurement instruments that make Australia a world leader in space research. That visit to the AAO was a great help for my visit last week to the Siding Spring Observatory near Coonabarabran. Professor Hopkins was once again on hand as we launched the TAIPAN spectroscopic instrument, an instrument designed by the AAO and purpose-built for the UK Schmidt Telescope. The TAIPAN uses a technology called Starbugs, which was developed here in Australia. It's an extraordinary innovation, with tremendous opportunities for research and discovery here and overseas. Starbugs are minirobots that rapidly and accurately align the optical fibres of a telescope to target stars and galaxies. This world-first technology makes astronomical surveys much faster and much more efficient by using hundreds of optical fibres to cut down a telescope's configuration time from an hour or two to two or three minutes. So the TAIPAN will provide the most complete survey of Southern Hemisphere stars and galaxies ever undertaken. It will measure up to two million galaxies and two million stars to make new discoveries about dark energy, dark matter and how galaxies and stars form and evolve. The TAIPAN will serve as a prototype for similar positioning systems being developed in Australia for other international telescopes, like the Giant Magellan telescope under construction at Las Campanas Observatory in the Chilean Andes. Massive credit needs to go to Professor Matthew Colless of the ANU Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics for his efforts in initiating this great project. I really do want to emphasise how important that technology is in astronomy and in so much science that hangs off that, because it will enable us to get much more detailed analysis of the stars that we can see. The scientific potential of that is great. This is technology that is cutting edge, but it's being done in Australia and it's another great example of some of the great innovation that we have in some of our institutions. It is something I think we should be very proud of. Closer to home, I had the wonderful opportunity again to visit perhaps our most famous national scientific institution, Questacon, just down by the lake here in Canberra. As a local, I've been to Questacon many times. My children go there often, but it was a new experience to visit there as the assistant minister with responsibility in the area. I met with Professor Graham Durant, who ably leads a team of enthusiastic and bright science experts, tour guides and volunteers at a place that really is something of a theme park for science. Questacon is one of Canberra's great success stories. In the 2016-17 financial year Questacon welcomed over half a million people through their doors—511,000. It's estimated they make a contribution to the ACT economy of between $59 million and $98 million every year. 2017 was a particularly significant year for Questacon, as they welcomed their 11 millionth visitor in March 2017 and they won gold at the Australian Tourism Awards in Darwin, something that I know all of the staff and supporters of Questacon are very, very proud of, and rightly so. Questacon of course is not just a Canberra success story, as they do a number of outreach activities to rural and regional areas, such as their Shell Questacon Science Circus, which ran from July 2016 to September 2017. It visited 447 schools and held over 30 community events to reach 108,000 participants. Questacon also present their travelling exhibitions, which reach some 1.7 million people around the world, and their Smart Skills Initiative, which had 25,000 participants. But what Questacon is most known for, of course, is their fun exhibits and educational displays here at their main building in Canberra. I got to experience their creativity and had to trust their scientific knowledge when they let me hold fire in my hands in a fun display of how water and fire interact. I want to commend and congratulate Questacon for their ongoing contribution to the city, to our nation, to science and to discovery, particularly for our young people—inspiring young people to consider science, to engage in science and hopefully to pursue educational and career opportunities in science. I certainly commend the work Questacon does not just to my parliamentary colleagues but indeed to all Australians. Defence Procurement 106 19:07 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I rise tonight to speak on the topic of defence procurement. It is an important topic, noting the taxpayers' cost associated with it and the national security significance of it. I have a real concern about defence procurement. Hundreds of millions, indeed billions, of dollars are being squandered and new capability is being brought on with significant delays—in some cases, of several years. Ridding ourselves of huge cost overruns in defence must be addressed as a matter of priority. On the strategic front, we need to pay attention to two distinguished strategists, Professor Paul Dibb and Richard Brabin-Smith of ANU's Strategic and Defence Study Centre, both former deputy secretaries of the Department of Defence, who made the following observations about management of our strategic risk: Over recent decades, judgements in this area have relied heavily on the conclusion that the capabilities required for a serious assault on Australia simply didn’t exist in our region. In contrast, in the years ahead, the level of capability able to be brought to bear against Australia will increase, so judgements relating to contingencies and the associated warning time will need to rely less on evidence of capability and more on assessments of motive and intent. Bottom line: we don't have the same warning time frames as we once did. We won't necessarily have time to remediate problematic programs to ensure that they deliver the combat capability promised. Although everyone hopes that it will not be the case, Australia's changing strategic circumstances do mean there is a significantly greater risk that Australian forces may be called on to engage in conflicts of significantly greater intensity and to do so with much shorter warning than has been the case at any time since the Korean War of 1950, or indeed the Second World War. In these circumstances, we can no longer afford, if indeed we ever could, the sorts of defence procurement debacles that we have seen over the past 20 years. You're all likely aware of notable examples of poor procurement, including the Seasprite helicopters which cost $1.5 billion and were never used in service, and the $44 million LCM2000 watercraft which proved too wide to be embarked on the amphibious ships they were intended for. I note the replacement watercraft appears to be not buoyant enough to carry the Abrams tank ashore, but that's another story in development. But that's not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about an even bigger procurement disaster, a $21.5 billion disaster—yes, that's right, $21.5 billion. Last month the Department of Defence supplied an answer to a question from Senator Leyonhjelm about defence project procurement. The answer details, amongst other things, the total delays associated with a number of major defence projects. The delays range from a couple of months to 151 months. Being a former project manager, I was taken aback. Project delay equals cost. That's obvious. If a project is delayed you basically have to keep the entire project team on task until final sign-off. Noting there were decades of delay in the table, there had to be massive cost blowouts. Where was it being reported? Fortunately, a few days after the Leyonhjelm answer arrived, the latest ANAO major projects report came out. I examined it, and at first glance all seemed well—almost all projects were within their approved budgets. How can that be? Well, it turns out that the key to Defence's magic is the phrase 'approved budget'. Let's go to a multirole helicopter. It's 60 months late but it's well within its approved budget. It has over $700 million remaining in the kitty. The answer to this quandary comes by looking at the project's second pass numbers. Let's recall how our defence capability process works. We start with a range of options to fill a capability need. At first pass we whittle down the options to one or two and then proceed to fully explore and fully cost those options. At the end of the detailed process the option or options are presented to government for what is called second pass. According to the Defence Capability Development Manual: Second Pass approval is formal approval by Government of a specific capability solution to an identified capability development need. Second pass provides Government approval and acknowledgment of:    …   …   … e. budgetary provision for acquisition and operation of the capability solution, including all relevant FIC aspects and NPOC— that is, fundamental inputs to capability aspects and net personnel and operating costs. At second pass, where government commits to a solution, the total cost is presented. The second pass cost for the multirole helicopter was $953 million. Despite $2.9 billion being spent on the project to date, it's still within the approved budget of $3.7 billion. Defence will and does explain this by saying, 'Well, there's been a scope change,' or 'There have been currency variations,' et cetera. Those variations, and, indeed, all manner of sin, can be covered off by getting a budget change approved by government. As a result, a cost blowout is hidden. The entire defence project budget is like this. I invite you to examine ANAO's major project review and find a project that hasn't had a variation made to its agreed budget. It's a difficult task. The ANAO, thankfully, provides one number in its report: the total budget variation since second pass approval. In 2011-12 it was $5.9 billion. In the years that followed it jumped to $6.5 billion, then to $16.8 billion and then to $18.5 billion. This year, across the 27 major defence acquisitions in the ANAO report, it's the number I just talked about: $21.5 billion. That's a $21.5 billion blowout compared to what the government approved when it committed to the projects. Just lock that figure in the mind: $21.5 billion. But according to Defence there is no problem. With this approach the books always look balanced when in fact they are seriously out of whack. The reality is that no-one can use the public numbers to work out how well we are or are not doing in defence projects. The realities are camouflaged and concealed, and that has to change. One could be forgiven for thinking Defence is one of the last bastions of old Soviet economics—perverse state socialism in which, no matter what the delays and cost blowouts, projects are always declared to be a success, everyone gets a medal and no-one takes responsibility. Perhaps the spirit of Leonid Brezhnev still lives on. I'll be taking this up at Senate estimates with both Defence and the Auditor-General. Defence run to a plan—the Defence Capability Plan—with what is a finite budget. How can you execute a plan like that when you are diverting money for planned capability to deal with blowouts in current projects? The approved budget for the 27 projects reviewed by the Auditor-General was just shy of $62 billion. Across those 27 projects the average project delay is measured in years, and they are in total almost 35 per cent over budget. And that doesn't include the cost of keeping an older capability running until the delayed capability arrives—although I note, in the case of the Multi-Role Helicopter, Defence slipped in an 'upgrade Black Hawk' line item as one of the approved budget changes. The Multi-Role Helicopter was supposed to replace the Black Hawk. Neither does it include the cost to the dedicated sailors, soldiers and airmen who have to fight on with obsolete capability. It's a situation that is neither sustainable nor fair, at a time when the federal government is seeking budget repair. On one hand the government is cutting health, education, welfare and other important programs, while slipping through the fingers on the other hand are billions of dollars of Defence overspend. So the first thing we need to reform in Defence procurement is to start reporting projects against a second-pass baseline and provide absolute transparency of every dollar spent beyond that. That's a key element of any reform. Those responsible must take responsibility and do so when they are in the job. All too often, by the time delays and cost blowouts are belatedly revealed, senior managers have already moved on. All too often they have been promoted or have moved to a more highly paid job in industry. No-one takes responsibility. We can't have that continue when in the decades to come the men and women of the Defence Force face a significantly greater likelihood that Defence capabilities will be tested not in exercises, or even low-intensity hostilities, but in extremely demanding and potentially costly high-intensity conflicts. If we find our Defence capabilities to be deficient in those circumstances, it will be much, much too late. So there is a heavy burden of responsibility not only on Defence but also on the parliament, and particularly the Senate, in exercising our scrutiny function through estimates and other committee hearings to ensure that our Defence procurement is really on time and on budget. It hasn't been, but it must be in the future. Senate adjourned at 19:17 DOCUMENTS 108 DOCUMENTS Tabling 108 Tabling 109