2018-02-12 45 1 0 Senate 0 1

Monday, 12 February 2018

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

 

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Community Affairs References Committee, Environment and Communications References Committee 1 Meeting 1 10:01 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 Tasmania 1 Senators Sworn 1 Tasmania 1 Senators Sworn 1 BILLS 1 BILLS Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2017 1

Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2017

Second Reading 1 10:09 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia The Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2017 responds in part to a recommendation made by the Senate Economics References Committee's inquiry into the effects of non-conforming building products on Australian building and construction. This bill was sponsored by former Senator Xenophon and introduced into the Senate by former Senator Kakoschke-Moore in September last year. I was heavily involved in the Senate inquiry as an adviser to the former Senator Xenophon and I'm pleased that I am in a position to continue advocating on the issue, which affects people right across the country. The bill amends the Customs Act 1901 to expressly ban the importation of polyethylene-core aluminium composite panels. I will say at the outset that I acknowledge that this bill is not a silver bullet. Banning PE ACP may appear to be a knee-jerk reaction, but the risks are just too high. The use of non-conforming building products in the building and construction industry was the subject of a Senate inquiry which began in June 2015. The Senate Standing Committee on Economics has tabled three interim reports, with this bill responding to recommendation 1 of the second interim report, which was tabled on 6 September last year. At page 10 the report states the following in relation to PE ACP: The committee understands that under the NCC in its current form, there are compliant uses for PE core ACPs in low-rise buildings, as well as pathways through performance-based solutions to allow the use of PE core ACPs in high-rise buildings. The committee also understands that the signage industry uses PE core ACPs. In light of the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy, the committee does not consider there to be any legitimate use of PE core ACPs on any building type. The committee believes that as there are safe non-flammable and fire retardant alternatives available there is no place for PE core ACPs in the Australian market. While Australian Border Force and suppliers of ACM are currently unable to determine whether an imported building product will be used in a compliant manner, the committee believes a ban on importation should be placed on all PE core ACPs. In addition, the sale and use of PE core ACPs should be banned domestically. The cladding issue is a most serious public safety issue that requires urgent attention. The issue was brought to the public's attention in November 2014 when the Lacrosse building in Docklands in Melbourne caught fire. Since that time, governments, both federal and state, have failed to respond adequately. The Lacrosse incident was the trigger for the Senate inquiry. The Lacrosse apartment building in Docklands had aluminium cladding fixed to its exterior. Flames raced up several floors and it was only through sheer luck that no lives were lost. Builders who consciously chose to cut costs by using non-compliant panels saved only about $3 per square metre, putting profit ahead of lives. Australian fire safety engineer Dr Tony Enright stated on an ABC Four Corners program examining PE cladding: A kilogram of polyethylene will release the same amount of energy as a kilogram of petrol, and it gets worse than that because polyethylene is denser than petrol too, so that's about, a kilogram of polyethylene is like about one and a bit, one and a half litres of petrol. If you look at a one metre by one metre square section [of PE core ACP cladding] that will have about three kilograms, the equivalent of about five litres of petrol. He talked about, basically, wrapping buildings in petrol. Unless the states and territories act with a great sense of urgency, the only way is to legislate to stop bringing this potentially lethal product into the country. We cannot, under any circumstances, bear the tragedy that occurred in London with the Grenfell Tower tragedy. We must prevent any risk of that happening here. There needs to be urgent action from the Commonwealth and states to complete audits of all suspect buildings and houses so that remediation can be carried out and people can work and live safely in them. The Property Council of Australia has publicly supported the ban on PE cladding, stating that although it was a complex issue: … we share the same desire as government to prioritise public safety in light of valid concerns about the use of PE cladding. In October last year, as a result of the SA state government's cladding audit, almost 200 buildings in Adelaide's CBD were identified as being of concern and potentially built with composite panels. The Advertiser revealed, through documents obtained under FOI: … 140 buildings had facades that are possibly clad with ACP cladding, 45 buildings with entry canopies that are possibly clad, and 10 buildings under construction that have indications of ACP cladding. Just five days ago The Advertiser reported that city buildings greater than 25 metres tall are suspected to contain potentially flammable cladding. Identified buildings that were reported as needing further investigation include the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, the Adelaide Oval, the Adelaide Convention Centre, the Riverside office building and the Colonel Light Centre building. During phase 1 of the South Australian audit, 20 councils self-reported buildings that warranted further consideration and investigation, including 77 in the city council area, seven in Unley, five in Murray Bridge, three in Campbelltown and one each in Gawler, Port Lincoln and Kangaroo Island. It is a simple test to identify whether cladding contains the cheap, flammable polyethylene or the slightly more expensive version treated with fire retardant. The Senate inquiry heard disturbing evidence that dangerous and non-compliant goods were coming into the country undetected and, in some cases, with false or forged compliance documents. Whilst the Australian Border Force and suppliers of aluminium composite materials are currently unable to determine whether an imported building product will be used in a compliant manner, a ban on importation is necessary to prevent any disasters such as the Grenfell Tower tragedy occurring in Australia. I acknowledge the work done by Assistant Minister Craig Laundy and the Building Ministers' Forum. I understand the Building Ministers' Forum has commissioned Professor Peter Shergold AC and Bronwyn Weir to assess problems in compliance and enforcement within the building and construction system across Australia, and that a national cladding audit is underway. In closing, I would like to quote Adam Dalrymple, Director of Fire Safety of the Melbourne Metropolitan Fire Brigade. In his evidence to the Senate committee, describing the Lacrosse fire in Melbourne as one that alone could have claimed hundreds of lives if things had turned out a little differently, he said: We were probably really lucky that did not happen on that occasion. What we are saying here is that fire safety really should not be a matter of good luck. Addressing the risks associated with non-conforming building products is an ongoing issue and this bill represents just one piece of the puzzle. But it is so important we don't leave the issue of fire safety to good luck. I commend the bill to the Senate and urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to support it. 10:17 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I rise today to speak on the private senator's bill submitted for consideration to this place by our former colleague and former senator Nick Xenophon, the Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2017. While I know that its intentions are worthy, indeed, this bill seeks to use border controls to restrict the importation of aluminium composite panel. This bill is misguided—it is misguided overreach, ill-considered and knee-jerk politics, with significant unintended consequences. To some extent it does reek of rank populism. This bill seeks to capitalise on the Grenfell Tower tragedy in London in an erroneous attempt to compare that with the Australian situation. This is simply poor legislation without thought to the nuances and complexities of the Australian context. The government therefore cannot support this bill. The government recognises that there is genuine community concern about non-compliant use of combustible external wall cladding in Australia. The safety of occupants in high-rise buildings, including fire safety, of course, is a priority for the Australian government. But, while the problem that this bill attempts to solve is very important, the solution that is presented in this bill will not actually fix the problem it intends to address. Aluminium composite panels, or ACPs, including polyethylene-core aluminium composite panels, which are referred to as PE ACPs, are a safe and legitimate building product in Australia, if they are used appropriately and in compliance in the National Construction Code. The introduction of border controls to restrict importation of a legitimate product would neither be effective nor practical to implement. These products are not just used in high-rise buildings, which are the concern of this bill; in fact, most of these products are imported by Australian businesses for use in signage and in interior design. So we should be managing cladding, not banning it. This is an unnecessary simplification of a policy problem that is, frankly, I think, beneath this place. Banning the importation of ACPs would have unintended consequences for those businesses that use the product correctly, legitimately and legally. We need to ensure that the public has confidence in their built environment, and the coalition takes that responsibility very seriously, but banning a specific product that has legitimate uses outside of high-rise buildings is not the answer. Like many Australians, the video footage of the Grenfell Tower tragedy in June last year is indelibly seared on my memory, as it is on all of ours. The day of 14 June 2017 was indeed a tragic day: 71 people lost their lives and over 70 people were injured. While more than 220 escaped the inferno, occupants of 23 of the 129 flats there tragically lost their lives that day, and I, like many Australians, express my sincere and heartfelt sympathy for the residents and families affected. However, it really is unreasonable to draw alarmist comparisons between the United Kingdom and the safety of Australia's high-rise buildings. Put simply, an apartment block such as the one that caught fire in Grenfell in London could not comply with Australia's National Construction Code. The inquiry into the Grenfell Tower is ongoing, and recommendations are yet to be finalised, but we do know that the building was constructed in the 1970s; it lacked many standard fire safety features of modern buildings, like fire sprinklers; and it had only one isolated staircase for evacuation. The combination of these factors seems to have contributed to the spread of the fire and to the unfortunate and tragic loss of life. In Australia, the National Construction Code has very strict fire safety requirements for high-rise apartment buildings. Specifically, while requirements vary with a building's size, the provisions include things like smoke detection and occupant warning systems; fire-isolated exits, such as exit stairs; more than one exit for each storey; exclusion of smoke from exit stairs; fire sprinklers; fire-resistant construction to limit the spread of fire between apartments and storeys; non-combustible external walls resistant to collapse as a result of fire; and features to assist the fire brigade's operation, such as fire hydrants. Similarly, the Lacrosse building fire in Victoria, in my home town of Melbourne, in November 2014 was extremely frightening, and there were over 300 people evacuated from that building. There was, thankfully, no loss of life. External cladding in that situation was indeed a factor; however, it's important to understand that the Lacrosse fire was caused by a compliance issue, not by an issue with the product itself. ACPs are a legitimate building product in Australia and, if used appropriately and in compliance with the National Construction Code, are perfectly safe. If they are used in a noncompliant manner, as was the case in the Lacrosse fire in Melbourne in 2014, then they can contribute dramatically to the spread of fire. The National Construction Code does not permit the use of combustible material in the external wall cladding of high-rise buildings, and this has been the case in Australia since the 1990s. The underlying problems at Lacrosse were due to failures in practitioner competency and state government administrative compliance systems. The Melbourne Metropolitan Fire Brigade concluded that the cladding on the building did not comply with the National Construction Code. The Victorian Building Authority has also conducted an investigation and is undertaking disciplinary action against the building surveyors. The Australian Building Codes Board office found also that the underlying problems at Lacrosse were due to failures in two specific things: practitioner competency and state government administrative compliance systems. So, on 14 December 2016, the Building Ministers' Forum agreed to implement a comprehensive package of measures to address these concerns of noncompliant use of wall cladding and fire safety in high-rise buildings, and that package of measures included such things as referencing a contemporary and rigorous testing standard based on international best practice for full-scale testing of fire performance of external facade systems; providing rigorous, contemporary and clear National Construction Code requirements to improve the application and compliance; enhancing onsite checking, auditing and enforcement; providing practitioners with the tools and supporting materials to support compliance with the national code; and, finally, increasing awareness of the potential risks associated with noncompliance. What are ACPs? They have multiple uses in building construction. They're a flat-sheet material faced with a thin aluminium sheet on either side of a core material. They're a legitimate product with a multitude of uses, including in advertising, signage, interior design and caravans and trailers, and refrigerators and freezers use them in applications as well. So banning the product itself is not the answer. All building work in Australia must meet certain performance and legal requirements, and this ensures that our buildings are safe, healthy and durable, which means that we can have confidence in their performance. There is a very big difference, however, between building products that are not legitimate and shouldn't be used at all and building products that are legitimate but are installed in a way that isn't compliant with the National Construction Code. It's critically important to note the difference, as these two issues are often erroneously conflated. Non-conforming products, for instance, are products that claim to be something they're not, don't meet the required standard for their intended use or are marketed and supplied with the intent to deceive the user—for example, windows that are marketed as safety glass that don't actually conform to our glass building standards or insulation that is marketed as having a higher thermal resistance than it actually achieves when it's tested. A non-compliant product, however, is different. They're legitimate products that are used or installed in a way that doesn't necessarily comply with the National Construction Code—for example, using a wood product in place of a steel structure which isn't capable of meeting the durability requirements of the National Construction Code. In this instance, it would not be a problem with the product, but it would be a problem with compliance with the code. Banning all ACPs will not fix the problem. The introduction of border controls to restrict the importation of building products is not possible, nor is it practical. The majority of complaints that were made to the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zealand over building products were actually concerned with domestically manufactured, not necessarily imported, building products. The cladding products in this bill are, in fact, legitimate products which, if used in a way that is not compliant with the National Construction Code, can, in fact, pose a threat, but their mere existence doesn't make them a threat. It's their incorrect use that makes them a threat. The opposition senators recognised in a Senate committee interim report into composite cladding that these products can be legitimately used, yet they still want to ban them. To ban aluminium composite panels at the border is a significant overreaction. It won't fix the actual problem, and it will destroy thousands of small businesses, particularly those in the signage industry, that use this product legitimately and legally. Banning products will not solve the issue. The proposed introduction of a border control to restrict the importation of aluminium composite panels is, as I said, neither possible nor practical. It's not possible because we live in a global economy with free trade. As we manufacture ACPs domestically, Australia must act in a manner consistent with our international trade obligations. Technical regulations and standards must not be trade restrictive to overseas manufacturers where there is no domestic restriction on the manufacture of the product. The proposed prohibition would also likely breach Australia's commitment to the World Trade Organization's General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and also our free trade agreements. It's also not practical to restrict importation as most PE ACPs are imported by Australian businesses for use in signage and interior design, and not necessarily used for external cladding. Specifically, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection pointed out, during the Senate Economics References Committee inquiry, that the Australian Border Force has no ability to determine the end use of these particular goods at the point of importation when they actually cross the border, or whether or not these products will be used in a manner which is compliant with the National Construction Code. So, even if a product was imported for a purportedly legitimate purpose, the Australian Border Force has no control over whether that product is then used for the reason it was imported. Screening would, therefore, impose a range of costs on the industry, it would slow down clearance times for imported goods and it would also unnecessarily divert resources from the enforcement of important border controls for products like asbestos, drugs and weapons. From a governance perspective, a stronger compliance and enforcement framework for the building and construct industry would likely prove a more effective approach than trying to impose an ineffective and expensive series of border controls. The coalition government has already gone a long way to addressing this particular problem. In the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire, there is concern in the community about combustible material in high-rise buildings, so we've been working with state and territory building ministers to implement multiple reforms to prevent the misuse of aluminium composite panels and ensure the safety of Australia's built environment. There have been a number of ways we've gone about doing this. First of all, the government has reinvigorated the Building Ministers' Forum, which is convened by the Australian government and made up of each of the state and territory building ministers. It is responsible for building and plumbing policy and regulation. The forum is chaired by the federal minister, and Minister Laundy has performed in this role since 2016. We've made it easier to identify these particular products. The government has been cracking down on inappropriate advertising and labelling of ACPs to ensure the correct use of those products and is introducing a new system of permanent labelling on cladding products to prevent product substitution. We've also been tracking the distribution of these products. The government has instigated a pilot program with the cladding industry and the New South Wales government to track the movements of products from the wholesaler to the building site. The pilot program involves several manufacturers and distributors of external wall-cladding products, who have agreed to provide product distribution data to the New South Wales Data Analytics Centre for analysis. The analysed data will assist the New South Wales building regulator to track what and where these products are being used for throughout the state, greatly assisting the regulator's compliance-monitoring capability. We have also improved fire-testing standards, introducing a new fire-testing standard in the National Construction Code for external wall-cladding products. The government has improved compliance with the National Construction Code. Through the Building Ministers' Forum, the Commonwealth has encouraged states and territories to use their available laws and powers to prevent the use of ACPs on buildings of more than three storeys. The Building Ministers' Forum has also directed the Australian Building Codes Board to expedite the implementation of measures through the National Construction Code which prevent the use of noncompliant cladding. In addition, the Building Ministers' Forum, with the Australian Building Codes Board, has created a website providing information about noncompliant building products which allows members of the public to submit a complaint or an inquiry about a particular product. We are implementing audits to ensure the compliance of existing buildings. This is particularly important. The Prime Minister has called on the state and territory premiers and chief ministers to undertake a nationwide audit of high-rise buildings to identify the extent to which noncompliant cladding is in fact an issue across Australia. The Building Ministers' Forum is overseeing the cladding audits and reviews that are underway across the states and territories. Finally, we have established, as Senator Patrick mentioned, an expert assessment of compliance and enforcement systems. On a suggestion from the Commonwealth, the Building Ministers' Forum has commissioned a report by two independent experts, Ms Bronwyn Weir and Professor Peter Shergold AC, on the compliance and enforcement issues affecting the implementation of the National Construction Code. Their assessment is examining a number of elements that form a part of the building and construction regulatory system, including things like licensing and accreditation, certification and inspections, quality controls and assurance processes and, of course, auditing and enforcement practices. The outcome of their report will be to make recommendations for a national best practice model for compliance and enforcement to strengthen the effective implementation of the National Construction Code. Professor Shergold and Ms Weir presented the building ministers with their initial findings in December last year at a special meeting of the Building Ministers' Forum. The ministers were confident that this very important work is on track and that the relevant stakeholders had been providing meaningful input to their considerations. Professor Shergold and Ms Weir are expected to provide their final report to the Building Ministers' Forum very soon. National Construction Code amendments have been made. The Building Ministers' Forum has also directed the Australian Building Codes Board to expedite the implementation of a comprehensive package of measures to prevent the use of noncompliant wall cladding on high-rise buildings through amendments to the National Construction Code 2016. These will take place from March this year and include things like implementing a far more rigorous testing standard to determine the fire safety of external wall assemblies; a new verification method to demonstrate compliance with performance requirements of the National Construction Code; increased stringency for the sprinkler protection of balconies on residential buildings in particular, through referencing a revised standard for automatic fire-sprinkler systems; clarifying language within the National Construction Code relating to the use of external wall claddings and attachments; and introducing stricter compliance documentation in the National Construction Code's evidence-of-suitability provisions. You can see that the government has taken the concerns of the Australian people about the safety of our built environment very seriously indeed. Australia already has a National Construction Code that is undoubtedly among the world's best. The issue of aluminium composite panels, ACPs, is very complex and highly sensitive. We should not let the fearmongering espoused by others in the chamber deceive us. There are significant differences between products like asbestos, a genuine non-conforming building product which is illegal to use in Australia; nonconforming products like infinity cables, which cannot be used safely; and ACPs, which in certain contexts are quite appropriate and fit for purpose but, used in the wrong context, can pose significant risks. Let's not forget that ACPs are legitimate products. There are a multitude of safe uses for ACPs, such as advertising signage, interior design features, caravans and trailers, and refrigerators and freezers. There are multiple uses for this product that those opposite would consider banning. The issue that needs to be addressed in response to concerns about the use of combustible materials in high-rise buildings is not the building products themselves, which are legitimate products when used in compliance with the National Construction Code, but ensuring appropriate compliance and enforcement within Australia's building and construction system. That's why the Australian government, through its Building Ministers' Forum, is taking a leadership role in driving reforms with the states and territories to ensure that Australians continue to have confidence in the safety of our built environment. Implementing a ban on imports of this product would be neither an effective nor a practical restriction on the building industry. Senator Patrick is correct: this bill is not a silver bullet. It is in fact an ill-advised carpet-bombing campaign that will destroy legitimate businesses. The government therefore cannot support this private senator's bill. 10:37 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria Labor supports the principles behind this Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2017 of Senator Patrick's—but why wouldn't you? It's clearly an appropriate response to the Senate committee inquiry which, under the very strong leadership of my colleague Senator Ketter here, dealt with the evidence and was able to demonstrate comprehensively just why it was so necessary for the Commonwealth to respond. Senator Hume said that's not necessary, because we have the National Construction Code. The National Construction Code is grossly inadequate. It is not fit for purpose. Anyone that had heard the evidence or attended the meetings—which Senator Hume, unfortunately, did not—or the department, if it had studied the evidence, would have known that. I presume the department provides advice to the parliamentary secretary, now the minister, in regard to these matters. They would have heard evidence that the National Construction Code has so many holes in it these days that you could fly a squadron of F-18s through it. I say that in deference to Acting Deputy President Fawcett here. There is no question now that the National Construction Code is no longer fit for purpose. The evidence I cite is from the general manager of the Australian Building Codes Board, Neil Savery, who observed that the industry had changed dramatically in recent decades, with deregulation and globalisation making it harder to ensure that buildings were built to certain standards. Mr Savery noted that a sophisticated performance based code of regulation was introduced in the early 1990s, which needed highly qualified people to understand how it worked. He said that governments had run the building certifications but then they had been privatised; the industry had undergone a process of deregulation; and there had been example after example of reductions in the level of public scrutiny, of public accountability, for the building industry as a result of reductions, for instance, in mandatory inspections. So we now have a situation under the Building Code—and we call this 'innovation' in some quarters—where this industry is able to unilaterally change the arrangements entered into, where a builder-developer could have alternative standards put forward on the basis that they were deemed to be satisfactory, that they were claimed to be performance based provisions under the code and that they were said to be equivalent to these comprehensive, sophisticated performance based regulations. As a consequence, design features that were allegedly compliant with the code were being implemented and, of course, were not fit for purpose. The persons that were responsible for claiming and certifying that these buildings were in fact compliant were the same people who were being paid by those developers under this privatised deregulated system, to the point where we were not to know whether or not any document signed reflected the true situation of the state of the building. The Senate committee heard evidence of the systematic failure—systematic failure—of the regulatory regime in this country: widespread document fraud, product substitution, corruption and wilful ignorance. The process of deregulation had led to the inertia of public authorities across this country, and, when the response came in, it was characterised by buck-passing and turning a blind eye to these corrupt practices. This was the hallmark of the new age of deregulation. What a triumph! What a triumph for neoliberalism. The public safety of this country had been put at risk; tens of thousands of buildings have been put up in this country, clad in this highly dangerous material. For what? For profit and greed. What was the evidence put to the committee? The net advantage was $8 per square metre. That was the cost saving. We were told that people who raised concerns about this were fearmongering. Internationally, we've seen the experience in the United Kingdom. We've seen it in Dubai, where the Torch Tower, as it's called, has actually caught fire twice. It's a modern building, and it caught fire twice. In Australia, we have seen 14 cases of fires. We've seen it with the Lacrosse building in Melbourne—a modern building. We've seen many other buildings that have caught fire. We've seen senior fire officer after senior fire officer draw to our attention that the question of whether or not we'll have a loss of life here is a question of good luck, not good management. So, in the name of deregulation, in the name of innovation, we're now told that public safety can be put at risk, that that is all right and that business as usual should follow. In fact, what we've got is the government blathering about these circumstances, saying, 'Oh, well, this couldn't happen here.' What was the evidence before the Senate committee? It was not just that there had been fires but, we're told: 'We've got this magnificent Building Code, which, of course, provides us with the security we need.' We've got sprinkler systems in this country, we're told, unlike in the United Kingdom. The Senate was told by senior fire officers in this country, not by some wide-eyed bolshevik but by senior fire officers, that an audit was undertaken in 2014 of 71 five-star hotels in the city of Brisbane in preparation for the G20—after all, we were only hosting the world leaders, including the President of the United States and the President of the Russian Federation. What was found in those 71 five-star hotels in regard to their sprinkler systems? Sixty-eight of the 71 failed the audit. We were told that under the present Building Code if a proprietor doesn't like the results that he's getting from a surveyor, he gets in another surveyor who'll give him the results that he wants. After all, he's paying for it. He'll get the results he wants or he'll go to another surveyor until he does. We were told that concerns we were raising in these matters were of no consequence, that we were fearmongering: 'There's no problem here.' It wasn't a question about the use of this product. After all, people use it for signs. How pathetic. There's no other product we can use for signage in this country that's not dangerous? We were told, 'Oh, well, we can't guarantee what it will be used for.' That's exactly the reason why you should ban this material. Is there any doubt about how flammable this material is? The CSIRO, when it undertook its test, had to stop the test because it was destroying their equipment because it was so flammable, so dangerous. It isn't just a question of a few rogues. When the audits were done—for instance, in the state of Victoria—they found, I think, 1,400 buildings in the state of Victoria with this cladding on them, including the building of the department in Victoria that actually issues the permits, the department of planning, which is covered in this stuff. What did they find among the 1,400 buildings that they've acknowledged? They found the failings: … weren't merely administrative or paper based problems. There were significant public safety issues, which are symptomatic of broader non-compliance across a range of areas within the industry. They said there were three factors, predominantly: … the supply and marketing of inappropriate building materials, a poor culture of compliance … and the failure of the regulatory system to deal with these issues. The task force said there was: inadequate compliance and enforcement— there were— competitive commercial pressures which incentivise the taking of shortcuts— over-reliance on the building surveyor role as an assurance mechanism inadequate on-site inspection, supervision and quality assurance inaccurate and potentially misleading labelling and/or marketing of products— and there is— a widely held view that combustibility standards in the NCC are too onerous and stifle new product innovation Hence why I say there are claims that they can find alternatives, such as 'deemed to satisfy' under the Building Code and they can have a so-called performance based model under the Building Code to allow this stuff to be put on buildings, despite the claims that there will be an absolute prohibition on this product being put on buildings. If there is such an absolute prohibition, how is it that there are so many thousands of buildings in this country clad in this material? The report went on to say that there was: … substitution of non-compliant products between the approval phase and the construction phase … As I said, there is widespread fraud and widespread criminal behaviour in the Australian building industry. Now, that's why we in the Labor Party have said: 'We can't muck around with this stuff. It's too serious. Public safety is a fundamental responsibility of the state.' There is no excuse here, no excuse whatsoever. No number of government committees or senior officers groups, no amount of fudging and no amount of turning a blind eye will take away the fundamental responsibility of the state for public safety. The government's role in public safety is critical. The government has an obligation; after all, it is the National Construction Code. Buck-passing won't cut it anymore. It's no good saying: 'Oh, it's someone else's responsibility. Oh, it's the state's responsibility. Oh, it's the local government's responsibility. Oh, it's the surveyor's responsibility. Oh, it's the architect's responsibility. Oh, it's the builder's responsibility.' That's why we in the Labor Party say that there should be a total ban on the importation, sale and use of aluminium panels with a polyethylene core. But we also say this: to put accountability back in the system there has to be a national licensing scheme for all building practitioners. We've actually got to make people accountable for what goes into the building on the building site itself and, if people don't comply, they should lose their licences. What do we say to a medical practitioner who commits an offence? We say, 'We'll take away your licence.' Why shouldn't it be the case in the building industry? We say there should be strong penalties—not this tap on the wrist and not yet another example of: 'Oh, dear, dear, dear, you've been a shocking boy or girl. You're in breach of the national code.' We say there should be strong penalties for practitioners or firms who breach the National Construction Code. We say also, though, that this idea that the junior minister—in this case, Minister Laundy—chairs the Building Ministers' Forum is a joke. What a joke! He actually wrote to the Senate committee and said that the Senate committee should be doing the enforcement of the building code. He has such a poor understanding of his responsibilities that he doesn't understand the difference between the legislative role of government, the responsibilities of government and, of course, the parliament. Of course, what is he? He's the minister for what? I just want to get his title here. Where is his title now? He is the minister for small and family business and he's the minister for workplace relations. Oh, and he's the minister for deregulation. He's the minister who has responsibilities for the very problem that caused this issue: deregulation! He has a huge interest in the re-regulation of the building industry, hasn't he? Given his public statements he's got a real understanding. How pitiful! This is a government whose reshuffle before Christmas left us with no science minister, no industry minister and, of course, no building minister, because this is not the responsibility for the Minister for Small and Family Business, Workplace Relations and Deregulation. Is there any reason why anyone in the building industry would take this government seriously, given these circumstances? The real point that does come to mind here, and what we're finding right across the states, is that the Senior Officers' Group has made some interesting recommendations. They've had a mirror, they've looked into it and what have they come up with? Oh, a website! A website: what devastation they will wreak across the building industry with a website! Just look at their report—'Oh, we'll have another report.' This has all the hallmarks of Yes, Minister. People were burnt to death in England. There are fires all over the world, including in this country. We have a building industry that is rife with corruption, document fraud, product substitution and wilful ignorance, and what does this government do? It comes up with a website. The crooks and the shonks in the building industry will be shaking in their boots at the thought of a website! According to the senior officers' report, we are going to have another look at the 'legislative roles and responsibilities of the Commonwealth, states and the territories' and we are going to identify 'gaps and weaknesses that impact on actions' in relation to nonconforming building products. Well, well, well, what decisive action! What decisive action from the junior minister. What we have here is a government that doesn't understand its responsibilities, that doesn't understand that it has a serious problem. We know that the people who actually live in these buildings are demanding action. In the majority of cases it is the owners—not the builders, not the developers, not the surveyors and not the suppliers—are the ones who will now have responsibility for rectifying these unsafe buildings. Buildings that were put up for $8 a square metre are now going to be fitted up at a cost of many billions of dollars. There has to be a better system put in place to ensure that defective buildings are dealt with swiftly when issues arise. We ought to make sure that as a matter of public safety no more of these buildings are in fact put up. That's our responsibility as a national parliament. There is no excuse for a national government not to act. It is simply pathetic for the government to claim, yet again, 'We're going to have another committee look into this.' In these circumstances, we simply can't tolerate more of this failure. (Time expired) 10:57 Senator RHIANNON CPR New South Wales I congratulate Senator Patrick for bringing this legislation, the Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill, before us today. The Greens strongly support it. It is about saving lives. We've just heard the most extraordinary speech from coalition representative Senator Hume. She set out that the government will refuse to support this bill that is absolutely essential. We have seen the tragedy that can unfold. You feel that we're on the verge of more tragedies happening in this country, where people are burnt to death because of the state of the building industry. We've heard the government set out so clearly that they will not come on board with this legislation, that they in fact reject the need for a ban which has been set out so clearly even by our own Senate committee inquiring into this. What we've heard from the government today will potentially cost lives. It sounds like it's just a matter of time, if the government will not move on this, because there is overwhelming evidence that it is time that the ban was brought in. We've seen the evidence in such dramatic form, with the tragedy of the Grenfell Tower. We only just escaped a similar tragedy at Docklands in Australia. We know that there are so many buildings with this cladding—highly dangerous and highly flammable, according to so many reports. So this is something that really does need to be taken on. But we also need to identify what we're talking about here. It's not just about individual buildings and it's not just about the cladding on those buildings; it's why it has come to this point. It's come to this point because the building industry is effectively deregulated now, and, increasingly, we're seeing these products come onto the market. They can often make a building look good, and that was part of the tragedy with Grenfell Tower in London. It was a social housing complex in the middle of what had become a gentrified area, and many of the neighbours wanted the area to look good. The quick way to achieve that was cladding. Unbeknown to the unfortunate people living in that building, they were living in a firetrap—and what a most terrible firetrap it was, as we saw so dramatically. Again, it's to emphasise that the private market has been deregulated. Again, it is an example of the dangers of neoliberalism and what privatisation means when the regulation system is left up to the private marketplace. It means it's not effective. How does this system work? It benefits the dodgy developers, the private-market speculators—those who are looking to make money. Their job—why they're on this planet—is to increase their profits. How do you increase profits? You do it by cutting corners in terms of labour and the products that are used. So we have before us a situation that very clearly needs to change, but I did want to speak a little bit more about the British situation because the evidence is so clear about the pressures that are on. In some cases what we see is that the developers are making the decisions themselves to go with this cheap form of cladding. But also, in the case Grenfell Tower, what we saw there is that the contractors themselves were under pressure to go with the cheapest option because of the severe cuts that have been made to social housing in Britain. And so the contractors are forced to cut corners when it comes to quality and safety. The Grenfell Tower investigation found that the contractor had the option of installing the fire-resistant version of the cladding but did not. The fire-resistant version costs just two pounds per square metre more. Imagine that. Those 71 people would still be alive. Their families would not be suffering, still grieving. All the people injured would still be living productive, happy—you would hope—healthy lives. But there was that terrible cost cutting. How minimal is that? Two pounds per square metre more, and we could have had the safer cladding used. Social housing in Australia is under similar pressure. Despite record homelessness, rental insecurity and unaffordability, the government has not increased real spending on social housing. And this is where the pressure comes from. When the government is building social housing, there is a real worry that we could have a similar situation to what we saw in Grenfell Tower. Again, let's be clear that the money also for social housing, for public housing across this whole country, is there. It shouldn't have happened in the first place that the benefits were given to those who are wealthy enough to have many homes to increase their own wealth, but now we know it's robbing the public purse of badly needed money for public housing. There were $7.6 billion in capital gains discounts and about $4 billion in negative gearing in one year. That's effectively what the government is giving away to those who already have housing benefits. Surely that's money that should be put into our social and public housing across the country. Again, it is relevant to what we're talking about here, because so often what happens with this very dangerous cladding is that it's used on public and social housing, with potentially tragic impacts. But we also know that it goes beyond those who are disadvantaged. This is a serious crisis that can affect all of us and our loved ones, depending on where they're living. And the evidence about this issue is now so clear. I do refer you, when you're considering your position on this bill, to the Senate Economics References Committee inquiry into the bill. The evidence was really overwhelming and very clear, and the recommendations and the findings from the report set out a case that very much backs up Senator Patrick's bill that is before us today. It was the committee's report on aluminium composite panels that came down in September last year, and it recommended that the Australian government—these are the words from the committee; you couldn't have had them clearer—'implement a total ban on the importation, sale and use of polyethylene core aluminium composite panels as a matter of urgency.' That's referring to terminology that we hear quite a bit in this. But, again, it is very clearly a total ban. Again, what we've just heard from the government ignores the Senate report that sets out the case so strongly. The government, therefore, has rejected the need for an import ban. PE core ACPs can be, and are, used in a way which does not breach the National Construction Code, in addition to being used in a non-compliant manner. That's their argument, but, again, it is a worthless argument. It is an argument that puts lives at risk. Also from the Senate committee was this additional finding: In light of the Grenfell Tower fire tragedy, the committee does not consider there to be any legitimate use of PE core ACPs on any building type. The committee believes that as there are safe non-flammable and fire retardant alternatives available there is no place for PE core ACPs in the Australian market. That is again another emphatic statement from this inquiry. It is a reminder about what's going on with the government here. Why have they been so blatant in their rejection of this most important bill that we have before us? It has been a responsible action by Senator Patrick, responding to the crisis that we have in the building industry and responding to this most important inquiry. Why has the government gone to this length of protecting the dodgy developers and the property speculators? Because they're the people that they protect. Their interests lie in working with corporate Australia, so that they can maximise their profits, even when it risks lives, and we know that's real because lives have been lost in the tragedy that we have before us. The CFMEU has come out very clearly with a position of support for the recommendations from the inquiry. This construction union has advised their members to refuse to install PE core ACPs on high-rise buildings. Interestingly, what do we get from the government on the advice, which is about saving the lives of the public, of residents, of homeowners and of people staying in hotels? Again, they don't want to know about it. We saw that very blatantly from the former minister, and that's worth sharing with you, because often there're some very ugly debates in this place about the work of the CFMEU. Here you have very clear evidence of this union taking a responsible position in support of what we now have heard from the recommendations from the inquiry, but where did the government stand? It wasn't just Senator Hume—she is clearly speaking from the government—let's look back at what former minister for industrial relations, Minister Cash, said, and the former head of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. They've said that they would state the refusal by workers to install would not be considered an illegal industrial action. So no backup there. No backup there from the minister, from the Commissioner of the ABCC, for workers taking the responsible position of refusing to install this material. That would be the responsible position. We might have our severe fights here about unions, et cetera, but what we're talking about here is about saving lives, about ensuring that buildings don't get burnt down, putting more people at risk. Surely that's where we should have a common position. But, no, the government is always working with corporate Australia to put profits first even when it comes to risking lives. That's simply unacceptable, and it needs to be exposed at every turn. The Assistant National Secretary for the CFMEU Dave Noonan has said: Fire authorities, unions, and even property developers support a ban on these combustible cladding products entering Australian ports, which is the most effective way of ensuring they don’t end up in Australian homes and workplaces. It's good to hear that some property developers are on side, working with the union and working with the fire authorities on this. There is this growing awareness, and growing building of alliances, and meanwhile the government is refusing to give national leadership on this most important question. And it needs a national response, because, as we heard from Senator Carr earlier, the evidence is well and truly out there. We've seen extensive privatisation in the industry, particularly with regard to the Australian building code, where neoliberalism has ripped through it. The weakness of that code makes it one that doesn't provide protection to residents, to builders or to the workers in this industry. It has become so worthless and the job has become so much harder because of the imports of building materials. The development of building materials is going ahead in leaps and bounds. It's just changing the whole nature of building construction. You can see that in our cities, where the rate of development is just going ahead so fast, largely driven by the new products on the market. Not all those products are safe. It's going ahead so quickly. I acknowledge it's often hard for the authorities to keep up to speed with it, but something needs to be done, and that particularly means the issue with regard to imports. That's why I again draw your attention to what Mr Noonan has said about the need to ensure that these products are not entering Australian ports. That's where we need to be giving added attention, because, once these products are in the country, they're often classified in incorrect ways, and they end up on our building sites. I imagine that some developers are not even sure what they're putting into their buildings. Workers have very little information, and certainly the residents—when they buy a new home, or if they are lucky enough to get a public housing place these days—have no idea as to what their building has been constructed with and to what degree it is a fire hazard. So we're left with a system now where, with the government adopting the position it has, thousands and thousands of lives are at risk in this country because this dangerous form of cladding is being used. It's being used, as we speak, in many of the buildings that are going up, buildings that we might live in or that we might stay in when we're working, let alone the rest of the population of Australia being put at risk on a regular basis. So this bill needs to be passed, but we need to commit to a much more thorough regulatory system for building in this country. Yes, that is a state matter, but increasingly there is a role for the federal government, largely because of this importation issue, but also we need to get rid of the privatisation aspects that have crept into so much of how building is managed in this country. It's to the detriment of residents. It's to the detriment of what our neighbourhoods look like. It's to the detriment of workers. And now we know that lives are being put at risk. We need to change how we operate in this country and ensure that people's wellbeing is put first. We've seen, in a most blatant, crude way, with the way the government has rejected this bill, that that's not how the government judges important legislation that comes before this house, like the bill we're considering today. The Greens definitely support it. 11:13 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland I apologise to Senator Ketter for messing him around on the speaking list, but I am here, so I will speak where I was supposed to. This is an interesting debate. I was particularly interested in what Senator Rhiannon said and what I understand Senator Carr said previously. I just want to indicate that the coalition government understands the issues and the problems and is setting about fixing the problem. In the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire there has been concern in the community about combustible material in high-rise buildings, naturally enough and appropriately enough. The Turnbull government has been working with state and territory building ministers to implement multiple reforms to prevent the misuse of aluminium composite panels and to ensure the safety of Australia's built environment. Some of the things the government is doing include, importantly, the reinvigoration of the Building Ministers' Forum. The Building Ministers' Forum was convened by the Australian government. It is made up of the state and territory building ministers, and it's responsible for building and plumbing policy and regulation, because, as I think has been mentioned previously, those building and plumbing policy regulations are matters for the state and territory governments under the system of government in Australia. People often say the system shouldn't be like that, but unfortunately that's the way it is—that is, over the years and under the Constitution, the authority that has responsibility for making these regulations is the states and the territories. Typically with the states and territories, particularly these days, if there's good news, they claim it—it doesn't matter where it comes from—and, if it's bad news, it's always the federal government's fault. We know that across Australia, in so many different ways, the Commonwealth government has good policies. It makes election commitments, only to have them negated by recalcitrant state governments. The one that I continue to be annoyed about in my home state of Queensland, up in the North of the state where I come from, is a policy the government went to an election on. It promised to set up a northern Australia infrastructure fund to encourage development of northern Australia—entirely a Commonwealth government initiative and entirely Commonwealth government funded. But unfortunately the legislation setting it up, for constitutional reasons, said that the money had to pass through the states, and the states therefore had a veto authority. Recently the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility has wanted to look at funding a particular infrastructure development, but the state has said, 'No, we don't like that development, so we're not going to allow the money to pass through us from the Commonwealth to the developer of that infrastructure.' I'll be more specific: it's about the Adani rail line that would join Abbot Point near Bowen, just south of where I live, to the new coalfields in the Galilee Basin. It would create, according to independent estimates, up to 11,000 jobs in the Townsville region, where, unfortunately, there is regrettably high unemployment at the moment. Small business in the Townsville region is struggling, and the Adani proposal was a lifeline almost from heaven. Here was billions and billions of dollars to be spent and huge numbers of jobs to be created, and the Townsville population were ecstatic at the thought of not only the jobs that this would create but the confidence that it would give to that section of northern Australia. But the Labor Party government in Queensland, for no real policy reason but because the Greens political party keeps them in power in Queensland and the Greens don't like mines, vetoed the Commonwealth money going through the infrastructure fund as a loan to Adani—just vetoed it. Mr Shorten now is having two bob each way as he campaigns in Batman, trying to hold off the onslaught of the Greens political party in that Melbourne latte set electorate. People down there don't give a damn about jobs in North Queensland as they sit around and sip their latte coffees. All they're interested in is this interesting battle between the Labor Party and the Greens over a federal electorate in the Melbourne area. They don't give a stuff about jobs and the unemployed and small business in North Queensland, and they don't have any interest at all in the development of the North of our country. Mr Shorten, after initially supporting the NAIF and what it could do, is now resiling, backing off. This is just an instance of where the states and territories, as in the matter that is the subject of this bill, are trying to say, 'We know it's our responsibility, but we don't want to do that because it's a negative for us politically, so we'll try and blame the federal government.' The Building Ministers' Forum, which I was talking about, is convened by the Australian government but made up of the territory and state building ministers. The forum is chaired by the federal minister, and the current minister, Minister Laundy, has performed this role since 2016. The Labor Party have been critical of that forum and critical of the Commonwealth government, but their criticism is entirely hypocritical, because the Australian government has at last reconvened that group, since the coalition government has been in power, and is attempting to move forward in a collegiate way with the involvement of state and territory governments. You see, when Labor were in power, for those horrible six years, they failed to convene a building ministers' forum over the 38 months when they were in power between 2010 and 2013. So Labor criticise that meeting, but when they were in power they didn't even bother to call it together and didn't even have the meeting; that's how much they cared about what the states and territories were doing to ensure a safe built environment. These meetings are not just token meetings. At every meeting that the current federal government, the Turnbull government, have convened they've worked collaboratively with the states and territories and held them to account for their compliance and enforcement issues. If there are issues with combustible material on high-rise buildings, that is something the states and territories should be addressing. This bill, the Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2017, seems to be trying to bring that in as a responsibility of federal government, when the powers to do things about combustible materials are already in place in state and territory legislation. But the states and territories, for some reason—political, I suspect—don't want to do it. The federal government can't support this bill, although we recognise there is a genuine community concern about the non-compliant use of combustible external wall cladding in Australia. The safety of occupants of high-rise buildings, including fire safety, is and has always been a priority for the Australian government, but the solution presented in this bill will not fix the problem. Aluminium composite panels, including polyethelene core aluminium composite panels, are a safe and legitimate building product in Australia if they are used appropriately and in compliance with the National Construction Code, and it's the responsibility of the states and territories to make sure they are used appropriately and in compliance with the national code. The introduction of border controls to resist the importation of a legitimate product would be neither effective nor practical to implement. These products are not just used in high-rise buildings, which are the cause of this bill's concern. I understand the concern of the bill's mover and appreciate it, but it is misplaced. We should be managing cladding, not banning it. Banning the importation of these aluminium composite panels would have unintended consequences for those businesses that use the product correctly, legitimately and legally. We need to ensure that the Australian public has confidence in its built environment. The coalition government takes that responsibility very seriously, but banning specific products that may have legitimate uses outside of high-rise buildings is not the answer. Banning imports of this product is equivalent to just treating a symptom. Instead the Commonwealth government is working to solve the actual underlying problem and it's working in that regard with the state and territory governments, which it should do, and is doing. The problem is accountability of all participants across the building supply chain in ensuring that products are installed in a way that is compliant with the National Construction Code. I understand the inquiry into Grenfell Tower is not yet finalised. I understand that event shocked everyone, and those who saw the video footage of that would well understand that. We do know that that building in London was constructed in 1970 and it appeared to lack many standard fire safety features of modern buildings, even fire sprinklers, and it had only one fire-insulated staircase for evacuation. There are reports that the cladding was retrofitted to the building shortly before the fire without also addressing numerous other fire safety hazard concerns that had been raised by residents. The combination of these factors appears to have contributed to the spread of the fire and to the very unfortunate and regrettable loss of life. I know all parliamentarians and, indeed, all Australians would express their sincere and heartfelt sympathy to the residents and families affected by that fire. In Australia, the National Construction Code has strict fire safety requirements for high-rise apartment buildings. The National Construction Code contains fire safety requirements that limit the spread of fire, alert occupants to the detection of smoke, facilitate evacuation and enable fire brigade operations in those buildings. Specific requirements vary with the building size. The provision for a typical high-rise apartment building in Australia includes requirements for smoke detection and occupation warning systems; fire isolation of exits such as exit stairs; more than one exit for each storey to allow alternative means of escape should one exit become unusable; exclusion of smoke from exit stairs; fire sprinklers; fire-resistant construction to limit the spread of fire between apartments and between storeys; non-combustible external walls; resistance to collapse as a result of fire; and features to assist fire brigade operations, such as fire hydrants. Aluminium composite panels are a legitimate building product in Australia—I've said this before, and I emphasise it—if used appropriately and in compliance with the National Construction Code. However, if it's used in a noncompliant manner, as was the case in the Lacrosse apartments in Melbourne and the fire that occurred in November 2014, then it can contribute to the spread of fire. The National Construction Code does not permit the use of combustible material in the external wall cladding of these high-rise buildings. This has been the case since Australia established a national code back in 1990. The problem with the Lacrosse building was that due to the failures in practitioner competency and state government administration compliance systems that building was allowed to exist, and it had that disastrous consequence. The Victorian Building Authority conducted an investigation and is undertaking disciplinary action against the building's surveyors. Of course, it's a bit too late after the event. It is necessary for the state authorities to actually ensure compliance during the construction phrase and at all times thereafter. The Building Ministers' Forum asked the Australian Building Code Board to review the evidence of suitability provisions in clause A2.2 of the National Construction Code, which requires that products must be fit for the intended purpose. The Australian Building Code Board office found that the underlying problem at the Lacrosse building was due to failures, as I say, in the compliance systems and in the practitioners' competency. In December two years ago the Building Ministers' Forum agreed to implement a comprehensive package of measures to address these concerns of non-compliant use of wall cladding and fire safety in high-rise buildings. The package includes referencing a contemporary and rigorous testing standard based on internal best practice for full-scale testing of fire performance and external facade systems. Also, rigorous, contemporary and clear National Construction Code requirements need to be provided to improve application and compliance. We need to enhance on-site checking, auditing and enforcement and provide practitioners with tools and supporting materials to support compliance with the National Construction Code. While I appreciate the concern, the thought and the goodwill behind this proposed bill, for the reasons I and other speakers from the government have mentioned it's not appropriate at this stage because the panels that the promoters of this bill want to ban from importation do have a perfectly useful and legitimate use if used appropriately. I conclude by returning to Senator Carr's attempt in some way to blame this all on the federal government. I repeat that the federal government is at least at last reactivating the Building Ministers' Forum, something that Labor let lapse over 38 months. They did absolutely nothing. We hear about that all the time. I congratulate the current minister on his work in getting the Building Ministers' Forum together so that these things can be talked about between the states and territories so the states and territories can discharge their obligations in compliance and approvals for buildings being built in Australia. Whilst I appreciate the thoughts behind the bill, for the reasons I've mentioned it's not one that the government can support. 11:32 Senator KETTER 244247 Queensland I rise to make a contribution in respect of this debate. As the Chair of the Senate Economics References Committee, this particular inquiry was probably one of the more harrowing experiences that I've participated in, with understanding of the horrors of what befell the residents of Grenfell Tower and how lucky we are in this country that we were able to escape that eventuality in Melbourne a few years ago. Unfortunately, this is an area where I would have liked to have seen a more bipartisan approach from those opposite when we have an issue in which the public is rightly very interested. When we see such a huge failure in our system of regulation, it really behoves all of us to come together to try to address this issue. For that reason, I do indicate to the NXT party that in principle we support the approach that is being put forward. We support a ban on this polyethylene core ACP product, and I support Senator Patrick's comments in relation to the fact that this is not a silver bullet and that this is only a part of the overhaul that needs to occur in respect of this terrible issue. Unfortunately, from the opposite side we see more of the same. If there's one thing I've learnt in the course of this inquiry it is that our system of building construction regulation and enforcement is broken and business as usual is not sufficient. We need to have a root-and-branch approach. An incremental type of approach—getting people together and talking to the states—is not going to cut it. The Commonwealth does need to take a lead in this area, and there are a number of things that the Commonwealth can do. It's unfortunate to hear government senators basically giving up on this issue. I do want to say though that some credit is due to former Senator Xenophon for instigating this inquiry. I do need to say though that Senator Xenophon is known for liking the headlines but, when it comes to a policy result, he comes up a bit short on the actual detail. In contrast, on our side we have a comprehensive plan to improve the fire safety of Australian buildings. We would not only introduce a ban on combustible cladding but also establish a national licensing system for all building practitioners, requiring continued professional development, and a penalties regime for all building practitioners and companies who knowingly use non-compliant material. Labor would also re-establish a minister for industry as the chair of the Building Ministers' Forum. I find it somewhat amazing that we do not have a minister for industry, nor a minister for science. We certainly seem to have a minister for regulation in place at the moment. As Chair of the Senate Economics References Committee I do have the benefit of the knowledge we acquired through that inquiry into non-conforming building products more generally. This inquiry has done its job in helping to inform Labor policy. One of the submitters to our inquiry I think hit the nail on the head when he identified the root cause of this problem. It was Mr Savery of the Australian Building Codes Board. The ABCB is the body responsible for the development of the National Construction Code. He said during our inquiry that the performance based code is a highly sophisticated regulation and it needs properly qualified and trained individual assessors. He tracked the evolution of this system. I think it was very enlightening. He said: In the early 1990s, we introduced a performance based code which is highly sophisticated regulation; it is not something that the average individual can necessarily understand. You need qualified, trained people to understand how a performance based code works. At the same time as that, private certification was incrementally introduced around the country. At the same time as that, we had a process around the country of deregulation or reduction in regulatory requirements around things like mandatory inspections. At the same time as all of that is happening, the world is changing around us. We have global supply chains. We have multinational companies operating. So we've come to a situation where there is an almost universal lack of compliance in the system. There is an erosion of confidence, which has resulted in this reduction in mandatory testing that's occurred around the country. I think this has been a tragic outcome. In September last year the committee released its interim report into aluminium composite cladding and through that inquiry we shone a spotlight onto problems in the building and construction industry, an industry where too often choices are being made to cut costs regardless of the consequences—consequences that, sadly, include the loss of life. The Labor led committee put forward eight recommendations on the issue of flammable and combustible cladding. Recommendation 1 was: The committee recommends the Australian government implement a total ban on the importation, sale and use of Polyethylene core aluminium composite panels as a matter of urgency. So it should therefore come as no surprise that we do, in principle, support the Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2017. I would like to take some time now to outline the committee's findings through our inquiry—the findings that led us to recommend a ban at the border and a number of other measures, including a whole-of-government response to achieve a nationally consistent approach to the sector, better industry access to building standards and codes, clearer enforcement powers, and more substantive prosecution outcomes. A ban is the most obvious solution that could potentially save lives, but so far the current government has refused to support it, even in the face of evidence overseas and at home that combustible cladding is a matter of life or death. The 2014 Lacrosse apartment building fire in Melbourne forced Australia to switch on to the issue of building standards and cladding. It's only through sheer luck—some might say a miracle—that no lives were lost in the Lacrosse tower when a fire broke out in a lower level air conditioner and rapidly spread up 20 storeys of the Docklands apartment building. Early speculation that aluminium composite material was to blame proved correct, despite Australia having building codes that restricted the use of this material on high-rise buildings. The Lacrosse fire served as a wake-up call and begged the questions: what's gone wrong that's allowed this to happen, and how many inhabitants of other major buildings might be at risk? In 2015 we commenced the Senate inquiry into non-conforming building products. The committee, which former Senator Xenophon sat on, invited submissions and commenced public hearings. Then last year the terrible catastrophe took place in London where 80 residents of the Grenfell Tower lost their lives in a fire. Tragically, we learned later, the scale of this fire could have been preventable. Lives could have been saved if the building standards applicable to Grenfell Tower were tougher. This tragedy, through the issue of flammable and combustible cladding under an international spotlight, heightened the urgency for Australia to know whether this type of catastrophe could occur in our country. To our horror, we found that the shorter answer was, and is: yes, it could. Through a number of state and territory audits it has emerged that the use of aluminium composite cladding has compromised safety in tens of thousands of Australian buildings. In evidence to the Senate inquiry, experts told us that homes and businesses were effectively being wrapped in a product akin to petrol. In remarks to the parliament upon tabling the committee's report last year, I said that it's not acceptable that people are injured and killed in their own homes. In 2018, we can do better and we must do better. Over the course of the inquiry the committee has held five public hearings about cladding and received over 162 submissions. I would like to thank all of those individuals again—experts in the fields of fire safety, architecture, engineering and building, and union groups and manufacturers—for working with the committee and for their advocacy to me outside of the inquiry processes as well. I want to particularly commend the CFMEU for their responsible approach in the course of this inquiry and for the information that they provided to us. They had come to the conclusion, over a period of some years, that it was necessary for us to have an import ban. Some of the points that led to them forming that view are quite salient. The reasons for PE-cored ACP to remain available to buyers who utilise it compliantly, instead of using a fire-resistant core, are not compelling, so there is no reason why we shouldn't substitute for it. The price differences are fairly marginal. The saving that's involved is something in the order of $2 per square metre. Currently, PE-cored ACP is allowed to be used in public buildings of two storeys and below—that is, combustible external walls are allowed. We say that that shouldn't be allowed to occur. We say that it's not safe to use that particular material. We have seen a lot of finger-pointing and attribution of blame throughout the course of this journey. A couple of key themes have emerged: the chain of supply operates with little or no regard for the end user; regulations are confusing, with a wide range of loopholes; and regulators lack the powers they need to identify, prosecute and deter wrongdoing. Further, we found current testing standards to be vastly inadequate. This was an issue rightly exposed in the Four Corners report in August last year. That program aired evidence given to the committee that it was, in effect, impossible for any material to comply with the key fire safety testing standard AS 1530.1, because of flaws in the testing process itself. I'm happy to say that, since this time, a new standard has been developed, AS 5113, which incorporates international best practice where practicable. Safety audit processes also prove tricky because materials that conform to building standards appear much the same as non-conforming products, particularly once installed. This, I think, goes to reinforce the argument that this is a product that should be stopped at the border. The committee also exposed conflicts of interests that occur when the pay cheques of building surveyors and inspectors are written by the same entities those surveyors and inspectors are supposed to police, and also those from whom repeat business is desired. On this matter, in hearings I also asked question about the clerk of works role which once existed. I note the Victorian Cladding Taskforce interim report recommended the restoration of this role. I think this is worthy of consideration. If there are ways that we can make oversight roles financially independent of builders, I'm sure we can see better outcomes. I also want to point to some positive developments in my home state of Queensland, in the form of the non-conforming building product laws which were passed by the Queensland government in August last year. The new laws place accountability on everyone in the building product supply chain to make sure products are fit for intended purpose and enable enforcement action for breaches. The legislation requires a person in the supply chain who becomes aware, or reasonably suspects, that a building product is non-conforming to notify the Queensland Building and Construction Commission. Importantly, the new laws also empower the QBCC to direct a person to take remedial action where the law has been breached. Additionally, in the state of Queensland, back in 2003, the Beattie government brought in five prescribed licence classes which can install cladding under the Queensland Building and Construction Commission Regulation 2003. The committee determined that this requirement for licensing and, therefore, training of installers is very likely the reason for the significantly reduced prevalence of flammable cladding in Queensland relative to other states. I also note the release of the Victorian Cladding Taskforce chair's interim report on 1 December. That's leading the Victorian government to take action on cladding by restricting the use of aluminium composite products with a PE core, as well as expanded polystyrene on buildings over two storeys. It's empowering the VBA to conduct further building audits with new annual quotas and ordering rectification on buildings found to be non-compliant. I am relieved to hear about these steps being taken in my home state and in Victoria. I think we need to follow their lead at a national level. Unfortunately, I do hold reservations that action by the states on this issue will be one more justification the current government uses to pass responsibility back to the states and territories. As I've already said, we are talking about a matter of life and death here. It's not enough anymore for us at the national level to just make the rules. We need to take real action. The simple fact that aluminium composite cladding, with its flammable polyethylene core, is legal in Australia means it will end up on buildings. The government will probably vote against this bill and say that the National Construction Code restricts the use of flammable products, as government senators have already said, but we know they're being used outside of the code's stipulations. There are a number of reasons for this. First, the regulations are confusing. The National Construction Code has been described to the committee as being contradictory, containing competing clauses and having no hierarchy of control. One submitter, Mr Hughes-Brown, of Ignis Solutions, pointed out that the ABCB had to write a nine-page document just to clarify the competing clauses. And the Victorian Building Authority submitted that 'code requirements were inconsistently applied and poorly understood'. Additionally, the NCC contains options for performance based and 'deemed to satisfy' pathways. In other words, if you do this then don't worry about that, or, if you want to do this, then just make sure you do that. This essentially provides legal loopholes for people to do the wrong thing, even through claiming ignorance, plausible deniability or through genuine confusion, misunderstanding and mistakes. Secondly, the system of regulation in Australia is confusing in itself. Whilst the NCC sits at a national level, responsibility for enforcement lies with individual states and territories, each with their own state based development codes and enforcement agency and each agency needing to be resourced. At the national level we have the national Building Ministers' Forum; the Australian Building Codes Board, which has also set-up its own senior officers group; and the Federal Safety Commissioner. Each of these federal bodies has responsibility for oversight but no powers of enforcement. In fact, total responsibility for licensing and regulation is spread over eight jurisdictions and 19 regulators, all of which have different requirements and standards for building practitioners. The issue of licensing is what I wanted to touch on. Despite the number of regulatory bodies we have, there is a distinct lack of comprehensive, consistent licensing requirements across the country. Across our country, penalties and prosecutions for wrongdoing are paltry or non-existent. This is probably due in part to the difficulties in discovering faulty work and product substitution. The Queensland legislation is a sign that state regulators don't have the inspection powers they need to identify and prosecute breaches. When it comes to the federal level, the committee heard evidence from the Federal Safety Commissioner that they do not have the resources or expertise to carry out the function of auditing and compliance with National Construction Code performance requirements in relation to building materials. A better licensing system with required education and training components should lead to better product knowledge and another intercept point for non-conforming and non-compliant products. But it needs to be accompanied by appropriate and enforceable penalties for criminal activity and negligence. At the moment, there are two few prosecutions and too many loopholes. Because of this it continues to be too easy for product substitution to occur. That is another issue. We have blatant fraudulence going on there. A second type of substitution occurs where someone in the supply chain makes a decision to use flammable cladding, rather than the properly fire-rated product, because it is cheaper. These decisions are made to save money or to maximise profits, but these decisions are risking lives. This can go undetected until a tragedy strikes. Senator Carr has talked about the little action that the government has taken in relation to this, despite the fact that we have buildings effectively wrapped in petrol, so I won't elaborate on that. We've also heard that firefighters are still concerned about being put in situations where they must decide who lives and dies, because our system of building regulation has failed. This is exactly what happened at Grenfell Tower. The industry could have regulated itself, as other industries have done in a number of areas where we've expressed concern, but it has not. Now we must respond to community pressure for change. That is why we need an immediate total ban at the border, combined with stronger licensing and compliance measures throughout the building industry. The government must act to restore public safety and community confidence. Labor has a plan. The Nick Xenophon Team is already following our lead. I urge the government to do the same. 11:52 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia I rise to speak in support of the Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2017. For most Australians, our home is the one place where we can seek respite from the troubles of the world, where we can shut the door behind us and rely on those four walls to wrap us around our loved ones and keep them safe. It is a sickening thought that for some people the same place of refuge can be very much a disaster in waiting. Right now there are potentially hundreds and hundreds of buildings around Australia that are at real risk of becoming the next Grenfell Tower or Lacrosse building. But it doesn't have to be. I urge all in this place to support this bill, which responds in part to key recommendations in the interim report on aluminium composite cladding, or ACPs, from the inquiry of the Economic References Committee into non-conforming building products. This bill seeks to ban the importation of polyethylene-core aluminium composite panels. While there are legitimate uses for PEs and ACPs, such as signage, for instance, the report highlighted the ease with which these products can be used inappropriately, through either inadvertent error or deliberate design. Part of the problem lies with the National Construction Code, which regulates this space. Even those who are familiar with the code struggle to navigate the labyrinth of sometimes contradictory regulations. We know that as a result of this confusion PEs and ACPs are regularly used inappropriately. The code therefore offers little comfort or protection to the Australian public. There is currently on the market safe flame-retardant cladding that is readily available for use in Australia. This non-combustible honeycomb product costs around $2 to $3 per square metre more than highly combustible PEs and ACPs. This has led some opportunistic and unscrupulous individuals to substitute for the safe cladding the unsafe, flammable cladding in an attempt to shore up their bottom line. These people have made a conscious decision to place profits above people. Even more worryingly, the committee heard evidence that this sort of substitution is widespread. PEs and ACPs may appear unremarkable and innocuous, and, frankly, as a consumer, it is pretty much impossible to tell the difference between a safe product and one which can set your home alight in mere minutes. You place your trust in the people who build your home or your office block, and yet these products pose a high risk to life and property. An audit conducted in South Australia found that 77 buildings in the Adelaide CBD alone are suspected to contain the combustible cladding. These buildings are over 25 metres tall and, incredibly, include the Adelaide Oval and the convention centre. The audit also identified the newly built Royal Adelaide Hospital, but the cladding used there appears to be safe and compliant. I hope that the same is true for other buildings, but it does give you pause for thought. When filled to capacity, these buildings hold hundreds, if not thousands, of people. I don't need to spell out the consequences if the worst happened. When used incorrectly, PEs and ACPs are an enormous fire hazard. Evidence was given during the course of the inquiry that, in the event of a fire, one kilogram of polyethylene will release the same amount of energy as 1½ litres of burning petrol. We now know too well what this type of combustible cladding can do. We have all seen the images of the Grenfell Tower in London. We know the damage that these products cause, and none of us will forget the haunting image of a lone, smouldering, blackened column rising out of the London suburbs. Six months on, the community there is still struggling to cope with both the economic and the emotional losses of that disaster. It was only through good fortune and the professionalism of firefighters that we did not have a similar catastrophe when Melbourne's Lacrosse building was set ablaze in 2014 after a cigarette butt was left on a balcony. There were 400 people inside, and that inferno spread up 23 storeys in just 11 minutes. The availability and appropriate use of this cladding are an urgent problem that requires an urgent response, and this bill plays one part in that. There may be those who see a total ban on importation as overkill, but, frankly, there are many safer alternatives to this product. The industry's hands will not be tied; it will just be required to make safer choices. We need to do what we can to safeguard the community against the inappropriate use of flammable ACP cladding by unscrupulous and ignorant builders. One way to do that is to make the product more difficult to access through an importation ban. I urge all senators to back this bill. 11:58 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I too am pleased to be making a contribution to the debate on this particular piece of legislation proposed by the Nick Xenophon Team, the Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2017, a debate kicked off today by Senator Patrick. However, can I put on record my pleasure at seeing the return of Senator Colbeck today, and I also welcome into this place Senator Martin. I'm sure all Tasmanians who are here at the moment feel much better knowing that we have a full complement of Tasmanians representing them here, and I know you'd agree with that, Mr Acting Deputy President Whish-Wilson! This a very important debate to be having, relating to the safety of both the materials and how they are used when it comes to building and construction. Over time, we've seen many, many changes to the technology that is used in buildings and in the manufacture of the materials that we use in construction. The safety standards which are applied to them also have evolved significantly over time. So no-one can dispute the importance of what is being debated here. The safety of occupants is paramount when it comes to the design, planning and construction of these buildings. We need to make sure that whatever laws and rules are in place are those best suited to ensure that prime goal of protecting the occupants is adhered to, or at least achieved. As for myself, I've had a number of experiences with building over the years. The most recent project I had involvement with was a building that had a life which spanned well in excess of a century, and it was difficult to traverse the regulation and the red tape relating to bringing a building which dates from convict times to something that satisfies today's standards when it comes to occupancy and commercial use—noting the different materials that have been used over time. In the olden days, sandstone or other types of stone, along with timbers and plaster-type materials—a pretty basic array of materials—were used. Fast forward to the next iteration of that building's life, in the 1940s and 1950s, when the building took on an industrial role as a paint manufacturing facility, and completely different materials were used. A huge amount of asbestos was used. It was a new material. It was something they hadn't been using when the building was originally constructed and it was something that, over time, proved, as we know, to be harmful to human health, if not dealt with properly. And then fast forward again to today, and we have a completely new set of materials which are designed with the health and safety of the occupants in mind. So it is a difficult thing to do in places where you are retrofitting buildings to meet current standards. Also, it is not just the materials that are used but the way in which we plan construction. Approvals have to be sought with regard to the use of materials: where those materials are placed, the amount of materials used and the standards they should adhere to. All of those things are very, very different from times gone by. That, of course, becomes complicated again when you look at retrofitting buildings, as was the case with the one I was talking about. Nowadays, we see buildings, whether they are retrofitted older buildings or new constructions, which have a much higher safety standard. All of this is important when considering the intent of this bill—which is to ban at the border a particular construction material—because the context of how buildings are constructed and the safety features they now have as opposed to the ones they had a number of years ago are very different. An automated fire detection and sprinkler system is one of them. There is also a layout in the design for easy evacuation in the event of an emergency, be it fire or some other type of unfortunate event. These things are all taken into account to ensure that, when the worst happens, the occupants have the best chance of protecting their health, wellbeing and, most importantly, their lives. Making sure that buildings are built that way, with materials, design and planning to meet the standards that we set out, is incredibly important. The intent of the bill, as I said just a little while ago, no-one can disagree with. Its intent is to ensure that whatever we do in this place ensures that the health and welfare of the occupants of buildings are paramount, that we prevent where possible harm being done to those who occupy a building which experiences something like a fire, as has been discussed with reference to the Grenfell Tower and the Lacrosse building. That is not in contention at all. It really comes down to the how: how you achieve that outcome, how you achieve that end result. The bill, as has been canvassed in this debate by a number of people, does propose a ban at the border as a means of preventing the importation of these aluminium composite panels with polyethylene cores. The point is: is that the best way to do it, or is there a better mechanism? I didn't have the good fortune of participating in the Senate committee but, having done some research on this, having had a look at what is going on in the regulatory space around building and construction, particularly with reference to materials, I have been able to see what is going on across the country, particularly in Tasmania. So that's where we do differ. Everyone agrees that we need to do what we can to ensure that building materials are the safest materials possible, that people's health and welfare aren't impacted by incidents like the ones we've already talked about, but it's a case of how you get there. A legislated ban on a particular material is something which requires, as we know, a great degree of work. There's a committee inquiry, there's the debate in this place, there's the drafting process before all of that, it has to go to the other place—there are all sorts of stages. If we're going to do that for one particular material and not leave it to the experts in the field who have done the work, who have done the research and who are at the coalface when it comes to regulatory approaches to building and construction then I think we're getting into a difficult patch of work which is really not the role of the Senate but the role of the regulators on the ground in their individual jurisdictions. It would result in a great deal more red tape, another layer of regulation over the top of what exists in each state and territory, and I just don't think that's something we need to be doing here. As I say, with regard to the problem that the bill is trying solve, absolutely we're on board. It's about ensuring that we protect human life. But I did hear previous speakers, even those in favour of the bill, talking about the aluminium composite panels with polyethylene cores having an appropriate use, which relates to signage and similar matters, provided they are used in compliance with the National Construction Code. You have to question the effectiveness of imposing a ban on the importation of a product like this; you have to see whether it would be practical to implement. I'm not sure what work has been done to consult with our Border Force officials, our people who sit at the borders and monitor what's coming through on ships and other types of freight into the country. I'm not sure what process has been undertaken there. But those sorts of things need to be taken into account, and it could be suggested that the practicality of policing such a ban would be exceptionally difficult. We should be looking to manage the use of materials, not to ban them, not to create a specific ban on a specific material in response to certain instances. We need to ensure that the legislative framework we provide officials to work within enables a dynamic and quick response to things like this so that they can manage the use of materials. If there is a discretionary desire within a jurisdiction to restrict or even ban a particular type of material then we should make sure the framework has that in there. In a moment, I will be talking about the Tasmanian legislative framework, which indeed does just that. We also want to think about the unintended consequences that may flow from a decision to ban a material with particular characteristics. I'm not sure what work has been done in relation to what flow-on consequences there would be. As I said before, there are appropriate uses for this material, provided they do comply with the National Construction Code, but the material can't be used even legitimately, appropriately and safely if a ban is put in place. What alternative is there for those who are currently using it appropriately? I don't know the answer to that question and I think such questions do need to be answered, particularly when materials are being used appropriately, legally and legitimately. We have to look at the underlying problem, which is about the participants in the building and construction sector being accountable for how they use materials and exactly what steps they take to satisfy themselves that the materials are being used in accordance with Australian standards and best practice. That will ensure that we don't have a repeat of the disastrous, heartbreaking events that we've had in the past. So there has been a national approach taken, and it was in October of last year. I'm sure other speakers have mentioned this as well. The Building Ministers' Forum issued a communique on 6 October last year, when they met in Brisbane and talked about an approach which would provide each state and territory the capacity to deal with matters relating to aluminium composite panels with polyethylene cores. I will quote from the communique which was issued last October: BMF Ministers recognise the public safety concern and clear risk arising around the use of cladding that does not comply with the National Construction Code (NCC). All Ministers agreed that they will use their available laws and powers— that is, the laws and powers available to each state and territory, jurisdictions which primarily have responsibility for governance of these sorts of issues— to prevent the use of aluminium composite cladding with a polyethylene (PE) core for class 2, 3, or 9 buildings of two or more storeys, and class 5, 6, 7 or 8 of three or more storeys, until such time as they are satisfied that manufacturers, importers, and installers, working in collaboration with building practitioners, will reliably comply with: the newly established standard setting test against which fire retardant cladding products are deemed to be reasonable for use in high rise settings; and an established and implemented system of permanent labelling on cladding products to prevent substitution. In October last year, we had the ministers responsible for the execution and upholding of the law relating to building and construction in each of their states and territories agreeing on a way forward, agreeing that the problem was there and that it needed to be dealt with. The communique doesn't call for national legislation. The communique talks about state and territory ministers of all political persuasions using the laws available to them to deal with the problems faced when dealing with this material. It's pretty specific with regard to the use of aluminium composite cladding with polyethylene. It talks about certain classes when it comes to two or more storeys and another group of classes when it's three or more storeys. So it isn't talking about a blanket ban; it's talking about use in certain settings, which I think is an important distinction. The ministers are the people who are being advised by officials from around the country who have been dealing with all sorts of people from different sectors related to this—they talked, as we discussed before, with building practitioners, installers, importers and manufacturers. People who deal with those representatives have been given this advice and they've created this communique as a result. But it also says 'until such time as they are satisfied' that certain things will happen—that the manufacturers, the installers and the building practitioners will comply with those two elements, which are that the materials satisfy a newly established test with regard to being fire-retardant and, of course, also a new regime around labelling. So there are two practical measures coming out of the Building Ministers' Forum dealing with this problem. It is that framework I was talking about before, where states and territories, who have responsibility for this area of regulation, are being given the scope to go and use their own laws in response to these terrible problems. In Tasmania we have a set of laws that relate to building and construction which enable the state of Tasmania to deal with it in line with the communique from the Building Ministers' Forum. Senator Polley will recall the situation in her home town relating to the Launceston General Hospital and the cladding that was on that building. The state government undertook an audit with regard to a number of sites around the state and it revealed potentially flammable panels on a building like a hospital, which of course was something that caused a great deal of concern. I'm sure Senator Polley shared that concern for her local community. The audit that was undertaken by the state government did reveal 24 buildings across the state where these aluminium composite panels had been used. All of this was in response, of course, to the Building Ministers' Forum, ensuring that the state government had a handle on exactly what the size of the problem in Tasmania was. The government, represented by Michael Ferguson, the Minister for Health, responded by wanting to ensure that the materials were safe in nature and, if they were not, to immediately look into replacing them with a safer version of the materials so that we don't compromise patient safety or public safety at all. In response to the Building Ministers' Forum recommendations, the Tasmanian minister, Guy Barnett, outlined specifically what they were going to do across the board, not just with regard to one example—being the Launceston General Hospital, although that is an important and significant example. Minister Barnett, who looks after building and construction, responded by saying that those recommendations from the communique did need to be implemented locally. He said: The power to approve or not approve products was built into the Government's recent building reform package so that we could respond quickly to emerging issues. That is the point I was making right at the beginning: the need to have dynamic legislation, not something that's going to require every step of a federal parliamentary process every time we have a problem with a building material. We need to make sure that the laws in place in our states and territories—and, where it is relevant, in Tasmania—are dynamic, so that each jurisdiction can deal with it in the same way, so that they can respond quickly and so that they can put in place measures that will prevent the use of materials, full stop or illegitimately, as has been described with the Grenfell Tower and other places. Guy Barnett went on to say that the government will move to apply the restriction on the material to class 2, 3 and 9 buildings with more than two storeys and class 5, 6, 7 and 8 buildings with three or more storeys. Class 2 buildings contain two or more sole-occupancy units, class 3 covers hotels, hostels and school boarding houses, and class 9 covers public buildings. It related, again, to specific uses, specific sizes, and specific preconditions set with regard to whether this material is safe or not. This makes me question whether or not this is actually necessary—the need to introduce another layer of legislation to deal with a specific material, and going through the entire federal parliamentary process, as opposed to allowing states and territories—who are already working on this—to ensure that these materials are not used and that public safety is not put at risk. That's what we're seeing here, and I'm sure that other states and territories are doing exactly the same thing. With regard to the response to the Launceston General Hospital, the Director of Building Control from the Department of Justice in Tasmania, Mr Dale Webster, had these recommendations—these are flowing out of the Tasmanian aluminium composite panel audit summary report which was released on 19 January this year. Point No. 1 says: Ensure rectification of non-compliance at LGH by replacement of the ACP PE. So these changes are already taking place. There is no need to add in further regulation with this bill. 12:18 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria I'm pleased to rise to have the opportunity to speak on the Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2017. This bill was introduced in September last year by the then Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore, representing her leader, the then Senator Xenophon. Whatever position the various parties in the Senate take on this bill, the Nick Xenophon Team senators deserve credit for bringing this issue before us. I'd like to talk about the history behind this bill. In November 2014, there was a fire in the Lacrosse building, a 23-storey apartment block in Melbourne's Docklands. Fortunately, all 450 people resident in the building were safely evacuated, but the building was severely damaged. In their report on the fire, the Metropolitan Fire Brigade noted that the external cladding on the Lacrosse building did not comply with the Building Code of Australia. The MFB noted: The product accreditation process is not widely utilised in Australia and the constant introduction of new range of products being used by the building industry each year suggests the policing of these products is unchecked. The use of non-accredited products within the building industry which may go largely unchecked. The MFB obtained a sample of wall cladding material from the Lacrosse building for testing. The MFB report also noted: The findings of the testing have determined that the material and wall cladding system is not non-combustible when tested in accordance with the Australian Standard AS1530.1. The aluminium cladding system and material— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Kitching, I'm sorry to interrupt. It being 12.20, we will now proceed to the consideration of government business. Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 21

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017

Second Reading 21 12:20 Senator LINES 112096 Western Australia I rise to speak about why Labor is opposed to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017, which we are currently debating. I do so from a position of listening to some of the speeches from government senators. I acknowledge their good intent in wanting to find a solution to what are indeed complex problems that exist in many parts of Australia. I think where that logic fails is to think that the solution is in a single cashless debit card, but I do acknowledge the heartfelt contributions of many government senators to the debate so far. I participated in the cashless debit card inquiry. I was particularly keen to participate in the Kalgoorlie hearings because, for quite some time, like you, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, I've been concerned about what's been happening in Kalgoorlie. I note that last year you and I held a public meeting in Kalgoorlie. Many people came along to that meeting, and you and I heard some shocking reports, in particular about the level of racism in that town, which is evident and was certainly reported to us at that open public forum that we held. I do just want to start with that. Of course, the intention with this card is not just for it to cover Kalgoorlie but to cover the greater Goldfields area. We saw last year the shocking death of young Elijah, a young First Australian boy who was run down by a car, the absolute tragedy that has created and, on the face of it, the very poor sentencing that the perpetrator of that crime received. Now there is further concern in the town because that person will be out on bail fairly soon. So that created a lot of protests in the town. And there is definitely—in Kalgoorlie particularly—a real pervasive element of racism. We saw on Australia Day the emergence of the Nazi flag being carried around at parties. We heard at the inquiry that there are Facebook pages that are dedicated to people who like to make derogatory remarks directed at First Australians and, again, you and I, when we held that open forum, heard about those Facebook pages which circulate in Kalgoorlie. So I say right here and right now that there are much greater problems in the Goldfields region, particularly in Kalgoorlie. There are solutions to those problems, and they require state, federal and local governments to sit down with First Australians and to listen to the sorts of responses that they want to put in place. Certainly Mr Trevor Donaldson has been a high-profile first nations advocate in the Goldfields area. He's part of the Goldfields Land and Sea Council. He says what they need there is something for youth to do. We know that in country towns there is usually a swimming pool but there is often not much else, and they were seeking the establishment of a youth centre, for which they called upon the federal minister to give them the funds. They've been calling for that for quite some time, and it has fallen on deaf ears, although I think there has been some movement on that recently. But there is a solution where Mr Donaldson is saying, 'Let's divert these kids.' We heard from a young first nations woman who works with the chamber in Kalgoorlie that she is finding it very hard to get young first nations people the opportunity to work in Kalgoorlie because of the racism. That the evidence she gave to the committee. We've had two relevant inquiries up there recently into both the CDP and the cashless debit card. She told us that the issue of racism often prevents her from being able to place young first nation people into employment. There are much greater issues that the cashless debit card is not going to address. Ironically, as I speak, the Closing the gap report is being delivered by our Prime Minister. Whilst I haven't had a good opportunity to hear everything the Prime Minister has said about that report, one of the things he has said is he wants First Australians to be able to participate equally. Imposing the cashless debit card in communities where the population is predominantly First Australian is anything but equal participation. I call the Prime Minister out on that. Senator Patrick Dodson has said today on radio that the Closing the Gap results are not a game between the Liberal and Labor parties. That's true: they are not a game. It is about, as Senator Patrick Dodson says, the future of first nation people in Australia and their quality of life. I was very pleased last week to attend the 10-year review of the Closing the Gap strategy and its recommendations. June Oscar gave a powerful speech about what needs to be done. I quote from the review: The close the gap approach and the Close the Gap Statement of Intent is founded on an understanding that population health outcomes are fundamentally the result of underlying structural factors, such as social determinants, institutional racism, the quality of housing, and access to appropriate primary health care. If governments want to improve and sustain the health of any population over time, these elements must be addressed. When we are hearing from amazing women like June Oscar about the fundamentals of what needs to be done to address the gap, why is the government so intent upon pursuing a card which will further disadvantage people, that further discriminates, that will not address those issues that June Oscar and others say are needed to improve the wellbeing of our first nation people and of other Australians who live below the poverty line and are simply not able to make ends meet? The cashless debit card is not the response. I know that as I speak there are some people from Kalgoorlie are in the building, lobbying the crossbenchers about the need to support the cashless debit card, but there is another story, and it is time that we stood back and listened to and acted upon what first nation people and others in this country believe is the way forward. We have evidence from Kununurra and Ceduna to say that the cashless debit card doesn't work. It may work for some people. There is no question that in Kalgoorlie we heard evidence for and against the cashless debit card. Thankfully, that evidence came from First Australians who would, if this legislation were passed, have the cashless debit card imposed upon them. They were conflicted about it. I think there should be options in the future for people who want to volunteer to be able to opt in. I wouldn't stand in their way, but this is not what's being presented with this legislation. It is a catch-all process that robs people of dignity, respect and the ability to make decisions about their own lives. My key factor in attending the inquiry we had into the cashless debit card was to try and convince myself that there had been real consultation. If there was real consultation, if individuals and community representatives were saying very clearly, 'This is the response we want', and the federal government and, indeed, the opposition were standing in their way, we deserved to be condemned. But what the Kalgoorlie hearing bore out very, very clearly was that there had not been consultation with people who would be affected by the card. No amount of glossing up the inquiry, even for those most passionate supporters of the cashless debit card—you cannot claim that there has been consultation unless you think that consultation stops at a particular rung of society and doesn't continue on. We had all of the councils come and give evidence about why they wanted the cashless debit card. What is interesting about that, in my view, is that the federal government has used those councils as a bit of a patsy. I can't comment on what councils do in other states and territories. But what I can comment on in a generalised way is what councils provide in Western Australia, and it's not social services. Councils in Western Australia have the traditional role of doing roads, big infrastructure, water in some remote communities and so on, but not the delivery of social services. But who did the government consult with in Kalgoorlie? It seems to me it largely consulted with the local councils—councils who are not delivering social services and councils who, if this card is imposed on the Goldfields community, will have nothing to do with the implementation of the card. So that would surely be the first alarm bell that must ring: why consult with a group of elected representatives who won't actually have anything to do with the delivery of the card? I thought maybe the councils then went about consulting with residents, with people who would be affected by the card. So my questioning focused very much on what councils had done beyond sitting in a room and hearing from government bureaucrats and ministers about the so-called benefits of the debit card. We heard evidence from the mayor of Kalgoorlie, Mr John Bowler. He told us—and this is on the transcript for everyone to see; it's public information—that there had been no community consultation in Kalgoorlie before the council decided to support the card. When I questioned him on that, he told the committee that he'd heard Geraldton hadn't agreed to it, so he wrote to the minister at the time, Mr Tudge, and the local member, Mr Wilson, and told them he wanted the city to be in the next trial. This was the mayor of Kalgoorlie operating in a completely independent way—on a bit of a whim, if you like—to ask for the card to come to Kalgoorlie. When I asked the councils what level of consultation they had done, some of them were quite insulted and felt that they, as elected representatives, had the right to make that decision on behalf of the local residents without speaking to them—which of course they do not. I put it to them that if, as an elected member, I did that I'd soon find myself voted out of office because, as elected representatives, we have an obligation to consult. And yet none of those councils could show us any level of consultation with residents who would be affected by this card. I found it completely appalling that they were prepared to front up to a Senate inquiry and tell us why they wanted the card, but had not actually consulted with anyone. I'm not going to gloss over the issues in the Goldfields. There are certainly issues in the Goldfields. I started my contribution today talking about the inherent racism in Kalgoorlie and the sad and shocking death of young Elijah last year. There are issues in the Goldfields, as there are across many regions in Western Australia and, indeed, Australia. But the cashless debit card is not the solution to those issues. We had the Aboriginal Health Council of WA. You would think that the federal government would have consulted with them, as they are an Aboriginal Health Council, but they didn't. Certainly they told us in evidence that what they saw in Kalgoorlie was: … the continuing harm and trauma that exists today that the approach has comprehensively failed— so the approach that the government has used to date has failed— and it must stop if we are serious about improving outcomes in the community. Those sorts of comments were echoed last week when we heard the Close the gap 10-year report from people like June Oscar, Rod Little and others. Ms Nelson-Cox went on to say that the card: … has been designed by non-Aboriginal people despite being introduced in regions with high Aboriginal populations. We heard from Linden Brownley, who since the CDC inquiry in Kalgoorlie has been elected to the council. He said: … there is this feeling that we are being pushed back into what was described as 'the ration days'. After coming through the policies of self-determination and being able to take control of our own destiny and be able to shape and mould our own future, there is a perception out there that we are going backwards. Remember I stated earlier that the Prime Minister in his response to Close the gap today has talked about the need for equal representation in our society, equal participation. Well, it isn't going to come through the use of this card. We heard from Save the Children in Kununurra, who talked about their programs and why they worked in Kununurra. I'm a great advocate of Save the Children. I see the work they do in Western Australia, particularly in Kununurra. We heard about the programs that they put in place, which are about talking, discussing and listening to what elders want and which are led by First Australians. That's where they are seeing some difference. They told us that kids are going hungry now in Kununurra and that's an effect of both the CDC and the CDP on those populations. We heard that from police as well. It's not the sort of response that should be going on. Last week we heard from the most amazing young woman—Banok Rind, who is a proud Yamatji-Badimia woman. She is a 20-year-old training to be a nurse. She implored the Prime Minister, 'Sit down and yarn with us.' She asked us why is it that two-year-olds in her community are walking around with hearing aids? I want to be able to answer that question. Certainly that is not because of the ability to equally participate in our society. It's about ongoing trauma and health issues which remain unaddressed. She also put a positive spin. She is from the Geraldton area. For those people not familiar with Yamatji country, it is Geraldton. She talked about the Geraldton Regional Aboriginal Medical Service. Most Western Australians with any kind of social conscience would know that GRAMS, an Aboriginal controlled and led medical service, does amazing work. That was what Ms Rind said was needed, not a cashless debit card—and they are my words, not hers. Certainly she was talking about a comprehensive process, a process that involves consultation and a process that involves putting first nations peoples' views first. The week before we came back to parliament I was fortunate to attend a cashless debit card conference that the University of Melbourne sponsored. There were two participants there: a woman from Ceduna and a woman from the Kununurra region in Western Australia. They talked about how the card has changed their lives, not for the better. In fact, their lives have become much worse. Neither of those women drink or gamble. One of them has worked most of her life and has now got a period of unemployment. They talked about the card not working, they talked about not being able to buy second-hand goods anymore, they talked about not having a lot of cash in their pockets and they talked about the detrimental effects of that card on their families. Those ordinary women are advocating, very strongly, that the cashless debit card is not making this so-called positive difference in their communities. It's certainly not the response in the Goldfields. There are issues in the Goldfields. They need an across-the-board response, but mostly they need to be led by first nations people. That's why Labor won't be supporting this legislation. 12:40 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland The cashless debit card was put on trial in the Kimberley and Ceduna. It is not just for the Aboriginal community. It is available to everyone, regardless of their cultural background. For many years now governments have been accused because nothing has changed. We'll look at welfare dependency. It is a big problem in Australia. We have three and even four generations on welfare. The dependency needs to change and we need to address it and we need to ask the question of why. The cashless debit card was first brought to my attention just over a year ago. I was invited to join some community leaders from Ceduna and the Kimberley to discuss the cashless debit card. These people were Aboriginal and they were elders. I sat down and discussed with them what they thought about the card. Surprisingly, they were very supportive of it. They told me it did have a big impact on their communities. They saw a reduction in crime, they saw children going to school and they believed there was a reduction in domestic violence. They spoke highly of the card and fully supported it. I have heard arguments from both sides, from the Labor Party and the Greens, with regard to the card. Issues have been raise that you're taking away their human rights and that the card is not working. Well, I say to the senators and anyone else, 'What's your answer to this?' What is happening in these places and in Kalgoorlie—I've sat down and had a meeting with the council there—on the streets is totally out of control. Do you really care about these people's lives and the lives of future generations? There are young kids out there, as young as three and four, who are in the parks and not being looked after by their parents, because there is an alcohol problem and a drug problem. Why? Because the parents have cash in their pockets to go out and buy the alcohol and buy the drugs. We really need to take a good look at this if we really want to deal with this issue. It's about looking at the facts and how we're going to change it and make a difference. I've spoken to the community leaders there, I've spoken to the Aboriginal elders and I have listened to their concerns. Yes, it was raised that they believe there wasn't enough consultation. That may be the case, but, at the end of the day, we must look at the results. Has anything been achieved from this? I have heard arguments about the colour of the card. So you don't like that? People in the community may see that you're using the card and, therefore, you think you're going to be looked down upon by them? Most people in these areas know who is out working and who is on welfare. I think that's a pathetic argument: you're worried that people might think that you're on a welfare payment. Being on social security or welfare payments in this country is not a right; it is a privilege, because the Australian taxpayers are paying for it. We are one of the very few countries in the world that has such a generous welfare payment. If we do not start calling for accountability, we will not have the moneys to provide for those in need in times to come—whether they be the aged, the sick or the young. There has to be responsibility. The money is divided up; you still get the same money. Eighty per cent of the money is put on your card, and you get 20 per cent in cash to spend where you wish. That can be negotiated under certain circumstances, if you let the department know and explain to them the reasons why. That can be sorted out. But, at the end of the day, it's about these people being responsible. I know for a fact that the culture of Indigenous people is that they have friends and family coming to them asking for, and even demanding, money from them. Although it's going to make it tougher for their own families and households to pay their bills, they hand over the money. The card is going to stop that, because they won't have the money to hand over to them. It is a fact that Minderoo conducted research into the card and its benefits. It has shown that it is having a low to high 40 per cent impact on less drinking, less gambling and less domestic violence. This is happening because people don't have access to alcohol and drugs. When you sit there and listen to the community leaders and those with businesses in the town of Kalgoorlie—I went there and sat and listened to them during the Senate inquiry—they say: 'Well, something has to be done about it. Come up with the answers for it. If it's not the card, what is the answer? Because we're just about finished here.' Their businesses are going under. They're going to lose tourism in the town because people won't want to go there. You talk about how we should provide more services. In discussions with the council, they said to me that there are between—I have heard different numbers, but I suppose you can look at that—150 and 170 different services that are available in the town. More taxpayers' dollars are being poured into this whole system to provide the services that are inadequate and where there is duplication. It's costing the taxpayer a lot of money. What it has come down to is that those services are only available between nine and five. When you have a lot of the problems, who do they fall to? It is the police and the council in the township who are having to pick up the pieces. When a lot of the Aboriginals come into town and get on the drink, they end up drunk on the streets and then end up in the cells because there's nowhere else for them to go or they can't get transport back to their own communities so they're stuck in town. I don't believe that how we deal with the real problems there has been well thought out. I don't live there, so it is only speculation on my behalf. But I think the taxpayer services, whether they be not-for-profit organisations or government departments or whatever, need to work together to find the answers to this. It is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, when you talk about getting rid of the cashless debit card because you want to talk about people's rights. You want your rights, but with rights come responsibilities and obligations. That community needs to be heard. Senator Lines said that they have a right to shape and mould their own future. Clearly, that is not the case, because over the years that has not been happening. Billions of dollars have been poured into, as I said in my maiden speech in 1996, the Aboriginal industry that is happening in this country. Money has been wasted. There is no accountability. They say that they don't have enough housing. I know that housing costs Australian taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it's not being well respected or looked after. I have been approached constantly by Indigenous people, whether they be elders or just the average person on the street out there, who are saying that there is not enough accountability. They say, 'We are supposed to get the money but it doesn't get down to us.' I believe there is corruption happening and I believe that money is not getting to where it needs to get to. People are abusing the whole system at the expense of the taxpayer. If you have an argument about this, fair enough, but don't disregard the cashless debit card. Support it for what it is and what it is achieving in these areas. The children are now starting to go to school. Isn't that what we all want? Don't we want to see the kids go to school? Don't we want to see them have a decent feed? Or are you quite happy to say that if they go to school the taxpayers have to pick that up and give them food? Isn't it a responsibility? Because they're Aboriginal, do we treat people differently? You shouldn't be doing that. You talk about racism in this country. That's reverse racism. There is racism, but it's reverse racism. It is about time people in this nation stand up and be responsible for themselves and their own actions. You can't keep passing the buck and saying that we're going to justify this because of their cultural background. That's not the way to go with this. I know a lot of people out there who need a helping hand and don't get it, purely because of their cultural background. I think it's wrong. Listen to the elders and listen to the people in the community out there who are saying, 'It is working. It is benefiting them. It is helping.' Don't use it on a racial basis, because it's affecting Aboriginal people. The ones out there have the attitude, 'You're not going to tell us what to do.' That has to change in this nation if we are all going to join together as one people. We are one people. We are all Australians. I'm sick and tired of seeing the division that is actually happening between us, whether it be Australia Day or Anzac Day or whatever. We have to start working together and get rid of the divide that's happening. The cashless debit card is beneficial and it is working. But those on the opposite side here, the Labor Party, are not going to support it. You're not listening to what the people want. You're not even prepared to give it a go. This is a trial period. It is working in these areas. Listen to the people. Let the trial period continue. You want to extend the trial period. I don't agree in any way whatsoever with your amendments to the bill. You want to reduce the trial from three areas to two areas, you want to extend the trial period to 2019, and you say that specific social support services must be able to adequately provide for the care, protection, welfare and safety of adults, children and families in the trial areas. They've got that. I just said to you that they have those—160 or 170. How many more do you need to put in at the cost of the taxpayer? If you're really concerned about it, why don't you chase up these departments and ask them why they are not providing the services they're supposed to be providing. Why go out there and spend more taxpayers' dollars? There has not been enough accountability. No-one has gone out there to really investigate where taxpayers' dollars are going and if there is enough accountability. So don't start asking for more services to be provided. After speaking to the leaders, the councils, Indigenous people, the mayors and others, I do support the cashless debit card. Yes, a few are objecting to it, because they believe their rights are taken. But, as I said, it is not their right to get taxpayers' dollars; it is a privilege, at a cost to the taxpayer. I believe that everyone should contribute to this. If it is benefiting the community, don't throw it out. 12:54 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I know that this is a very, very divisive topic out there, but I just have to touch on a few accusations from Senator Hanson. I'm not going to have a crack at her because she's got a different view, but she's so ill-informed. Anyone sitting listening would think that Labor wanted to do everything we could to stop the trials. We fully support the trials, Senator Hanson. We supported them when they came out in April 2016, and we still support the trials. So I apologise to all my blackfella mates in the Kimberley—and I'll be with you next week. This is not a fight about blackfellas versus whites, although Senator Hanson has the unique talent of turning everything into a racist blue. My goodness me: that's 10 minutes of my life I'm not going to get back, listening to that diatribe. To get back to it, I want to bring a bit of a different angle to this, Mr Acting Deputy President Gallacher. I respect all the years you spent in Darwin—you grew up in Darwin, lived in Darwin and brought up your family in Darwin—and I know you have a lot of contact with the Aboriginal people up there, a lot more than do most politicians in this building. I am an ex-truck-driver who ran trucks through the Kimberley for 12 years and built my house and my little business—my wife and I—through supplying a lot of the Aboriginal communities. I was a furniture removalist, and we moved a lot of gear in and out for teachers, police and social workers—all sorts of people. So I have a bit of an affiliation to the Kimberley in particular, but also to the Pilbara. I also, in my Senate life, spend a bit of time up there—though I don't spend enough time there; I'd like to spend half the year up there working—and when I come away from the Kimberley, after meeting with Aboriginal leaders, my first comment every Friday, as I sit at the airport in Broome or Kununurra, is, 'My head hurts.' It really hurts when I travel around with my Aboriginal mates and see all the issues that they have—every issue. Yet continually, day in, day out, they don't take a backward step. Leaders in the Aboriginal communities should be on pedestals. I said to one of my really good mates, Marty Sibosado from Broome, 'Marty, you've been doing this for years, mate.' Marty's university educated. He's a proud Aboriginal man, a Bardi man, in Broome. He headed up Nirrumbuk. He's an ex-ATSIC commissioner. He was also a councillor in Broome. He's helped start up Aboriginal businesses in construction, electrics, plumbing and the like. I said to him, 'Marty, how do you keep doing this?' Marty's my age and, like I said, is a very proud Bardi man. Marty said, 'If we don't, who else is going to do it?' So it really annoys me when I hear Senator Hanson try to make this about black versus white. Blackfellas know the dramas; they know the issues that they've got. But I'm not going to talk about Senator Hanson anymore. Let's get onto the positive stuff. We've heard contributions from both sides of the chamber. I want to talk about Aboriginal people, because that's a passion that I have, and particularly as things aren't getting any better. But we're not going to lay the blame at the feet of one person. We haven't gotten it right in 200 years, so to lay the blame at the feet of one person is a bit unfair. There are a lot that have the responsibility here. I work very closely on the belief that if I want to find people who'll support the card I can walk into any town in the Kimberley and find Aboriginal people who support the card. Then I can go the other way; I can walk into any town in the Kimberley—let's talk about Wyndham and Kununurra, because that's where it is—and find people who hate the card. There are no ifs or buts about that. It's a bit like the climate change argument we were having 10 years ago, when we had eminent scientists saying, 'Crikey, the ice caps are melting and we're all going to drown in 30 or 40 years,' and then we had other eminent scientists who said: 'Nothing to see here; move along. It happens every couple of hundred years.' But please let me explain something to the Senate and to those who have a passing interest in this. One of the greatest Aboriginal leaders in the Kimberley is Mr Ian Trust. I've mentioned Ian, who is a proud Gija man, on a number of occasions in this chamber and said what a really fantastic bloke Ian is. He won the award for Indigenous business leader of the year one year. He was Indigenous Business Australia's deputy chair. He was the Indigenous Land Corporation's deputy chair. He's currently the chairman of Wunan foundation. Wunan do a lot of good stuff in housing and the like. Ian can't say this in this building, so I want to use this time to give the Senate the opportunity to hear it. Ian's dream and vision, his absolute passion, is to try to improve the lot of his mob and others, and Ian makes very, very clear the challenges faced by Aboriginal people, from their point of view. Mr Acting Deputy President, I must say that I'm not talking on behalf of anyone else. I'm not talking about Ceduna. I have no idea how it's been going in Ceduna. I'm talking about Kununurra and Wyndham. Ian was one of the first to say, 'We need to do something,' because he recognised the breakdown in culture and the continual severe social problems that are faced by his mob and others. He also recognised—Ian is hot to trot on this thing, which does not rate many mentions down here, and it should—the high rate of suicides within Aboriginal communities in the Kimberley, even among kids as young as 11. This is not normal behaviour. He talks about chronic alcohol issues and chronic drug abuse. Sad as it is, there's not a drug you can't get in the Kimberley; it's there. It's not just in Sydney, Perth, Brisbane and the big cities. As Mr Trust says very clearly, it concerns him and his mob up there. In the East Kimberley, from Halls Creek all the way through to Wyndham, Kununurra and Warmun, 100 per cent of the kids in care are Aboriginal. Ian's dream is to create a future with hope. It is not only Ian; there are so many fantastic Aboriginal leaders, and they all want that. They want to break the cycle of poverty—it's not an unfair request—and they want an empowered, independent future. It becomes a little bit disconcerting when I hear from white faces in this place from both sides, and everyone is an expert all of a sudden. Everyone is an expert. I hear some of the contributions from Senator Siewert and I think: 'Crikey, talk about far out! Way out there.' Everyone is entitled to their position, but we've got no right to talk about what's good for our Aboriginal mates. What we should do, I strongly believe, is provide them with every tool that they need and get the hell out of the way. That's what we should do. As I said earlier, we haven't gotten it right in 200 years, and not for lack of trying. I don't mean that to be rude or disrespectful. There are a lot of good people in the Kimberley, black and white, who are doing a lot of great stuff, yet we forget their voices. We don't roll them out here. We don't move the whole parliament to Kimberley and Kununurra and say, 'How's it going out there?' Mind you, there are a lot of people who do make an effort and make the phone calls and get out there. I need to put some things on the record, and it is only fair to put a balanced argument, because the balanced argument unfortunately doesn't get put too often when people are passionate one way or the other. We know that the welfare card was first introduced into Kununurra to encompass Wyndham, which is 100 kilometres to the north-west of Kununurra, and down to Warmun, which is 100 kilometres south. It was done in April 2016. There were four Aboriginal leaders in the Kimberley who were rock solid and who wanted to make it happen. One was Mr Ian Trust. Another one was Mr Des Hill. Des's official title, I think—he will forgive me if I get it wrong; Des has got a number of titles—was chairman of the Miriuwung Gajerrong Corporation at the time, and he is also currently chairman of Waringarri Aboriginal Corporation. I will correct the record if I'm wrong. There was also Mr Lawford Benning, a very highly regarded Indigenous leader in Kununurra. At the time, he was the Miriuwung Gajerrong Corporation chairman. They were pushing: 'All right, let's get this done. Let's see if we can achieve these goals.' Since then, Mr Benning, it's well known, has pulled out of supporting the trial. Mr Benning makes it very clear that he is bitterly disappointed. I want to use a couple of quotes of Mr Benning's so I do get this right. This is from a news article from 24 August 2017: But 18 months on— after it had started in April 2016— he said he had "crossed the floor"— that's a term that we have a different meaning for here, but it's the same at the end of the day— disappointed at the lack of change the scheme had generated as well as what he said was the Government's failure to deliver on promises it made at the outset. "It didn't do what I thought it was going to do and I don't believe it has had the effect that I thought it would," he said. That's Mr Benning's view, and no-one could ever argue against his credibility in the community up there. To go back to the other side of the argument, I want to quote this so people hear Mr Trust's own words. Ian said: "We've got to start somewhere in terms of rebuilding our community, and it means doing something about welfare, alcohol and drugs—and things like the cashless debit card are the tools to try to help achieve that." Mr Trust also says: “Things had got too bad to just tinker around the edges; you only have to look at the suicides, the number of children born with foetal-alcohol disease, the rates of domestic violence, alcoholism and child neglect to see that life is not normal here” That is from an Aboriginal leader. Mr Trust goes on to say: “Some of the results are hard to quantify, but there is certainly more vegetables, fruit and food being sold in Coles, more Aboriginal people going to the hardware shop and buying pot plants and furniture for their houses than ever did before, and less alcohol in the streets and parks, and less violence” That's Mr Ian Trust—of the Wunan Foundation, a proud Gija man from Kununurra—not me. He goes on to say: “It’s not just about grog or crime either; the card is also about breaking the inter-generational dependence on welfare that we have here and showing that rather than blowing all your welfare cash every week, you can budget and save and give your kids a better life.” This article continues: Wyndham Aboriginal leader Jean O’Reeri, the director of the local Ngnowar Aerwah Aboriginal Corporation, believes that in smaller Wyndham, the impact has been more marked. Ms O'Reeri goes on to say: “No one’s fighting, no one’s drunk; the town is quieter and cleaner, there’s more kids going to school and supermarket spending is up.” Ms O’Reeri also works as an aide at the local primary school. To put some balance into where I'm trying to take this argument—with all the help and thanks of all the experts down here in the cities—Mr Trust also incorporates the idea that this is a pathway to empowerment. And there is a design, with a well-known diagram—I am not using a prop, Mr Acting Deputy President, but I am quoting from it—where Mr Trust and Wunan have really worked on the four areas. One is called 'crisis', where they want to stop; that's been said. Mr Trust and his supporters also want to stabilise the situation so kids can get to school, the parent or parents can get a job, and they can get access to housing. That's the dream, we get all that. And then they want to get them ready for change, so change can take place. I wanted to say something about the way the government is trying to ram this upon the rest of the nation—that's what Labor doesn't support. For everyone listening out there—and we've heard some of the diatribe from the other side, just then, from the Queensland senator—we're not opposed. I work in the Kimberley, and it hurts me; it hurts my heart when I see the disadvantage. So to cop that crap from her—I'm probably not even allowed to say that. I will retract that. There you go, I've gone and done it: I've talked about her and I've put myself off again. Let's get back to the positive stuff. I want to see change. Our Aboriginal leaders want to see change, for crying out loud. So why don't we listen to their voices? That's all we're saying: give them the opportunity. Everyone's got a great idea, down here in Canberra, when I'm sitting in a coffee shop! To come back to it, Labor does not oppose the card. But what we are hot to trot on is consultation. I know the Greens are going to have grief with this but, you know, our Aboriginal leaders are speaking. We've said very, very clearly that we can't support this bill as it stands, but there are commonsense amendments on the table. A couple of the Independents probably don't want to think about that or talk about that, but I ask Australia: what is wrong if we say that we'll support the bill if a number of amendments are agreed to? For example, we can just create a new trial end date, to the end of June 2019. I don't see what the pain is there. If you're going to try and achieve the best for regional and rural Australians and the challenges that they have, what's wrong with trialling it out for three years? This is not a tiny little thing. This is not something as simple as changing the colour of your thongs. This is big stuff. So take it out another 14 or 15 months. That's what our Aboriginal leaders want to do in the Kimberley What's wrong with limiting the trials to the areas that we have—that is, Kununurra-Wyndham/Wunan and Ceduna—and see how they go? Why go in there and tip it all upside down while we still don't have the wraparound services right? I don't think if it's unfair at all if we oppose the removal of the limit to 10,000 participants—nothing difficult yet. Another amendment that Labor wants to put in is very important. They're all important, but this is a no-brainer: specify how people in trial areas who are on the cashless debit card can have the proportion of their income support payments on the card reduced or exit the trial. Mr Acting Deputy President Ketter, I don't expect you to answer from the chair, because you can't. I see no difficulty in this amendment. It's not going to cost the nation anything; in fact, it's a reward. If people have met the level, the kids are at school and they have their spending under control and it has been a great help, what is wrong with that? I know the Greens can't answer this. They will just rabbit on and carry on like there's no tomorrow. They're all good at making suggestions, but there's never an end with the Greens. The final amendment is to guarantee funding for wraparound servicing trial sites formally in the legislation. That's not a big ask. That's what the government started off with. That was part of their sales pitch: all the wraparound services would be provided. We've heard from Mr Lawford Benning that it hasn't been provided. In saying this, I hope I was able to put a balanced view to correct some of the nonsense that has been said in here. When all is said and done, for want of a better phrase, if our Aboriginal leaders want to try anything that they think will progress their peoples, give hope to their children and grandchildren, and move towards not closing the gap but eliminating the damn gap, who are we whitefellas to say, 'You've got it wrong'? I've turned it into a black-and-white conversation because the senator before me turned it into a nasty black-and-white conversation. This is where a lot of the commentary comes from. I can't stand here and talk for Aboriginal people. My good mate Senator Dodson can. Senator McCarthy can. I can't, but I can bring the messages from Aboriginal leaders from the Kimberley to this Senate, and hope that they sink in for some people here. I have to say this: we're not all damn experts, even though most of us think we are when we've been to one inquiry or read one piece of legislation. Get off your backside and head into the regions. Never judge a—I might get in trouble for saying 'man'—man or woman until you've walked a mile in their moccasins. Get out and do the hard yards. I challenge any of them to come into this chamber, carve me up, and tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about. Labor will not support the legislation as it stands. I urge the government and the crossbenchers to support Labor's amendments. If you are fair dinkum about improving the lot for our mob out there, what the heck is dangerous or hurtful about our amendments? 13:13 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales Today we debate the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. The bill removes legislative limits on the delivery of welfare through a card instead of cash. A proportion of the welfare on the card, typically 80 per cent, cannot be used to directly pay for alcohol, gambling or illegal drugs. The Liberal Democrats support this bill. Some people find this position confusing. After all, the Liberal Democrats support your doing what you want with your money. The point is that welfare is not your money; it's charity. It's the taxpayers' money, and taxpayers can set whatever conditions they like on the use of that money. If those offered other people's money don't like the conditions, no-one is forcing them to take the money. People have no right to other people's money. If support were provided via a charity, there would be no question that donors, and the charities on their behalf, are free to provide their support in a form of their choosing and to put conditions on how it is used. This same principle applies for taxpayers, and the government providing support on their behalf. My role in the parliament is to set conditions on welfare that most taxpayers would want imposed. I believe that most taxpayers do not want their money used to pay for other people's alcohol, gambling or illegal drugs, so I support this bill. And I would go further: I believe that most taxpayers do not want their money used to pay for other people's cigarettes, so I would support adding cigarettes to the list of products that cannot be directly paid for using the card. I also believe that most taxpayers are concerned that, even with the use of the cashless debit card, 20 per cent of their money is still provided to welfare recipients without any conditions. So, I would support lifting the proportion of spending that is restricted to 100 per cent, recognising that this would leave welfare recipients without so much as loose change. I believe that the main concern taxpayers would have with the cashless debit card is the cost of the additional public servants required to administer it. So I will scrutinise the continued use of cashless debit cards with an eye to containing the additional costs of delivering welfare by card instead of by cash. Notwithstanding this need for oversight, I consider it my duty, as a representative of taxpayers, to support the continuing use of the cashless debit card. It is what they want and it is their money. 13:16 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. This bill will allow the government to expand the cashless debit card into any new region it chooses by removing the existing limits. The introduction of this card into vulnerable communities is very much a complex issue. There are passionate opinions on all sides, and my office has heard many people who either strongly endorse the card or strongly oppose it. I'm sure other senators in this place have also had similar calls from constituents. This is not an easy issue, and all we can say with certainty is that we do not yet have enough information to take a firm position on whether it benefits or harms participants and communities. It is an incredibly expensive experiment to continue the card trials, let alone expand them as this bill seeks to do. On that basis, the Nick Xenophon Team cannot support the bill as currently drafted. Why? Because the available data on the trial is inconclusive. At this stage, there are too many unanswered questions, and we have significant concerns relating to the quality of the outcome data for the trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley. We also do not think the trials have run for long enough to be conclusive. I need to take a moment to respond to Senator Bernardi's bemusing dummy spit against former Senator Xenophon and NXT when he rose to speak on this bill last week. The debit card is a serious issue that deserves serious debate. But Senator Bernardi was so busy carrying on with his ideological rant that he endorsed the cashless debit card bill outright, without reference to the ORIMA report or any of the criticisms of the evaluation. It was a squandered and selfish use of the Senate's time. The Nick Xenophon Team does not want the Australian taxpayer to bear the costs of implementing further trials beyond the three the government originally intended. We know that the trial has come at a significant cost of $25.5 million, or around $12,000 for each and every participant. It is important to collect solid trial data so we can know with certainty whether this card is worth pursuing more widely. Many community leaders continue to advocate strongly for the card to continue, and we are willing to offer qualified support to a limited extension of the trial sites allowed for in the existing legislation. We believe that if proper and full evaluations are undertaken, a further 12-month period should provide enough data to allow us all to properly consider whether the trial can achieve positive social outcomes for the communities affected. Former Senator Kakoschke-Moore visited Ceduna twice and also visited Kununurra to engage with community members, leaders and the local population in the trial communities to better inform her views and those of the Nick Xenophon Team. She had previously summarised the view of the individuals, businesses, community groups, health workers and NGOs as: 'The trial seems to be working, but it is way too early to tell.' My colleague the member for Mayo, Rebekha Sharkie, has also undertaken a lot of work on this issue and has spoken in the other place about the need to continue the trial for a limited period. The ORIMA evaluation reports indicate that the trials have been effective in reducing alcohol consumption and gambling at both trial sites, but these findings have been based predominantly on self-reported data, so we can't discount that survey respondents may have been seeking to present themselves in the best possible light. Seventy-seven per cent of participants reported no positive impact as a result of the trial, with 43 per cent reporting that they had no change in behaviour since the trial began and 34 per cent reporting that they had not engaged in alcohol consumption, illegal drug use or gambling before the trial. We should also note that Ceduna introduced alcohol restrictions independently of the trial in September 2015 and that the East Kimberley region introduced additional takeaway alcohol management from December 2015. So, without complex analysis, it is hard to know whether it was the trial or something else entirely that is responsible for any of the positive outcomes we currently appear to have. However, more conclusive data was that, in the 12 months after it started, there was a 12 per cent reduction in poker machine revenue in Ceduna and the surrounding local government areas. Yet, even here, I note that there was no equivalent data reported in the East Kimberley region trial site, assuming it was ever collected, and so again it is hard to know whether the trial itself was directly responsible for these outcomes. There have been no conclusive findings of a reduction in violence or crime at the trial sites, despite the self-reported reductions in gambling and alcohol consumption. I recognise that community perceptions have indicated a decrease in violence and crime, but again we do not yet have hard data to confirm this. Worryingly, domestic violence has in fact increased significantly in the East Kimberley since the introduction of the cashless welfare card. During the Senate inquiry into the bill, the Western Australia Police Force released data on domestic assaults. For the 12 months to June 2016, there were 319 domestic assaults. In the following 12 months, while the card was in operation, there were 508 domestic assaults in Kununurra. As always, we need more information to know the full story. The WA police noted that it is very difficult to fully assess the impact of the card in relation to domestic violence because the Kimberley district revised its approach to include a better first response to domestic violence reports. The police data was available to ORIMA Research when it undertook its analysis of the card, but they chose not to include it in their evaluation report—quite a significant omission. The government must account for the reasons why relevant data was not included in the evaluation. The Nick Xenophon Team is also concerned to see that the use of methamphetamine, such as ice, appears to have significantly increased amongst participants over the first six months of the trial. We need to know whether the introduction of the card played any part in this. Yet the most concerning finding was that only 27 per cent of family members said that the trial had made their family's life better and 37 per cent had said it had actually made it worse. Amongst the participants interviewed, 22 per cent had said that it had made their lives better but almost half had said that it had made their lives worse. It is one thing to have participants dislike the effects of the card upon their life and their financial freedom, but another thing entirely for their families to also indicate it had actually made the lives of the participants worse. In summary, the data seeking to track the outcomes of the trial are less than robust and the data surrounding the secondary social and economic impacts are also less than robust. The lesson here is that greater longitudinal data needs to be collected, and more effectively collected, before we can make any final conclusions. Any trial must be supported by what are known as wraparound services—namely, all of the social support programs and services that can leverage any positive outcomes that the trials might possibly produce. For example, there's not much point in hoping the cashless debit cards will restrict illegal drug use without also providing the addiction and rehabilitation support services that address the problems created by addiction withdrawal. In short, interventions should not be considered in isolation from their expected consequences. I turn to the ALP amendments, which, while well intentioned, will place unreasonable restrictions on a trial that is meant to be responsive and flexible to community needs in relation to wraparound services. As this program is a trial it is necessary for the program to react quickly to community feedback and be able to record the impact of that response. Placing legislative regulation on the trial sites would only slow the process of providing services to the communities or add unnecessary constraints on what services could be provided. The government is on notice that it must work with the relevant communities to ensure the appropriate wraparound services are provided and funded adequately. The Nick Xenophon Team will closely monitor the continued implementation of these measures and will view it as a deciding factor in any future attempts to expand the card's reach or make the card a permanent fixture. 13:26 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017, and I do so with great frustration. Let me say from the outset that I will not be supporting the expansion of these cards and, in turn, I will not be supporting this bill. I will certainly not subject further people to what I believe is an experiment that doesn't address the core issues faced by regional and rural people and their communities. Throughout the committee process examining this bill, which I was a part of, it became clear that there has been insufficient consultation with the communities subjected to the expansion—namely, Bundaberg in Queensland and the Goldfields in Western Australia. Witnesses at the Kalgoorlie hearing in particular expressed serious dissatisfaction with the consultation process that was undertaken prior to the announcement of the Goldfields trial site, describing it as 'very lacklustre'. Senators at the hearing heard that the consultation process in the Goldfields was not broad enough and that participants often felt disempowered by the discussions. Phrases that the committee heard from people in the communities to be targeted by these trials, including in Bundaberg in Queensland and also the Goldfields region of Western Australia, included 'my presence at that meeting was irrelevant', 'they don't listen', 'they've got their minds made up', 'it fell on deaf ears' and 'they've made a decision anyway and all we were doing was rubber stamping'. Other words used to describe the consultation process included 'selective', 'secretive' and 'behind closed doors'. This is the deeply troubling language of exclusion and it is a hallmark of this government. Further, the bill provides absolutely no guidance as to how consent is to be obtained in the proposed new trial sites. How did we get here? The cashless debit card trial in the East Kimberley in Western Australia and Ceduna in South Australia began by quarantining 80 per cent of state benefits received by all working-age people of 15 to 64 years of age. This compulsory trial included people receiving disability, parenting, carers, unemployed and youth allowance payments. The Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, based out of ANU, detailed some of the shocking ramifications for local communities as a result of this policy. In their recent working paper entitled The cashless debit card trial in the East Kimberley it was noted: Although Australian Government communications state that the CDC is for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous welfare recipients, both the trial sites target Indigenous people disproportionately. Specifically, 75% of people in the Ceduna trial and 82% in the East Kimberley trial are Indigenous. The origins of this policy were a key recommendation in a review by mining billionaire Andrew Forrest which examined Indigenous employment and training. So let's have a look at the criticism of Labor's position—and I note there has been criticism of Labor's position in relation to this particular policy, claiming that, if Labor really cared, we'd offer our unwavering support. Some have the view that this card will reduce alcohol-fuelled violence, drug use and gambling in our regional and remote communities. We have heard it spoken many times in this debate. However, the evidence I have heard both in committee hearings and on the ground in the Northern Territory and beyond has been different. Like many dramatic changes to income management schemes, the assumption that people subject to the policy are directly engaged in the overconsumption of alcohol and illegal drugs is unfair and should not be the guiding reason to implement such a measure. We have never been opposed to this policy in principle. Targeted welfare is one aspect that makes Australia's social safety net so strong. However, I am vehemently opposed to exposing our communities to policies that are not properly consultative or that lack the proper evidence and data to show that they are effective. As I mentioned earlier in this debate, this lack of consultation was a constant and re-emerging theme throughout evidence received during the Senate committee process. The cashless debit card has so far delivered inconsistent results. Before expanding this program, we need to make sure it's producing the right results with the people it's intended for. Take, for example, a witness in the Kimberley region. Superintendent Adams of the Kimberley police district told the Senate inquiry that, in the 12 months to 30 June 2016, there were 319 domestic assaults in Kununurra but, in the 12 months to 30 June 2017—the time of the trial—this figure had increased to 508. Calla Wahlquist of The Guardian published a damning piece following a symposium on the policy at Melbourne University, and in her piece she detailed the harrowing experience of a domestic violence survivor in which the victim, who was from Ceduna, expressed the view that the cashless welfare card would have stopped her being able to escape a violent and oppressive marriage. Perhaps most significantly, Dr Janet Hunt from ANU states: … the expansion of CDC is based on the results of ORIMA's final evaluation report, which shows a questionable effect of the trial and, of which, concerns have been raised about its methodology. She said: Just before the report was released, the Minister issued a Press Release which hailed the success of the trial without qualification. But once the Report was public it was clear that the Report's authors had in fact qualified their positive findings with many caveats which have been completely ignored by the Minister in his public statements about the evaluation. There were major issues around the baseline evaluation assessment prior to the establishment of the CDCT. There was no survey of potential CDCT participants to assess their usage of alcohol and drugs or the extent of their gambling. This did not occur until some months after participants had been on the card. There was never in the later analysis a breakdown of these income support payments, or ISP, categories among people interviewed. So one cannot tell whether the card is good for some groups of ISP recipients and not for others. Despite these circumstances, Labor supported the establishment of the trial in East Kimberley and Ceduna on the basis that these communities wanted to trial the card. In the interest of supporting the communities who wanted to trial the card and of there being a thorough and proper examination of the outcomes of this policy, I do not support cancelling the framework. I do, however, strongly oppose the expansion of this policy to additional communities until we can examine the proper outcomes of the trials in these regions, which at this point appear to be of little benefit to the people on the ground. There are certainly issues with other cards, and I refer in particular to the BasicsCard in the Northern Territory. While many of these income management schemes appear to work well on paper, the mechanics of implementing cashless income management systems in regional and remote communities are not without significant difficulty. I say this because only recently a violent storm on the Tiwi Islands disabled the only communications tower in the community, essentially rendering useless the BasicsCard that people there use. People were unable to purchase food, fuel or even power for their homes. And the government's response? I quote: 'People can contact the Department of Human Services Income Management Line, 1800132594, available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for assistance in accessing income-managed funds.' Well, that's pretty difficult, considering that there's no working phone to call the Department of Human Services. There are similarities here with other programs. This approach to income management and the implementation of the cashless cards on the presumption that it will reduce some of the negative aspects of life in regional and remote communities fails to consider more prevalent barriers to meaningful employment which would ultimately dismiss the need for such policies in the first place. Yes, we need employment. During the Senate inquiry into the government's disastrous Community Development Program, Labor examined the true foundation of why people in remote and regional communities struggle to gain and maintain employment. As part of the report that followed the inquiry, the committee made reference to several papers which highlighted barriers to employment for people in regional and remote communities. In a 2010 paper, McRae-Williams and Gerritsen explained the unique economic and employment challenges within remote communities. They went on to say: There are limited employment opportunities with a significant gap between the size of the labour force and the number of jobs generated in the local economy as well as inadequate physical infrastructure for many economic development proposals. Similarly, a 2014 study by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare also found that Indigenous Australians generally experience multiple barriers to economic participation, including lower levels of education, poorer health and more difficulties with English. We know that in the Northern Territory in particular we have over 100 Aboriginal languages. That's why we have the Aboriginal Interpreter Service. We know that English is not the first language for many of our first-nations Australians in the north. There are high rates of incarceration. We've seen the rates increase at such a rapid rate, in particular for Indigenous women. The rise in incarceration rates is an absolute disgrace. There is inadequate housing. This week we've also seen the federal government renege on the most important area where we clearly need to close the gap, and also for the homeless in this country, and that is the partnerships in housing with each state and territory jurisdiction. There is an inability of this government to focus on that and see that clearly as a major economic driver in our remote and regional areas of this country. There is a lack of access to social networks that may help to facilitate employment. All of these things are critical. There are practical challenges, such as needing to travel to buy groceries and attend medical appointments. These services are either too expensive or simply not available in remote communities. Again I can give you numerous examples in the remote regions of the Northern Territory where food prices are still questionable and too high. When road access is cut because of the wet season, particularly at this time of year, the only opportunity people have to get out of their communities is by air. The cost of those air charter flights is extremely significant. I get phone calls from residents around different parts of the north. Family members tell me the problems they are having in trying to get from Doomadgee back to Borroloola and over to Katherine, where they seek medical assistance, or fly on to Darwin. This is the reality of life in the bush and the regions for first nations Australians. This is what they have to endure. This is the life people live. Let's not make it harder by cutting their access to what little funds they have. In light of these issues, particularly the lack of consideration from the government of the root causes of so many problems prevalent in regional and remote communities, I cannot support this bill which ultimately seeks to expand the current program to additional regional and remote communities. 13:41 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I start by thanking senators who have contributed to this debate on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017. This bill will extend the trial of the cashless debit card to 30 June 2019. The government's proposed amendments also specify that the trial will be limited to three sites—namely, the East Kimberley and the included communities; Ceduna and the surrounding region; and the Goldfields. The bill retains the existing legislated limitations on the number of sites, participants and duration of the cashless debit card trial. Passage of this bill will ensure that the cashless debit card can continue to deliver the positive impacts already felt in Ceduna and the East Kimberley and will allow roll out to the Goldfields. The CDC aims to limit the amount of welfare payments being spent on products that can harm the broader community. This means it is applied to most people on welfare payments in order to reduce the cash available to spend on harmful goods. It is not a punitive measure and does not target problem individuals. An independent evaluation of the existing trial sites was conducted by ORIMA Research in 2016-17. The evaluation found that the card had a considerable positive impact in both trial sites. Overall, the research found that the cashless debit card had been effective in reducing alcohol consumption and gambling, and it was also suggestive of a reduction in the use of illegal drugs. Continuing the cashless debit card in Ceduna and the East Kimberley will focus on sustaining these impacts in the longer term. If the current end date is not extended, the program must end by 30 June 2018, which will risk undermining the positive outcomes already being experienced by these communities. This bill will also allow the government to meet its commitment to expand this initiative to the Goldfields in Western Australia, where there continues to be widespread community support for its introduction. In September 2017 the Prime Minister announced the government's intention to expand the cashless debit card to the Goldfields, following extensive consultation across the community. Between May and December 2017 over 300 consultations, with over 86 organisations, and 10 public information sessions were held. Consultation continues in the Goldfields in preparation for implementation. Momentum in the community for the trial has been considerable, with a number of working groups established in late 2017 to assist with implementation, planning and oversight. There is a strong need for additional tools to address social harm in the Goldfields. Western Australia Police Force data indicates that the domestic and non-domestic assault rate in the Goldfields is more than twice the state average. Alcohol was a factor in two-thirds of all domestic assaults from 2009 to 2013, and half of all non-domestic assaults. Alcohol-related hospitalisations and deaths were 25 per cent higher than the Western Australia state average from 2007 to 2011. The government has rejected amendments proposed by the opposition, primarily because they would prohibit the expansion. The opposition's amendments would also decrease the flexibility available to tailor the cashless debit card program to meet individual community needs. The initial trials were designed and implemented in close consultation with community leaders. Aspects of the program, including the package of wraparound support services and the community panels, are reflective of individual community requirements. Learnings from existing sites indicate that services may need to be adjusted over time as demand for a particular service type has not always met expectations and as we get a better understanding of what is or is not working on the ground. The opposition's amendments would impact upon the current level of flexibility to respond to these requirements, particularly as needs evolve. In drafting the bill, the government has carefully balanced community support for the cashless debit card in existing sites and in the Goldfields with the concerns raised in parliament around allowing additional time for gathering of evidence on the card's effectiveness. This bill will provide more time to study the impacts of the cashless debit card and maintain parliament's right to consider any further extensions. The continuation of the cashless debit card demonstrates the government's commitment to providing a strong social welfare safety net, to reducing social harm in areas with high levels of welfare dependency and to supporting vulnerable people, families and communities. I commend the bill to the House. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the bill be read a second time.

The Senate divided. [13:51]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 35 AYES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ (teller) Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID Martin, S.L McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, D Williams, JR 29 NOES Bartlett, AJJ Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Farrell, D Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Ketter, CR Kitching, K Marshall, GM McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Steele-John, J Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS 4 PAIRS Cormann, M Wong, P Georgiou, P Watt, M Payne, MA Lines, S Sinodinos, A Gallagher, K

Senator McAllister did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Kakoschke-Moore
Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 In Committee 34 13:54 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales This is another example of the coalition not consulting and not understanding what the real issues for the community are. This is a government so enmeshed in its own internal problems that it never gets to a stage where it properly consults with a community or the general community. This is a government that really doesn't get it. The bill that's before the Senate is about trying to push the government's paternalistic approach eventually onto every Indigenous community in the country. What we are saying is that, if there are those in a community—the majority of the community—that want to deal with the cashless welfare card, that is one thing, but to simply push along with what is not a clear outcome in relation to this cashless welfare card when there is still a wide diversity of opinion in Indigenous communities on this card is another thing, and the government should take note of the concerns that are being put there. We support genuine community-driven initiatives to tackle drug and alcohol abuse. I want to make it clear that we do not support a national rollout of the cashless debit card. I heard Senator Hanson earlier in the debate—always bringing the debate to the lowest point, always pushing a divisive approach— Senator Hanson BK6 Oh, there you go! Senator CAMERON AI6 One Nation can whinge all they like, but they know that whenever there is a divisive issue Senator Hanson will be at that divisive point. She'll be out there pushing division. She'll be out there pushing this society to break apart. That's exactly what they are doing. Government senators interjecting— Senator CAMERON AI6 I won't take any interjections from this rabble of a government across here, who do not understand what it's like ever to battle. There's nobody battling in this community more than Indigenous Australians. This lot over here—the privileged group, the Nationals and the Liberals, the hoi polloi of Australian society—don't understand what it's like to battle in this country. They don't understand what it's like to have to battle to put food on the table. That's why they cut penalty rates. That's why they want to give $65 billion to the big end of town. And that's why Senator Hanson trails in their wake with all of the division, all of the nonsense that she goes on with; that's what she does. So she's just another vote for the Liberals and Nationals in this place. She may as well join the Liberal National Party and be honest with people about what she's doing. Just be honest for once with the communities in Queensland and the regional communities across this country that One Nation are no more than another lapdog like the National Party to the Liberal Party, doing the Liberal Party's bidding. It is a government that is so off the mark that it's now in a position where it won't take steps to look after the community; it wants to cut penalty rates. Remember, it was Senator Hanson who, right at the start, was in there advocating for penalty rates cuts until she was forced into a different position, because the people whom she claims she stands up for depend on penalty rates. The Indigenous communities are entitled to have a position where they can make their own way forward, where they are properly consulted on this card. What we say is that you just cannot roll over— Senator Fierravanti-Wells e4t Mr Acting Deputy President, just before question time, may I take the opportunity to table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendment to be moved in this bill. Senator CAMERON AI6 Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, a point of order. The minister just can't stand up and do this. Senator O'Sullivan interjecting— Senator CAMERON AI6 It's not that convoluted, because it's saying clearly how bad you all are. So it's a point of order. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 111206 Senator, you are about to be interrupted for question time anyway. There are just a few seconds for procedural matters. Progress reported. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 35 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Indigenous Affairs 35 14:00 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion. In October last year the minister declared, 'Safe, appropriate housing is crucial to better lives for residents in remote communities, including to improve health and education and address family violence.' Minister, has your government taken a decision to end the decade-long Commonwealth investment in remote Indigenous housing agreed in the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing? How will this impact upon Closing the Gap targets? 14:01 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory I thank Senator Dodson for the question. No, we're not walking away from— An opposition senator interjecting— Senator SCULLION 00AOM Are you right? Cracker! Just let me get 'uh' out, if you could. Senator Dodson, I know you'll be listening to this, if none of the others on the other side are. No, we're not walking away from that at all, Senator Dodson. But one of the things you need to know, which I haven't had the opportunity to personally come round and explain yet, is that since Christmas we've been doing some calculations about why it is that the clear calculations we did about 10 years, which are about numbers—how many houses we need to invest in and predictions of population—haven't quite got there and we now need another little addition. There were a number of things that might have happened, but there's one thing we're most concerned with. I asked every state and territory jurisdiction: 'Is it a fact that you stopped building houses in the NPARIH area for 10 years? Is it a fact that you actually took the money away in the most racist possible process and policy that I can remember in this place?' In any event, I'm giving a new opportunity for the jurisdictions to come back about that. New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania have acknowledged that they're moving away from that; they're taking their own responsibilities under that. But they are in different circumstances. We had an independent review that showed the Northern Territory is the largest need, about 50 per cent. Under that come South Australia and Queensland—almost under that—and then much further down the pace comes— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Scullion. Please resume your seat. Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU A point of order on direct relevance, Mr President: the question Senator Dodson asked was whether the government had taken a decision to end the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing. It is a very important question and, whilst the minister may have a lot of political attack on the states that he wishes to engage in, we would ask that he answer that simple question. The PRESIDENT I0Q Thank you, Senator Wong. As you know, I can't instruct the minister how to answer the question but I can remind the minister of the terms of it. Senator Scullion. Senator SCULLION 00AOM A national partnership involves every state and territory. It is self-evident that New South Wales, Tasmania and Victoria are no longer in it. So now we're moving to a bipartisan approach. We've made the announcement with the Northern Territory and we're still in discussions with the other states and territories. But fundamental to this is ensuring that the states and territories are held to account, and those opposite should ensure that they are holding them to account in each of their jurisdictions. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Dodson, a supplementary question. 14:03 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia I note what the minister said. Minister, I note that last week your representative in the House of Representatives, Minister Wyatt, declared: 'The funding has not been cut. It has not been reduced. Senator Scullion is in ongoing negotiations with the relevant ministers.' Is the minister correct? 14:04 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory Yes, he is. We have done an independent inquiry, which you would have a copy of, that shows what is required now, and our investment in the national partnership over a decade reduced the overcrowding significantly but we still have some work to do. So it's about that actual number, and we are negotiating, continuing to negotiate, with the states and territories about that number. But we now need the states and territories to transition to take on their own responsibilities of public housing, and we need to ensure that when the states and territories are allocating public housing—because, whether you're in Western Australia, Queensland, South Australia or the Northern Territory, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are still members of a state or territory. We're not walking away at all, but we are ensuring, and those on the other side should encourage, that each of the state and territory governments stand ready to take on their responsibilities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people living in their jurisdiction. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Dodson, final supplementary question. 14:05 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia Could the minister clarify if he has begun, or when he is going to begin, the negotiations with the state governments of South Australia, Queensland and my home state of Western Australia so as to maintain the effect of the remote Indigenous housing strategy? 14:05 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory It's been documented that I've been dealing with the Northern Territory government. I have met with the Queensland Minister for Housing and Public Works. We haven't come to a settlement on that matter yet. I have met with the minister for Indigenous affairs, who is not the minister for housing, and explained what the circumstance is. I will be meeting shortly with the ministers for housing in South Australia and in Western Australia. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 36 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:06 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Mr President, with the small kerfuffle just before question time, I missed the window to make a statement regarding ministerial absence. I now seek leave to do that. Leave granted. Senator CORMANN HDA I thank the Senate. I advise the Senate that Senator Payne will be absent from question time all this week on overseas ministerial business. In Senator Payne's absence, I will represent the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Defence Industry, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Minister for Defence Personnel and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC, as well as the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 36 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Indigenous Affairs 36 14:06 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion, and I detect it's going to be a busy day. Can the minister update the Senate on progress against the Closing the Gap targets and how the government is working to support jobs and business development for Indigenous Australians? 14:07 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory Today I am pleased to report that the 10th Closing the gap report, which was tabled by the Prime Minister in the other place, has shown the most promising results, with three of the seven Closing the Gap targets now on track to be met. Encouragingly, we have seen improvements in health outcomes, with the target to halve child mortality back on track. Education outcomes are also improving. I'm pleased to report that, thanks to the collaborative approach of government service providers in communities, the current early childhood education target is on track for the first time. Year 12 attainment remains on track. Whilst the remaining targets may not be on track, we've achieved solid progress in other target areas compared to a decade ago. We on this side know that the best form of support we can provide is in the form of a job. Today the Prime Minister announced the first ever comprehensive road map for growing the Indigenous business sector, the Indigenous Business Sector Strategy. The Prime Minister also announced that our game-changing Indigenous Procurement Policy has reached $1 billion in Commonwealth contracts—pretty successful given that in 2012-13 Indigenous businesses were winning only $6.2 million in contracts. The establishment of the Indigenous business hubs, which are going to be anchored in some of the major cities, includes a one-stop shop for business advice and support starting in Western Sydney in partnership with the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. I plead with those on the other side: you should do what you can to ensure that all levels of governments are cooperating in this process. There is the $27 million Indigenous Entrepreneurs Capital Scheme to unlock a range of finance and capital products for Indigenous businesses that are transitioning to mainstream banking. We've also doubled the microfinance footprint across Australia to support more entrepreneurial activity. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Brockman, a supplementary question. 14:09 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Minister, why is it important that we work with Indigenous Australians and state and territory governments to ensure the Closing the Gap agenda is delivering better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians? 14:09 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory The government is committed to the Closing the Gap agenda, but, with the expiry of four of the seven targets, there is an opportunity to refresh targets to ensure they are focused on delivering the change that we know we need. We need targets to be developed in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians and not by government alone, but we also need the state and territory governments to be at the table, because we know that, while the Commonwealth can do a great deal, many of the levers of change are in fact held by the states and other jurisdictions. In the area of justice, the practical reality is that the state and territory governments have the responsibility for the justice system and for the corrections system. The custody notification service is a state and territory responsibility, and, because we know it saves lives, I have offered to every state and territory to fund it for three years. We made this offer on 31 August 2017. I'm disappointed that none of the states are yet to take up this offer. I call on everyone here to support this. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Brockman, a final supplementary question. 14:10 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Minister, why is it important that evidence-based policy is used to progress the Closing the Gap agenda? 14:10 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory We are absolutely committed to continuing the bipartisan focus on the Closing the Gap agenda, but with four of the seven targets expiring there's an opportunity to refresh these. We need to use the best evidence in how we go about doing that. We'll be ensuring that our targets are specific, measurable, agreed on, realistic, and time framed. That's smart targeting. That's international best practice with targets. This is the principle across our work. That's why we're working in partnership with the Healing Foundation to complete a detailed analysis to inform our future actions to support the surviving members of the stolen generations. That's why we'd encourage those opposite to better consider its approach when it would only appear to support around 106 of the surviving members of the stolen generations—well below initial estimates, which indicate the number might be as high at 500. Indigenous Affairs 37 14:11 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Before I ask my question, I'd like to acknowledge the Northern Territory housing minister, Gerry McCarthy, in the audience here today. My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion. The minister's Remote housing review found that since the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing commenced in 2008, overcrowding amongst Indigenous households has fallen from 52.1 per cent to 37.4 per cent—a reduction of 28 per cent. The review also found that Queensland, WA and South Australia exceeded their targets for Indigenous housing refurbishments by 23 per cent, 35 per cent and 60 per cent respectively. Minister, given the findings of your own Remote housing review, why are you withdrawing Indigenous housing assistance from those states? 14:12 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory Perhaps that's one of the challenges with question time: you're stuck with the same question. I provided the answer to that before, in my first answer to Senator Dodson. I'm not moving away from any of those things. If we're going to stop overcrowding, the refurbishment of a couch doesn't provide an additional bedroom or more houses. The only things that provide that are a rebuild or a new house. Can I make it absolutely clear: we're not moving away from this, but we want to hold the states and territories to account. In the first five years of the program, under programs like CHIP, it was an absolute outrage, with jurisdictions taking 15 per cent and not putting a single cent into the process. So, yes, we have used our independent review into housing to look very carefully at those processes. I'll tell you what it means when a state says, 'Oh, we've exceeded our number.' That means: 'I didn't build a house because it was too hard. I took the money for that and I painted up a couple of others.' I can give you heaps of examples of the disingenuous approaches from the remainder of the jurisdictions of all political persuasions. I can promise you we are engaging, but we're ensuring that the states actually have funds on the table—rather than us just putting money into their budgets and the outcomes turning up in a whole variety of places, but not necessarily in remote communities—and are actually putting it towards reducing the number, which means investing in houses and in rebuilds. The refurbishments are a very small part of this, and they are far easier to do than going out and building a new house or rebuilding a house on a new site. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McCarthy, a supplementary question? 14:14 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Given that in Queensland alone the NPRH has supported 2,640 jobs over the past 10 years and currently supports a growing number of Indigenous businesses, along with more than 850 Indigenous apprentices and trainees, why are you withdrawing Indigenous housing support as a result of these? 14:14 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory If I can just clarify again, I am not withdrawing from this process. Senator Wong 00AOU Well how much money are you putting in? The funding is ending. How much are you putting in? Senator SCULLION 00AOM We have indicated that we've undertaken in the Northern Territory, because that's the only bilateral that's been finished, to put in $120 million a year and that the Northern Territory would be matching it. So, that is the way it's going. We are looking to the states and territories, who I suspect actually withdrew. So in the places where we're requiring NPRH to be built, there was a decision by those jurisdictions to act by not spending a cent of the funds that the Commonwealth invests and that they should invest in remote communities. We've yet to find out if that is the case. I hope I'm wrong, but I have seen absolutely no evidence to demonstrate that they have taken any other course. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McCarthy, a final supplementary question? 14:15 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory The remote housing review states: This achievement of increasing housing supply and amenity, and the resulting benefits of reduced overcrowding, should be celebrated … Why, Minister, are you celebrating this achievement and yet walking away from funding remote housing? 14:16 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory Well, we're certainly not walking away from funding remote housing. And can I say that there is another issue about jurisdiction. They are now being required to put this in a fund that is managed between the state, the Commonwealth and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Now, I guess that hasn't been accepted well. We're just supposed to put it straight into the coffers. In the Northern Territory context, you will be pleased to know, Senator, that the Northern Land Council, the Central Land Council and representatives from the Northern Territory government and the Commonwealth government will manage that fund to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people will get real jobs, instead of being given lip-service for 10 years. So, instead of saying, 'Oh, I know somebody who owns an Indigenous business,' we will be buying bricks and mortar and we will be ensuring that Indigenous businesses are out there building those homes, because that's how we have to value-add to it. There is no point just saying, 'Oh, we're doing things with Aboriginal people,' instead of to them. You've got to actually do that. And this is another example of how this government has delivered on that promise. Taxation 38 14:17 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. Why is it important, particularly for working families in my home state of South Australia, that the government's plan to reduce the business tax rate to 25 per cent for all businesses is implemented in full? 14:17 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank Senator Fawcett for that question. It is important to working families in South Australia that our business tax cuts are implemented in full, because working families in South Australia are looking for more jobs and higher wages so South Australian families today and in the future have the best possible opportunity to get ahead. More jobs and higher wages don't grow on trees. In South Australia and all around Australia more jobs and higher wages are created and paid for by successful, profitable businesses. Making sure our business tax rate is globally competitive helps makes businesses successful and profitable, boosting investment growth, jobs and wages. Any South Australian senator standing in the way of lower business taxes is standing in the way of more jobs and higher wages in South Australia. That includes you, Senator Farrell. Any South Australian senator standing in the way of lower business taxes is holding South Australia back, is holding South Australia's working families back and is standing for less private investment, lower growth, fewer jobs and lower wages. After 16 years of bad Labor government, more investment for more jobs and higher wages are particularly important for South Australia, because, of course, nominal growth in South Australia is below the national average, employment growth is dramatically below the national average and population growth is at just 0.61 per cent. While housing finance increased 3.9 per cent over the year across Australia, in South Australia it declined by nearly five per cent. Let me add one important point: lowering the corporate tax rate for smaller businesses only creates an artificial incentive for Australian businesses to downsize. In a worst-case scenario, some businesses may actually lay people off to get smaller. A size-based different tax treatment would create a glass ceiling on business workforce growth. Bill Shorten, in March 2011 at ACOSS— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question. 14:19 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia How will the government's plan to cut business taxes support wages growth? 14:19 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia More investment, stronger economic growth and more successful and profitable businesses hiring more Australians means stronger demand and more competition for workers among the profitable businesses, which means that businesses have to pay more to secure the services of those workers. Senator Cameron interjecting — Senator CORMANN HDA Here we have Senator Cameron saying, 'Let's just increase penalty rates.' Increasing the cost of hiring an Australian worker without helping business to be more successful and more profitable will boost unemployment. It will send more Australian workers onto the unemployment queue. If we want to have more jobs, higher wages and the best possible opportunity for Australian families to get ahead, including in particular in South Australia, we need to ensure that the businesses that employ them have the best possible opportunity to be successful and get ahead. I don't expect Senator Cameron to understand, but Mr Shorten should. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question. 14:20 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Minister, what are the consequences for jobs and wages if the government's proposed business tax cuts for all businesses are not implemented in full? 14:21 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The consequences are less investment, lower growth, fewer jobs, higher unemployment, lower wages and—I would encourage Senator Hanson to listen very carefully to this—poorer investment returns for self-funded retirees on their superannuation investments. Don't take my word for it; look at what the International Monetary Fund said in their October 2017 World Economic Outlook: Where countries are considering significant reductions in corporate income tax rates— which is the case in the United States, the United Kingdom, France and others— there could be significant negative spillovers on activity and the fiscal position of non-reforming countries. In addition, the recent World Bank forecast shows Australia was rated sixth in the OECD for investment as a share of the economy in 2016, but our ranking is declining, and we are forecast to be ranked 20th in 2022, our lowest ranking on record. This is not where we want to be. We want to continue to be an attractive destination for investment. (Time expired) Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry 40 14:22 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania My question is to the minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Cormann. In the opening statement of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry, Commissioner Kenneth Hayne stated—or, in my opinion, expressed his frustration—that big banks have already properly failed to answer questions about their misconduct and, when pushed to provide the full information requested, indicated that they don't have time to comply. This is not a good look, especially when the short time frame that you've set for this royal commission has already led to concerns that it is a Mickey Mouse royal commission. Are you concerned that at this early stage the banks are playing games with the royal commission and not treating it with the respect it deserves? If so, will you, the Prime Minister or the Treasurer express your anger to the banks and get them to get their information in on time? 14:23 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I'm not going to provide a running commentary on a royal commission that has only just started. The royal commission is a royal commission. It has all the powers of a royal commission. The royal commissioner has all the powers of a royal commissioner. He is independent. He has all of the powers he needs. If the royal commissioner were to provide advice to the government at the appropriate time, we would consider it, but I'm not going to interfere in the proper conduct of an independent royal commission which was set up that way and which will report in due course. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Whish-Wilson, a supplementary question. 14:23 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I'd like the minister representing the Treasurer to actually answer this question. On top of the banks' use of this time-honoured strategy of delaying tactics, Commissioner Hayne also outlined this morning that not all victims of misconduct who have made submissions will get a hearing, due to time and resource limits. This will be disappointing to many Australians. If the commissioner were to come to the government and request an extension of the royal commission's time frame, would you consider that request? Or will you let the banks use delaying tactics to run out the clock and avoid proper scrutiny? 14:24 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia What I would again point out to the honourable senator is that this is the first day of the royal commission getting underway. The royal commission is a process that is now underway because there was a view across the parliament that that was the best way forward. It's a matter of public record that that wasn't necessarily the government's position at all times, but we came to the view that in all of the circumstances it was the best way forward. I think the royal commission should be allowed to do its job. The independent royal commissioner has all of the powers he needs to pursue the royal commission as he sees fit, independently— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Whish-Wilson, on a point of order? Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 I was going to ask the minister to come to the question, President. Would he consider a request if it came to the government? The PRESIDENT I0Q I consider the minister to be relevant to the terms of the question asked. Senator CORMANN HDA Thank you very much. I was actually answering precisely that question. I'm not going to pre-empt what may or may not happen down the track. I think the whole parliament should allow the independent royal commissioner to do his job independently and, if or when certain recommendations are made to the government, the government should consider them in the usual way. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Whish-Wilson, a final supplementary question. 14:25 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Perhaps you could clear something up for me, Minister. It was stated this morning by the commissioner that existing gag orders such as employment agreements, settlement agreements and severance agreements that may contain non-disparagement terms won't be an impediment to people giving evidence, which is good news. Can you confirm or clarify for this chamber what kinds of protections witnesses will have in public hearings? Will they have an equivalent to full parliamentary privilege? What kinds of protections are in place? Nobody seems to know, and I'm sure that is a problem for people making submissions. (Time expired) 14:26 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The usual arrangements for a royal commission apply. Ministerial Staff 41 14:26 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. I refer to the former Special Minister of State, Senator Ryan, now President, who, when asked about staffing allocations, said: I do not know. I honestly cannot speak to that. The matter of allocation of staff is a matter for the Prime Minister. Is this correct? 14:27 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Obviously it would help if Senator Farrell wants to provide a bit more context to the line of questioning that he pursued at the time. Let me just make a general point. I obviously know the context in which he is asking the question today. The general point is that the Prime Minister has an administrative role when it comes to the hiring of staff in the same way as the finance department has an administrative role. I have a role, given some of the stuff that has been said in recent days, in relation to every single one of the staffers on the Labor side, as much as I have a role in relation to staff on the government side. In relation to the Nationals, which I assume the question is about, I'm advised that the Nationals are provided with a number of personal staff positions as a share of the government staffing pool. Their distribution between Nationals offices is a matter for the National Party. I'm also advised that at no time did the Nationals fill all vacant staffing positions. As for staffing moves between offices, the Deputy Prime Minister of course addressed that in a statement on Saturday, and I would refer you to that statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Farrell, a supplementary question. 14:28 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Mr President. I do have a supplementary question. I again refer to the former Special Minister of State, Senator Ryan, now President, who, when asked about the approval of payments above the band, said, 'It's the Prime Minister; it's not me.' Is that correct? 14:28 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Again I can only assume that the reason Senator Farrell is asking these questions is matters that have been in the public domain in recent days. I refer Senator Farrell to my previous answer. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question. 14:28 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Thank you, Mr President. I do have a further supplementary question. On how many occasions has the Prime Minister agreed to allocate additional staff to the Nationals Whip or to pay staff in that office above the band? 14:29 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I might again refer you to my first answer, where I confirmed that my advice is that the Nationals are provided with a number of personal staff positions as a share of the government's staffing pool. Their distribution between Nationals offices is a matter for the National Party. I'm advised that at no time did the Nationals fill all vacant staffing positions. As for staffing moves between offices, the Deputy Prime Minister addressed that in a statement on Saturday, and I refer you to that. Veterans 41 14:29 Senator BURSTON 207807 New South Wales My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Cormann. In recent years, the Department of Veterans' Affairs has failed to cloak itself in glory. It has been embroiled in a series of matters but has failed to deliver what most would consider a satisfactory outcome. In the area of recognition of service in 2000, we had the Moore review of veterans' entitlements, which was not well received by the government of the day, most likely because it found in favour of the veterans. In 2003, the Clarke review was tabled and accepted, most likely because it seemed to contradict most of the Moore review's findings and would have saved the government a lot of money. On 17 October 2017, the Prime Minister stated, 'My government always do the right thing by veterans,' yet, year after year, the veteran community is treated with disdain by the department. Last year, suicides in the veteran community exceeded 80. Minister, where has the government promoted the National Audit Office's upcoming performance audit on the efficiency of veterans service delivery by the Department of Veterans' Affairs? 14:30 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank Senator Burston for that question. Our government are committed to our serving and former serving men and women and their families. We are very proud to have delivered the single largest additional allocation of funding—$350 million—to the veterans portfolio for many years in the last budget. This funding is being used to expand early access to mental health treatment to address concerns from the ex-service community about the backlog of claims and the time taken to process those claims. It is also being used to modernise the Department of Veterans' Affairs' antiquated computer systems and administrative processes and to implement the first stage of the Veteran Centric Reform program. Importantly, this funding is ensuring that all veterans can access free and immediate treatment for any mental health condition without having to prove that the condition is related to their service. It has also enabled access to the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service to be extended to partners, dependants and immediate family members. Further, legislation is being introduced this week to implement two additional measures announced as part of the government's response to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee report titled The constant battle: suicide by veterans, tabled on 24 October last year. The ANAO audit has commenced, in line with recommendation 13 of the Senate inquiry report, although final details of the audit scope are being still being settled by the ANAO. The report is due to be tabled in June 2018. Obviously it's hard to respond in relation to a report that is yet to be finalised. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Burston, a supplementary question. 14:32 Senator BURSTON 207807 New South Wales Minister, is there any guarantee that the government will adopt the recommendations arising out of the National Audit Office's research, particularly if it favours the veteran community? 14:32 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The government look forward to the ANAO report into the effectiveness of service delivery by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and of course we will consider any recommendation that it makes. As senators will appreciate, the government is not in any position to comment on this report until it is completed by the ANAO and tabled in the parliament. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Burston, a final supplementary question. 14:32 Senator BURSTON 207807 New South Wales Minister, will the department commit to upholding the Prime Minister's assurances given in his speech of 17 October 2017? 14:33 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia As I indicated in response to the primary question, the government are very proud of our record in veterans' affairs. We have delivered record funding to the portfolio. We have addressed and are continuing to look for ways to improve the delivery of mental health services to our veterans; to deliver streamlined services through the Veteran Centric Reform program; and to provide more support to families, without whose support our service men and women could not serve our country. We will always be committed to our veterans, and we'll continue to strive to improve the way in which they are supported after they leave the ADF. Child Care 42 14:33 Senator GICHUHI 270552 South Australia My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham: Will the minister update the Senate on the government's new childcare package? How will the package benefit low- to medium-income families? 14:34 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Gichuhi for her question and for her very personal interest in relation to support for Australian families in accessing quality child care and quality early childhood education and having financial assistance to do so, particularly for those from low- and middle-income backgrounds. From 2 July this year, the Turnbull government's reforms to childcare arrangements will provide greatly enhanced support targeted at the hardest-working low- and middle-income Australian families. In fact, more than 283,000 families on family incomes of less than $65,000, approximately, will receive increased rates of subsidy as a result of our reforms. More than 483,000 families earning between $65,000 and $170,000 will also receive greater levels of childcare subsidy and support. This is because the Turnbull government is better targeting support to those families on low and middle incomes, who are also working the longest hours. It's about making sure that they receive better support in recognition of the hours they work or study or volunteer, and that's what our new activity test seeks to do. It's also about increasing the rate of subsidy for those families, which is why we're lifting that from around 72 per cent to 85 per cent for those hardworking low-income families. It comes with a strong safety net, ensuring that children in very low-income families are still able to access additional hours of child care, but importantly it provides benefits right across the nation. In Tasmania, some 85 per cent of families will benefit. In Victoria, some 75 per cent will benefit. In Western Australia, some 72 per cent will benefit. In my home state of South Australia, roughly some 80 per cent will benefit. In the shadow minister's own electorate in South Australia, some 84 per cent of families will benefit because we're targeting those who need it most. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gichuhi, a supplementary question. 14:36 Senator GICHUHI 270552 South Australia How will the Turnbull government's new childcare package drive workforce participation? 14:36 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Presently, families can access the childcare benefit without demonstrating any activity at all in many instances. What we are doing through this, as I said before, is better targeting support to families who meet an activity test. But it is a light-touch activity test; families need only undertake around four hours of work, training or study per week in order to access some 18 hours of subsidised early education and care. Under the reforms, our estimations are that some 230,000 Australian families will increase their workforce participation—that is, these families will be empowered to choose to work more hours or work more days. They have the choice of doing so not just because of our increased support but because of the Turnbull government's growth in employment and jobs across Australia. Our jobs record is that some 403,000 additional jobs were created last year. And through our childcare reforms more families will get more support to fill the greater number of jobs in our economy. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gichuhi, a final supplementary question. 14:37 Senator GICHUHI 270552 South Australia How can families maximise the benefits under the new childcare package? 14:37 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia It is relatively simple for families to be able to make sure they can access the early childhood education and care that they need, that they desire. A four-hour per week activity test is, as I said before, a light touch. It can be met by working, by looking for work, by studying, by training or by volunteering. Volunteering activities could include attending your local childcare centre, preschool or early education centre and reading with children or working in the school canteen. They could include a range of different activities that ensure families are able to qualify just through a relatively straightforward commitment to activity. What we're trying to do here is make sure that there is quality support for early childhood education in preschool, in a strong safety net, but also to make sure that we motivate families to be engaged in all aspects of the education and care of their children and to target support to those families who need it most. Small Amount Credit Contracts 43 14:38 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Senator Cormann. On 28 November 2016, the Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Kelly O'Dwyer, released the government's response to the independent review of the small amount credit laws. Can you confirm that this response still reflects the government's position? 14:39 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank Senator McAllister for that question, and I will take that question on notice to ensure that the answer is accurate. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McAllister, a supplementary question. 14:39 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The Courier-Mail today reports that a group of Liberal backbenchers referred to as the 'parliamentary friends of payday lenders' want the government reforms reined in. Minister, will the government rein in its payday lending reforms? 14:39 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Let me just make the more general point that the government of course recognises that small-amount credit lenders and consumer lease providers play an important role in the economy by providing credit to consumers who in many instances are unable to access mainstream forms of finance. The implementation of the recommendations of the relevant report will ensure that vulnerable consumers are afforded appropriate levels of consumer protection while continuing to access those small-amount credit contracts and leases. Senator Kim Carr AW5 This is the loan sharks. Senator CORMANN HDA Senator Carr is not even listening. The government acknowledges the significant impact that these changes will have on existing industry participants and will put in place appropriate grandfathering arrangements for existing contracts. Legislation will be progressed this year, with the changes applying 12 months after its passage. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question. 14:40 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Minister O'Dwyer has described her package of reforms as 'critically important, not only for people who take out small-amount consumer credit contracts but for people who have arrangements with consumer leasing as well'. Will the minister assure the Senate that the government will not cave in to the right wing of the Liberal Party and abandon its reforms to protect vulnerable Australian consumers? 14:40 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I can assure the Senate, and Senator McAllister in particular, that the government will continue to act in the public interest at all times. Broadband 44 14:41 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Communications, Senator Fifield. Can the minister update the Senate on the NBN's half-yearly results? 14:41 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I welcome back Senator Colbeck. It's very good to see regular transmission resumed in Tasmania. I'm very pleased that once again I can report that NBN has delivered on its operational and financial targets for the most recent half year, achieving a record number of connected services. In the six months to 31 December, NBN managed to connect an average of 7,000 premises every working day, making a total of 942,000 activations. To put that success in context, NBN connected almost as many premises in the previous six months as it did in the first six years of the project. Around 50,000 premises a week were also added to NBN's service footprint. With so many more homes and businesses connected to the network, revenue grew to nearly $900 million for the half year alone. Average revenue per user was up from $43 to $44. Couple this with the great response from retailers to the recent pricing discounts for higher speed tiers, and we are now seeing the amount of capacity per user being purchased growing by close to 40 per cent. NBN is also predicting that close to one million subscribers will be migrated to the 50-megabit-per-second speed tier by mid year. This is between five and 10 times the speed experienced on the pre-NBN ADSL network. These results clearly demonstrate that NBN has a business model that is working. It's delivering fast, affordable broadband for the Australian community. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Colbeck, a supplementary question. 14:43 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania It's good to be transmitting again, although I must note that the background noise and white noise from the other side hasn't changed much since I left. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left and my right! We've now welcomed back Senator Colbeck. I'm sure it's all come back to him. I ask him to resume his question. Senator COLBECK 00AOL Minister, how do these results align with consumers' experiences, especially in my home state of Tasmania? 14:44 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria As Senator Colbeck would well recall, in late 2013, when our predecessors left office, the rollout of the NBN in Tasmania was a mess. The contractor had downed tools and virtually no premises had been connected for many months. All up, only 7,000 fixed-line premises in Tasmania were ever connected under Labor, despite the fact that the rollout actually kicked off in that state. Compare that to the end of 2017, where close to 267,000 homes and businesses in Tasmania are ready to connect. More than 160,000 Tasmanian premises are now accessing the internet over the NBN in Tassie, and the entire rollout is planned to be finished by the end of this year, which will make Tasmania the first state to be finished. In terms of consumer experience in Tasmania, the research shows that Tasmania has had the biggest improvement of any state in intensity of internet use. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Colbeck, a final supplementary question. 14:45 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Minister, how do these results compare with alternative approaches? 14:45 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I think NBN's results of today remind us of the failures of those opposite. By the time that we inherited the NBN, project contractors had abandoned work in four states. The project was mired in contracting disputes. More than $6 billion had been spent, yet only a grand total of 51,000 premises had been connected to the built network. Those opposite do continue to live in a fantasy land, but I've got to say the numbers do not lie. The NBN under this government has reached an unprecedented pace. The rate of activations alone has grown fourfold in just the past two years. The approach of those opposite would have pushed up household broadband bills by $43 per month or over $500 a year due to the higher capital expenditure and vastly slower revenue streams that they intended. Child Care 45 14:46 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia My question is to the Minister for Education, Senator Birmingham. The government's own figures show that almost a quarter of South Australian families, including almost 4,000 families in the Wakefield and Port Adelaide electorates—areas, of course, that are struggling with high unemployment—will be losing out as a result of the government's changes. There'll be over 3,000 families who lose out in Tasmania and tens of thousands of families in Victoria, including in Batman. Can the minister explain to these families why, during high unemployment and low wages growth, children are being punished just because both their parents can't find a secure job? 14:47 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Hanson-Young for her supplementary question to Senator Gichuhi's question earlier today! Indeed, I'm very pleased to reinforce to Senator Hanson-Young that, of course, firstly, for her interest and benefit, in the electorate of Kingston or, indeed, in the electorates of Makin, Hindmarsh or Barker, over 80 per cent of South Australian families will be better off. Across South Australia, around 80 per cent of families will be better off. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! . Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson-Young. Senator Hanson-Young I0U Mr President, I rise on a point of order. In fact, my question referred to Wakefield and Port Adelaide, where almost a quarter of families will lose out. The PRESIDENT I0Q The minister is being relevant to the question. Senator Birmingham. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I'm happy to equally inform Senator Hanson-Young that there, of course, you're talking around three-quarters of families who will be better off as a result of the Turnbull government's reforms. I know the Australian Greens like to be glass half empty about everything, but, of course, in this case the glass is well and truly at least three-quarters full. The glass is at least three-quarters full and it's full of support for the hardest-working Australian families. It's full of support for people who are working, studying or volunteering at least four hours per week. And those families who are working, studying or volunteering at least four hours per week are going to get an increased rate of subsidy and support if they are on low or middle incomes. But, as I said before in my earlier answer, those on the lowest incomes will see the rate of childcare subsidy grow from 72c in the dollar to 85c in the dollar. I would have thought that that is something the Australian Greens would welcome—that the Australian Greens would welcome the fact that those families who are working hard, studying hard and doing their bit to better themselves and get ahead would also get more support in their pockets. Many of those families will be thousands of dollars a year better off as a result of the Turnbull government's reforms. And, of course, as I outlined before, assessments undertaken by my department indicate that around 230,000 Australian families are expected to change their behaviour as a result of these reforms and work more, study more or volunteer more, in which case the numbers Senator Hanson-Young cites of who might be worse off will go down. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Hanson-Young, a supplementary question. 14:49 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia In MYEFO, the government banked a billion dollars worth of cuts to child care. That's a billion dollars that now isn't going to families and is not being invested in early childhood education. Can the minister explain to the 90,000 families across the country who are about to lose their childcare support why they deserve these cuts yet the government wants to give $65 billion to big business through tax cuts? 14:50 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Only the Australian Greens could come in here and call a compliance measure in MYEFO to stop people ripping off and rorting childcare subsidies a cut. What was announced in MYEFO was that we're going to make sure that dodgy operators who are ripping off taxpayers at present and claiming funds for the care of children who often don't exist or aren't in child care are no longer entitled to do so. As a government we're very proud of the fact we have made sure that we drive every dollar as far as we can. And it's reforms like this that enable us to give more support to the families who need it most—to make sure that those low-income, hardworking families get greater support for the choices they make to work, study and volunteer. We anticipate that, by better gearing and targeting the childcare subsidy, more families will choose to work more hours and more days because they're going to get more support to do so from the Turnbull government. 14:51 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia My final supplementary question: we know childcare cuts are going to hurt the lowest-income families, who are already struggling to cover living costs. Why are loans and subsidies to weapons manufacturers or tax cuts to big business more important than helping families care for and educate their children? 14:51 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Let's try to spell it out for the Australian Greens: the Turnbull government's reforms to company tax are what's helping to spur a jobs boom across Australia—403,000 extra jobs created last year—more jobs for hardworking Australian families to access. The Turnbull government's childcare subsidy reforms will make it easier for families to choose to work more hours and to take up and fill those jobs. This is about helping families to get ahead and make the choice to work the days and hours that suit them, without childcare costs being an impediment to making those choices. Indeed, the policies are working in an integrated way. Our business policies and our company tax policies are helping to spur additional investment and additional jobs and our childcare subsidy policies are going to make it easier for families to fill those jobs, to work more hours, to seize those opportunities and to get ahead in life, thanks to the record support they're getting from the Turnbull government. Science 46 14:52 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria My question without notice is the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Minister, this is the 19th annual Science meets Parliament event. How will the Prime Minister explain to the Australian science community his government's appalling performance in advancing science and innovation—a record that includes cutting $3 billion in the 2014 budget? Does the Prime Minister agree with the former Minister for Industry and Science that his government copped a shellacking over innovation in the last election? 14:53 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The answer to the last question is no. The Australian government recognises the fundamental place of science in Australia's economy and social wellbeing. That's why it remains central to our jobs and innovation agenda. And that is also why the Prime Minister has appointed an outstanding minister for jobs and innovation in Senator Cash. The national science statement released in— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Order on both sides of the chamber. Senator CORMANN HDA The government continues to make smart, strategic investments in science, research and innovation which will pay off in the long term. In the 2017-18 budget, we are investing $10.3 billion in research and development, which includes a record $3.6 billion for university research, $794 million for the CSIRO, $3.1 billion in support for business research through the research and development tax incentive, $473 million for defence, science and technology, $758 million through the Australian Research Council and $841 million through the National Health and Medical Research Council. Under the National Innovation and Science Agenda, the government has also made a number of significant longer-term investments, including $2.3 billion over 10 years to support critical research infrastructure. The government is also investing $119 million over 10 years to become a strategic partner in the European Southern Observatory. This will provide Australian researchers international collaboration opportunities and access to the world's best infrastructure in astronomy. Through our strong support for science, we will boost our nation's capacity to innovate. To those around Australia interested in science innovation, the best advice I can give them is: don't listen to Senator Carr. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Carr, a supplementary question. 14:55 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria () (): Since the election, Minister, of your government, the number of people employed in government science agencies has fallen by more than 1,300 people. That includes a loss of 1,200 jobs at the CSIRO, 133 at Geoscience Australia and 50 at the Bureau of Meteorology. When will the Prime Minister stop his craven capitulation to the anti-science wing of the Liberal Party and reinvest in the Australian science agencies? (Time expired) 14:56 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The first point I would make to Senator Carr is that the measure of a government's commitment to science innovation is not measured by the number of public servants in a particular Public Service department. Let me tell you: if Senator Carr were really committed to science and innovation, what he would do is support our business tax cuts, reducing the business tax rate to 25 per cent, because the additional private investment it would generate would drive innovation across the Australian economy. Nine out of 10 Australian workers work in a private sector business, of course, competing with the world. You should look at the spirit of enterprise and innovation across the private sector. The private sector is something far removed from Senator Carr's awareness. But do you know what? The private sector in Australia actually employs nine out of 10 working Australians. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Carr, a final supplementary question. 14:57 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria I ask the minister: when the Prime Minister meets a delegation of scientists attending parliament, how will he explain his appalling oversight in refusing to appoint a cabinet-level minister for science? 14:57 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The cabinet-level minister for science is Senator Cash. Senator Kim Carr interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Carr, you've been particularly active this question time. Work for the Dole 47 14:58 Senator MOLAN FAB New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Jobs and Innovation, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate about the benefits that the Work for the Dole program provides for participants and Australian taxpayers? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left. Can we allow the minister to get to her feet before the interjections start? I prefer them to be able to stand before the interjections start, at least on Mondays. 14:58 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Molan for his question. As the Leader of the Government in the Senate was saying, 2017 was a great year for job creation in Australia. In excess of 403,000 jobs were created. Three-quarters of those jobs were full-time jobs. So the economy is creating jobs based on the sound policies of the Turnbull government. Senator Molan, you are correct: what we also do as a government is ensure that we have policies in place that will get those who are on welfare off welfare and into work, because on this side of the chamber we are very, very proud that we believe that the best form of welfare is a job. We will put in place the policies that will give people the skills and the experience that they need to move from welfare and into work. In relation to what Work for the Dole does, many of the people working on Work for the Dole have very, very limited experience. In fact, some of them have never, ever set foot into a workplace. Some of them have never seen their parents set foot into the workplace. Work for the Dole gives people the skills, experience and confidence they need to move from welfare and into work whilst giving back to their community. A monitoring survey that was done last year found that 74 per cent of participants reported an increase in their desire to find a job, 70 per cent said it had increased their ability to communicate and work with others and their self-confidence, and 68 per cent said it had helped them find work. These are people who, but for the opportunities presented by the Turnbull government's policies, would be looking at a life on welfare, and that's not fair. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Molan, a supplementary question. 15:00 Senator MOLAN FAB New South Wales Can the minister outline any specific Work for the Dole programs that have benefited local communities? 15:00 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Yes, I can, because there are numerous Work for the Dole activities helping local communities. For example, charities, not-for-profits and other community groups get an extra pair of hands, with people doing valuable community work they could not otherwise do. Since the start of the program almost 38,000 activities have been undertaken, with approximately 6,500 activities in operation today. For example, participants assisted with the maintenance and landscaping of the Whyalla Men's Shed, including building fencing and a pergola. The participants learned valuable skills in painting, paving, woodworking and gardening. Three months after leaving the activity, three out of the eight participants were in paid work. That's a program getting people off welfare and into work. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Molan, a final supplementary question. 15:01 Senator MOLAN FAB New South Wales Are there any threats to the successful Work for the Dole program, which helps move people off welfare and into work? 15:02 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I don't think it will surprise you when I say, 'Yes, those opposite.' The biggest threat to the government's successful Work for the Dole program is those opposite. Labor wants to consign valuable Australians to a life of welfare. This was recently confirmed by the shadow minister, Ed Husic, when he refused to guarantee that Work for the Dole would continue under a Shorten government, if one were ever elected. The Turnbull government are committed to getting people off welfare and into work. As we all know, the best form of a welfare is a job. Mr Shorten needs to confirm to the Australian people that he supports Work for the Dole, and getting people off welfare and into work. Those of us on this side of the chamber will always support work over welfare. Senator Cormann HDA Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Indigenous Affairs 48 15:03 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs (Senator Scullion) to questions without notice asked by Senators Dodson and McCarthy today relating to funding for remote housing services. It's blindingly obvious to any observer that the Closing the Gap targets will never be achieved while remote housing services are not fixed. There's been a decade of investment from Commonwealth, state and territory governments on this issue. A decade of collaboration and cooperation on remote housing communities has been bearing fruit. These communities urgently need to have their housing needs addressed in order to have them achieve any of the Closing the Gap targets. This is one of the most critical factors we have to address in closing the gap. The World Health Organization has made it plain that stable housing is a necessary precondition to a stable health system. The World Health Organization argues that: There is a clear need and opportunity for governments and others to promote health in the course of making investments in housing. International guidance on healthy housing—targeting construction experts, architects and engineers as well as housing agencies and local authorities—would enable action that is scientifically-based, and protects and advances public health. This is a global situation, and the Australian situation falls short in our remote communities. Without safe and stable housing, infant disease and poor health get worse, kids cannot study for school, domestic and family violence rise, homelessness increases and, in fact, gender equality deteriorates. We cannot, as a Commonwealth, risk walking away from this national partnership. The minister needs to be held to account on this issue on this particular day of closing the gap. There have been no hard commitments made to the Northern Territory, Western Australia or Queensland in what the minister has reported. What he has indicated is more talk and obfuscation about state and territory government needs and the contributions in this field. The minister's answer clearly indicates that his representative in the House was not provided with accurate information at the time he rose to answer the question in the House. We met last week with representatives of the Western Australian government, the South Australian government and the Queensland government. I also met with the mayors of the Queensland shire councils. I met today with the minister of the Northern Territory government. The story coming from the state and territory governments has been consistent: not one of these states has received a letter from the minister in relation to the need to negotiate new bilateral funding agreements. Before they came to Canberra last week, not one of these jurisdictions had been approached by the minister or his office to commence negotiations. Minister, before last week, and when the minister stood up to represent you in the House, not one of those jurisdictions had been advised that the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing would be coming to a stop in June this year. In fact, you are yet to publically and formally indicate that the national partnership is being withdrawn and how, through this fog of confusion, you are not going to walk away from remote housing. These are not intergovernmental negotiation processes. They are centralised, top-down decisions being pushed out to your partners in the states and territories. These processes lack transparency and courtesy and fall short of the relationship required for governments of all persuasions to bridge the Closing the Gap targets. Minister, you referred to the Remote housing reviewand indicated you gave me an advanced copy of this report, and I thank you for that. The key findings of the Remote housing revieware clear: high levels of overcrowding and poor housing conditions negatively impact on outcomes in health, education, employment and safety. There's particularly clear evidence of the strong relationship between health outcomes and the installation and proactive maintenance of hardware in houses that will both stand up to the conditions and facilitate key healthy-living behaviours. Overcrowding prejudices the chance of the head tenant or the head family person to maintain a home routine and a calm, clean, healthy and safe environment for family members. The report indicates good progress has been made against the strategy objectives, and that's the confusing and confounding matter of the minister's response. (Time expired) 15:08 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I too rise to speak on answers to questions from Senator Scullion on Indigenous housing. I will refer to the contribution of Senator Dodson. He described a 'fog of confusion'. Well, there certainly isn't a fog of confusion from the government's point of view. Social housing in remote communities, just like any other community, is clearly a matter for state and territory governments. The Commonwealth remains in negotiations with Queensland, West Australia, South Australia and Northern Territory governments about future funding arrangements beyond the one-off 10-year remote housing agreement that's due to expire in June. State Labor housing ministers from Western Australia, SA and Queensland have been out spreading mistruths on remote housing. The Commonwealth has not made or announced any decision regarding future funding arrangements for remote housing. Negotiations with the states remain ongoing. Unlike the Northern Territory, other state governments have not put any money on the table for Indigenous housing as part of these negotiations. I will just refer to the minister's answer, which was very clear, that he has significant concerns that the Commonwealth's involvement in this space caused the states to withdraw—caused the states to stop doing their job. And that is what we have to address in any arrangements going forward. We have to make sure that Commonwealth government funding isn't merely giving the states an excuse to walk away from their own responsibilities in this very important area. If the state Labor governments were fair dinkum about this, they would have put forward a commitment, but they haven't. It's important to note, as I've said, that public housing remains a state and territory responsibility, notwithstanding the fact that the Commonwealth invested more than $6 billion in housing last year, including over $1.4 billion in Queensland, $620 million in my home state of Western Australia and $440 million in South Australia. These funds are allocated on the basis of all citizens in their states, but state governments have decided that they will not spend a single cent in remote or Indigenous communities. These state Labor governments should not be so city-centric. They should invest some of this money into remote and Indigenous communities. In the past 10 years, in fact, the Commonwealth has invested $5.4 billion across the states and the Northern Territory to support jurisdictions in managing their responsibilities for remote housing. It's time for those jurisdictions to step up, to do their fair share and fund public housing for their residents in remote communities in the same way as they do for non-remote communities. But this isn't just about the money; it's about how we do business. It's making sure that Indigenous people and Indigenous communities have a greater role in delivering the work, from deciding how the investment is rolled out to actually working on the ground to build the houses. But, again, this is an area of policy which is principally the responsibility of the state and territory governments. They need to step up. They can't keep sitting on their hands, doing nothing in this space, expecting the federal government to take over their responsibilities. They need to step up and take a key role in what is a very, very important issue. I also just note briefly in the time remaining to me that today the Closing the gap report was tabled, and obviously this is an area of keen interest to many people in this place. We've seen Closing the gap now since 2008, and we've seen some positives. Obviously, many of us would have liked to have seen a lot more positives over those 10 years. It does tend to be a two steps forward, one step back environment. But there have been some encouraging developments in this space. We've seen improvements in long-term health outcomes, and the target to halve child mortality is back on track. Educational outcomes are improving, and targets for early childhood and year 12 attainment are, again, both back on track. Obviously, turning around the current situation for Indigenous communities is a long-term project, and everyone in this place knows that. What works is not always clear. Some things that work in one community might not work in another. So we have to keep driving towards these targets and trying to do positive things for all Australians. 15:13 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory There is a fog of confusion around the way that the Commonwealth is handling negotiations on housing with the state and territory governments. I'll tell you why. In the Northern Territory, Minister Scullion stood up at a community in Arnhem Land and commended the Northern Territory government for putting forward $1.1 billion in terms of its housing, and it agreed to continue the partnership of $1.1 billion over 10 years. So there was confusion here when the Prime Minister said on Friday that that's not the case. I call on the minister and the Prime Minister to be much clearer in the deliberations and negotiations that they are having, because they're sending very confusing signals. Today we heard all the words about improving outcomes for first nations people, about closing the gap and about aspirations to improve our lives and the lives of our children and our families. I don't doubt the Prime Minister's intentions when he wants to see more and do more to see real improvements. You can't get much more real and solid than bricks and mortar—housing. Good-quality housing underpins all the Closing the Gap targets in health, education and employment as well as community safety. Good housing is the key to strengthening communities—particularly remote communities—and improving lives. This government knows this—in fact, it says this in its own Closing the gap report—yet has refused to clarify if it has any real commitment to improving the enormous need for remote housing. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion, refused to clarify what, if any, plans he has to extend or replace the 10-year $5.4 billion National Partnership on Remote Housing, which expires in June 2018. Senator Scullion was given every opportunity today to explain his positive plans for improving the dire, desperate need for remote Indigenous housing, and he couldn't do it. Senator Scullion could not say how many new houses his government would commit to building. He could not say how many families would benefit from new or improved housing. He could not say how the federal government plans to meet the additional 5,500 homes estimated by his own review to be required by 2028 to reduce levels of overcrowding in remote areas. Despite the 10-year plan expiring in four months and the budget being handed down in three months, the minister cannot give any indication of how his government is going to tackle the enormous need for housing in remote areas. This is what failure sounds like. But it's not Senator Scullion who lives with this failure. It's the family in an Alice Springs town camp sharing one bathroom with 20 other people because extended family members have no housing. It's an elderly woman sleeping outside in the front yard in 45-degree heat because her home doesn't have air conditioning. It's the elderly disabled man living on an outstation whose toilet hasn't worked for weeks being given a rubber plunger and told to fix it himself. Senator Scullion mentioned housing refurbishments and seemed to think they were not needed and were a waste of money. The remote housing review said the evidence is clear that houses deteriorate quickly without ongoing maintenance and repairs. Having invested $5.4 billion into the program, you would think that Senator Scullion would think it a priority for the government to protect its investment and increase the longevity of houses by maintaining the housing already delivered. Keeping housing maintained and functional plays a huge role in overcoming housing shortages and overcrowding. To put on record another finding from the review: Under the Community Housing and Infrastructure Program (CHIP) the Fixing Houses for Better Health surveys found that only nine per cent of household faults are caused by tenants. The misconception that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families cause the majority of damage and deterioration to remote Indigenous housing needs to be corrected. A focus on tenant education is important, but so too is delivering good quality and appropriate housing that meets building standards. But housing isn't just about bricks and mortar. It's also about jobs and economies, especially in remote areas. So come on, Minister. Come on, Prime Minister. Get on with the job and support our housing. (Time expired) 15:18 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales In all of the almost 10 years I've been in this place I have known Senator Scullion. He's a National Party senator, and I can tell you his commitment to our First Australians is huge. It is his passion. He does his best to work for them. It's on his mind all the time. Senator Brockman made the point that social housing in remote communities, just like in any other community, is the responsibility of state and territory governments. That is a fact. So for this to work the states and territories must come on board. Of course, the taxpayers and the federal government will put a lot of money into it. The Commonwealth remains in negotiations with the Queensland, Western Australian, South Australian and Northern Territory governments about future funding arrangements beyond the one-off 10-year remote housing agreement that is due to expire in June this year. We are just a few months out from the expiration of that 10-year agreement and negotiations are underway. State Labor housing ministers from Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland have been out spreading mistruths on remote housing. That shouldn't surprise anyone. The Commonwealth has not made or announced any decision regarding future funding arrangements for remote housing. In fact, negotiations with all of these states remain ongoing. Unlike the Northern Territory, the other state governments have not put any money on the table for Indigenous housing as part of these negotiations—that's a very important point to note—even though social housing in remote communities is a direct responsibility of the states and territories. If the state Labor governments of Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia were fair dinkum about remote housing in their states, they would have put forward a commitment by now, but they haven't. It is important to note that public housing remains a state and territory government responsibility. Notwithstanding this, the Commonwealth invested more than $6 billion in housing last year, including over $1.4 billion in Queensland, over $620 million in Western Australia and over $440 million in South Australia. These funds are allocated on the basis of all citizens in their states, but these state governments have decided they will not spend a single cent in remote Indigenous communities. Amazing! These state Labor governments should not be so city-centric and should invest some of this money in remote and Indigenous communities. But, typical Labor, they look at the cities only and forget what is out in the regional areas. In the past 10 years, the Commonwealth has invested $5.4 billion across the states and Northern Territory to support jurisdictions in managing their responsibilities for remote housing. It is timely for the jurisdictions to do their fair share and fund public housing services for their residents in remote communities, in the same way they do for those in non-remote locations. But it's not just about the money. It's about how we do business, making sure that Indigenous people have a greater role in delivering the work, from deciding how the investment is rolled out to actually working on the ground and building the houses. We'll not get on top of this if we keep doing business as usual. The Commonwealth government provided $5.4 billion over the 10 years to 2018 through the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing. Come on, states and territories, you need to lift your game—although the Northern Territory seems to be on the money here. We have to do these things to close the gap. I remember many years ago going out to the Flinders Ranges and carting sheep and cattle from the stations. The Indigenous workers there were great stockmen, great workers and great blokes. They were tremendous toilers and they were very proud of the work they did. We need to keep the jobs out in the rural areas, especially in the remote and regional areas, because the best thing you can give these people is a job. I'm very pleased to see the growth in Indigenous businesses in Inverell, where I live, such as the factory that makes pet food. They have now sold it, but they employ many local Aboriginal people there. They are very proud to work there and very proud to do their job, and they do a great job. This is the big thing: build the pride, get them to work and let them achieve themselves. We can provide the housing and help them on the way, but the jobs are the big thing in the end. (Time expired) 15:24 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales You would think that, of all days, this is the day that the Liberal Party would get this right. Those sitting here in the chamber today represent the Australian population. I want you to remember this day and participate in holding every government to account, on this day, the day of Closing the Gap, for the continuing egregious way life conditions of our Aboriginal brothers and sisters. What you've just heard in the answers that were given today in response to questions by the Indigenous leadership here from the Labor Party—Senator Dodson and Senator McCarthy—was a whole lot of hot gobbledygook and nonsense about state and federal responsibilities. Make no mistake: this government is running from every single financial responsibility it can run from and blaming the states for a failure of delivery of services, and that's what we saw again here today. Over in the other chamber, I went to listen to a very, very mediocre speech from the Prime Minister on Closing the Gap—but with no proposal to actually close the gap—and a much more inspired response from the Leader of the Opposition, who said this: … for 10 years and four prime ministers this has been a day of words. Sometimes we've heard good speeches in defence of not so good results … We can close the gap … And it'll be First Australians … who will show us how. The First Australians will show us how. They are asking questions. While this government quibbles over whether it'll have a conversation with South Australia or Western Australia, they are standing here and telling us that there's a family in Alice Springs—and it's not just one family; this is repeated around the country—where one group of 20 people are sharing a bathroom. I'm sure that most of those sitting in the gallery, and the people who might be listening to this debate, would not be in a situation where there are 20 people sharing one bathroom. Senator Dodson opened his remarks by quoting the World Health Organization and saying how important housing is, as the fundamental place in which people can live, can live healthily and can support their children so they can participate in education. These are basic things that our country—our wealthy, safe and free country—can make a commitment to delivering. What did we see today in question time? This quibbling, this sharing of blame and this abrogation of responsibility from a minister who has absolutely failed to deliver. Safe, appropriate housing is what Senator Dodson has asked for. Safe, appropriate housing has been delivered by, as Senator McCarthy indicated, 640 jobs that've been generated through this scheme that's about to come to an end on 30 June this year. Indigenous businesses are benefiting from this scheme. There are 850 Indigenous apprentices and trainees who have benefited from the scheme. But is the fact that it's working, and the fact that it's having a positive impact, enough to keep this government on track? Absolutely not. They're ready to walk away. What we heard today was a minister who didn't quite clearly say it but basically said, 'Well, the national partnership's dead; we're going to bipartisan arrangements now with the states.' This is important. We need national leadership, not little deals done on the side out of a framework of attacking the actual challenges that lie before us in addressing the need for remote Indigenous housing. Today over in the other place, the Leader of the Opposition said of the national apology: … 10 years on, the apology, in so many ways, speaks for itself … when, at long last, the government finally asked forgiveness … somehow, the stolen generation found it in their hearts to grant forgiveness in the spirit of healing. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, first nations people across this country, took a deep breath 10 years ago and said, 'We might trust our governments again.' Targets were set and, in addition to failing on this housing target, we've got a government that is ready to start changing the targets. What we saw today in discussion about housing is a smaller view of this large failure that we're seeing from Malcolm Turnbull's government of walking away from the practical need to respond to real and pressing issues: housing, health, education and access to services. These are the things that continue to plague our first nations. Today, on the day of Closing the Gap, remember that you're in this place. Keep watching, because in 10 years I don't want to be part of a government, or an opposition, that sits and continues to look at these sorts of statistics. (Time expired) Question agreed to. Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry 52 15:29 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Whish-Wilson today relating to the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. Senator Cormann made it clear twice in the chamber today that the royal commission has only just started. Let me tell you: the royal commission has officially been going for nearly two months. That's two months out of a 12-month time frame. Nearly 15 per cent of the time for this royal commission has now passed. It may have been the first official hearing today, when we got the first statement from the commissioner, Commissioner Hayne, but this commission has been going for nearly two months. The questions I raised are very important ones for the Australian people. We've all fought hard in this chamber to try and get a royal commission into banks and the financial services industry. I've got to say that, while I was watching it on TV today, I felt like pinching myself: it's actually happening. After nearly four years of campaigning for this, it's actually finally happening. But it would be a real shame if this were a Mickey Mouse royal commission or it were a whitewash because it was handicapped before it even started by this government's time frame—12 months for broad terms of reference for a wide-ranging royal commission into bad behaviour and misconduct in the financial services sector. What we learnt today from Commissioner Hayne were three important things. Firstly, he said that there should be no impediments—based on gags that they may have in place around employment contracts or settlement contracts—to people wanting to give evidence. That's extremely important to help people come forward and send the commission their submissions or speak to the commission directly about evidence. The next things that were really important are that Commissioner Hayne let the Australian people know that the commission requested information from the banks nearly two months ago—important information for the commission to set its pathway to delivering a result within 12 months—and the banks have been unable to comply with that to the satisfaction of the commissioner. So where do we go from here? If the banks are going to game a short, 12-month royal commission, if they're not going to provide the evidence that we need to the commission and ultimately to the Australian people, what is the commissioner able to do? The important question today for the Treasurer and Senator Cormann is: would you be willing to grant an extension to the time frame for this royal commission? A number of commentators, especially expert commentators who understand the industry and the history of misconduct, the scandals and the numerous inquiries that we've already seen, have said 12 months is too short a time period. We've also got a situation where the commissioner's been up-front with the Australian people today—and to those who've made submissions already to the commission—that the commission won't be able to hear every story of a banking victim who's contacted the commission. It is only going to be able to hear case studies or representative samples, which is obviously going to be very disappointing for people who have been dragged through the mud seeking justice, seeking restitution, for what they believe has been a crime committed against them, through numerous scandals. I and others in this chamber have listened to many of them over the years. We've heard their heartbreaking stories. The time frame and the resources available to the commission are very tight—another reason for this government to consider extending the time frame for the royal commission. What did please me about the response to my question today was that Senator Cormann didn't rule out extending the time frame for the royal commission. In fact, he was about as equivocal as Senator Cormann gets in an answer. He didn't actually know how to answer the question. It's really important that, by the interim report, if the commissioner requests an extension because he needs more time to get the information from the banks, if the banks need more time to comply, if we need to hear from more witnesses or if the commissioner uncovers more scandals, it needs more time to get to the bottom of these issues. I would ask the Australian people out there today, those people who have been ripped off by the banks or financial services companies, who haven't come forward, to please get in touch with the commission. There are now no impediments for you in doing so. There's no reason for you not to speak to the commission. Your safety will be protected. The commissioner made that clear today. Those who have witnessed misconduct at financial services institutions please come forward. This is your chance to blow the whistle. You will also be protected. For those who've actually committed misconduct and crime, this is an opportunity to get it off your chest and clear your conscience through the royal commission. You will be protected by the commissioner. (Time expired) Question agreed to. NOTICES 53 NOTICES Presentation 53 BUSINESS 55 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 55 NOTICES 55 NOTICES Postponement 55 COMMITTEES 55 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 55 15:36): The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 ( I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any Senate. MOTIONS 55 MOTIONS Murray-Darling Basin 55 Cambodia 56 15:39 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I ask that general business notice of motion No. 699 standing in my name for today, relating to Cambodia, be taken as a formal motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Is there any objection to motion being taken as formal? Senator McGrath 217241 Yes. Senator DI NATALE 53369 Madam Deputy President, in lieu of suspending standing orders, I seek leave to make a one-minute statement. Leave granted. Senator DI NATALE 53369 This is a straightforward motion that goes to the very heart of democracy in our region. Once again we see the government blocking the will of the Senate in refusing to allow us the chance to vote on this important motion. Cambodia's democracy is crumbling before our very eyes. Its Prime Minister, Hun Sen, is eliminating opposition and civil society before he faces the next election. If we were to put this in the Australian context, it would be the equivalent of the Prime Minister exiling Bill Shorten and throwing Tanya Plibersek in jail, and then the High Court dissolving the Labor Party and banning every MP from politics. That's what's going on in Cambodia right now and, as their neighbour, Australia must offer Cambodian victims of the crackdown our support. We should implement targeted sanctions against Hun Sen's government and revoke his invitation to Australia next month. I urge the government to stand up for democracy in the region. 15:40 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave not granted. Senator McGrath 217241 I table my statement. 15:41 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Labor has a strong history in leading efforts for peace and democracy in Cambodia. Under Labor, Australia was a party to the 1991 Paris peace accords aimed at ending conflict in Cambodia, and we agree with the vision for a democratic political system with respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. Labor foreign minister Gareth Evans was the architect of this peace process, and Australia's John Sanderson led the United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia, which supervised free elections in which 90 per cent of the population voted. Labor expresses concern with the dismantling of independent voices and political opposition in Cambodia. It is incredibly disappointing that the Australian Greens did not accept Labor's proposed amendments to two subparagraphs in this motion, which would have enabled it to be supported. Labor urges the government to continue to voice Australia's concerns about the undermining of Cambodia's democracy and ensure these matters covered by this motion are raised with the Prime Minister, Hun Sen, when he attends the ASEAN-Australia Special Summit to be held in Sydney in March. DOCUMENTS 57 DOCUMENTS Naval Group Australia 57 Order for the Production of Documents 57 15:42 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I move: That— (1) The Senate notes that: (a) in April 2016, former Australian CEO of Future Submarine designer DCNS (now known as Naval Group), Mr Sean Costello, stated to the media that "over 90 per cent" of the $50 billion submarine build would take place in Australia; (b) shortly after, the Minister for Defence Industry (Mr Pyne) reiterated those comments on ABC's Q&A program; (c) in June 2017, Mr Brent Clark, CEO of DCNS Australia, told a Senate committee that "an aim point of greater than 60 per cent would be something that [DCNS] would aim for"; (d) in October 2017, it was reported by Fairfax media that the Minister made public comments at the Pacific 2017 Naval Conference clarifying the definition of a local build to be 60 per cent, and confirming that at least 60 per cent of the work on the submarines would be done by Australian firms; (e) in February 2018, Mr Costello confirmed that the 90 per cent build figure "absolutely" went into the tender response presented to the Australian Government, "down to the percentile" and it is reasonable to presume that this 90 per cent build figure would have influenced the Australian Government's decision to award the contract to DCNS; (f) the level of Australian industry involvement and local content in the Future Submarine Project is critical to Australia's defence industry, Australian jobs, and the economic benefit that the Future Submarine Project brings; and (g) there needs to be clarity on the minimum level of Australian industry involvement in the Future Submarine Project. (2) There be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence Industry, by no later than 3.30 pm on 14 February 2018, the Australian Industry Capability Plan submitted by DCNS to the Department of Defence in its response to the Future Submarine Competitive Evaluation Process (CEP). I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator PATRICK 144292 This document is an important document which outlines the promise of DCNS, now Naval Group, to Australian industry as to what involvement it will have in the Future Submarine project. It is an important document that former Senator Xenophon requested under FOI in April 2017. What this means is that the Information Commissioner is about to make a decision about it. So I respectfully suggest to the minister that she needs to respond to the OPD in a very considered manner. I don't want to see the minister ordered to make another explanation as to why she got her OPD response wrong, because I can assure you I will not hesitate to protect the integrity of the Senate oversight processes in circumstances where the minister makes another bogus claim. 15:43 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The plan contains Naval Group's proprietary information regarding submarine design, the manner in which it transfers technology to customers, and supply chain proposals for particular suppliers. If released, this information could disadvantage Naval Group and advantage its competitors in future tender processes. This could occur by revealing to competitors Naval Group's intellectual property regarding design and build of submarines and the methods it has developed to transfer its technology to other countries, which is of particular value to Naval Group as it competes for international programs. Disclosure could be expected to also damage Australia's international relations with France. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 58 MOTIONS Indigenous Affairs 58 15:44 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that the Closing the Gap report 2018, A ten-year review: the Closing the Gap Strategy and Recommendations for Reset, was released in Parliament House on 8 February 2018; (b) acknowledges that the target to achieve life expectancy equality for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples by 2030 will not be met if the current course continues; (c) recognises that the Closing the Gap Strategy was effectively abandoned after five years, and that there is an urgent need for the strategy to be reset based on the existing Close the Gap statement of intent commitments with a corresponding national response and equitable, needs-based investment; and (d) urges the federal, state and territory governments to implement the six recommendations of the review. 15:45 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Is leave granted? Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 Thank you, Madam Deputy President. The government is absolutely committed to delivering better outcomes for Indigenous Australians, and the Prime Minister's Closing the gap report released today included the most promising results since 2011. The report shows we have achieved solid progress across target areas, compared with a decade ago. The government does not support this motion regarding the Oxfam review of the Closing the Gap agenda, as it is false to say the Closing the Gap agenda has been abandoned. It is false to say $500 million has been cut from Indigenous affairs programs and it is misleading to use experimental data to say the gap is widening. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 58 COMMITTEES Allocation of Departments and Agencies 58 15:46 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That the order of the Senate agreed to on 31 August 2016 relating to the allocation of departments and agencies to legislative and general purpose standing committees, be amended to read as follows: Community Affairs Health and Aged Care Human Services Social Services Economics Jobs and Innovation (Industry, Innovation and Science) Treasury Education, Employment and Workplace Relations Education and Training Jobs and Innovation (Jobs and Small Business) Environment and Communications Communications and the Arts Environment and Energy Finance and Public Administration Finance Parliament Prime Minister and Cabinet Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Defence, including Veterans' Affairs Foreign Affairs and Trade Legal and Constitutional Affairs Attorney-General Home Affairs Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Agriculture and Water Resources Infrastructure and Transport. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 59 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Defence Facilities: Chemical Contamination 59 15:46 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 am today, four proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate that the following letter has been received from Senator Burston: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: 'The need to remediate water supplies, contaminated by the long term use of firefighting foams containing per-fluorinated chemicals (PFAS) and to compensate those affected.' Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly. 15:47 Senator BURSTON 207807 New South Wales I rise today to discuss the need to remediate water supplies contaminated by the long-term use of firefighting foams containing perfluorinated chemicals, PFAS, and to compensate those affected. The No. 1 priority of any government is to protect its citizens. However, what is happening now is that the very department that is meant to protect us is doing the exact opposite. I have raised this urgent issue on behalf of the residents affected by the contamination leaching from the RAAF base at Williamtown in New South Wales on a number of occasions in this place, including in my first speech, where I said: Another example of disconnect between rulers and ruled in Australia is the Defence bureaucracy's treatment of communities adversely affected by Defence Force contamination of their groundwater by toxic fire-fighting foam. Groundwater has been poisoned at bases in Williamtown in New South Wales and Oakey in Queensland, as well as another 16 sites around Australia. Residents are desperate. They cannot sell their properties as they are now worthless. They are exposed to potential severe medical complaints. And the Defence authorities? They do not listen. Reports show that the ADF knew of the problem as early as 2003 and failed to act. Its statements on the matter express more concern about bad press than about the health of local residents, who are unable to eat locally grown produce or use bore water. Why this indifference? My first speech was more than 16 months ago. After meeting with ministers and writing to ministers imploring action to be taken, nothing has changed, although, according to a Four Corners report last year, it appears that Defence knew about the concerns with PFAS as far back as 1987, rather than 2003 as I mentioned in my first speech. Last year, I wrote to Senator McGrath, who was heading up the so-called task force to oversee the whole-of-government response to PFAS, asking for the government's response to the 8 July 2017 article in the Newcastle Herald titled 'Cabbage Tree Road cancer figures "mind-boggling"'. The response from Senator McGrath was extremely disappointing, to put it mildly, especially considering that on the same day I received his response there were revelations in the same newspaper that a 49th person with cancer had come forward, who had lived on Cabbage Tree Road at Williamtown, just south of the RAAF base. When I read Senator McGrath's response, which included the line, 'There is currently no consistent evidence that exposure to PFAS causes adverse human health effects,' I almost fell off my chair. According to that same newspaper article in July last year, there is a report by a Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health professor that indicates that PFAS chemicals can suppress the body's immune system. I'm livid at the lack of action and compassion being shown by this government to the communities surrounding the RAAF Williamtown base, in Oakey, and now in Katherine in the Northern Territory, which are severely affected by this PFAS contamination. Pauline Hanson's One Nation has offered a number of solutions to the government for funding the work on remediation, plus voluntary buyouts, but they seem to have fallen on deaf ears. While I've been scathing of the coalition government's inaction on this issue, the Labor Party is just as guilty of turning a blind eye. Last year, Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon moved a motion calling on the federal government to urgently commence a process of voluntary buyouts of affected properties and develop a plan to clean up contamination from the Williamtown RAAF base, and on the New South Wales EPA to re-examine the current boundaries of the Williamtown investigation area and investigate reports of extensive contamination outside the current boundaries. It's not often that One Nation agrees on anything with the Greens, let alone votes with them. However, the disaster that is PFAS contamination, which is severely affecting the community around the Williamtown RAAF base, is above politics. I spoke in support of the motion on behalf of the Pauline Hanson's One Nation senators and the affected communities, and we then all voted with the Greens senators to pass the motion in the Senate. While I expected the government to vote against the motion, I was shocked to see Labor senators stay in their seats and vote with the government against the motion, especially considering what had been said in the media by both the Labor member for Paterson, Meryl Swanson, and the state Labor member for Port Stephens. All Ms Swanson wants to do is gallivant around the world on the taxpayer dollar rather than fight for her constituents. Late last year, there was another motion put by the Greens on this issue. Pauline Hanson's One Nation would have supported the original motion, but it seems that it was watered down so Labor would support it and give some cover to their local MPs, who are coming under pressure to tell the community what they will do if they win the next election. Like the government, Labor is all talk on this issue. On the Four Corners program last year, it was discovered that there was a report back in 1987 detailing concerns about the impact of PFAS on the then proposed base at Tindal, two years before it was opened by the Labor government. A Defence spokesman on the program also admitted that they should have warned the residents surrounding the Williamtown RAAF base that PFAS was leaching onto their properties in 2012. Who was in government in 2012? That's right—the Labor Party. It seems either that defence ministers since 1987 have some explaining to do or that the department has kept those defence ministers in the dark. I'm not sure which is worse. With the federal election due as early as August this year and current polling suggesting that Labor could be back in government, I call on the Labor Party to come up with a concrete policy for these poor souls living with this issue day in and day out. That being said, the response by the government to the motion that passed the Senate late last year, which was tabled last week by Senator McGrath, was ordinary to say the least. I have consistently been calling for the government to immediately start the process of voluntary buyouts to help those affected residents get on with their lives. As I suggested in a question to the defence minister late last year, at the very least the government should immediately set up a fund similar to the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements. Whilst I know it may be a drop in the ocean compared to what the residents need, at least it may alleviate the immense financial burden these residents are under and show them that the government does care about them. Pauline Hanson's One Nation has been urging action on this matter since before the last federal election. I'm in ongoing discussions with our leader, Senator Pauline Hanson, who has a similarly affected community up at Oakey in Queensland, on what action we can take to pressure the government to act. Unfortunately, it may be time for our senators to repeat what we did to get the code of conduct for the sugar industry before this government is willing to do something tangible for those affected by this contamination. 15:55 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I thank Senator Burston for his remarks and for his interest in this complex issue. The issue of PFAS contamination is a complex issue and we're dealing with a very complicated legacy issue because of the wide variety of potential sources. This is an issue for all levels of government—not just the Commonwealth government but also state and territory governments. PFAS contamination impacts not just military bases but also airports, state firefighting training facilities, rural firefighting training facilities, local dumps and private industrial facilities in the chemical and oil industries. This is why a nationally consistent approach for responding to PFAS contamination is being considered by COAG to ensure all levels of government cooperate for the benefit of all affected communities across Australia. It is also essential that any action by the Commonwealth be very clearly based on evidence, proportionate to the level of risk and fiscally sustainable into the future for all governments and private industry. Despite the widespread use of the chemicals that are under the PFAS umbrella, the human health impact of these chemicals is still inconclusive. We know these chemicals can persist in humans, animals and the environment. We do know that the human body gets rid of PFAS over time, so once exposure is reduced or stopped, any PFAS in the body will reduce. But there is currently no consistent evidence that PFAS is harmful to human health. Some human health studies have found associations between exposure to these chemicals and health effects, and others have not. In addition, the studies have found associations were not able to determine with certainty whether the health effects were caused by the chemical being studied or by other factors. So more research is required before definitive statements can be made on causality or risk, which is what we are doing. We're undertaking the $12½ million national research program into the human health effects of prolonged exposure to PFAS across Oakey in my home state of Queensland, Williamtown in Senator Burston's state of New South Wales and Katherine in the Northern Territory. This is a best-practice study to better understand if there are any long-term human health impacts. The study will produce high-class information that will be available first and foremost to the community and to the government and decision-makers. The Department of Health have also established an expert health panel to advise the Australian government on the potential health impacts associated with PFAS exposure and identify priority areas for further research. It is expected that the panel will provide its advice to the Minister for Health in late February 2018, and the panel's advice will be released publicly soon after. The panel will also provide its advice into priority research areas to the National Health and Medical Research Council to inform their targeted call for research for the PFAS substances area in the national health research program. I need to stress that the full extent of PFAS contamination across the Commonwealth estate is still being determined. To help remove the chemical and remediate the environment, the Department of Defence is examining a range of other technologies that have the potential to remediate contaminated water and soil. The Australian government has invested heavily in a wide range of activities to address PFAS contamination and its impacts and to better understand the potential health effects of PFAS exposure. I've already mentioned the national research program into human health effects of prolonged exposure to PFAS. There has been $55 million spent to support the communities of Williamtown and Oakey to reduce exposure, manage the environmental impacts and provide dedicated mental health and counselling services, a voluntary blood-testing program and an epidemiological study into potential health effects from exposure to PFAS. There has been $5.7 million spent to better support the Katherine community through access to the voluntary blood-testing program, the study and additional dedicated mental health and counselling services. There is $15 million being spent on the national PFAS Remediation Research Program to support the development of innovative technologies to investigate and remediate PFAS contaminated areas, including soil and other solid contaminated debris, groundwater, waterways and marine systems. (Time expired) 16:01 Senator GALLACHER 204953 South Australia I note with interest the progress that Senator McGrath outlined in that very brief contribution on the MPI, but the reality is that there are completed Senate inquiries into this subject and recommendations with the government. All of that short summation of activity has not addressed the recommendations that were made for Williamtown and Oakey. The recommendations basically have been on the public record for an inordinate amount of time, probably 18 months. The government has moved incredibly slowly and incredibly cautiously in the face of broad community concern. The simple reality is that it has been measured that PFOS or PFOA contamination has come off the bases and affected people's property. It has affected their material property, which has diminished in value. There have been calls for compensation by Senate committee reports, and the government has not done anything in the way of compensating those affected landholders. Sure, they have had provision for mental health and counselling services, and quite appropriately so because, if you paid $600,000 for your property and it's now worth next to nothing, you would be under a bit of stress and would probably need guidance to get your daily activities back to where they were. In Oakey we met an 85-year-old horse trainer, who said: 'You can do what you like, but you can't bring my business back. No-one wants to put a horse in training with me because you people have contaminated the soil. You've contaminated the waterways. My business is destroyed. It's just not good enough. You need to compensate me.' It's fairly ironic I suppose that in some areas of Queensland there was great opposition to Defence's acquisition of land on a compulsory basis. On a compulsory basis they were seeking to extend Shoalwater Bay and areas around Townsville and take property off people. There is a well-established process for doing that. There was such a revolt from, amongst others, the Liberal National Party in Queensland and, I believe, those in the Pauline Hanson party that the government backed off and didn't do it. There are well-established guidelines. They know how to do it. They could compulsively acquire all of these affected properties around Oakey and Williamtown. They probably should do that. Then they could, under their guidance, properly remediate the properties. They would own it. The people who are affected now who want to get out would be getting out in a fair and equitable way. It's an absolute disgrace what's happening here. When you question the defence minister at estimates, the standard answer you get is that it's with PM&C and, in particular, Senator McGrath. Senator McGrath has in a short five-minute contribution put the position of the government on the table here today. It doesn't go anywhere close to meeting either the recommendations of the Senate references committee or the expectations of those people who have been unjustly treated and unjustly affected. Who would have thought that a place in the Northern Territory that has never had a water problem in the whole of its history—the Katherine River is a mighty river—would have to go on water restrictions? Their ability to blend their artesian water with river water has been taken away from them by Defence. We've done it. Whether it was a Labor government with a Labor defence minister or a Liberal government with a Liberal defence minister, we've taken away that community's right to fresh water. Their ability to sustain their community has been diminished and they have had restrictions, and Defence is moving at about a snail's pace to fix that. There are property owners there who don't know whether they can grow any of their vegetables anymore. That is disgraceful. It's no different at Williamtown, where property owners were told by the relevant state department: 'Don't eat your vegies. Don't eat the vegies you grow there. Don't eat the fish you catch in the creek.' And at Oakey it was exactly the same. And there's a wider and deeper community who are affected by this as well. It's all of those former service people, people who worked on the bases, people who worked in those particular areas, firefighters and the like, mechanics and the like who were exposed to PFOS and PFOA over many years. Those people are rightly concerned. You know what the Defence personnel said at one of the meetings with the affected concerned residents? 'This is the new asbestos.' That came straight out of the mouth of one of the leading respondents for Defence. They told a group of people this is the new asbestos, and then, when they became concerned about the implications for their health, Defence said: 'No. There is no evidence. There is none of this. There is none of that. But don't eat your fish, don't eat your vegetables and we'll see if we can think about what we can do about the diminished value of your property holdings.' It's not good enough and it should not be a matter of partisan political debate in this chamber. Every person in this chamber should be batting for those ordinary, everyday Australians who had their health questioned and queried. They don't really know their ability to live a normal life—they have got mental anguish over that—and they have their property devalued. And whoever is responsible for that—and I think it is exceedingly clear at Williamtown, Oakey and Tindal that it's Defence; and we know that there are potentially 70 other Defence sites in Australia which may have a similar issue or problem—I would have thought it would be incumbent on this government to get a concise, concerted plan in place to address these pressing concerns. And it shouldn't have taken this long. It should not still be a matter at Williamtown and Oakey. Defence's infrastructure is enormous. And we know, because Defence has been on that estate for more than 100 years, that there are contamination problems on a lot of Defence's estate. So, like any holder of a vast amount of land, they should have proper environmental safeguards and standards where, when there is an identified problem, they should know how to fix it. It shouldn't be hit and miss as it appears to be at the moment: 'Oh, we have a problem. We don't really know what to do. Let's have a study. Let's look at what happened somewhere else.' If they own this estate—which they do—and it's immensely valuable and extremely large, they should have a coherent environmental standards group which, when these sorts of things come to the fore, is able to easily and quickly put proper safeguards in place. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be any evidence of that at all. One of the sites that has been remediated, the Victorian site of Point Cook, only really got its remediation efforts properly funded when the contaminant was leaking into Port Phillip Bay. When it started leaking into Port Phillip Bay, the remediation became an urgent priority, money was found, it went through the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and it happened and was done. We shouldn't have Oakey, Williamtown, Katherine or any of these other emerging sites waiting until they get to the catastrophic stage before Defence moves on it. It shouldn't be that way. The way Senator McGrath has answered the concerns here today is very brief, not enough, does not have enough money, does not have enough action and is not going to sort out these communities. These communities have been exceedingly patient. Their status is evidentiary based. It's not hard to work out that their properties are now not worth what they paid for them. They should be compensated. Their health issues should be addressed. Defence should be moving 100 times faster than what it is. Government should be on the job in the first instance, whether it's through the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet or whichever one they want to do it through, acting to take these hard-working Australians and putting them back in the shape they were before this event occurred. People need to be put back in the shape they were before this event happened. We do know—it's evidentiary based—PFOS used on bases has leached into creeks, artesian waterways and surface waterways and caused untold harm and damage to a number of communities and a vast number of people. This government should get on the front foot and act immediately. The Defence estate is huge. They should be able to meet these challenges by doing whatever they need to do; if they need to sell something to fund this, they should do that. 16:11 Senator RHIANNON CPR New South Wales The debate before us today is most important. Across Australia, hundreds and hundreds of sites have now been identified as being contaminated with firefighting foam. The chemicals associated with that, known as PFOS and PFOA, have been identified as causing a range of health problems. We are seeing a government that is not managing it properly. I see stressed residents, who are uncertain of their futures and have seen their property values collapse, being fobbed off by the government. The stress that they're living with is extreme, and it's a real indictment of this government. Last Tuesday we saw the government come forward with a report that so many people were hoping would give them some certainty, but it has just added to the anger, confusion and stress. We need to understand what we're dealing with, with these poisons, because I sometimes think that people think, 'Yes, another contamination.' It's not 'another contamination'. These are human-made chemicals that do not break down. They accumulate in the soil and the water. They bioaccumulate in the bodies of living organisms and in human beings. The critical issue to understand here is that they do not break down. Why don't they break down? Human beings were too clever: when they made these chemicals they made them in such a way that their structure would stay in place, even when it became soluble in water. That needs to be understood to understand the enormity of this problem—these chemicals build up and up in our bodies. I want to share with you something that my colleague Senator Janet Rice alerted me too. She went to the wonderful dinner that the ABC puts on for people involved in Heywire. There was a young man there named Jarrod Sansom from Newcastle. I want to share with you some of his comments. It brings home the human side of what we're dealing with here. This young man was raised on one of the farms at Williamtown. They had 50 acres, and he described how wonderful his life was growing up with all the animals. They decided, after a point, that they had to leave their farm. This was before word of the contamination had been released. He said it was an upheaval for their family, leaving 100-plus years of family heritage behind. They moved away, and then they found out the devastating news. Initially, they were concerned about the neighbours they had left behind. These are Jarrod's words: The RAAF base had been using fire extinguishers since the 1950s that contained toxic chemicals. Over time, carcinogenic substances entered the town's drainage system, contaminating the water table. The health impact on our family has now come to light. My grandfather, along with three of his siblings Valmay, Milton and Monty, all died of stomach cancer. Many of our old neighbours have been infected and fear the same fate. Mum, Dad, my siblings and I all ate fresh produce from gardens which thrived on the contaminated water. We all have to be tested—something we're putting off. Not out of laziness, but worry. I don't feel angry at the RAAF base like many people do. I just feel devastated for those we left behind, in the 'red zone'. It simply breaks my heart that people we grew up with are at risk of cancer. Their homes are worth nothing; they can't even get a loan to do up a kitchen. I can't begin to describe how sorry I feel for people still in the red zone. Senator McGrath, Senator Paterson and everybody else on the coalition benches need to take that on board. This is the reality. You can come forward here and quote people saying, 'Well, the science isn't clear.' There are so many cancer clusters in this area. If you dig into the science, it is very clear what is going on. And then there are the financial implications for the property values. How would any of us who owns a home feel if, all of a sudden, we found out that it was worthless because of contamination which we had nothing to do with? In fact, there is another body, in this case the federal government, that admits total responsibility. But that doesn't mean anything for these people. What they're left with is trying to pick up the pieces of their lives. They can't get compensation, they can't sell their property to anybody and they can't get a settlement from the government. This has been dragging on for years. We got the Senate inquiry up in 2015. It's now 2018. One of the residents whom I have met a number of times is Lindsay Clout, from the Fullerton Cove Residents Action Group. He also runs a small business in horticulture there. The property is beautiful, but it's now in the red zone. This is what he said about last week's report: Senator McGrath has a hide to be going in and telling the banks everything is alright … Then those guys are looking at your newspaper— the Newcastle Herald— and seeing 50 cancer cases on a four-kilometre stretch. Again, that is the reality which these people are living with. I make reference to his comments about the banks because it was something that was featured in Senator McGrath's report last week about the discussions that he had been having with various financial institutions. An Australian Bankers' Association spokesperson said, 'It was relying on the government to lead on the important issue and was assisting where possible.' But, again, when you read what is going on here—not that we're hearing everything the goes on behind closed doors, obviously—it's just like the spin that turns people off governments and politics so much these days. This spokesperson said: Residents in affected areas should contact their bank with any concerns they may have or if they are experiencing financial difficulties. These people have so many stories. Senator McGrath, you must have heard them when you went to Williamtown. It was one of the first things they raised with us. These are the comments from the government that have so incensed residents. They had feared the information that they might receive about how the government is handling the situation, but I think it even shocked those who were not really expecting anything in terms of the government's handling of it. The Insurance Council of Australia has also been involved in this, and the issue has come up about the health consequences and to what degree that information has been relayed to the banks. It really has been quite minimal. I'm aware that Campbell Fuller from Insurance Council of Australia said that they were made aware of the US EPA study in 2016, but he goes on to say that 'the contamination had not had an effect on the availability or pricing of household insurance'. There are many examples where that is just not the case. There is the case of Ryan Baker. He has been looking to get a business loan. His house is located in the red zone, and he wanted a business loan so that he could get on with his life. He can't get that loan. These stories are repeated time and time again. This is an issue across Australia; we're hearing more and more reports of this contamination. There is the Gold Coast Airport and we've heard other speakers detail the Katherine situation. The reports there nominate that just about everyone in the town of Katherine has been impacted. It is seriously extraordinary the depth of the poisoning that is going on, yet you rely on a few crossbenchers to rattle the chains and put this on the agenda here. Sydney Airport is another one, and there is Oakey in Queensland. The list goes on and on. Then there are the firefighters who contacted us who talked about how they undertook their training and they are worried about themselves and about the area where they undertook the training, with no proper safeguards in place. There's a report that cattle farmers in Queensland and New South Wales, near the Oakey and Williamtown bases, are concerned they are selling contaminated meat. They have told me that they are told not to eat the meat, but they can sell the meat. This is a huge crisis. It is out of control. How much is this going to be allowed to go on? It's not about saying the Liberal-Nationals are to blame or that Labor is to blame. There's huge fault, and I think there's blame for the immediate situation, but this has a long-term history. We should now all be pulling together saying that the right thing will be done by the people and the right thing will be done in cleaning up the contaminated bases. Many things have shocked me in dealing with the Williamtown community, but the one that really topped it was when I found out that they haven't stopped the contamination coming off the base. In this day and age, that is totally possible. Yes, it's hard to clean up this toxic pollution, but it can be stopped from coming off the base. But the pollution is out there and it's getting into the water—into the water of the Hunter. This is a disaster, and all parties should be working together. (Time expired) 16:21 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I thank Senator Burston for raising this important issue in the Senate. I have listened carefully to the contributions so far by other senators, including Senator Rhiannon, Senator Gallacher and Senator McGrath. One of the things we should all bear in mind when we deal with issues that are sensitive like this, where there is community concern and fear—and Senator Rhiannon certainly raised the fears that some people hold about this issue—is that we do so in a very measured and very considered way that is based on evidence and doesn't engage in speculation. When people are afraid, it does not help them at all to play on those fears, to play up those fears, and not actually to provide them with the scientific evidence we have available on this issue. I want to make one other general point before I get to the substance of the issue. I was interested to hear Senator Burston talk about how rare it is that he and One Nation agree with the Greens. That is certainly the image that One Nation likes to portray to its supporters, and no doubt that's the image the Greens like to portray to their supporters. But the truth is that the Greens and One Nation are political bedfellows much more often than any of the voters who send them here would like to think they are, particularly on economic matters. When it comes to questions of trade and questions of banking or financial services, time and time again the Greens and One Nation take a very similar populist line on economics and vote together, and they did so only last week. But that's obviously not the substantive matter we're here to consider today, which is the issue of PFAS. In listening to the debate so far, one thing I have noticed that has not been explained is the ubiquity of PFAS as a class of chemicals and how common they are in household products and items. If you had listened to the debate so far, you may be under the impression it's only the armed forces and the emergency services that have used them on bases. But, in fact, over the last 50 years, in Australia and globally, PFAS has been used in a range of industrial, medical and consumer products, including stain protection for carpets, fabric and furniture; cosmetics; sunscreens; paper coating; water-resistant packaging; rubber; plastics; electronic parts for printers and copiers; insecticides; metal plating; plastics etching; photographic materials; aviation hydraulic fluid; non-stick frying pans; medical devices; and, of course, firefighting foam, as we've heard. PFAS as a class of chemicals is so widespread in its use that almost every person on earth has been exposed to it and would have a degree of it within their blood. The question of health impact is a very important one. We do know that these chemicals can persist in human beings, in animals and in the environment. But I'm advised that there is currently no consistent evidence that PFAS is harmful to human health. I will come back to that in a moment, but the important thing there is that the evidence is not consistent. We do know also that the human body can get rid of PFAS over time. Once that exposure is reduced or stopped, any PFAS in the human body will reduce. That's why the government have taken, I think, the very sensible and prudent step to allocate $12½ million to the national research program into the human health effects of prolonged exposure to PFAS, which we're undertaking at the moment across Oakey, Williamtown and Katherine. It is a best practice study that will that help us better understand if there are any long-term human health impacts. It's absolutely true, as Senator Burston said, that there are some studies which have found associations between exposure to these chemicals and health effects, but there are also other studies that have not found that same relationship. In addition, those studies that found associations were not able to determine with certainty whether the health effects were caused by the chemical being studied or by other factors such as smoking. It's very important to understand the causal relationship there if we're to be able to deal with this issue appropriately. It's very clear that more research is required before we can be absolutely definitive about this issue of causality. That is what the government is supporting. As you've heard, the Department of Health has established an expert health panel to advise the government on the potential health effects associated with PFAS exposure and to identify priority areas for further research. It's expected that the panel will provide its advice to the Minister for Health in late February 2018, later this month. I'm advised that the panel will be releasing its advice publicly soon after it's made available to the minister. The panel will also provide its advice on priority research areas to the National Health and Medical Research Council to inform their targeted call for research for these substances. The Australian government is improving the understanding of the potential health effects related to PFAS exposure by undertaking a long-term epidemiological study, which is running concurrently with the voluntary blood-testing program. It will contribute an important body of evidence to an emerging area of research. The study will produce high-class information that will be available first and foremost to the community and the government, and this will help us make informed judgements about how to deal with this issue, rather than speculative judgements based on inadequate research. The PFAS task force was established by the Prime Minister in December 2016, as we have heard, as part of the Commonwealth's response to develop a collaborative approach to manage PFAS contamination. The task force brought together Commonwealth agencies and state and territory governments to support greater consistency and the sharing of information. This oversight includes engaging and collaborating with relevant Commonwealth agencies, state and territory governments, and industry stakeholders. Some of the contributions to the debate so far, particularly Senator Gallacher's, sought to suggest that the government is taking very little action on this. I think that's a very unfair characterisation to make. As I've mentioned already, there's the $12½ million research program and of course the much more tangible and direct measures to support the affected communities, which I want to spend a moment to talk about because, if you have been listening to the contributions to this debate so far, other than Senator McGrath's contribution, you may be under the misapprehension that the government has not done so. There has been $55 million allocated to support the communities in Williamtown, New South Wales, and Oakey, Queensland, to reduce exposure, to manage environmental impacts and to provide additional dedicated mental health and counselling services. There is the voluntary blood-testing program and the study into the potential health effects from exposure, which I mentioned. In addition, $5.7 million has been provided to support the Katherine community through access to a voluntary blood-testing program, a study, and additional mental health and counselling services. There has been $15 million allocated to the national PFAS Remediation Research Program to support the development of innovative technologies to investigate and remediate PFAS contaminated areas, including soil and other solid contaminated debris, groundwater, waterways and marine systems. An intergovernmental agreement on a national framework for responding to PFAS contamination, which has been developed with the states and territories, includes best practice guidance for all government agencies to effectively and efficiently manage PFAS contamination at any site. As senators have noted in this debate so far, this is a historical legacy issue that this government is now dealing with. The government is also contributing to the PFAS national environmental management plan, which has been developed cooperatively by the environmental agencies across Australia. There are activities to monitor and manage PFAS contamination at water sources, conduct research into soil solidification and stabilisation, conduct studies for PFAS uptake in plants, chicken and eggs, and provide alternative drinking water to the affected communities. There is a comprehensive report by Food Standards Australia New Zealand that provides health-based guidance values for site investigations, a dietary exposure assessment, and risk management advice for authorities investigating PFAS contamination. There are ongoing detailed site investigations to determine the extent of spread of PFAS, and regular, transparent community engagement and consultation activities at sites where PFAS contamination has been detected to ensure that accurate and complete information is available to all the affected communities as soon as it becomes available. The issue of compensation and the potential impact on people's personal financial situations, of course, has been mentioned. That's something that the PFAS task force is considering, and it has been meeting with a number of financial institutions in its effort to clarify the issues. They've provided to them the most current scientific information available on PFAS, including the nature of the chemicals and environmental concerns, and highlighted the lack of consistent scientific evidence on adverse human effects from PFAS exposure. As I said, this is a worthy issue for the Senate to be debating, but it should be done in a measured and sensible way. 16:31 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank you, Senator Burston, for bringing this very important issue to the attention of the chamber this afternoon. Like many people in the Northern Territory, I find myself continually perplexed at the government's scattered response to PFAS. As my colleagues know, I have spoken in this chamber many times about PFAS in Katherine in the Northern Territory. The Katherine community has been seriously impacted by chemical contamination of its water supply. Many of you will recall seeing the Four Corners program last year which told the stories of people in Katherine. People were shocked, worried and anxious. Understandably, the Katherine people are anxious about the widespread nature of the PFAS contamination and the unknown consequences of ingesting or recreationally coming into contact with PFAS. We now all know the primary PFAS exposure pathway for humans is from drinking water. Other exposure routes can include eating foodstuffs produced from impacted land and water systems like fish, poultry, meat and vegetables. Katherine's bores and drinking supply are contaminated with traces of PFAS. Since the contamination was detected, Katherine residents were told not to drink the water. They faced water restrictions, have been told that they had to wait for blood tests and have had new water tanks installed. All of these things they took in their stride. They have been attending information sessions, but there is no clarity around when the announcement of blood tests will take place. This is of serious concern for the people of Katherine. I must let this Senate know, and certainly let the parliament know, that that delay is so unnecessary and is causing a great deal of anxiety. For some context, when it comes to the lack of transparency around the government's response to PFAS in Katherine, the fact that the government can't or won't share information about them is nothing new. Regular calls for a single point of contact for PFAS on the ground in Katherine have gone unanswered. Since PFAS was found in Katherine, residents have been dealing with numerous government agencies. During estimates I was referred to Health, Defence and PM&C for answers. That's what I can do in here as the senator for the Northern Territory—be told to go to different agencies. But for people on the ground in our communities to be told to go from one bureaucracy to another bureaucracy to another bureaucracy to get the answers that they so desperately need has not been good for the people of Katherine. In December last year, Katherine town council Mayor Fay Miller came to Canberra to meet with ministers regarding the response to PFAS and to look for some answers for the people of Katherine. As the people of Katherine have done, through their mayor in the Katherine town council, I certainly thanked the defence minister, Senator Payne, for responding with bottled water, installing water tanks and placing Defence contact points on the ground in Katherine. Also like the people of Katherine, though, I still have questions. Since PFAS was found in the water, the member for Katherine, Sandra Nelson, the member for Lingiari, Warren Snowdon, and I have repeatedly asked that the people of Katherine receive the same response to PFAS that other places around Australia have received. More specifically, we echoed the calls for voluntary blood tests for people living in the affected areas. These calls for blood testing were belittled by the government. Residents were simply told to wait and that any blood test wouldn't really show much. We only have to look at the transcripts in Hansard to see the response to my numerous requests for these blood tests. The calls from residents were also ignored. I know, as do the people of Katherine, that the blood tests offered to others—to other families in other jurisdictions—were offered at the same time as other environmental testing was being undertaken. For anyone who wants to argue that point, I refer you again to the estimates Hansards. You only have to look at our record on the Hansard and the consistent questioning on this issue. If blood tests will give the people of Katherine some peace of mind and reduce anxiety and confusion, why does the government insist on denying them this process? Why are they denying the people of Katherine the process of blood testing? On 3 December I was alerted to a joint announcement from Minister Scullion, Minister Hunt and Minister Payne that the people of Katherine would receive blood tests. We were certainly very pleased, particularly in the lead-up to Christmas and the end of the year, with the hope that this was the beginning of some important positive signals being sent to residents in the region. We were so pleased to hear this announcement and it was received with a great deal of hope. It was what the people of Katherine had asked for, and it was what I and my colleagues in the other House had been lobbying for within this parliament. They were finally going to receive this, and a $5.7 million support package was going to help this happen. The announcement was consistent with the services that are being provided to the communities of Williamtown in New South Wales and Oakey in Queensland. They are available to anyone who lives or works, or who has lived or worked, in the RAAF Base Tindal investigation area. The local member for Katherine, Sandra Nelson, said, 'After a year of lobbying and advocating, I am so relieved.' That was the immediate thought of so many people in Katherine. We were also told that the government would be commissioning the NT Primary Health Network to facilitate the voluntary blood-testing program with local GPs. Eight weeks on from that announcement, here I am, still standing in the Senate, still calling on the federal government and still talking about the blood tests that the people of Katherine should have received by now. These are blood tests that people of Katherine should have been lining up for to make sure that they were being tested. It's been eight weeks since that announcement and not one blood drop has been taken. So the people of Katherine are still waiting. On 2 February, the government's Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Dr Tony Hobbs, said in a radio interview that the voluntary blood tests will now not be available until March. How is this possible? The people of Katherine have had 18 months of anxiety, and just before the end of last year they were given some sense of hope, and still there is delay upon delay. Dr Hobbs also said that a contract had not yet been signed with the primary health network, so there would be no government funded testing until that had happened. No contract signed! A radio interview is how Katherine residents are finding out about the rollout of the blood tests—or the absence of the rollout. The government made a commitment of a $5.7 million support package, and now they are again leaving Katherine residents in the dark about when this will happen. There is no timeline for when these tests will be made available to the Katherine residents. No-one wants to see medical services overloaded with a demand that they can't meet, and I have heard this is a barrier to opening up the blood tests immediately. But we have to ask the question: what is going to change in March? Will there be an increase in the number of doctors and nurses in Katherine to meet the demand? What will happen with the second and third rounds of blood tests? Labor has consistently called for a national solution to PFAS contamination. We know that PFAS is a national problem that needs a national solution. The Turnbull government is certainly failing in this particular area, in terms of information about the timing of the promised blood tests. Its promised solution, announced in May, has yet to materialise. Labor will not allow this continual failure, and the absence of information for people who so desperately need reassurance—and they need confidence. They need to know that not only the government but also the Australian parliament are serious about this issue, which is impacting some of the most vulnerable people in our country and in our regions. 16:41 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales PFAS is certainly a problem. After doing a bit of research on it: PFAS has been used for over 50 years in Australia and globally in a range of industrial, medical and consumer products including cosmetics, sunscreens, rubber, plastic, insecticides, non-stick frying pans—you name it. They are now so widespread that almost every person on earth has been exposed to PFAS and has PFAS in their blood. There is some good news here: we know that these chemicals can persist in human, animals and the environment, but there's currently no consistent evidence that PFAS are harmful to human health. I hope that's the case. We do know that the human body gets rid of PFAS over time. That's also a good advantage. So, once exposure is reduced or stopped, any PFAS in the body will reduce; I'm not sure over what period of time. This is why the $12.5 million national research program into the human health effects of prolonged exposure to PFAS was undertaken, in places such as Oakey, Williamtown and Katherine, in a best-practice study to better understand if there are any long-term human health impacts. Some human health studies have found an association between exposure to these chemicals and health effects, and others have not. In addition, the studies that found an association were not able to determine with certainty whether the health effects were caused by the chemical being studied or by other factors, such as smoking. More research is required before definitive statements can be made on causality or risk—which is what we are doing. I'm very pleased to say that the Department of Health has established an expert health panel to advise the Australian government on the potential health impacts associated with PFAS exposure and to identify priority areas for further research. It is expected that the panel will provide its advice to the Minister for Health late this month. The panel's advice will be released publicly soon after. The panel will also provide its advice on priority research areas to the National Health and Medical Research Council to inform their targeted call for research for the Per- And Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances—National Health Research Program. The PFAS Taskforce was established by the Prime Minister in December 2016 as part of the Commonwealth's response to develop a collaborative approach to manage PFAS contamination. The task force brought together Commonwealth agencies and state and territory governments to support greater consistency and sharing of information. This is important—to share the information between the Commonwealth agencies and state and territory governments. Because of the complexity and breadth of the issue, the Commonwealth response to PFAS will still require coordination and oversight for a considerable time to come. Senator Burston put a question to Minister Payne last week, and Minister Payne replied, 'This is a very complicated issue.' I can see now why it is. This oversight includes engaging and collaborating with relevant Commonwealth agencies, state and territory governments, and industry stakeholders. Let's talk about some of the actions being carried out. Because of the wide variety of potential source points, this is an issue for all levels of government—federal, state and council—and not just military bases. It is also airports, state firefighting training facilities, rural firefighting training facilities, local dumps and private industrial industries in the chemical and oil industries. This is why a nationally consistent approach for responding to PFAS contamination is being considered by COAG to ensure all levels of government cooperate for the benefit of all communities across Australia. This is why it is now a standing item on the COAG agenda. The full extent of PFAS contamination across the Commonwealth estate is still being determined. It is essential that any action by the Commonwealth be very clearly based on evidence, proportionate to the level of risk, and fiscally sustainable into the future for all governments and private industry. I'm very pleased to hear of the government putting taxpayers' money into water supplies—I'm talking mainly of the towns around Williamtown—into town water, and, as Senator McCarthy said, into establishing rainwater tanks for drinking, and even bottled water in places like Katherine. This is a very serious issue. The PFAS task force also met with organisations including the Australian Bankers' Association, the Customer Owned Banking Association, Westpac, ANZ, CBA, NAB and the Insurance Council of Australia. The task force provided these key organisations with the most current scientific information on PFAS, including many other issues. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 244247 Order! The time for the discussion has expired. DOCUMENTS 68 DOCUMENTS Consideration 68 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 68 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Closing the Gap 68 16:46 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales On behalf of the Prime Minister, I table the annual report on closing the gap and accompanying ministerial statement. Pursuant to order, the documents are listed for consideration at item 18 as a government business order of the day and may be considered for at least two hours. DOCUMENTS 69 DOCUMENTS Murray-Darling Basin Plan, Future Frigate Program 69 Order for the Production of Documents 69 16:47 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I table documents relating to the orders for the production of documents concerning the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and the future frigate tender. COMMITTEES 69 COMMITTEES Membership 69 16:47 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 244247 The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees. 16:47 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating members: Senators Colbeck and Martin Economics Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating members: Senators Colbeck and Martin Education and Employment Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating members: Senators Colbeck and Martin Electoral Matters—Joint Standing Committee— Appointed—Participating member [for the committee's inquiry into the 2016 election]: Senator Colbeck Environment and Communications Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating members: Senators Colbeck and Martin Finance and Public Administration Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating members: Senators Colbeck and Martin Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating members: Senators Colbeck and Martin Future of Work and Workers—Select Committee— Discharged—Participating member: Senator Patrick Appointed— Senator Patrick Participating members: Senators Colbeck, Martin, Molan and Gichuhi Law Enforcement—Joint Statutory Committee— Discharged—Senator O'Sullivan Appointed—Senator Colbeck Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation and References Committees— Appointed—Participating members: Senators Colbeck and Martin National Broadband Network—Joint Standing Committee— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Colbeck Political Influence of Donations—Select Committee— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Martin Privileges—Standing Committee— Discharged—Senator Bushby Appointed—Senator Colbeck Public Accounts and Audit—Joint Statutory Committee— Appointed—Senator Patrick Red Tape—Select Committee— Appointed—Participating members: Senators Colbeck and Martin Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—Joint Select Committee— Appointed—Participating member: Senator Colbeck Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee— Discharged—Senator Abetz Appointed— Senator Colbeck Participating members: Senators Abetz and Martin Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee— Appointed—Participating members: Senators Colbeck and Martin Senators' Interests—Standing Committee— Discharged—Senator Bushby Appointed—Senator Colbeck Trade and Investment Growth—Joint Standing Committee— Discharged—Senator Hume Appointed—Senator Colbeck. Question put and passed. Question agreed to. BILLS 70 BILLS National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits—Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2017 70

National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits—Budget and Other Measures) Bill 2017

First Reading 70 16:48 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 70 16:49 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits – Budget and Other Measures) Bill amends the National Health Act 1953 to implement measures negotiated with the pharmaceutical and pharmacy industries and announced in the 2017 Budget. 1.    Industry agreements – savings and policy stability The amendments reflect compacts with Medicines Australia, the representative body for the innovator medicines sector in Australia, the Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association, the representative body for generic and biosimilar medicine suppliers in Australia, and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. The compacts are underpinned by a range of shared principles to create a world class health system, transparency in decision making, accountability for reforms, and stability and certainty in regards to Government investment. Together these agreements will generate savings to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) of around $1.3 billion over four years from 2017‑18, and $1.8 billion over the five year term of the agreement with Medicines Australia. This in turn will support cheaper medicines for consumers, better value for money for Australian taxpayers and improved access to product innovations. And while those savings are vital for current and future spending on medicines, the Government recognises that they must be achieved in a way that works for industry and supports a viable and sustainable pharmaceutical industry in this country. The measures in the Medicines Australia agreement do that by delivering certainty for the medicines industry through a stable PBS environment, where funding for new listings is further supported through delivering price reductions for on-patent medicines that are reaching the end of their patent life, and when these medicines come off patent and become subject to competition. This certainty will strengthen the medicines ecosystem by encouraging companies to continue to bring innovative, life-changing medicines to Australia, build partnerships with Australian researchers, and encourage investment in local clinical trials and manufacturing. This will ensure Australia remains at the forefront of the launch of new and innovative medical treatments. 2.   Pricing policy changes—anniversary statutory price reductions The first of the main pricing changes in the Bill extends, for another two years, the existing five per cent price reduction that applies for single brand drugs on the F1 formulary on their fifth anniversary of listing. This measure was due to end in 2020, but now will apply until April 2022. The second of the changes introduces two new anniversary price reductions for drugs on F1. These are a ten per cent reduction after ten years of listing on the PBS; and a further five per cent reduction after fifteen years of listing. There will be a catch-up special reduction day on 1 June 2018 to apply these reductions to medicines that have already reached their 10 year or 15 year anniversary by that date, and subsequent anniversary reduction days will occur on 1 April of each year. The F1 formulary has been the fastest growing part of the PBS by price for individual medicines, and by cost to the PBS. Every new drug is an additional investment by the Government in companies in the innovative medicines sector, and each contributes directly to that sector's growth. The Australian Government continues to invest in new medicines by accepting all positive recommendations of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC). This is a significant and continual pipeline of reinvestment and revenue for the innovator medicines sector. It is reasonable that after a period of time, a small percentage is recouped to help support further new listings. Delaying the first of the reductions until at least five years after PBS listing recognises that manufacturers need time to recoup their investment in developing and bringing new medicines to market. 2.1   Pricing policy changes - first new brand statutory price reductions The third pricing change will increase the price reduction that applies on listing the first additional new brand of a medicine. Under PBS pricing policy, when a first new competing brand lists alongside an existing brand of an F1 drug, an immediate price reduction occurs for the new brand and the existing brand. The reduction is also flowed-on to other related brands and strengths of the medicine. The new measure will increase this reduction from 16 per cent to 25 per cent. 2.2   Ministerial discretion for price reductions Under the new pricing arrangements, previous price reductions can be taken into account before a statutory price reduction is applied. For example, new anniversary reductions may be able to be reduced in part or waived in full by considering the net total of reductions since January 2016. As is the case for new anniversary price reductions, the increased price reduction to be applied when a new, competing brand lists on the PBS can also be adjusted, taking into account previous price reductions that have applied to the medicine. On this basis, a statutory reduction can be applied in full, in part, or not at all - depending on the amount of previous eligible reductions. The new method will adjust, taper and cap reductions to ensure that price reductions since January 2016 do not exceed certain maximums. For example, where previous price reductions for a medicine are already equivalent to 40 per cent or more of the price on 1 January 2016 – the reduction will be reduced to nil. Where previous reductions are between 15 and 40 per cent of the January 2016 price, the reduction will be less than 25 per cent. It will be adjusted and capped so that the final reduced price is 40 per cent of the original. And where previous reductions are 15 per cent of the January 2016 price or less, the new brand reduction will be the full 25 per cent. In addition to using previous reductions to reduce listing anniversary and new brand reductions, the amendments include other provisions for discretion in applying statutory price reductions. These provisions reflect the undertakings in the Medicines Australia agreement and include that any relevant matter may be taken into account in deciding to reduce or not apply a reduction. 2.3   Price disclosure – increased price disclosure price reductions threshold Continuing the theme of considering pricing history and context in applying PBS pricing policy is a new measure for price disclosure. Under PBS price disclosure arrangements, drug companies are required to report data on sales to wholesalers, pharmacists and other suppliers. The information is used as the basis for adjusting the price for all brands of a medicine to the weighted average price. If the weighted average sale price in the market is at least ten per cent below the PBS price, the PBS price is adjusted. Over time, PBS prices are maintained, or reduced every six months in line with average market prices. The new measure provides that after a medicine has had seven full cycles of price disclosure data collections and reduction days, the threshold for price disclosure price reductions will increase from the current 10 per cent to 30 per cent. This move should provide some relief from price disclosure reductions for medicines which may have already had repeated market driven price reductions. It will mean that as long as the weighted average discount for a medicine in this category is less than 30 per cent, there will be no price disclosure reduction to the base price for any related brand of the drug. This will help to protect the price of medicines where there is little room left for competition or where a price reduction could affect the viability of the medicine. To ensure this measure is correctly targeted, the amendments also include that if there are two consecutive cycles where the price disclosure reduction is at least 30 per cent, the threshold will revert to ten per cent. 2.4   Listing of new presentations – not as new brands A specific measure welcomed by the pharmaceutical sector is that a company will be able to list a new presentation of its own originator brand without being subject to a new brand price reduction. The new presentation must be listed within five years, or, with discretion within ten years, of the original listing of the drug on the PBS. These new provisions will benefit consumers and companies by encouraging the early listing of products which are innovative new versions of already-listed medicines. 2.5   Funding future medicines The Government is committed to making fiscally responsible investment decisions that are informed by the best available evidence about patient safety and improved patient health outcomes. That is why this Government came to office promising to respect the independence of the PBAC and to improve listing times on the PBS. The agreement with Medicines Australia enables the Government to continue its commitment to list all medicines with a positive PBAC recommendation. Since the Budget the Government has made significant new investments in medicines: -   $1.1 billion for Opdivo for lung and kidney cancer -   $378.5 million for Stelara for Crohn's disease -   $466 million for Ibrutinib for leukaemia and lymphoma 3.   ACPA and pharmacy location rules Pharmacy location rules have been in place since 1990, when the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement was signed between the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and the Commonwealth of Australia. The location rules are also a fundamental component of the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement. The location rules are in place to ensure a suitable geographic spread of pharmacies approved to supply PBS medicines, including in rural and remote regions of Australia. The Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement terminates on 30 June 2020, at which time, all legislative provisions in the National Health Act 1953 relating to the Rules and the ACPA are scheduled to cease. This Bill will remove the cessation of operation provisions from the National Health Act 1953, preserving the existing arrangements and providing ongoing assurance and certainty for pharmacies, particular those in rural and remote communities. Conclusion The landmark compacts announced in the Budget reflect the Government and Industry's shared desire to maintain a world class health system. They also reflect the outcome of extensive negotiations, which could only occur due to the positive and strong relationship that the Government has with these organisations. I would like to thank all stakeholders who have worked collaboratively with the Government in recent months to develop the industry agreements and the measures in this Bill. In particular, I would like to acknowledge: Medicines Australia the Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association; and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia The amendments in this Bill deliver a responsible and necessary response to growing pressures on the PBS. They provide for a fair outcome for pharmacies, the pharmaceutical industry, government and consumers. They also respect the value of tax-payer dollars which provides the funding for the PBS. The aim of this Government is to ensure Australians have access through the PBS to affordable medicines when and where they need them. Contributing to a more sustainable PBS allows us to respond sooner to the increasing demand for innovative and, often very expensive, medicines. This is a terrific outcome for the medicines industry and for the Australian community. Debate adjourned. 16:49 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I move: That the resumption of the debate be an order of the day for a later hour. Question agreed to. Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan Base Rate Entities) Bill 2018, Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017 73

Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan Base Rate Entities) Bill 2018

Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017

First Reading 73 16:50 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales 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 73 16:50 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan Base Rate Entities) Bill 2018. I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan Base Rate Entities) Bill 2017 This Bill clarifies that passive investment companies do not qualify for the lower company tax rate. The amendments in this Bill will introduce a clear test that enables companies to determine whether they are eligible for the lower rate of tax of 27.5 per cent. Companies that derive more than 80 per cent of their assessable income in passive forms will not be able to access the lower company tax rate. The 'passive income' test replaces the 'carry on a business' test as a requirement for access to the lower company tax rate. The new test will have effect from the 2017-18 income year. It will make it easier for companies to determine which tax rate applies, thus providing companies with greater certainty about their taxation liabilities. The Turnbull Government is reducing company tax to make Australia a more attractive location to do business. A lower rate will enable companies to reinvest more of their profits, grow their businesses and increase employment. The consequential amendments in this Bill will align imputation arrangements with the new test. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. ______________ Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan No. 2) Bill 2017 This Bill represents the second part of the Government's overhaul of the Australian company tax system, and our commitment to the businesses of Australia that drive growth, provide employment and grow exports. This Bill follows the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016 to deliver the remainder of the Government's plan to cut the company tax rate. This Government will not rest until we have successfully fought to implement a company tax framework that sets our country up to have higher paying wages and more jobs for future generations. We cannot do that until we have a company tax rate that allows us to compete globally and allows our businesses to reinvest and hire more employees. On 31 March 2017 the Government announced that it had Senate cross bench support to cut the company tax rate for companies with an aggregated turnover up to $50 million. The Government successfully passed the Bill in this House on 9 May 2017. This is a good start, and impacts around 3.2 million businesses employing over 6.5 million workers. However, we cannot afford to stop there. Under this Bill, which I am introducing today, the turnover threshold to qualify for a lower tax rate will be progressively raised to cover all companies by 2024-25, before the company tax rate is reduced to 25 per cent for all companies by 2026-27. While the cut in company tax for companies with a turnover of less than $50 million is a good start, Australia must continue with the second stage of this reform to make the nation's company tax rate internationally competitive. When Australia cut its company tax rate to 30 per cent in 2001, there were 19 countries in the OECD with a higher company tax rate. Now only four OECD countries have a statutory company tax rate higher than Australia's. Furthermore, both France, and as President Trump announced recently, the United States have plans to cut their corporate tax rates below 30 per cent. The US Government's tax reform plans call for a 15 per cent rate, while France is also expected to cut its corporate rate with the new President-elect, Emmanuel Macron supporting a 25 per cent rate. These developments intensify the pressure on corporate tax rates around the world, and raise the prospect of Australia having the least competitive corporate tax rate in the OECD before long. The company tax rate is critical because it has a significant influence on business investment decisions. A lower company tax rate, compared with other countries, will raise the attractiveness of Australian investments — making it easier to for companies to attract the foreign investment they need to grow their businesses. More business investment, such as upgrades to machinery and equipment, would make Australian workers more productive and generate growth in real wages. Treasury's economy-wide modelling suggests a cut in the corporate tax rate to 25 per cent would generate a sustained increase in the level of GDP of just over 1 per cent in the long term. Legislating the rest of the company tax cuts now will allow businesses to base their long-term investment decisions on a 25 per cent tax rate. Critically, for the workers of Australia, the majority of the gains from a company tax cut are expected to flow through to Australian workers in the form of increases in real wages. This is why the Government's Enterprise Tax Plan is essential to supporting Australian jobs and wages into the future. 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. Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017 74

Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017

Report of Legislation Committee 74 16:51 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales Pursuant to order and at the request of the chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Online Content Services and Other Measures) Bill 2017 together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund) Bill 2017 74

Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund) Bill 2017

Report of Legislation Committee 74 16:51 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales Pursuant to order and at the request of the chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund) Bill 2017 together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee. DOCUMENTS 74 DOCUMENTS Closing the Gap 74 Consideration 74 16:52 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I'd like to start by acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we meet, the Ngunawal and Ngambri peoples. I'd like to pay my respect to their elders both and past and present. The Closing the gap report for 2018 is a report on our shared effort amongst successive governments across state and territory governments and, above all, Australia's First People to deliver better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and to address 230 years of disadvantage by working together to ensure all Australians have the same opportunities to succeed in our great nation. This is the latest report card against seven Closing the Gap targets. But it is much more than that. It is also a report that showcases many Indigenous success stories in education, in business, in employment and in community. This year's report reveals three of the seven Closing the Gap targets are on track. This is up from one target this time last year, and it's the first time since 2011 that three targets have, in fact, been on track. I'm pleased to report the target to halve the gap in child mortality is on track this year. Over the long term, the Indigenous child mortality rate has fallen significantly. We have seen continuous improvements in Indigenous child and maternal health outcomes, boding well for future reductions. The target to have 95 per cent of all Indigenous four-year-olds enrolled in early-childhood education by 2025 is also on track for the first time. We've got this target back on track by working with communities and with service providers like our Community Development Program providers to ensure so many Indigenous four-year-olds—around 14,700—are today enrolled in early education and getting the opportunity of the very best start in life. This is an outstanding achievement, and the benefits of this flow right through the educational cycle. Nationwide, 83 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are attending school on a regular basis. Although the school attendance target is not on track, the vast majority of Indigenous children are going to school. They're sitting in the classroom, ready to learn. Our Remote School Attendance Strategy teams, or yellow shirts, as they've become known, are making a real difference. Our RSAS policy was developed in partnership with communities, and they're made up of local community members who are making a real difference. Over 500 Remote School Attendance Strategy workers across Australia are turning around the declining rates of school attendance that were unfortunately ignored for the first half of the last decade, and we're seeing real progress. Remote School Attendance Strategy teams in Camooweal, Yalata, Kenmore Park, Borroloola and Yirrkala are leading the way, with school attendance rates over 15 per cent higher in each of these communities. About a month ago I was in the Territory joining the Gunbalanya remote school attendance team on the first day of the new school year. Helping out with the morning run was a powerful reminder of just how effective simple actions can be. Communities want to do the right thing by their children; that much is clear. There is still a great deal of work to do in academic outcomes. Having said that, the past 10 years have seen the gap narrow across all NAPLAN areas. Improvements in reading in years 3 and 5 and numeracy in years 5 and 9 are particularly strong. More and more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students are getting to school, progressing through the system, completing year 12 and going on to university. In terms of the year 12 or equivalent attainment target, this too is on track, with improvements across all the states and territories. In 2006 fewer than half of all Indigenous 20- to 24-year-olds had achieved year 12 or equivalent. Ten years later this has increased to more than 65 per cent, and indicators point to this progress continuing. We have seen particularly large gains over the past decade in South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. The government recognise that we must work with Indigenous students, with families and with schools to open up to our First Australians the very same educational opportunities that other Australians have access to and take for granted. Since the commencement of the Indigenous Advancement Strategy, in July 2014, we have invested more than $400 million in activities designed to help over 25,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students to stay engaged and complete their school education. I want to acknowledge the work of organisations like Clontarf Foundation, the Stars Foundation and Role Models and Leaders Australia, who we are partnering with in this important work. Because of this, and their work, the number of Indigenous Australians signing up for university degrees is also growing at twice the rate of the broader population. The reforms I introduced, through the $251 million Indigenous Student Success Program, to better support Indigenous university students are not only encouraging more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians to enrol in university but, more importantly, are ensuring they are supported to complete university. Although the target to close the life expectancy gap within a generation is not on track, it is clear there have been measurable improvements in a range of health outcomes, which are often masked by the target result. For example, there have been significant improvements in the rate of Indigenous mortality from chronic diseases, particularly circulatory disease, since 1998. There have been improvements in the early detection and management of chronic disease and reductions in smoking, which will contribute to long-term improvement in the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of Minister Wyatt, the first Indigenous Australian to hold a ministry in this place, and his announcement of Australia's first four-year Tackling Indigenous Smoking program, which will provide certainty, continuity and record funding for proven local campaigns and new initiatives to save lives and reduce the devastating impacts of tobacco related disease. As I said before, the health issues faced by Indigenous Australians often stem from extremely complex social and cultural determinants of health and the long-term effects of intergenerational trauma. Addressing these will take time. The time I have spent in community over the years has proven to me there's nothing more powerful or transformational than a job. We're seeing more Indigenous women working than ever before, which empowers and enables them in the pivotal roles they play in contributing not only to their community but to the economy. We have more Indigenous rangers caring for country than ever before. The Community Development Program is continuing to transition First Australians out of welfare and into work, and more than 7,600 Indigenous jobseekers have now found meaningful employment through the vocational training and employment centres. Indigenous jobseekers are taking advantage of the jobs boom this government has been responsible for ushering in—400,000 jobs have been created over the last 12 months across the economy. Our specialist Indigenous employment programs have supported 7,000 Indigenous jobseekers into work, and mainstream employment programs have supported a further 35,500 Indigenous jobseekers. That means more than 10 per cent of the jobs that have been created are a direct result of our government programs. In fact, the number of Indigenous Australians with a job has increased by 23.3 per cent between 2011 and the 2016 census. Every one of those people represented in these new statistics now has the dignity of work, they are providing for their families and becoming role models for their communities. If only we celebrated them more often. However, there are challenges that we can't shy away from, like the challenge of youth unemployment. The target to halve the employment gap is not on track. Beneath the Closing the Gap targets, there is much to uncover to showcase success and achievement. For instance, as the Prime Minister said earlier today, Indigenous businesses have won $1 billion—I repeat $1 billion—in Commonwealth contracts since July 2015 under the government's Indigenous Procurement Policy. That is up from $6.2 million in 2012-13, and that is a 161-fold increase, for those interested in numbers. This is not something for the government to pat itself on the back about; it is actually a testament to the Indigenous businesses delivering everything from advanced technology to legal services, construction work, engineering and facilities management. As Katina Law from West Australian IPP business Indigenous Professional Services said: The Indigenous Procurement Policy is really giving the opportunity to Indigenous businesses and Indigenous business people to become part of the mainstream economy by providing them with opportunities that they wouldn't normally have. Or Troy Rugless, whose firm PSG Holdings has just been awarded— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247512 Senator Scullion, your time has expired. Senator SCULLION 00AOM Could I seek leave to have the remainder of my report— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247512 Is leave granted? Senator Wong 00AOU We have no objection to giving leave to the minister to finish his speech on this matter. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247512 Leave is granted. Senator SCULLION 00AOM I thank the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate for that courtesy. PSG Holdings has been awarded a $213.6 million contract for one of the most significant changes in Sydney, the design and refurbishment of the Garden Island Naval Base. Troy Rugless has talked about his firm's commitment to Indigenous employment and said that the impact of the IPP on PSG is that it has accelerated their growth. He said: I would say conservatively it has fast-tracked our business by about 10 years. All across the country, we are seeing this success replicated, with over 1,000 Indigenous firms being awarded over a billion dollars in contracts in just two-and-a-half years. Is it any wonder that Indigenous leaders like Warren Mundine and Marcia Langton have described the IPP as the most successful Indigenous policy since Federation? We want to build on this success through other initiatives that support other Torres Strait Islander business owners, because we know that an Indigenous business is far more likely than a non-Indigenous business to employ an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander person. The average Indigenous workforce in our IPP firms is around 41 per cent, and that's compared with 0.7 per cent in non-Indigenous businesses across Australia—meaning that by supporting more Indigenous businesses, we get more Indigenous jobseekers into work by a factor of 60. As announced by the Prime Minister earlier today, we have developed the 10-year Indigenous Business Strategy to increase the number, the strength and the capacity of Indigenous businesses across Australia. We will roll out Indigenous business hubs to provide business advice and support, starting in Western Sydney in partnership with the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council, who, under the leadership of chairman Roy Ah-See, will ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are there, front and centre, to take advantage of the jobs and business boom that will occur in Western Sydney over the next few decades. We will unlock a wider range of public sector finance and capital through our $27 million Indigenous Entrepreneurs Capital Scheme. We will double microfinance in regional and remote Australia to ensure Indigenous Australians, including young people and women, can turn their ideas into start-up enterprises, especially in regional and remote areas. We will continue lobbying the states and territories to introduce their own Indigenous procurement policies, and I'm so pleased that Western Australia has recently announced a policy modelled off the Commonwealth's IPP. The private sector is moving. I just came from an event today where the Business Council of Australia announced a range of measures and commitments to increase the number of contracts to Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander owned businesses. We've also announced today a significant reform in our country's Indigenous land rights and economic empowerment journey, with a new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund. Following extensive consultations around the country, we will be transferring the $2 billion land account to the Future Fund and expanding the remit of the Indigenous Land Corporation, which derives an annual dividend from this fund, to include sea country. By sitting with the pre-eminent financial experts, the Future Fund, the new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land and Sea Future Fund will be up to $1.5 billion better off over 20 years than in the current investment arrangements. That means more opportunities to grow Indigenous estate to support economic aspirations of our First Australians. We will transfer the management of the Indigenous Land Corporation's land account to the Future Fund's board of guardians, with a view to making it a truly perpetual account, reversing its current downward trajectory. This is a significant reform and one we have co-designed with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities who have contributed to this reform in nationwide consultations. There will have to be legislation to make that, coming through this place, with an opportunity to cross-examine all elements of that legislation. In the last year, Indigenous Australians have done great things. In November it was my great honour to celebrate with the Gunyangara community in the Northern Territory the first township lease to be handed over to an Aboriginal community organisation, realising the vision for land rights by my good friend and Gumatj leader Dr Galarrwuy Yunupingu. This builds on steps we've taken to amend and improve the Native Title Act. Thirty-two per cent of land in Australian is now recognised by native title, and a further 26 per cent is under claim. The past year was also a time for Australians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, to celebrate key anniversaries for two of the most significant moments in Australia's modern history: the 50th anniversary of the 1967 referendum and the 25th anniversary of the landmark Mabo decision. Another highly significant anniversary will be marked tomorrow: the 10th anniversary of the 2008 Apology to Australia's Indigenous Peoples. I acknowledge the momentous importance of the apology, and I am working in partnership with the Healing Foundation to complete proper evidence-based policy work to consider the needs of surviving members of the stolen generations and inform government's response going forward. This is because we know that there are no simple solutions in this place. In the 10 years since the apology, we've learned a great deal. One of the lessons has been the importance of including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the design and delivery of programs and services. With four Closing the Gap targets expiring this year, the government is working closely with the states and territories, and most importantly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, to refresh the agenda for the next 10 years and beyond. Incarceration rates and deaths in custody have rightly been the subject of much attention. I have always thought that a justice target for the Commonwealth was a pretty daft way of resolving that issue, because we just don't have any of the levers. We don't control the sentencing system; we don't control the corrections system. The states are responsible, and they're the ones who need to agree to introduce justice targets to ensure the systemic issues in their policies and programs are working better for Indigenous citizens. I commend all the states and territories for embracing this new opportunity. We're not just going to introduce a justice target that makes us all feel good about ourselves but which we can do nothing about—that is not being fair dinkum with people. This isn't about passing the buck. I'm determined to work with the states and territories to drive change. Take the custody notification service. This is a state and territory responsibility, but, because we know it saves lives, we've offered to fund it for three years on the condition that they take on their responsibilities following this. We made this offer on 31 August 2016, and I'm disappointed that we are yet to have any of the jurisdictions take up this offer. They include the Western Australian government, who made an election commitment to introduce a CNS, and the Northern Territory government, to whom the royal commission has recommended its introduction. Clearly, there is still a long way to go, but I'm quite sure that we're moving towards that outcome. I would like to acknowledge the extremely productive special gathering we had in Canberra last week and all of the First Australians who brought their lived experience and wisdom to the table. The advice they provided to first ministers has been invaluable. In conclusion, this report shows great improvements for our First Australians but it also shows the challenges that remain before us and reminds us that we must redouble our efforts and work harder to improve the outcomes for our First Australians. In 2018, we remain committed to increasing school attendance levels to ensure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children obtain an education that opens up opportunities later in life. We remain committed to supporting economic development and job opportunities because of the transformational impact this can have on the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. And we remain committed to making Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities as safe as any other community in Australia. Let me assure everyone here in the Senate today: the government remains absolutely resolute in its commitment to staying the course with our First Australians to ensure they live the prosperous lives that they choose. 17:11 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia This parliament meets on the traditional lands of the Ngunawal and Ngambri people, and we pay our respects to their elders past and present. It is a parliament that also has the honour of representing the traditional owners of this entire continent—a land with which our First Australians have been intimately connected for over 65,000 years. It represents the Yuin people in the south-east, the Yawuru people in the north-west, the Yolngu people of Yirrkala in the north, the Muwinina people in the south, the Noongar people of the south-west, the Meriam Mir in the Torres Strait, the Kaurna people in South Australia, the Pitjantjatjara people of the Central Desert and many more. It is important that we recognise and honour the culture and heritage of our First Australians, and it is important that we recognise and mourn the indignity and the suffering that they have endured since the colonisation of this ancient land. The arrival of disease, the expulsion of peoples from their traditional lands, the separation of children from their parents, the loss of identity and the marginalisation of entire communities decimated our first peoples. This is what Prime Minister Keating acknowledged when he spoke at Redfern 25 years ago and declared: … the starting point might be to recognise that the problem starts with us non-Aboriginal Australians. It begins, I think, with that act of recognition. Recognition that it was we who did the dispossessing. It was this recognition that Prime Minister Rudd brought to account when he issued the Apology to the Stolen Generations 10 years ago. And we remember that day, a day of remembrance, a day of sadness, a day of extraordinary nobility and a day of grace because our First Australian peoples found it in their hearts to accept an apology offered by the government on behalf of those who had brought such suffering. In the spirit of healing, our First Australians rose above grievance and resentment to accept our sorrow. But saying sorry isn't enough and, whilst repentance is one thing, doing something about it is another. So, it was Prime Minister Rudd who set about repairing the injustice of two centuries and who set about restoring equity to peoples who had been dispossessed. He, with Jenny Macklin's strong support, had the courage, foresight and imagination to institute the Closing the Gap program, to redress disadvantage and inequality through a targeted program of action that would tackle the key areas in which the prospects of Indigenous Australians had to be improved. The Closing the Gap report card is mixed, and all of us share in the responsibility for this. But I must say that achieving these deliberately tough goals was made so much harder by this government's cuts of $500 million from Aboriginal programs. Senator Dodson, who will follow me in this debate, hit the nail on the head on Friday morning. Quite appropriately, he hammered the Prime Minister for walking out of the Closing the Gap campaign meeting early, as though Indigenous issues were of a lower priority than anything else. He said: It's indicative of the deafness, of the absolute derision and the contempt which this government is meting out to the Aboriginal people. We gotta get real about it. That is the point: we do have to get real. This government has to get real. Let's have a quick look at the government's performance in this critical area. Last year, only one target was on track: the target to halve the gap in year 12 attainment by 2020. Four of the seven targets are not on track. They are life expectancy, employment, reading and numeracy, and school attendance. Three of these targets were due this year. There are three targets which are on track: child mortality rates, early education and year 12 attainment. You will note that in some ways only two of these targets are really about closing the gap: life expectancy and school attendance. Early education specifies a 95 per cent participation rate. The other three, in many ways, might be regarded as soft targets, halving the gap rather than closing it. If we are serious about the refresh, then it must create more opportunity and not less. The key to creating more opportunity for First Australians is to empower them to take control of their own lives, to manage their own affairs and to plan their own futures, and to do all of this with the support of government but not under the direction of government. We do know what doesn't work: top-down decision-making; bureaucratic, centralised service provision; and the exclusion or minimisation of Aboriginal authority and participation. As Senator Dodson said this morning: This is really about the future of Aboriginal people having a quality of life in this country, and for all of us in politics to ensure we can collaborate in an effective way with the states and with Aboriginal organisations to get these results. What is the alternative? What does Labor intend to do? First, we want to press ahead on closing the gap, meeting real targets and improving outcomes for First Australians. Second, we want to back that up with complementary actions that address the consequences of discrimination and disadvantage. Mr Shorten today announced in the House of Representatives that a Labor government will establish a stolen generations compensation scheme. Over the past decade, state governments around the country of both political persuasions have established different forms of compensation schemes for members of the stolen generations. They remain a work in progress, but we do know there are around 150 or more members of the stolen generations who were the direct responsibility of the Commonwealth government who have received no financial compensation at all. They are still waiting for 'sorry' to be matched by making good. It's time the government lived up to its rhetoric, and that is why Labor will offer each of the survivors removed from their families, country and culture an ex gratia payment of $75,000 and a one-off payment to cover funeral costs. As Mr Shorten said, compensation is about resolving some of the unfinished business of the apology. I also note that this promise meets an original recommendation of the Bringing them home report from over 20 years ago. Regrettably, these payments come too late for many members of the stolen generations. We also recognise that the trauma of forced removal reverberates through the generations—hence the commitment to an additional $10 million of programs to assist with the healing of stolen generations members and their descendants, to be administered by the Healing Foundation. Reconciliation and making amends are not about confronting the failures of the past; they are about ensuring that such failures are not repeated. Today there are over 17,500 first nations children who are growing up away from country and culture—twice as many as 10 years ago, when Closing the Gap began. Twenty years ago, 20 per cent of the children in out-of-home care were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; today it is 35 per cent and rising. The Northern Territory royal commission highlighted the stark reality that incarceration is the lot of far too many young people from broken homes and dysfunctional families. It isn't acceptable, because jails aren't places in which young people should be growing up. We all have to do better, and that is why Labor has called for justice targets. I disagree fundamentally with the minister's statement today that such targets are daft. They provide accountability and they provide an objective measure by which governments of all political persuasions and at all levels can work to improve outcomes for our young people. We also call on the government to provide new funding for the Remote Indigenous Housing Program. Without a roof over your head, you can't be healthy, you can't receive education and you can't be safe. It is a fundamental right, and we on this side are astonished that the government isn't prepared to indicate ongoing financial Commonwealth support for this program. Many children in out-of-home care lead lives of trauma and broken trust. We need to understand that, when we are talking about achieving a certain goal by 2028 or 2030, it is these children that we are counting on to get it done. We are putting our faith in these kids getting a great education, finding decent jobs and being role models for others. There's nothing more important than the safety of our children and there is no time more precious and influential than the early years of life. As I said earlier, the solutions to the issues identified by Closing the Gap must be authored, owned and controlled by First Australians. This includes a meaningful say by First Australians in the decisions that affect their lives—a voice to the parliament. The statement from the heart delivered at Uluru was not what many expected, but, after decades of parliaments delivering well-intentioned, incremental disappointments, who are we to say that this idea is too big, that is it too bold and—the refuge of many scoundrels—that it is unconstitutional? Who are we to say that, when it comes to constitutional change, we're capable only of minimalism? And who are we to tell 1,200 representatives from 12 regional dialogues, 'Go back to the drawing board and try again'? As the Leader of the Opposition has said, it is time for us to be better and braver. It is time we took the Uluru Statement from the Heart into our hearts and worked together to deliver on its key recommendations: a voice enshrined in the Constitution; a declaration, to be passed by all parliaments, acknowledging the unique place of our First Australians in Australian history, their cultures and their connection to the land; and a makarrata commission to oversee a process of agreement making and truth telling. This is not much to ask. The Uluru Statement from the Heart calls for what both sides of this parliament say we are committed to: a genuine partnership, real empowerment and solutions constructed by first nations people. Six months ago, after Garma, the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Prime Minister proposing a joint parliamentary committee to put momentum behind makarrata and to work towards finalising a referendum question, and that invitation stands. Bipartisanship doesn't mean an agreement to do nothing. If the current stalemate can't be broken, if the government cannot reconsider its rejection of the Uluru Statement from the Heart, we on this side will not let the matter rest. The next Labor government will, as a first step, look to legislate for a voice to parliament. I was in this parliament on the day of the apology, and I count it as one of the finest moments that I have been privileged to witness in this parliament, if not the finest moment. I have also been here at every Closing the Gap speech since that time, and I have heard some wonderful speeches. I have heard many fine words. But we have heard a lot of defence and justification for results which have not been good enough. So now we need to listen, not just talk. The gap can be closed, and it is our First Australians who will show us how. 17:22 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia I note the Minister for Indigenous Affairs' reporting of the Prime Minister's statement on closing the gap and thank him for conveying that report to the Senate. I had the opportunity to sit in the chamber in the other place and hear the Prime Minister's address and the Leader of the Opposition's reply. It was an important event and one that showcased the significance of first nations peoples in the contemporary politics and policies of our parliamentary processes. The Kevin Rudd apology and the subsequent Closing the Gap national commitments are indicative of a decade of national commitments and partnership aimed at fundamentally changing the status and position of first nations peoples when measured against the status of other Australians. The apology was the first step. In the international experience of making good after crisis and conflict, whether it be in Germany or South Africa or East Timor, the steps of reparation and reconciliation are well understood. The apology is a crucial step because it opens up the healing process. But it does not end it. It requires a sense of acceptance by the victims of hurt, accompanied by a parallel sense of recognition from the victors that they have done harm and caused injury. Then there is the need for a state of reparation or restitution—making good. Internationally, this has been through agreements on practical measures to ease the burden inflicted by the wrong, through cooperative projects in social and educational, political and economic arenas. That is what the apology and the closing the gap process are all about. It is fundamental to any process of truly reaching a stage of reconciliation that combines the delicate threads of our national fabric. On a day when first nations people are being measured microscopically against a set of criteria and outcomes which successive governments have failed to meet, we in this place should step back and take stock of ourselves as leaders. We should recall that really it is axiological change that the first nations people want. They want a relationship based on justice, institutional participation and critical participation in their own solutions to the problems that they are confronted with. I said this morning on a radio program that closing the gap is not a game between the Labor and Liberal parties, or the other parties; it’s about the future of Aboriginal people having equality of life in this country and about the wounds of injustice that they have encountered since colonialism being healed. For all of us in politics it is about ensuring that we can collaborate in an effective way with the states and territories and work in direct partnership with Aboriginal organisations to get these results. I heard the minister say much about this. The government has been quick to blow its trumpet of success—this is the most successful report since 2011. I do not belittle the positive elements of which the minister has spoken, but, while the life expectancy gap remains, it is hard to be positive. While people remain in poverty—incapable of paying their bills or rent and facing eviction to the streets—we all remain diminished. Of course it's welcome news that in today’s report three of the seven targets are on track—any progress, as microscopic as it might be, is refreshing—but we are a long way from closing the gap in 2031. I welcome with great relief that there is at last some measure of improvement in three areas, as reported by the Prime Minister. The target to halve the gap in child mortality by 2018 is on track. The target to have 95 per cent of all Indigenous four-year-olds enrolled in early childhood education by 2025 is on track. The target to halve the gap in year 12 attainment by 2020 is on track. However, the four remaining targets, including the essential target to close the 10-year gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, are lagging. Far greater attention needs to be focussed on intergenerational trauma, anxiety and frustration with the lot in life that many of our people have been subjected to. As well, three of the remaining four targets—to halve the gaps in employment, reading and numeracy, and school attendance for Indigenous students—are due to expire in 2018. We know the minister is in some further discussions about refreshing these goals. We look forward to those outcomes. It is paramount that the first nations peoples participation in closing the gap on all fronts is fully resourced and that they are not passive recipients at the end of a conveyor belt of service delivery. They want to make their own contribution, and many have and ought to be acknowledged for the roles that they have played. The minister made reference to the Prime Minister's comment that he is taking measures to turbocharge the Indigenous business sector. I respectfully suggest to the minister, given his fishing background, that he trade in the oars that he has been using to row this dinghy called closing the gap and put some decent turbocharged outboard motors on it to enable those without hope or belief that the government is committed to closing the gap to take the government seriously and see merit in participation in these endeavours to close the gap and ensure that their own lives have got some equality. We are faced with this huge challenge. It's hard to understand a government that talks about not renewing the remote-housing funds to communities, and we've had a discussion about that today. But housing is one of those essential planks to all these other imperatives and social determinants of a good life and quality of life. If the government cannot see its way clear with the states to find an agreement about this, then many of the good intentions the government's got will fail, unfortunately, and many of our people will be left behind in these remote parts of the country and not share in the benefits or the positive outcomes that the minister so often brings to our attention in this place. Minister, this is a good report, but it's one that obviously needs more work, more collaboration. As I've said, it needs some turbocharged motors on the back of that dinghy. 17:30 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I rise to make a contribution on the response to the Prime Minister's statements on Close the Gap and the latest report. At this time every year, I also table what used to be called the shadow report, which is the report by the Close the Gap campaign steering committee. This year, I seek leave to table the report. I did actually have leave from the two whips that were in the chamber at the time. It is the report that I table every year. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Is leave granted? Just keep going, Senator Siewert. We'll come back at the end of your contribution. Senator SIEWERT e5z Okay, thank you. The report this year from the steering committee is in fact a 10-year review of the Closing the Gap strategy and recommendations for reset. I always start from this point because this is the community who are reporting on the efforts that have been made to close the gap. This year, I've got to say that, while Senator Dodson just made the comment about the more positive aspects, and the government's report is certainly better than last year's, unfortunately I don't think the 10-year review makes very happy reading at all. It points out that in fact the 10-year strategy was abandoned after five years, and I notice that the minister just made comments on that. In fact, the strategy was effectively abandoned after five years, when this government cut half a billion dollars worth of funding out of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's programs through the health programs and through all the other areas of funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. This report finds that we are not on target to achieve life expectancy equality for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples by 2030, and it won't be met if this current course continues—and in fact that's what the government's report finds. It finds that mortality and life expectancy gaps are actually widening due to the gains in these areas by the non-Aboriginal population. The report outlines that the Closing the Gap strategy, as I articulated, was effectively abandoned after five years. The report also outlines that there is urgent need for the strategy to be reset, based on the existing Close the Gap Statement of Intent commitments, with a corresponding national response and equitable needs based investment. At the same time, the government should not take their eyes off the main game, as they put it, which is sustainable long-term improvement to the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples by addressing the underlying structural factors, treating the causes rather than focusing on the symptoms. This is particularly important, because what I haven't heard from government, from either the Prime Minister or the minister, is a proper acknowledgment that these underlying structural factors need to be addressed. The minister made these fantastic statements about the Aboriginal owned industry and business powering the charge. That does not address these underlying structural issues. If we don't address them, we are not going to achieve closing the gap in life expectancy. These causes that need to be addressed include social determinants, institutional racism, the quality of housing—we've heard how the government is abandoning its commitment to agreements on remote housing—and access to appropriate primary health care. Without addressing these causes, it is unlikely that we are going to see permanent health gains and life expectancy and quality. They state: A refreshed Closing the Gap Strategy must focus on delivering equality of opportunity in relation to health goods and services, especially primary health care, according to need and in relation to health infrastructure (an adequate and capable health workforce, housing, food, water). This should be in addition to the focus on maternal and infant health, chronic disease and other health needs. The social determinants of health inequality (income, education, racism) also must be addressed at a fundamental level. Of utmost importance is self-determination. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and their communities should be determining where the resources should be invested. The report also speaks of a funding myth with regard to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health. The myth relates to 'dedicated health expenditure being a waste of taxpayer funds'. This myth has to be tackled head on. They say: … the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population have, on average, 2.3 times the disease burden of non-Indigenous people. Therefore, spending on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health requires higher expenditure to tackle this. They say: Yet on a per person basis, Australian government health expenditure was $1.38 per Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person for every $1.00 spent per non-Indigenous person in 2013-14. So, for the duration of the Closing the Gap Strategy Australian government expenditure was not commensurate with these substantially greater and more complex health needs. This is still true today, so increased expenditure is needed. The report makes six recommendations, with a number of points. These relate to the refreshed strategy being co-designed with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health leaders, and proper community consultation; a tripartite approach with state and territory governments; reinvigorating the architecture, such as the national agreement; federal leadership; national funding agreements; targets; implementation plans and accountability; and addressing the social determinants of health inequality. Those are the sorts of things we should be doing. That is not what we heard from the government's report. As I said, they made a great show of talking about the business they have helped to drive, which does not address these fundamental issues. Yes, we have seen some progress in three of the seven targets, but we have seen things fall backwards before. With the three targets that are on track, I think we need to be looking at the data in much greater detail. Key things like employment and reading and numeracy are not being attained. And, of course, we've heard that closing the gap in life expectancy is not on track, and nor is school attendance. Many of these areas are subject to top-down punitive approaches, such as school attendance. School attendance in remote communities, which Senator Scullion keeps claiming credit for—going around and rounding people up—is not improving our target for school attendance. The failing, flawed, policy of the Community Development Program is having a disastrous impact in communities. It is undermining progress on trying to make sure that we close the gap. Flawed punitive policies such as income management and the cashless welfare card are things being done to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, not with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The government said today that they are going to set up another select committee on recognition. They have already rejected out of hand the Uluru statement and a voice to parliament. I heard the ALP talk about legislation for the voice to parliament. The community wants change to the Constitution. Unless that's on the table, I know a lot of people in community are going to say, 'Why bother, if you're not prepared to talk about that?' Ultimately we need to talk about sovereignty and a treaty. That is fundamental to this country. It's fundamental to ensure that we close the gap. It's fundamental that we address that ultimate use of dispossession and colonisation in this place. I heard not one word from the government about those very serious issues. We need to address that unfinished business if we're going to truly close the gap. 17:40 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales There is a vast gap between average Indigenous and non-Indigenous living standards, and the gap is not narrowing. It didn't narrow last year or the year before that or the year before that either, and, unless something changes, it won't narrow next year. There are a number of reasons for this. Most of them relate to poor outcomes in rural and remote Aboriginal communities. This is where the government continues to treat Aborigines like exhibits in a museum. It's where Aborigines go to school the least, where employment is rare, where you see the most hospitalisation from assaults and substance abuse, and where we see the most appalling family violence, child abuse and neglect—including babies with syphilis, for example. To their credit, many Aborigines are voting with their feet and getting out of these hellholes—may there be many more!—but the government holds back this exodus with programs like the Community Development Program. This is a Work for the Dole scheme specific to remote areas, where 83 per cent of participants are Aborigines. It's a poor cousin to the general Work for the Dole scheme. Under the general scheme, long-term unemployed Australians must do community service for 15 to 25 hours a week for half a year. In the other half of the year, they're required to look for a real job, take a job that is offered, and are penalised if they move to an area with high unemployment. Under the Community Development Program, long-term unemployed are required to do up to 25 hours a week of community service all year, so there is no requirement—and indeed, little opportunity—to look for a real job. Instead, there is continuing support to stay in dysfunctional communities where there are next to no real jobs. It's worth noting that a job propped up by a government procurement program isn't a real job. Under the Community Development Program, decisions about what community service needs to be done are devolved to self-appointed Aboriginal leaders, and the community service can entail tasks like mowing the lawns of these same Aboriginal leaders. It's neither a real job nor preparation for a real job. The Closing the Gap reports have reaffirmed the squalor of rural and remote Aboriginal communities, but the government's response is to always redouble already failing efforts, including the mantra of local empowerment. As it stands, local empowerment is a big part of the problem. For example, the local Aboriginal leaders who get to act like bosses under the Community Development Program have no expertise or qualifications in preparing people for real employment, no track record in improving the lot of Aboriginal communities and in many cases were not chosen by those they lord over. What's more, as the program boosts their status and power, they have a strong incentive to keep it going and preserve their fiefdoms. At the heart the current approach to closing the gap reflects a preference for fawning and hand-wringing rather than pragmatism, for sounding good rather than doing good, for empty symbolism rather than practical change, and for truthiness rather than truth. Governments enable child abuse neglect through their Aboriginal child placement principles. These require child protection departments to consult with Aboriginal organisations prior to the removal of any Aboriginal child, to arrange alternative care with extended family or another local Aboriginal family, if possible, and to ensure that the child maintains a connection to Aboriginal culture. This results in delays and uncertainty regarding the removal of children at risk, does not necessarily mean the child is any better off and discourages people from reporting abuse and neglect. This is destructive racism. We should not pretend that it is okay to allow kids, Indigenous or not, to remain in situations of neglect and abuse. Finally, our governments are holding back Aboriginal living standards by propping up dysfunctional attitudes. Dysfunctional behaviour is propped up by having Indigenous sentencing courts. These give Aboriginal offenders more options for how their sentence will be determined, but they haven't reduced the high rates of Aboriginal reoffending. Governments maintain affirmative action programs, including targets for government employment of Aborigines in the Public Service and government procurement from designated Aboriginal businesses. These programs extend to anyone who is accepted by Aboriginal elders as being Aboriginal, even fair-skinned people who have had more opportunities than many of their fellow Australians. Affirmative action programs encourage Aborigines to get ahead through special pleading, and they encourage non-Indigenous Australians to view Aborigines as charity cases. So it's disappointing that the Prime Minister in his Closing the Gap contribution chose to claim that government procurement policies that favour Aboriginal businesses are a great success. Such government favouritism and cronyism distorts the instincts of budding entrepreneurs, treats Aboriginal businesses as charity cases and is racist. More to the point, giving a handout to Aboriginal businesspeople, who are generally in urban areas, educated, working and looking after themselves, isn't going to help the Aboriginal people in rural and regional areas who are poorly educated, unemployed and in poor health. It is the disadvantage of this group of Aborigines that is at the heart of the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. Governments encourage dysfunctional attitudes not just in their sentencing and their affirmative action policies but also by lamenting the injustices done to Aborigines while failing to note that this refers to previous generations. Many non-Indigenous Australians have ancestors who suffered terrible injustices too. Hanging onto injustices that weren't done to you is paralysing and shouldn't be encouraged. We honour Aboriginal culture and want to see it preserved, but we should not expect Aboriginal Australians to endure Third World living, health and education standards in the process. Their culture is not at risk when they own property in their own names, learn to read and write in English, gain a decent education, are encouraged to move to where the jobs are, get real jobs instead of pretend jobs, and their kids are removed from abuse and neglect. As thousands of Aborigines would attest, the essence of their culture is not at risk by joining the mainstream. When refugees come to Australia, we expect them to join mainstream Australia. Indeed we go to great lengths to help them achieve that. The gap would close a lot quicker if we took the same approach to our Indigenous people. The more of them who join mainstream Australia, the better off we all are. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Siewert sought leave to table a document earlier. I understand that leave has been granted. 17:48 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I now table the document A ten-year review: the closing the gap strategy and recommendations for reset. 17:49 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland Coincidentally, I join this debate following Senator Leyonhjelm, and in a broad way I share the views that he's just enunciated—perhaps not in his language. I have often said to Indigenous leaders who've come to see me that the best thing we can do for Indigenous people is to treat them like every other Australian, with no special deals. Do not have Big Brother in the Public Service in Canberra looking at these people and saying: 'You're a second-rate group of people, so we're going to decide everything for you. We're going to feed and clothe you, and we're going to do everything for you. You don't need to do it because we think you're not capable.' That's the greatest insult and the greatest form of racism I have seen. I have said this to Indigenous leaders over many years now. I have to say that most agree with me. I'm sure Senator McCarthy would, sitting in this chamber. Senator McCarthy doesn't need special deals. What we do need for Indigenous people is a good education and an opportunity to join mainstream Australia. A lot of people of Indigenous heritage that I know have had that opportunity, have been properly educated, and they are like every other Australian. They don't need any special deals. They don't need people looking at them, saying, 'This is a deal just for you, and not for other Australians.' The issue of housing was the subject of comment at question time today. The Indigenous leaders came to see me and I had a chat to them. We explained to them to that Commonwealth provides $6.4 billion every year to the states for welfare housing, some of which we expect the states to send to remote Indigenous communities. As I said to this group the other day, the best thing would be if Indigenous people were treated like every other Australian: if they worked hard, bought their own house and paid it off over a lifetime, perhaps with a little bit of assistance from the banks, that would be good. But I recognise that in the remote communities this can't happen because it's very difficult to get well-paid work. This is where I think the gap needs to be closed. We need to make sure there are employment opportunities—opportunities for Indigenous people to get real work. Then they can be like every other Australian: buy their own block of land, build their house, pay it off over a lifetime and have it be theirs. Senator Leyonhjelm touched on this too. It's no good saying to Indigenous people, 'You can live where you were born because it's nice being there and it's your culture to be there,' if there is no prospect of them ever getting further advanced than some sort of welfare support. Indigenous people in the cities do have good schooling, do have the opportunities, and—as Senator McCarthy and Mr Wyatt and former Senator Lindgren have done—have gone out like everybody else, made a success of their lives, acquired a house and acquired a good education for their children. That's how it should be. What governments have got to do is not just say to Indigenous people, 'Well, everyone else has to move if they can't find a job in that locality'—Senator Leyonhjelm touched upon this—'but you can stay there forever, even though you've got no prospect of getting a real job and, therefore, a life like every other Australian.' It's the same with languages. Some on the left go to what I think are inordinate lengths to teach, promote and protect Indigenous language. Yes, that is good. That's nice. But the more important thing is to teach young children everywhere, be they Indigenous or not Indigenous, how to read and speak and properly appreciate the English language. Why? Because if they can do that they then have an opportunity in joining the rest of the world and getting well-paid jobs, as Senator McCarthy has done, as Mr Ken Wyatt has done, and as Senator Lindgren did. I have just mentioned those three because they're people who have shown that to be the case. In the system we currently have, there are always going to be disadvantaged people. I say that some on the left look at them as second-class citizens, which I refuse to accept. I won't accept that. They are as good as me. They're as good as anyone in this chamber. But they don't have the opportunities. When you get a company like Adani—and I don't want to really get onto that subject except to say, here was an opportunity for Indigenous people in Central Queensland to get a real job. And Indigenous people knew that, and that's why—by 98 per cent to two per cent—they voted to support that thing. Why? They didn't really care about Adani, or India or anything, but they knew it meant jobs and an opportunity and a chance for a proper life for their children and their people. The government has tried to develop the north, but we're finding enormous difficulty in getting state governments, in particular, to do the things that need to be done to enable development to occur. And if the development occurs, it provides opportunities for Indigenous people. There are so many dam proposals in the north of Queensland—Indigenous people in those localities love the idea. Why do they love the idea? Because they know it will mean some form of development, mainly in agriculture, that they can be part of. And in fact, in many cases, they want to use their lands to take on farming enterprises, and give their kids a real job, a job that will let them be like every other Australian. I acknowledge that Prime Minister Turnbull and the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion, have a passion for Indigenous people, and I know that they follow the accepted norm of Canberra and the Left of our society, in thinking, 'All we've got to do is throw money at it, and everything will be right.' Well, most Indigenous leaders know that is not what it's about. It is about opportunity. As much as I can, I will continue to help the mayors of the Cape, the Torres Strait, and the north-west of my state, because they are my constituency, to get real jobs—to allow them to be part of Australia like every other Australian. As I say, this is not a new comment from me. I've spoken to Indigenous leaders over many, many years, and as recently as last week, on this same issue. We've got to give them the opportunity to be like every other Australian, and not just to be recipients of some welfare that the well-meaning bureaucrats and the latte set from the south think is what it's all about. That is not helping Indigenous people, and it never will. I get very distressed at the way that people down here treat Indigenous people in remote areas as second-class citizens. I don't. I reject that. But we've got to give them the opportunity. Whilst the Closing the gap report has all the rhetoric in it—it has all the cliches, and it makes everyone around their latte tables in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra feel really good about doing something for Indigenous people—it doesn't attack the real problem. The real problem is how to give Indigenous people opportunity, and enable development, so there are real jobs for Indigenous people—and, apart from that, Indigenous people should follow the same rules and the same laws, and have the same opportunities and the same responsibilities, as every other Australian. If we can achieve that, we really will close the gap permanently. It's going to take a long time. I'm pleased to hear that Senator Leyonhjelm, coincidentally, is of the same general view. And can I say, it's not just Senator Leyonhjelm; there are many Indigenous leaders who accept what I say is right. Don't just hand over the welfare, don't just throw money at the problem. Give Indigenous people a real opportunity to advance, the same as every other Australian. Make the kids go to school, make the children learn when they leave school, so that they will have an opportunity to take their part fully in Australia, as every other Australian has that opportunity. 17:59 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Ten years ago, my families and I were grieving for the loss of my mother. She had died six months earlier and had been on dialysis. She had been on dialysis for quite some time—a number of years, actually. And in that same year, just prior to the apology and the first Closing the gapreport, my cousin-brother died as well. He was in his 40s. So our families were still grieving, in sorry business. In February 2008, the Australian parliament navigated through incredibly complex political walls, hard hearts and deaf ears to persevere and do what no other parliament in the history of the Australian parliament had done—to apologise, to say 'sorry' for the policies of previous parliaments and previous politicians that had moulded and shaped the tortuous and at times confusing and frustrating future for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this country. So on that day in February 2008, in the Northern Territory parliament, stolen generation members gathered to witness what they couldn't see in person, what many couldn't make the journey to see here in this parliament. While those stolen generation members who had been removed from their homes and country sat in that hall, they watched family members, people they knew and people they didn't know enter the halls of this parliament. They watched where, on the lawns at the front of Parliament House, thousands and thousands of Australians had walked or driven to for that moment in our history. We must always hold onto that moment of incredible generosity of spirit of the stolen generations that received the words 'I'm sorry'. This parliament says, 'We are sorry.' It is that generosity of spirit that we all need to call upon and to reflect upon. I pay tribute to the elders of this country, the traditional owners, the Ngunawal and Ngambri peoples—Senator McCarthy then spoke in language—for my peoples, the Yanyuwa in the Gulf Country, because I know that when this parliament, which represents the Australian people, comes together on this day to seek a better future for the first nations people, we must do it with a generosity of spirit. We must allow the memory of this day to enable us to still persevere, to still strive to work together, because we know that there are deep systemic issues facing Indigenous people across this country in various places—remote, rural and urban. Close the gap has a face. My family, my extended families: the Yanyuwa, the Garrwa, the Mara and the Kudanji peoples. They are the people, the faces, of close the gap. Senator Dodson and his family, his people, and the people that he represents are the face of close the gap. The member for Barton, Linda Burney, in the House of Representatives, is the first-ever Indigenous woman to stand in the parliament where the Prime Minister said 'sorry'. She is the face of closing the gap—her family and her children. And Minister Ken Wyatt and his family and extended family, and his history. That is the face of Close the Gap. So when members come into this house, or the other house, to talk figures and statistics, they are our figures and statistics. If I came in here to talk about your family, how would you feel? Each year, standing here, wondering if your family is going to have their children finish high school; if your family is going to go on to jail, which is what is expected; if your family is going to have a future on dialysis; or if your family is going to have employment opportunities on CDP to look forward to, for those who can graduate. That's what we're talking about here. This is the human story of closing the gap. It matters. It matters that this parliament takes it seriously. When the minister stands up and talks about all these things—I know Minister Scullion and have worked with him over many years—I don't ever doubt the good intent behind what he tries to do. But he's not really the problem. It's the rest of you who sit beside him in cabinet. Where is your willingness to close the gap, to provide the housing instead of providing excuses? I'm immensely proud of Labor's plan to establish a stolen generations scheme for members of the stolen generation in the Northern Territory and here in the ACT. When we come to government, we will offer payments of $75,000 to living stolen generation survivors who were removed from their families and committed to the care of the New South Wales Aboriginal protection or welfare boards. We will provide a funeral assistance fund, which will provide one-off payments of $7,000 to stolen generation survivors to assist with the cost of funerals. This scheme will cover approximately 150 surviving members of the stolen generations. It's really sad, because three weeks ago I buried my cousin. He was a stolen generation member. He'll never get to see that support. But he did get to see the apology. When Australians came together on 13 February 2008, they came together in this House and there were many members on that side who didn't want to know the apology. I hope you may be able to reflect on where you were 10 years ago and where your spirit of generosity is this day. Because it was that gathering of all Australians who said, 'This is the right thing for this parliament to do,' and as one heartbeat our country came together. Let's hold onto that. Always remember that, and that is the spirit of the Ngunawal and Ngambri peoples of this country that lives on every time and every year we stand to close the gap. (Time expired) 18:09 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Ten years on from the National Apology to the Stolen Generations and the start of the Closing the Gap strategy, I rise in this parliament to acknowledge the traditional owners of this land, the Ngunawal and Ngambri people, and their elders, past and present. These are the First Australians, people who have, for more than 50,000 years, had a culture that we admire and respect, a culture that they share with us and with the world. This is a people who have endured such suffering as a result of colonisation. While some people might like to talk about the arrival of European settlement here as unambiguously good for Aboriginal people, most Australians understand that it represents the dispossession of land, the decimation of a culture, the beginning of an ongoing genocide and children taken away from their mothers. This is the legacy that we are living with today, and it behoves all of us to accept, understand it and acknowledge it, because without doing that we'll never make progress. This is a land that was never ceded; it was and always will be Aboriginal land. The Closing the Gap strategy was an acknowledgment of this legacy of the unfinished business that must be done to bring Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, education and wellbeing into line with non-Indigenous Australians. It was a commitment that was made by our parliament to our first peoples: to work together, listen, learn and dedicate ourselves to righting the wrongs of the past and to bringing about equality. Sadly, it has been a story of failure. The 10 years since have been a sobering reminder that words are just wind, that real outcomes happen only when actions follows words. Year after year we've seen targets that have been missed or ignored. We know that progress has been painfully slow. Sadly, governments of all political colours have gift-wrapped their failures in glossy reports. This year it's 130 pages. Last year the Prime Minister spoke at length about listening and working with Aboriginal Australians, rather than doing things to them. Those lofty ideals from this Prime Minister are simply not borne out by his actions or the actions of his government. As Senator Siewert pointed out earlier, still today we see the imposition of policies and programs upon Indigenous Australians, the legacy of the intervention—the cashless welfare card, for example, without consultation, taking away the rights and freedoms that the rest of us enjoy. Today, 10 years on, is a moment of sombre reflection on the state of our relations as a parliament with the first people of this nation. The Uluru Statement from the Heart is a poignant and powerful plea for acknowledgement, respect and substantive recognition of Indigenous justice and self-determination. The Australian Greens welcome this statement into our hearts as we implore the government to wake up and commit to the makarrata commission. Just last week the Close the Gap breakfast saw Indigenous health leaders come to this place and implore the government and the parliament to do better. As we just heard earlier from Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, they are sick and tired of watching their people die. These are their stories. These are real stories of people living with chronic illness, of people living with diseases like diabetes, heart disease and ear disease. These are the stories of families. These are the lives of ordinary people. Yet today the government is crowing about the fact that this year, after 10 years, just three of the seven targets might be on track to be met. The sad reality is that does represent some progress, because the report highlights that the last time we were on track to meet as many as three targets was back in 2011. That's hardly cause for celebration. We welcome any improvements in child mortality, Indigenous enrolment, early childhood education and year 12 attainment. They are positive, but we are still not on track to meet basic targets such as school attendance, reading and numeracy, employment and, crucially, closing the gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. Of course, the Greens join with Indigenous leaders in calling for a justice target to be included. We are locking up Aboriginal people at rates that are higher than almost any other population anywhere in the world. We need a justice target to be included. The so-called refreshing of the targets has to be more than a bureaucratic process resulting in more targets that we simply fail to reach. We need action. But to get that action it has to be a collaborative process with Indigenous Australians. And with those targets we need to have tangible commitments to working together with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and to implement the funding to ensure that we meet those targets. The Greens are looking to the Close the Gap 10-year review, which was published last week by the Indigenous health community and Australia's broader health sector, as to exactly where we should be focusing our attention. One thing's crystal clear: we have to fund the national Indigenous health action plan and the implementation plan. We have a blueprint there for what should be done—let's fund it. We need a recommitment to community controlled health care and the resources and the workforce to support it. I know the value that Aboriginal community controlled care provides, because I've worked there. I know the impact that it has on Aboriginal people—culturally appropriate services delivered in a setting controlled only by Aboriginal people for Aboriginal people. The Closing the Gap strategy will never be realised without the appropriate architecture for collaboration to make it happen. Ultimately, what we need is a government that's committed to action, and to working with Aboriginal people to stop the top-down interventions that build resentment and build disengagement, which we know make matters worse. Unfortunately, this is a legacy that we continue to live with today. At the moment we're debating the cashless welfare card, but let's not forget the impact of the intervention. After my return visit to Tennant Creek last year, we were promised that the result of the intervention would be a community with improved health and educational opportunities. This was a community that, 17 years after I first worked there, in many respects, and in many areas, had fewer opportunities than when I was working there. I welcome the remarks of the Prime Minister today. I welcome the commitment to working with Aboriginal communities on refreshing and meeting the Closing the Gap targets. But with all due respect to the Prime Minister, let me say that I share the frustration of Indigenous people around the country at hearing him speak again and making those commitments only to be disappointed, as we have been in the past. Last week, the PM attended the close the gap breakfast, and it was so disappointing to see him walk out in the middle of that breakfast. I know he's a busy man, but what could be more important than listening to Aboriginal Australians as they try to offer solutions on how to save Indigenous lives. I thought it showed a profound lack of respect. Mr Turnbull, Indigenous Australians have told you how to work with them. They've provided you with the blueprint on how to engage and include them. The ball is now in your court. I say to the many Indigenous Australians: we will continue to listen to you; we will create opportunities to empower you, because we know that the only way that we will be able to close the gap is when you take the lead in shaping the solutions for your communities. 18:19 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I want to concentrate on the area of housing in relation to the issues that this delivers in trying to deal with closing the gap. I must say, listening to Senator Leyonhjelm and Senator Macdonald, it beggars belief that they can ignore the history of this country and the history that Indigenous communities have had to bear over the period of white settlement in this country. Senator Leyonhjelm discussed how jobs, propped up by a procurement program, are not real jobs. I'm sure the South Australian coalition senators will not be saying that about jobs created in South Australia arising from government procurement in the defence sector. For Senator Leyonhjelm to argue that you can't count anything that's been aligned with government procurement as a real job is a crazy proposition. Australia is not a market economy. We are a mixed economy. That mixed economy is the market and government. Government play a huge role in providing employment, housing, health and education in this country. To simply pass judgement on Indigenous communities, to say that if they got some government support through a procurement program then it's not a real job, just doesn't stack up on the basis of common sense. Senator Macdonald argues that if you treat Indigenous communities like every other Australian community, then things will be different. He argues that employment opportunities are what should be in place, that you'll fix all this by providing a block of land that an Indigenous person can buy and pay off and that that will result in well-paid jobs and opportunities for Indigenous Australians. Nothing could be further from the truth, because if that scenario doesn't work for white Australians and Australians living in metropolitan areas then it certainly won't work in other areas such as remote communities in this country. AHURI, the government-funded body that looks at these issues, has done some simulation estimates on what the issues are. Across Australia about 1.3 million households—that's 14 per cent of households—are estimated to be in housing need. That includes people in overcrowded households, people who can't access rental accommodation at a reasonable price, and people living in stress because they're paying off a mortgage or they're trying to pay rates. Fixing Indigenous issues by saying that you will create a market in housing is just not realistic. My first day in this place coincided with the apology. It was a remarkable day not only for me, personally, in becoming a senator but also for what Labor was trying to do through the apology and through focusing on the real issues for Indigenous Australians. You can't argue that you'll simply provide opportunity and everything will be fixed. I've heard the argument of equality of opportunity from my own side—I've heard it many times in this place—but there is no equality of opportunity for an Indigenous Australian against a barrister's kid or a QC's kid in the eastern suburbs of Sydney. That equality of opportunity is just not there; it's a myth. In these communities where we have real problems in relation to housing we need government procurement, we need government jobs and we need access to government social security payments to keep those communities alive. The argument that I've heard here today is basically that, if you need that, you shouldn't be in that community. I think that is the height of contempt for our Indigenous people in this country. We heard those arguments today and we heard Senator Macdonald raise the issue of how much money is spent on housing. In 2008 Labor invested $5.4 billion in the National Partnership Agreement for Remote Indigenous Housing to build and refurbish houses in remote Indigenous communities. We are not saying, 'Put the bulldozer through remote communities and send all these remote Indigenous families to other areas where they can get jobs and live like whitefellas.' That is an absolute nonsense. We want to build and refurbish houses in remote Indigenous communities. We do want to implement robust and standardised property and tenancy management in Indigenous housing. We want to increase employment opportunities for local residents in remote Indigenous communities. The National Partnership Agreement on Remote and Indigenous Housing did that. I have spoken to both the Minister for Housing and Public Works in Queensland and the Minister for Housing and Community Development in the Northern Territory this week. They both outlined how there's been a steady increase in employment arising from the investment that governments have made in these communities on housing. For instance, in Western Australia there has been an increase of 22 per cent to 47 per cent in jobs. Jobs for concreters, plumbers, carpenters, electricians, roofers, labourers, painters, tilers and cabinetmakers are being created through this program across the country. Yet Senator Scullion today couldn't give a clear answer on whether the program would continue. What Senator Scullion indicated was that the program had finished; it was a 10-year program. He indicated to the minister for housing in Queensland that the program was over. That is not a way to bring jobs and employment into Indigenous communities across the country. Apprenticeships are being created in Indigenous communities. We need to get away from reliance on fly-in fly-out tradespeople from major metropolitan sectors into those communities. We need to create the jobs, we need to create the apprenticeships. If you want to create a market then you have to actually intervene, as we do in many areas in this country. We hear so much about jobs growth from the coalition, but the bulk of the jobs growth is coming from government initiated programs. The NBN is creating jobs, as a government initiated program. Even though the outcome is not great for many communities, the program is there. It's the government initiated programs in many areas, like the National Disability Insurance Scheme, that are creating jobs. In all these social areas where jobs are increasing, it's been government that has increased the jobs—predominantly initiatives from the previous Labor government that this government is crowing about now. It was Labor that initiated those programs that created those jobs. We need to treat our Indigenous communities the same as you want to treat white communities and metropolitan communities. Government plays a role in job creation, government plays a role in housing, and that should be the way that we treat our Indigenous communities in the future. Sitting suspended from 18 : 29 to 19 : 30 19:30 Senator LINES 112096 Western Australia I too rise to make my contribution to the debate on today's Closing the gap report. I pay my respects to the Ngunawal and Ngambri peoples, who are the traditional custodians of the Canberra area on which the parliament sits, and I pay my respects to elders past and present. I also want to comment on the speech before dinner by Senator Malarndirri McCarthy, who reminded us that Close the Gap has a face. I think it's easy in this place to forget that. They were very powerful words from Senator McCarthy, and I thank her from the bottom of my heart for the contribution she made in talking about her family and the families of many other first nations peoples in this country. So let us remember today that Close the Gap has a face. It is one of the few opportunities we have left in this parliament, sadly, where we come together as a parliament and make that contribution and make that commitment to close the gap. Whilst today's report shows some improvement, it's not nearly good enough. First nations people still lag behind in so many key, fundamental areas in our country. They are the first nations people, and nothing we do or say or believe will ever change that, and we must do a lot better. The only way to do that is with a partnership with first nations people. I was really honoured to be able to attend the release last week of the review on 10 years of Close the Gap, which was done by the Australian Human Rights Commission. We had amazing leaders such as Ms June Oscar, Mr Rod Little and Mr Tom Calma, who spoke to us about what needs to be done and how we need to do that. But, for me, I was incredibly impressed with the contribution of a young Yamatji-Badimia woman, Banok Rind, who told us about her life. She was told by teachers, 'You'll never make it; you'll never amount to anything,' and she's now studying registered nursing at the University of Melbourne. She reminded us not only that first nations people have the solutions but that they want to make the contribution. She had a message for the Prime Minister. Unfortunately, he'd left by the time Ms Rind got up to speak and, in my view, he missed one of the most powerful speeches, her speech. She said very simply, 'We want you to sit down and yarn with us.' Now, I don't think that is a big ask. It is way beyond time that we do sit down and listen and put first nations responses front and centre and at the heart of whatever we do to fix the gap, because we must fix the gap. If we are a fair country and a just country, we can no longer have such a glaring gap as we have today. The wise words of June Oscar, Rod Little and Tom Calma resonate with me. They were incredibly powerful. June Oscar, in her polite but determined way, well and truly gave us all a message last week. To ignore that message—to listen to the fine words that we've had today and to fail to act yet again—would be to do a great disservice to those speakers who put their hearts and souls into the contributions that they made last week. I am really proud to stand here today to revisit the sorts of commitments that Labor has made today. We will set up a compensation scheme for the stolen generations. My own granddaughter's family are stolen generations. They're Gija people, but they have lived their lives in Geraldton. They were taken from their homeland at Turkey Creek, first to Broome and then settled on the missions in Geraldton. Actually, in the museum there are photos of them as kids running around outside the tin shacks that the family lived in. Members of the family were taken to Moore River. Just in Charlie's family you see that dispossession, that loss and that continuing trauma being played out in her family—just a small family. And as we heard from Senator McCarthy today, when she talked about her family and many other families, that trauma lives on and on. That's not to say that people don't achieve. They do, despite what gets done to them. But there is an ongoing trauma that needs to be acknowledged, and Labor will do that. We will look at the kind of healing that needs to be done. Within 100 days of winning government we will also hold a summit to look at and to put into place action to stop the horrifying taking of children out of homes and putting them into out-of-home care. In my own state of Western Australia the stats are really way too high. It is not an area we need to be leading on. I am really pleased the state government, through my good friend Minister Simone McGurk, has put $20 million to Aboriginal organisations to look at the solutions. Four Aboriginal organisations will do the lead work on this. Family Matters has been directly involved in having conversations with Premier McGowan about what needs to happen. But we will again fail if we have fine words that are not followed up with action. We have a department in Western Australia that has a set of principles about how important it is for young first nations children to remain, if not with their immediate parents, at least with family members. Yet time and time again in Western Australia we see that those policy commitments are set aside and children are taken at birth and put with non-Indigenous parents and they miss out on the importance of culture and the importance of family. So, much more needs to be done. I would urge people to look at the report launched last week on how we need to move forward. As I said earlier today in my contribution on the cashless debit card, that is absolutely not a solution. It flies in the face of the sorts of reports that we've seen today from Closing the Gap. The CDP has robbed so many communities of good projects in communities that were making a difference and has also provided people with just the most menial, dehumanising kinds of tasks. The sorts of tasks we saw people undertaking when we did the CDP inquiry were shocking. We saw men working in nothing more than old chook sheds that would have not have passed any comparable health and safety standard for a workplace, and using the pine packing crates to build stuff out of. Of course, they can't compete and learn real skills because that would put local businesses out of business. If anyone thinks that is meaningful work for people to be doing, they are kidding themselves. It was dehumanising and, quite frankly, I just felt so much for the participants. The other thing that's happening is that people are getting breached. We heard lots of stories of people not being able to buy electricity because they missed a day of their 25-hours-a-week CDP requirement and therefore lost income. This is not how you create equality. This is not just. Those are whitefella solutions being imposed on our first nations people. Yet in this same community we saw the town council largely made up of first nations people—I think 100 per cent—who had really good, solid infrastructure projects that would have created employment, if only we were able to fund them. So let's take some of that CDP money and look at how, in consultation with traditional owners, with local people, we can create proper, meaningful employment. It is way beyond the time that we continue to ignore the voices of Aboriginal people—the voices of June Oscar, Rod Little and Tom Calma and the young voice of Banok Rind, who gave such a powerful speech last week. That is who we need to be listening to. As she said, and as I said earlier in this place, 'You tell me why two-year-olds in my community are walking around with hearing aids.' That's a shame; it's a shame on all of us, and there are very easy solutions to the question that Ms Rind posed to the group last week. I would urge the government to continue the bipartisanship spirit of Close the Gap, but let's get real; let's put our first nations people front and centre of the solutions. Let's get the Uluru statement back on track. Let's really close the gap. We are capable of this. It requires goodwill; the goodwill is certainly there from first nations people and it's there from the Labor Party. Let's get this done. 19:40 Senator MOORE 00AOQ Queensland We all know that anniversaries are important, and one of the key messages out of the original Closing the Gap statement 10 years ago was that every year we would bring back to this parliament the experience and the knowledge that had been gained the previous year, to ensure that we remembered exactly what the original Closing the Gap statement had been about and that we, as a parliament, would listen to people who are living the experience: people in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across our nation and the people who work in those areas. We said that we would bring the research and the knowledge we had from across the nation back to the parliament and take notice of what had occurred and how we were progressing. We made a solemn commitment, together as a parliament, to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people that we would acknowledge there was a gap. In fact, for the first time in the parliament it was clearly stated that we as a nation accepted that there was not genuine equality in our nation. We acknowledged that people living side by side with us were not benefiting, the way that everyone should, from the value and the wealth of our nation. First of all we acknowledged that there was a gap and then, together, we made a commitment that we would work to close that gap. Now, 10 years down the track, the government has decided that we will do a refresh program around the whole process. But during the refresh it's important we understand that this is not moving away from the original process; it's just taking note and ensuring that we work effectively together and become stronger. On that basis, it's important to remember the goals from the original Closing the Gap statement 10 years ago. They were deliberately challenging targets. They were not meant to be easy. They acknowledged the situation in our community, and we said that things had to change and that there had to be concentrated effort at every level of government and every level of the community to effectively identify the gap, address the difference and then learn as we worked together to close it. Today we heard the Prime Minister talk about the fact that there had been encouraging progress across three of the original goals of the Closing the Gap statement. But, because there has been activity across the three, we shouldn't forget that through this concentrated process of working together over 10 years there has been improvement across the board. Things have been focused now for 10 years and, whilst we may not have met the original targets in every one of the areas, we should not run away from the fact that there has been improvement. That's the idea of coming together every 10 years and assessing how we're going. But we should not ignore the original goals of the program. No. 1—the first step, the first process—was to look at the fact that there was a gap in life expectancy in our community. That was identified, and it was shameful that there was such a gap in life expectancy. So the very first goal was to close the life expectancy gap within a generation—that is, by 2031. There has been movement, but we have not met what we'd hoped to do by this stage. But that is no reason to turn away from that incredibly important element of the commitment that we as a parliament made to the people of Australia—that is, that we would look at the health aspects of communities to ensure that we closed that life expectancy gap. So through any process of refresh we should not move away from that core goal. We need to ensure that people in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities across the country have the clear expectation of equality in health and wellbeing. We have the support mechanisms to do that in our country. If we look at the work that has been done around the social determinants of health programs across the country, we see the range of different elements that work together to ensure that there is a basis for equality. It is so essential that we continue to work with this framework and to look at all the elements that work together to ensure that there is equality, there is safety and there is security. That will continue to be the challenge around the issue of closing the gap on life expectancy. We would halve that gap in mortality rates for Indigenous children under five within a decade, which is now, the 10th anniversary. We have not met that claim, but we have worked together to ensure that there is that national focus—and again I use that term—on something that is shameful for our community—the gap in expectation. On the mortality rates for children there has been progress, so we need to assess how far we've come and what we can do in the future. On childhood education for four-year-old Indigenous children in remote communities, there is progress towards that goal. It is not to say that we need to have a big tick against that. A tendency that we have in parliament, in government, is to set up a checklist and, as soon as we think that we've actually achieved something, we put a big cross through it, as though there is no need for ongoing work. The message of the Closing the Gap agenda has always been that we do not cease to concentrate on the work. We maintain the effort, we maintain the engagement and we listen to and work with the people who have the lived experience. That there has been improvement in the early childhood education goal does not mean that we can say that work has been concluded. We need to continue to work in this space to maintain it. When we do that, it necessarily leads on to the gap in reading, writing and numeracy achievements, which is one where we haven't actually met the original target. No child should be able to complete their schooling without having effective reading, writing and numeracy achievements. That's the solid basis for opportunity in life, for progress and for education and employment achievements. So there has to be continuing work on that. The grade 12 attainment rates have again improved. The gap in employment outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians has been a shared agreement across this parliament for many years. All the goals work together. The idea was not to say that one goal was more important than another. This was a concentrated process of determining where the key gaps were and then working together as governments across the board to ensure that we have the best possible response. What we have continued to know, when we have this annual focus on the Closing the gap report, is that there is more work to be done. The reminder to all of us is that it is important that we maintain that we as a parliament come together, once a year, to assess how we're going and to look at how we can better the process and how we can work into the future. I have always felt that this is a positive program. I know that there are elements who say that we concentrate on the negativity. I have always felt it was a positive process to have parliamentarians who were prepared to work on, and to speak openly about, what we have done and what we can do better. I am very hopeful that the refresh process—though I have to admit I do not like that term—will actually re-energise the response. We will work closely with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, we will truly review what we came together for and committed to 10 years ago and we will rebuild that commitment into the future. This is a positive process, but the incredibly important element is that we work together. As always, the message we heard last week, when people came together in this place to talk about the Closing the Gap process and to identify the fears and concerns about where it would go next, was the clear concern about the need to continue to do this together. Single groups of parliamentarians will never make the effective change that we must have. The ongoing message is that we listen to our first peoples, we respond to their needs and we accept the wisdom, the resilience and the power of their lived experience over many generations. Only then will we be able to continue the very important commitment that we made 10 years ago, which is that the gap exists and the gap can be changed, but only if we continue to work together. Question agreed to. BILLS 91 BILLS Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017 91

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017

In Committee 91 19:50 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Labor has a number of amendments that we want to propose to the bill. They are contained in sheet 8354. In relation to the amendments, we believe that there is insufficient evidence at this stage to show that the existing trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley are working. The Senate inquiry heard that the ORIMA evaluations of the trial are unreliable and no empirical judgements can be made on the basis of the information collected. In its own consultations, Labor heard mixed results with some participants in Ceduna and the East Kimberley trials finding the cashless debit card to be useful while others thought it had not made any improvement to their lives. In addition to the poor quality of the evaluation, Labor believes that the Ceduna and East Kimberley trials have not been running long enough to form solid conclusions about the success of the trials. Labor supported the initiation of trials in Ceduna and in the East Kimberley, and supports them continuing for a further year to allow more time to reliably determine whether they have been successful. 19:54 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I move government amendment (1) on sheet AS301: (1) Schedule 1, items 1 and 2, page 3 (lines 4 to 8), omit the items, substitute: 1 Subsection 124PD(1) Insert: Ceduna area means Ceduna within the meaning of the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area—Ceduna and Surrounding Region) Determination2015 as in force on 15 March 2016 and includes the Surrounding Region (within the meaning of that determination as so in force). East Kimberley area means East Kimberley within the meaning of the Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area—East Kimberley) Determination2016 as in force on 26 April 2016 and includes the areas of each of the Included Communities (within the meaning of that determination as so in force). Goldfields area means the following Local Government Areas as at 7 February 2018: (a) the Shire of Leonora; (b) the Shire of Laverton; (c) the City of Kalgoorlie‑Boulder; (d) the Shire of Coolgardie; (e) the Shire of Menzies. Local Government Areas means areas designated by the Governor of Western Australia to be a city, town or shire, in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 (WA). 2 Subsection 124PD(1) (definition of trial area ) Repeal the definition, substitute: trial area means the following: (a) the Ceduna area; (b) the East Kimberley area; (c) the Goldfields area; other than any part of such an area determined in an instrument under subsection (2). 3 Subsection 124PD(2) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine a part of an area for the purposes of the definition of trial area in subsection (1). 4 Paragraph 124PF(1 ) ( b) Omit "30 June 2018", substitute "30 June 2019". 5 Subsection 124PF(2) Omit "up to 3 discrete", substitute "the". The government amendment extends the trial of the cashless debit card to 30 June 2019. The amendments also specify that the trial will be limited to three sites—namely, the East Kimberley and the included communities, Ceduna and the surrounding regions, and the Goldfields. The bill retains the existing legislated limitations on trial parameters in relation to the number of sites, participant numbers and the duration of the cashless debit card trial. Under the current legislation, trial sites are determined via legislative instrument. The bill removes this ability and specifically names the trial areas. Instead, the minister will be able to declare that specific parts of the trial areas are exempt from the cashless debit card. This provides the government with the flexibility to remove localities. This reflects that discussions with communities in the Goldfields region are ongoing and that requirements for communities already on the cashless debit card may change over time. We say that the change is needed. The government amendments to the bill will provide certainty for the communities currently engaged in the trial and/or the communities of the Goldfields which have asked the government to expand the cashless debit card to their community. Currently, the debit card trial is due to cease on 30 June this year. An independent evaluation of the existing CDC trial sites was conducted by ORIMA Research in 2016-17. The evaluation found that the card had a considerable positive impact in both trial sites. Overall the research found that the CDC trial has been effective in reducing alcohol consumption and gambling on both trial sites and was also suggestive of a reduction in the use of illegal drugs. Continuing the cashless debit card in Ceduna and the East Kimberley will focus on sustaining these impacts in the longer term. If the current end date is not extended, the program must cease by 30 June 2018, which will risk undermining the positive outcomes already being experienced by these communities. Furthermore, the government has committed to expand the program to the Goldfields region. Failure to amend the legislation will prevent this. This expansion will help test the card in different settings. 19:57 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Minister, are you moving the five different areas or are you moving them one at a time? Can I just get clarification on that? The TEMPORARY CHAIR 247871 It's a single amendment that has five parts. Senator CAMERON AI6 I will just go to each part of the amendment that you have before the Senate. We oppose this amendment. I said in the second reading debate and I've indicated earlier tonight that there is insufficient evidence at this stage to show that the existing trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley are working. That is an issue to start with, and that's why we would oppose any expansion of the trial. We don't support the expansion of the trial at this stage. We supported the initiation of trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley and support them continuing for a further year to allow more time to reliably determine whether they have been successful. The amendment I propose to move on this bill deals with that aspect. The second part of your amendment goes to defining the trial area. The current legislation in the bill doesn't define the trial area. This is currently done through a legislative instrument. This government amendment defines the trial areas as the Ceduna area, the East Kimberley area and the Goldfields area. We oppose this part of the amendment, and any move to expand the trial without sufficient evidence to demonstrate its success will be opposed. Labor requires a much more rigorous evaluation of the cashless debit card in the existing trial areas prior to any expansion. The trials are also of a significant cost. Labor understands that there is a current accrued cost of $25.5 million, or around $12,000 per participant. We also know that the government spent around $1.6 million on ORIMA Research to provide substandard evaluation, and the minister still won't reveal how much it will cost the taxpayers to expand the rollout of the card to the Goldfields area. Minister, before I go any further, can you confirm that there is an accrued cost of $25.5 million, or $12,000 per participant? Did the ORIMA research cost $1.6 million? Can you reveal how much it will cost taxpayers to expand the rollout of the card to the Goldfields area? 20:00 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I am advised that the overall cost is $1,000 per person. 20:00 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales What about the accrued cost of $25.5 million? 20:00 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I am advised that there is an initial up-front cost and there is no ongoing cost. The bulk of the cost of the program relates to up-front implementation, and these up-front costs include industry and community consultation, the card provider creating a new debit card and information technology system as well as the independent evaluation of the trial. Any future costs associated with the program, including expanding to additional sites, will be significantly lower per head than the amount estimated for the trial. I am instructed that it works out at $1,000 per head long term. 20:01 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Thanks. I'm still unclear. I'm not sure where the $1,000-per-head long-term figure you said comes from, so maybe you could explain that figure. I want to bring you back to the accrued cost to the present time. The advice I have is that that is $25.5 million. Maybe you could just deal with those two issues and advise how you achieve this figure of $1,000. How does that work out? 20:02 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I am advised that the up-front consultation with communities and the set-up fees are how we get up to the $25 million. 20:02 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Thanks. So my understanding that the accrued cost of $25.5 million is correct. Can you now explain how it becomes $1,000 per participant and not the $12,000 that I am advised? 20:03 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I am advised, Senator Cameron, that those are up-front costs for the set-up and that, of course, the long-term cost is reduced to $1,000 per person. 20:03 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales So, Minister, you're basically subtracting the $25.5 million up-front cost to achieve a $1,000-per-participant outcome. Is that correct? 20:03 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I'm instructed that the figure of about $25 million is the bulk of the program and it is for up-front implementation, which is a normal practice with a new initiative. These up-front costs include the industry and community consultation, the card provider creating the new debit card and information technology system—which, of course, stays with the life of the program once it has been created—as well as the independent evaluation of the system. Clearly, any future costs associated with the program, even expanding to additional sites, will be significantly lower per head than the amount that was originally estimated for the trial. That is what I am advised. 20:04 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales If we count the $25.5 million, which is what you describe as the up-front amount, would that still be $12,000 per participant? 20:05 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales If this would assist you, I am advised that other similar income management programs work out to about $3,000 per head. If you could kindly repeat your question, that would be good. 20:05 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales We understand that the accrued cost is $25.5 million. I think that would include what you describe as up-front costs. For the number of people being forced to participate in this, it would equal $12,000 per participant if you include the $25.5 million. It is a simple question. 20:06 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I am advised that at this point in time, with the trial as it is, it does work out to $12,000, but we have worked out that, into the future, the cost will come down considerably as a consequence of those up-front costs having already been met. I am now advised that it will be $1,000 per person over the long term. 20:06 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia In other words, it is still that cost per person. Do you include in that the cost of the additional service provision, the so-called wraparound services, the additional staff needed for rolling it out in a particular area and providing the additional EFTPOS machines? 20:07 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Yes, I am advised that it does. 20:07 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales You indicated that the cost of $1,000 was over the long term. Over how many years is the long term? 20:08 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales To the end of June 2019. 20:08 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Long term? That's less than 18 months. 20:08 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Sorry, Senator Cameron. Let me just clarify this. Would you mind giving me a few minutes? One of the advisers is just going to get that clarified, so we'll come back to you on that. While we are at it, Senator Siewert, do you have more? 20:08 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia The situation has changed from when we first saw this legislation. How many participants are you estimating for the Goldfields trial in that calculation for the cost? 20:09 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales About 3,600 for the Goldfields. 20:09 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales While you are clarifying whether or not 18 months is long term, is there a cost for just the Goldfields? 20:09 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I am advised that the costs for operating the additional sites are not for publication, due to potential commercial sensitivities. 20:09 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia So we're expected to believe that the costs will come down from $12,000 to $1,000 when you are not telling us what the costs are for the Goldfields? How do you arrive at that if you won't tell us all the facts? How are we expected to believe you? 20:10 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Senator Siewert, I'm seeking clarification, and as part of the clarification I'd like to be able to explain to you the process, so, if you will bear with me, I will get that information for you. 20:10 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Minister, are you claiming public interest immunity on the cost for the Goldfields? 20:10 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I'm advised that we wouldn't publish commercial-in-confidence information related to those contracts. I will provide you with as much information as I can, so, if you will just bear with me, I have just got some additional information. I am advised that the $1,000 is for four sites to 2020, which is still government policy. 20:11 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Minister, you've been here a fair time and you know that you just can't claim commercial-in-confidence without laying out the details of why this would be a public interest immunity claim. I know it is Larry Anthony, former National Party leader, who's got a finger in the pie here, but that doesn't mean public interest immunity. It doesn't mean that you can claim commercial-in-confidence. You understand that you have to provide these details to the Senate. 20:11 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Senator Cameron, are you reflecting on Larry Anthony? If you are making some sort of accusation, can you just be clear about that? You are reflecting on him in some way, shape or form, so perhaps you might like to reflect on that. 20:12 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Mr Anthony is a former member of parliament. I am entitled to raise these issues without having to explain any reflection. Are you denying that Mr Anthony has got a finger in the pie? 20:12 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I am advised that he does not. 20:12 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Thanks. So do we have a cost for the Goldfields? You won't provide a cost for the Goldfields? If you are saying that this is commercial-in-confidence, you would know that Odgers doesn't accept the proposition of commercial-in-confidence. You have to lay out a public interest immunity claim. 20:13 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales You asked me a question about costs. I'm telling you that costs for operating additional sites are not for publication due to potential commercial sensitivities, because there are contracts and contractual obligations involved. I've explained to you that the cost of the four sites to 2020 is $1,000 per person. Those are my instructions. I can seek further instructions, but that's what I am instructed to put to the Senate. 20:13 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Okay. I'm just not sure I want to accept that as this stage. I might come back to that. So where we are up to, I think, is our opposition to the inclusion of the Goldfields. We take the view that any move to expand the trial without sufficient evidence will be opposed. We want a more rigorous evaluation. The trials are a significant cost, and you have confirmed what our estimate was: about $25.5 million or about $12,000 per participant. Has the government looked at spending that $12,000 per participant on providing more wraparound support, some advice on how to handle the government payments they receive and providing those who need it alcohol and drug support? Wouldn't that be a better spend than how you're looking to do this without proper evaluation? 20:15 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I'm advised that we are providing a $10 million wraparound services package for drug and alcohol support. 20:15 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Is that included in the $25.5 million? Senator Fierravanti-Wells e4t No, it's not. Senator CAMERON AI6 So its $25.5 million plus $10 million, so it's $35.5 million, which is more than $12,000 per participant in relation to the whole cost of this program. 20:15 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I'm instructed that that $10 million for drug and alcohol is for not just people on the trial but people around Australia. 20:16 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Well, that's not what I asked. Can you give me a figure for the cost for drug and alcohol support for those who are participating in the project? 20:16 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I'm advised that, to complement the rollout of the debit card, we are committed to an additional $1 million in Ceduna and $1.6 million in the East Kimberley in new funding for support services in the first 12 months to ensure vulnerable people are supported. In relation to the Goldfields communities, there will also be an additional $1 million in funding for wraparound services. So it's $1 million in Ceduna, $1.6 million in East Kimberley and $1 million in the Goldfields. 20:18 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Thanks. The $1.6 million to ORIMA was the cost of what was a substandard evaluation? 20:18 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales First of all, I don't accept your premise, Senator Cameron, that it was a substandard evaluation. I do confirm that the cost was $1.6 million. The evaluation stated that the card had 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. 20:19 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Minister, when are you proposing that the Goldfields trial will start? 20:19 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Sometime in the next six months. 20:19 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Have contracts for the expansion been signed? Senator Fierravanti-Wells e4t No. Senator CAMERON AI6 If no contracts have been signed, Minister, why would this be confidential? 20:19 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Because, I am advised, there is a tender process. 20:19 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Standing orders say there's no general basis to refuse the disclosure of commercial information to the parliament, even if it has been marked 'commercial in confidence'. Do you agree with that, Minister? 20:20 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I'm advised that there's no way that we can release it, because it's not even published in budget papers. 20:20 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Senate standing orders indicate: The Senate and Senate committees shall not entertain any claim to withhold information from the Senate or a committee on the grounds that it is commercial-in-confidence, unless the claim is made by a minister and is accompanied by a statement setting out the basis for the claim, including a statement of any commercial harm that may result from the disclosure of the information. You're a minister. You can make the claim, but you've got to set out the basis for the claim, including a statement of any commercial harm that may result. 20:21 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I'm advised that this is a commercial-in-confidence figure which will not be released, because it affects government contracts. That's what I'm advised, Senator Cameron. Now, we've got estimates coming up. I'm sure that you'll pursue it with vigour at estimates, as you normally do, but at this point in time I can't take the matter further than that. 20:21 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Well, I don't cover this area in estimates, but I might make a quick— Senator Fierravanti-Wells e4t I am sure, Senator— The TEMPORARY CHAIR 204953 Sorry, Minister; Senator Cameron hasn't finished his question. It's not easy to work out who's got the call. Senator CAMERON AI6 I might make a quick visit on this specific issue. So, if there's been no contract signed and it's up for a tender, how can you provide us a figure of $1,000, when it's still the subject of a tender process? 20:22 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Senator Cameron, I'm advised that that figure is actually a departmental estimate. 20:22 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales So it could be more? How did the department estimate this? 20:22 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Based on existing contracts—similar existing contracts. 20:23 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales The third aspect of your amendment flows from the previous two and allows the minister by legislative instrument to define the areas that are the Ceduna area, the Goldfields area and the East Kimberley area. Is that correct? 20:23 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Sorry, Senator Cameron, before I deal with that, I'm advised there has been an FOI request put in by Ms Macklin, and I can quote the response to it: 'Financial impacts of the measure to expand the cashless debit card as announced in the 2017-18 budget are not for publication, marked as NFP, to protect the Commonwealth commercial interests.' I am advised that that's the response that was forwarded to Ms Macklin. Sorry, Senator Cameron, you asked me a question. Could you kindly just repeat it. 20:24 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales The purpose of the amendment, as I read it, flows from the previous two areas and allows the minister by legislative instrument to define the areas that are the Ceduna area, the Goldfields area and the East Kimberley area. Is that correct? 20:24 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales It's actually defined in the act, Senator Cameron. I am advised that if there are to be further sites, then that would require another bill to come before the parliament. It is protecting the parliamentary oversight, but it's a higher protection, if I can put it that way. Rather than being done by delegated legislation, where it would be a disallowable instrument, this is a situation where we would have to come back to the parliament, because it's actually legislated. We would have to come back to parliament if we wanted to go to further sites. Of course, that affords parliament the opportunity of scrutiny. 20:25 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I'm trying to understand this. This amendment would allow the minister, by legislative instrument, to determine an area for the purposes of a trial area. I understand that's the situation that this bill will allow. Are you saying it's not? 20:26 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I'm advised that the section defines the trial area, but it may by legislative instrument—and this is 124PD(2)—determine a part of that area to not be a trial site. It really does give, if I can say this, a much firmer outline in relation to those areas. If it's done by legislative instrument, we're talking about a legislative instrument in relation to a part of that area, and, again, that legislative instrument is disallowable by parliament. Has that answered your question, Senator Cameron? 20:27 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Yes, it has. Labor's position is that we will oppose the amendment. We can't give a blank cheque to expand a trial where there is insufficient evidence to warrant doing so. We support the continuation of the Ceduna and East Kimberley trials to give them further time to work and demonstrate their success. The fourth part of your amendment goes to extending the period of the current trial and an additional proposed trial in the Goldfields. We would support the continuation of the Ceduna and East Kimberley trials for a further year to give them time to work and for a proper evaluation to be held. We don't support an additional trial location and, as such, we oppose this amendment. We have our own amendments to extend the current trial sites for a further year. We oppose the amendment: Omit "up to 3 discrete", substitute "the". We don't support the expansion of the trial at this point in any way. The TEMPORARY CHAIR G0D While the minister's getting advice, the committee is considering government amendment (1). 20:28 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Senator Cameron, thank you for that indication. My instructions are to move the amendments on AS301. 20:29 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia While I did participate a little bit in the question and answer, I have some questions myself around this. I also want to articulate the Greens' position. There are a number of points I brought up during the debate which are, clearly, major points of difference between us and the government. However, I have had some feedback on specific issues—we've just had a look at the one around costing. What I specifically wanted to know about the Indue card, which is an operational detail, is: why has the government or Indue not re-issued the cards that aren't usable on EFTPOS machines? Let's do that one to begin with. 20:30 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I'm advised that all of our cards are usable on EFTPOS. 20:30 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I've got news for you! 20:30 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Thank you, Senator Siewert! 20:30 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I'm sorry, but they're simply not. In fact, I was talking to someone last week—who I'm not going to publicly name—who said if your Indue card has EFTPOS written on it, you can use EFTPOS; if not, you can't. And what I have been informed—and if this is wrong, I think you need to tell some of the participants—is that, when they were originally issued, the cards could not be used with EFTPOS; subsequently, there was a fix made and they now can, but the original cards weren't re-issued. So those that do not know to apply for a new card still cannot use EFTPOS. Sorry, I've misled the Senate a little bit—it was not last week, it was the week before last. 20:31 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I'm advised that all the cards can be used with EFTPOS. That is what I'm advised. Perhaps if we can— 20:31 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I'll take that question offline—and we have estimates coming up. I'll double-check, but I can tell you that I was with someone who couldn’t use it. 20:31 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Perhaps, Senator Siewert, if you wouldn't mind giving us details of those particular circumstances, I'm sure that the department can follow up those particular instances and, if there is some procedure that hasn't been taken in relation to applying or something, we can perhaps look at that in the interim period. 20:32 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia My next question then relates to this issue of how people can use the card electronically. Again, I'm given to understand by participants who have been trying to do this that you can't use BPAY, and you have to use the card as a credit card and hand over the number of your card to the merchant, rather than being able to transfer funds electronically. Is that still the case? And, if it is still the case, could you please articulate why that is the case? 20:33 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I'm told that you use it as a credit card, and you give the number of the card. But we are looking at other technological assistance and other technological options. 20:33 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Does that mean that somebody with the card doesn't have to hand over their number and can actually operate it like a normal bank account? The claim that's constantly made about this is that anybody on the card just operates it like a normal bank account—when, in fact, that's just not true. 20:33 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Senator Siewert, we will get you further advice in relation to that. I can't provide you with an answer on that one just at the moment, except to say that we are looking at other technological improvements and options in relation to it so that the credit card and giving the number of the credit card are not the only options. 20:34 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Thank you, I appreciate that update. Could you outline the time line for the technological changes? 20:34 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I'm told it is a trial, and the review is ongoing. At this point in time, I can't give you a precise time. I'm also advised it is commercial-in-confidence, but we will certainly take your comments on board, Senator Siewert. I'm sure you too will pursue this matter at estimates, and you can rest assured that I will be there with an answer in a couple of weeks time. 20:35 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Does that mean the technology is commercial-in-confidence, or that the cost of the updated process is commercial-in-confidence? 20:35 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I am advised that the procurement of new technology is commercial-in-confidence. 20:35 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Does this go to this issue of whether it's Indue providing it or whether there is an expansion of the providers of the card, as per the reports in the media a couple of weeks ago about a number of financial institutions and major merchants providing advice to government? Does it relate to that, or is it something entirely separate? 20:35 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I'm advised that that's speculative. At this point in time, I can't provide you with a definite answer. Suffice it to say that we are looking at procurement of new technology. 20:36 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia So we don't know how much it's costing because that's commercial-in-confidence, but we're told, 'Trust us; it's a thousand bucks per head'. We're told there's going to be new technology, but we don't have a time line, and we are told that's commercial-in-confidence. That's the case that we're facing here. The Greens won't be supporting any of these amendments. We don't support the cashless welfare card. We don't support the extension of the East Kimberley trial or the Ceduna trial. Contrary to the oft stated facts around reduction in drinking et cetera, that's not borne out by a proper read of the ORIMA wave 2 report. If you read the full report, even in there they can't gloss over the lack of information, the anecdotal approach and the flawed approach to the methodology. It's simply not borne out, so we won't support an extension to the two trial areas, and we certainly won't be supporting the expansion to a third trial site. I'm speculating here, but, given that NXT signalled that they were open to considering another trial site, although this is a government amendment, it's clearly been done in response to the NXT's support for a third trial site in my state of Western Australia, in the Goldfields, when we already have one trial site. I think it's a bit rich, quite frankly, for them to say, 'Yes, we'll support another trial site; make it in Western Australia.' I've got deep concerns around that. I've got deep concerns that, although they've said there's not enough information to make a decision on the two existing trial sites, the minister just articulated that they've condemned over 3,000 income support recipients in the Goldfields to living on this flawed card with a method that's flawed. And guess what? It's happening on the day that the government's tabled the Closing the gap report, which articulated that we're not going to meet targets on life expectancy, on school attendance, on reading and numeracy, and on employment. We already know in that Goldfields area that we have significant impacts of the flawed CDP program —again, another flawed program. We've spoken at length about that particular issue in this place as well. We don't support this legislation. We don't support the amendments, because they don't improve it. We disagree with the ALP about extending the two existing trial sites for another 12 months. A little bit of advice to the ALP: drop the addiction to income management. Really, it doesn't work and it's time to move on. To the government I say: we won't be supporting these amendments. We don't support the cashless welfare card. It's flawed policy. It ignores the words from the Prime Minister's own mouth that you do things with the community, not to the community. You can dress it up all you like and say that you've consulted. You haven't consulted with the people who are affected by this card. That is very, very clear, and it has been admitted in the evidence, so you can't deny it. Even a number of the leaders in the East Kimberley have withdrawn their support, as did a number of people who originally signed up in Ceduna once they realised what this was about and the impact it was having. In fact, I was talking to a participant from Ceduna again very recently and they said, 'One of the things it has managed to do is unite the Aboriginal and the non-Aboriginal communities a lot more than they used to be, because they don't support the cashless welfare card.' So it's achieved something there! But it's been at great grief, personal pain and discomfort to many people on the card. We won't be supporting these amendments. 20:41 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I want to respond just briefly to some of the comments that Senator Siewert made. Senator Siewert, the cashless debit card is implemented only in communities that support it. Support for the card is measured through extensive consultation with interested communities. So far, consultation has covered all relevant stakeholder groups, including potential program participants. The initial trials were designed and implemented in close consultation with community leaders. I'm advised that approximately 300 consultations were held in the Ceduna region and 110 in the East Kimberley prior to the initial rollout in early 2016. Those consulted included community members, Indigenous leaders, service providers, police, and local and state government agencies. Consultation is conducted on an ongoing basis in both Ceduna and the East Kimberley, and extensive consultation was undertaken prior to announcing the expansion of the card to the Goldfields. Between May and December 2017 in the Goldfields region over 300 consultations were held with over 86 organisations, and there were 10 public information sessions. Consultation will be ongoing in the Goldfields in preparation for implementation. 20:42 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I'd make a couple of points. Firstly, in relation to the advice from Senator Rhiannon: we don't need your advice. If you've got good advice, could I advise you to keep it for Mr Bandt, who got the Greens into so much trouble this week. I don't know how anyone could have turned Senator Molan into a victim. So if you've got good advice then keep it for Mr Bandt, because he needs it more than we do. In relation to what I indicated earlier about Mr Anthony, I have now received advice that he is not with the group Indue, who are responsible for the card, but that he is a lobbyist for that group. He is also the National Party president. He operates as a lobbyist as well as being the National Party president. My view is that that breaches the lobbyist code. Minister, do you have any views on whether the activities of the former National Party cabinet minister Mr Larry Anthony breach the lobbyist code established by the government, given that he is a lobbyist for the Indue group, who are developing the card, and the Indue group are making money out of the card, and so is Mr Anthony? 20:44 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales The department has undertaken two procurement processes resulting in the procurement of Indue, the card provider for the cashless debit card program. All procurement processes undertaken by the department followed all relevant procurement guidelines. The department received independent probity advice from Maddocks that procurement processes were conducted in accordance with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, relevant legislation, policies and probity principles. 20:45 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Do you have a consultation report for the Goldfields and, if so, will you table it? 20:45 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I'm instructed that between May and December 2017 in the Goldfields region over 300 consultations were held with over 86 organisations and 10 public information sessions, and consultation will be ongoing in the Goldfields in preparation for implementation. 20:46 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales What was the result of the consultations, and can you provide us with the names of the 86 organisations that were consulted? 20:46 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I'm instructed that we can provide the names of those organisations, but we can't do that at this moment and can't table it. I'm happy to take that on notice if I can. I'm just logistically not able to provide you with the names of the 86 organisations at this point in time. 20:46 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Thanks, Minister. I look forward to receiving that information. How many of those 86 organisations opposed the implementation of the card in the Goldfields area? 20:46 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I'm instructed that all five local government areas were in favour and advised the Prime Minister of that when he visited the area. The five shires in the Goldfields told the Prime Minister they want the card to see how it can improve their communities. That's what I'm advised. 20:47 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Minister, that's fine. They were, I suppose, five out of 86. I would simply ask how many of the 86 opposed the implementation of the card in the Goldfields? 20:47 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Those five shires represent and have been duly elected by the people of that area. They are speaking, one assumes, on behalf of their constituencies. They have advised the Prime Minister that they want the card to see how it can improve their communities. I can't add any further to that. 20:48 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Minister, I've got a terrific council, a great local mayor, in the Blue Mountains, but he doesn't speak for me on every issue. He doesn't represent me on every issue. There are another 81 organisations that were consulted. How many of those organisations—it is a simple question. You can tell me those that support it, but you can't tell me those that oppose it. Can't you tell me how many opposed it? It is a simple question and, given that you are saying it's got support and you are using the consultation as the reason to roll this out, I'm simply asking how many opposed it. 20:49 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales The best that I can do is take that on notice. I note your comments about Blue Mountains Council. Obviously, you are in agreement with Ray Hadley about some of the issues that have been happening with the Blue Mountains Council. We won't canvass that at the moment, but I'm happy to hear you are not sitting on the same side as that council, given some of the allegations that have been raised. But in any case we will take that on notice. You want a breakdown of the 86. We'll give you the names, and we'll provide you with as much information as we can in relation to that. 20:49 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I'm not just asking for the names. Just for the public record, I do not support anything that Ray Hadley has indicated, probably in his whole career as a right-wing extremist mouthpiece for, on many occasions, the Liberal Party of New South Wales, so, no, I don't agree with Ray Hadley. I didn't ask simply for a list of the names; I'm asking how many of those opposed it, and, while you're at it, can you advise me, for those who did oppose it, why they opposed it? 20:50 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Senator Cameron, I'm not sure if I can advise you what their actual positions were, but I can provide you with the names of the 86 organisations now, if you'd like me to. They are the Western Australian government, the Western Australian police, the department of housing, the Rural Clinical School of Western Australia, the department of sports and recreation, the Department of Justice, the department of planning and land— Senator Cameron interjecting— The TEMPORARY CHAIR G0D Order, Senator Cameron. Senator Cameron AI6 Chair, just on indulgence: I'm happy for the minister— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Cameron, you have the call on indulgence. 20:51 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Thanks, Chair. Minister, I don't want to put you through the agony of going through 86 different groups. You said you would provide that; I'm happy to receive that advice. What I'm more interested in is how many opposed it. If you're not prepared to advise who opposed it and why they opposed it, can you explain why you're not prepared to do that? The TEMPORARY CHAIR G0D Thank you, Senator Cameron. Minister, Senator Cameron did interrupt you. You're entitled to conclude your answer. But Senator Cameron, I think, was trying to be helpful to prevent you reading through the entire list. It's entirely in your hands. 20:51 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Well, I want to be helpful to Senator Cameron and tell him that I've been advised that the whole list is available as an answer to a question on notice from the inquiry into the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Bill 2017, so it's already provided in an answer to a question. In relation to what position they had, I am unable to provide that information. 20:52 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Can I ask you why you are unable to provide that information? I would have thought that, if we're here debating the introduction of this card in a new area and you are justifying the introduction on the basis that there's been consultation, surely logic demands that you tell us who opposed it and why they opposed it. I just don't think it's acceptable to say, 'We're not going to tell you.' If you're not going to tell us, why won't you tell us? 20:53 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Senator Cameron, I'm advised that we'd have to go and get a statement from each of those organisations, including whether they are prepared to have their position put on the public record. That's what I'm advised. 20:53 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales So it's a secret consultation, and we're not allowed to know the outcome of that consultation. Why would this be a secret? If people are engaging in a consultation, you can tell us who they were; you can tell us who supports it, but you can't tell us who opposed it. It just beggars belief. 20:53 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Senator Cameron, it's logical. We had a consultation. Some people agreed. There was obviously a discussion. I cannot provide you with the position—it was a public, open consultation, I'm advised, but I cannot tell you what the exact position of every one of those 86 organisations was. For me to do so would mean having to go to them and just saying, 'Okay, what is your position?' If that's what you want me to take on notice, I will take that on notice. I will see what I can do. But I cannot give you the information that you seek at this point in time without going back to each of those organisations. 20:54 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Fine. If you've got to take it on notice, that's fine. For anyone that might be listening, the government can quickly provide us with the names of five groups that support the expansion of the card, but the minister can't or won't tell us about another 81 who opposed it. Maybe I can ask it another way. I'd like you to take on notice who opposed it and why they opposed it. Who conducted the consultations? 20:55 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales The department—and I'll take the other part of it on notice. 20:55 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I will build on Senator Cameron's question on notice and ask: were any minutes or notes taken on how many people supported it and how many didn't? Was there a rough hands up or something like that in these meetings? 20:55 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I will take that on notice as a component of Senator Cameron's question. The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet AS301 moved by the minister be agreed to.

The committee divided. [21:00]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)

 30 AYES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ (teller) Fierravanti-Wells, C Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID McGrath, J Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Ruston, A Ryan, SM Seselja, Z Smith, D Williams, JR 26 NOES Bartlett, AJJ Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Ketter, CR (teller) Kitching, K Lines, S Martin, S.L McAllister, J McKim, NJ Moore, CM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Steele-John, J Sterle, G Urquhart, AE Whish-Wilson, PS 0 PAIRS

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

 21:03 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I will move opposition amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8354 together: (1)Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 to 6), to be opposed. [heading] (2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 7 and 8), omit the item, substitute: 2 Paragraph 124PF(1 ) ( b) Omit "30 June 2018", substitute "30 June 2019". 3 Subsection 124PF(2) Omit "up to 3 discrete", substitute "2 discrete". 4 Paragraph 124PK(2 ) ( a) After "voluntary participant", insert "reached in accordance with the requirements set out in a determination made under subsection (6)". 5 At the end of section 124PK Add: (6) The Secretary must, by legislative instrument, determine requirements (including procedural requirements) for how an agreement of a kind mentioned in paragraph (2) (a) must be reached. 6 At the end of Division 3 of Part 3D Add: Subdivision C—Social support services 124PMA Social support services to be provided in trial areas (1) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, specify social support services that are to be provided or supported by the Secretary in each trial area. (2) The specified social support services must be able to adequately provide for the care, protection, welfare or safety of adults, children or families in the trial area. (trial of cashless welfare arrangements] The CHAIR: Do you wish to speak to the amendments? Senator CAMERON AI6 I would like to repeat that there is insufficient evidence at this stage to show that the existing trials in Ceduna and the East Kimberley are working. The Senate inquiry heard that ORIMA evaluations of the trial are unreliable and that no empirical judgement can be made on the basis of the information collected. In its own consultations, Labor heard mixed results, with some participants in Ceduna and in the East Kimberley trials finding the cashless debit card to be useful, while others thought it had not made any improvements to their lives. In addition to the poor quality of the evaluation, Labor believe that the Ceduna and East Kimberley trials have not been running long enough to form solid conclusions about the success or otherwise of the trials. Labor supported the initiation of the trials in East Kimberley and supports them continuing for a further year to allow more time to reliably determine whether they have been successful. We require a more rigorous evaluation of the cashless debit card in the existing trial areas prior to any expansion. The trials are also of a significant cost. We've heard tonight that it's around $25.5 million, or $12,000 per participant, and the response we got from the minister was that it would be even more expensive than that. We know that the government has spent $1.6 million for ORIMA Research to provide what we believe is substandard evaluation. We just don't think enough has been done by the government to justify the expansion. We do support the establishment of trials in East Kimberley and Ceduna on the basis that the communities wanted, and had consented to, the trial card. We consulted with communities in the proposed trial regions of Bundaberg and Goldfields, and, as well as the evidence presented in the Senate inquiry, it's clear there's been insufficient government consultation with these communities. The minister could provide us with the names of councils who supported the expansion but couldn't tell us the name of one group, among the 86 participants in the consultation, who had opposed the trial. It's not that no-one opposed the trial; it's that the minister didn't have that information and the advisers couldn't provide that information. The minister has taken that on notice, and I'll be pleased to get the result of that agreement to take those issues on notice and provide those details. The government must provide a formal process of consultation and a clear framework for establishing whether communities consent to the trial. The minister had an opportunity to take us through how the consultation worked, who opposed the trial and the issues that were raised by those groups, among the 86 that participated, who opposed the trial, but we didn't get that. That's pretty typical of this government: they determine what they want to do and they just impose it on local communities. Then they offer a bauble or a small gift of something that the NXT party thinks is a good thing, so the NXT votes with them. It's pretty typical of NXT these days. They are another Liberal Party supporting the government in its endeavours to implement what we think is flawed legislation and to bringing flawed bills to this parliament. We believe there's insufficient evidence. We would require a more rigorous evaluation. Our amendments seek to improve the way the trial work in Ceduna and East Kimberley by ensuring that the rules by which a community body makes recommendations to the secretary are transparent and made public. Labor, in its own consultations, heard the way in which the decisions made by the community body were not always clear and transparent. The government must specify funding for wraparound services in trial sites formally in the legislation. The wraparound services are important. There is no point in putting these cards in without appropriate wraparound services. The minister could give me a figure on what wraparound services cost across the country, but, for the bill that's been brought here, we didn't get any specified idea of what the wraparound services were costing. We are seeking that the government specify the social support services to ensure trial participants get the alcohol rehabilitation, mental health and other support services they need. The funding allocated in the new services being delivered is not clear to trial participants. This amendment requires the information be made public. Our amendments would improve this bill, and on that basis I move the amendments on sheet 8354 and seek that they be moved as one. The TEMPORARY CHAIR I0V Senator Cameron, for clarification: are you moving just amendment (2) on sheet 8354? Senator CAMERON AI6 I'll move amendment (1) as well—(1) and (2). The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Is leave granted? 21:10 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales We— The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Excuse me, Minister. You want to clarify something, Senator Cameron? 21:10 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Yes. I would like to have them dealt with separately. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: We will deal with (2) first. 21:10 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I move amendment (2) on sheet 8354: (2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 7 and 8), omit the item, substitute: 2 Paragraph 124PF(1 ) ( b) Omit "30 June 2018", substitute "30 June 2019". 3 Subsection 124PF(2) Omit "up to 3 discrete", substitute "2 discrete". 4 Paragraph 124PK(2 ) ( a) After "voluntary participant", insert "reached in accordance with the requirements set out in a determination made under subsection (6)". 5 At the end of section 124PK Add: (6) The Secretary must, by legislative instrument, determine requirements (including procedural requirements) for how an agreement of a kind mentioned in paragraph (2) (a) must be reached. 6 At the end of Division 3 of Part 3D Add: Subdivision C—Social support services 124PMA Social support services to be provided in trial areas (1) The Minister must, by legislative instrument, specify social support services that are to be provided or supported by the Secretary in each trial area. (2) The specified social support services must be able to adequately provide for the care, protection, welfare or safety of adults, children or families in the trial area. (trial of cashless welfare arrangements] 21:11 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales The government will not be agreeing to the opposition's amendments to the bill. The amendments put forward would prohibit the proposed expansion of the card and effectively restrict the proper implementation of a trial. While the government welcomes the opposition's support of the current sites and the extension of the trial time frame, we don't believe the opposition has considered what its amendments would mean for existing trial sites. The proposed opposition amendments with regard to provided services and community consultation will place an unnecessary and potentially harmful administrative burden on the department when it needs to respond to community requests. The government rejects the proposed amendment regarding the trial site limit because it would prohibit the expansion of the debit card to the Goldfields region in Western Australia. There is a strong need for additional tools to address social harm in the Goldfields. WA Police Force data indicated the domestic and non-domestic assault rate in the Goldfields is more than twice the state average. Alcohol is a factor in two-thirds of the domestic assaults from 2009 to 2013 and half of all non-domestic assaults. Alcohol-related hospitalisations and deaths were 25 per cent higher than the WA state average from 2007 to 2011. In a statement to the Senate inquiry into the bill in late 2017, Shire of Leonora CEO Mr James Epis said: In the last three years, it has been devastating to see the escalation of antisocial behaviour between individuals caused by alcohol and drugs. This has often reached crisis levels. Shire of Laverton President Mr Patrick Hill told the community: We are at wit's end. We want to see a safe community … We don't want to see this abuse. We don't want to see kids running around with dirty nappies on for a couple of days and no clothes. In September 2017, the Prime Minister announced the government's intention to expand the cashless debit card to the Goldfields following extensive consultation across the community. Between May and December 2017, over 300 consultations were held, with over 86 organisations and 10 public information sessions. Consultation is ongoing in the Goldfields in preparation for implementation. Momentum in the community for the trial has been considerable, with a number of working groups established in late 2017 to assist with implementation, planning and oversight. The expansion of the program demonstrates our commitment to provide a strong social welfare safety net reducing social harm in areas with high levels of welfare dependency and supporting vulnerable people, families and communities. 21:14 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I must say the minister's position as outlined just doesn't make any sense. It would only make sense if there were a proper evaluation, but there has not been a proper evaluation even though the government spent $1.6 million. The evidence that we had was that the evaluation was flawed. That was the clear evidence in the Senate inquiry. So, what we are trying to do here is create a new trial end date of 30 June 2019 for both Ceduna and East Kimberley so that a proper evaluation can be made. We accept that some people are saying they want this to continue, but in our consultations in both Ceduna and East Kimberley there were many saying that this should not continue and they are opposed to it. So, our amendment creates a new trial end date; it limits the trials to only two discrete trial areas in the current locations; it opposes the removal of the limit to 10,000 participants; it specifies how people in the trial areas who are on the cashless debit card can have the proportion of their income payments on the card reduced; and it specifies the social support services that are to be delivered as part of the trial. Every time the minister has been on her feet she has been able to tell us all of those who support the continuation of the card, but she's not been able to identify, even through the government's own consultations, those that oppose it. So, this is a sensible range of amendments that continues the existing trial for a period of 12 months; it limits the trials to the two areas; it opposes the removal of the limit to 10,000 participants; it specifies the proportion of income support payments on the cards that can be reduced; and it specifies the social support services that are to be delivered as part of the trial. We think these are sensible amendments and we would certainly hope that the crossbench and NXT would support this as a balanced approach to what we are dealing with. Don't just back the government in. The crossbench would have more validity in backing the government in if the government could have given us any details of how the consultation in the Goldfields has taken place. They can't give us that. They can give us the names of the consultation, but can't tell us who opposed the card being introduced. So, there hasn't been an open, fair and reasonable approach on this from the government. The government, in my view, is determined to push this cashless welfare card out even wider than what is proposed in this bill. Labor will never support a national rollout of the cashless debit card. We will support it only where local communities support it. Because the minister is unable or unwilling to tell us who opposed the card and the reasons for the opposition, our estimate through our consultations is that the amendments that are before the Senate tonight are the appropriate amendments to give a balanced approach to this and to make sure that proper consultation takes place in the future. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Cameron, could I just clarify with you that your amendment (2) has already been agreed to with the government amendments prior. Your amendment (2) reads: 2 Paragraph 124PF(1)(b) Omit "30 June 2018", substitute "30 June 2019". That was already voted on in the last government amendments and agreed to. I will just bring that to your attention. 21:18 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales That is correct, but it is a widening. We are not supporting the widening to the Goldfields. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Yes, fine. Just the date: that one point has been agreed to. I am saying that one of your amendments has been agreed to. 21:19 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Yes, but not in the context that we want it agreed to. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Okay. Minister? 21:19 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I would like to counter some of the assertions that Senator Cameron has been making this evening in relation to the ORIMA Research. The evaluation was conducted by ORIMA Research, an independent research company chosen after a public tender process to ensure independence and objectivity. The conduct of the evaluation has been under the auspices of the CDCT evaluation steering committee, comprising members from federal government departments and representatives from relevant state governments. The evaluator provided coverage of the general methodological limitations in the final report. ORIMA Research provided a technical report as an appendix in the final report, noted the sources from which findings were drawn, put caveats on findings where necessary and noted where sample sizes were not additionally significant. The evaluation also found that there are areas that we can improve on, and as we roll out the CDC in the Goldfields and Bundaberg and Hervey Bay regions we will take these learnings into account. The government is satisfied that the evaluator undertook the evaluation in a professional manner and, where results needed to be interpreted with caution, the evaluator highlighted this. Key results from the final evaluation include that, of those who drank alcohol before the trial started, 41 per cent say they are drinking alcohol less often, up from 25 per cent at wave 1. Of those who said they were using illegal drugs before the trial started, 48 per cent reported using illegal drugs less since the card's introduction, up from 28 per cent at wave 1. Of those participants who said they gambled before the trial started, 48 per cent reported gambling less, from 32 per cent at wave 1. Of those parents surveyed, 40 per cent reported being able to better care for their children since being on the CDC, and 39 per cent reported being more involved in their children's homework and school. In addition, the evaluation found widespread positive spillover benefits from the card, including 45 per cent of participants reporting being able to save more money than before being a trial participant, up from 31 per cent at wave 1, and 23 per cent of participants indicating they spent 11 hours or more per week trying to get a job or paid work. The evaluation has shown that strategies implemented in the first two sites have been effective in combating avoidance behaviours. Overall, the evaluation has shown a decrease in these behaviours between the wave 1 report and the wave 2 report. It also found that 'most stakeholders, community leaders and merchants did not perceive these practices to be pervasive or widespread'. Can I also clarify for the Senate that the cashless debit card is only applied to working-age welfare payment recipients, and the card does not apply to age pensioners, veterans payment recipients or wage earners in the trial areas. In conclusion, the cashless debit card program has been designed to ensure that persons' lives are not disrupted as the program works to reduce the consumption of alcohol and drugs and reduce gambling. These restrictions ensure that those receiving welfare payments and their children will have money available for life's essentials. For people who already spend their money responsibly, the cashless debit card has very little impact. However, where participation would not be appropriate, the cashless debit card is not applied. For example, people do not participate in the program if they have a payment nominee, if they are students living outside the trial area for study or if CDC participation would seriously risk their mental, physical or emotional wellbeing. Risks are assessed on a case-by-case basis. It is important that the department is provided with the flexibility and discretion to apply exemptions where necessary. Accordingly, the government will be voting against the amendments proposed by the opposition. 21:23 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I just want to indicate to the chamber, before I start with any further comments, that the Greens still do not support this legislation. Under no circumstances will we be voting to support it. Having said that, there are amendments in this particular batch of amendments that, if they were supported, would make things a modicum better in terms of ensuring that social support services were provided in the trial areas. The change from three to two discrete so-called trial sites and the legislative instrument about 'an agreement of a kind mentioned in paragraph (2)(a)', at part 5, are something that we would support just to see that this legislation was improved slightly. But I've got to be really clear: we do not support the cashless welfare card. So we will very strongly be voting no on the third reading, regardless of these amendments, because we don't support the card. 21:24 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I just want to reinforce Labor's position. Labor believes that, given that the government seems to have crossbench support—for what reason, I don't know—these amendments will make it, as Senator Siewert says, a modicum better. And we appreciate your support for that, to make it better. We do not support the national rollout of this card. I think what is clear is that this government would roll this out nationally if it could. This is the type of overbearing position that this government adopts when it comes to some of our most disadvantaged people in the community. Many people in the community live on an income that many of us could not ever contemplate living on, and they do it better than most of us ever could. They look after their families, they look after the health of the family, they look after the education of the family, and they do that on an income that is tiny. To say to them, 'You must have this cashless debit card,' is the height of arrogance from this government. We are of the clear view that you should only ever implement a cashless debit card when there has been a proper process of consultation, a clear and unequivocal process of consultation, and a process of consultation that is far more transparent that what we've heard tonight—where the government can't tell this place of one group who don't support the card out of the 86 that were consulted. You know, it is just bizarre that, while we're in the chamber debating this bill, no-one of the advisers and the minister can tell us who opposed the card and why they opposed the card—these are important issues. So we oppose the national rollout. We oppose a rollout in any individual community without a proper evidence based approach, and that has not been done, even where it's being rolled out now. We take the view that the ORIMA evaluation was flawed; that was the evidence that came to the Senate inquiry. And, on that basis, the amendments that we put—given that it looks like NXT are behaving like a sub-branch of the Liberal Party—are where we are at. We think the amendments will take some of the sharp edges off. The process that we would have in government would be proper consultation that is understood by the community and the public generally, not the secret approach that's been adopted by the government, and not setting out to force this onto people who, quite clearly, can handle their finances no matter how difficult it is on social security payments in this country. I appreciate the Greens' support and the amendments that they've outlined. I think that's appropriate. I understand their opposition to the bill. We would, hopefully, have some of the crossbench listen to the debate, take into account the incapacity of the government to answer some basic questions on the rollout of this card, and adopt a process in the future that is transparent and fair. The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (2) on sheet 8354 be agreed to.

The committee divided. [21:34]
(The Chair—Senator Lines.)

 26 AYES Bartlett, AJJ Bilyk, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Ketter, CR (teller) Kitching, K Lines, S Martin, S.L McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Steele-John, J Sterle, G Urquhart, AE Whish-Wilson, PS 30 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID McGrath, J Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Ruston, A Ryan, SM Seselja, Z Smith, D (teller) Williams, JR 8 PAIRS Chisholm, A Reynolds, L Farrell, D Payne, MA Gallagher, KR Sinodinos, A Marshall, GM Scullion, NG McAllister, J Fifield, MP McCarthy, M McKenzie, B Watt, M Georgiou, P Wong, P Cormann,

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

 21:37 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales The opposition opposes item 1 in schedule 1 in the following terms: (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 to 6), to be opposed. That is, basically, the short title of the act. 21:37 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales We will oppose this amendment. I've outlined the government's position previously, and we will be opposing this amendment as well. 21:37 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Could I take the opportunity, with the crossbench here, to say that it's been clear tonight that the position adopted by the government is based on flawed analysis of what's been happening in the Kimberley and Ceduna areas. We take the view that the crossbench should support this because it's a good middle position between what the government's proposing and complete opposition to this bill. It provides a number of amendments that would have softened the bill, but you've voted against that. Now's the opportunity for you to actually reconsider and support a proposition that means a good middle ground on this bill. The CHAIR: The question is that item 1 of schedule 1 stand as printed.

The committee divided. [21:43]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)

 30 AYES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID McGrath, J Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Ruston, A Ryan, SM Seselja, Z Smith, D (teller) Williams, JR 26 NOES Bartlett, AJJ Bilyk, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lines, S Martin, S.L McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Steele-John, J Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS 8 PAIRS Cormann, M Wong, P Fifield, MP McAllister, J Georgiou, P Farrell, D McKenzie, B Brown, CL Payne, MA Chisholm, A Reynolds, L McCarthy, M Scullion, NG Marshall, GM Sinodinos, A Gallagher, K

Senator Watt did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Kakoschke-Moore.
Question agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

 Third Reading 108 21:46 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that this bill be now read a third time.

The Senate divided. [21:51]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 30 AYES Abetz, E Anning, F Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID McGrath, J Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Ruston, A Ryan, SM Seselja, Z Smith, D (teller) Williams, JR 26 NOES Bartlett, AJJ Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Ketter, CR Kitching, K Lines, S Martin, S.L McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Singh, LM Steele-John, J Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Whish-Wilson, PS 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 109 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Small Amount Credit Contracts 109 21:53 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales On behalf of Senator Cormann, I table a response to a question taken on notice during question time today asked by Senator McAllister relating to the independent review of the small amount credit laws. ADJOURNMENT 109 ADJOURNMENT Australia Day Honours 109 21:53 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I rise this evening to offer my most sincere and heartfelt congratulations to those recipients of this year's Australia Day honours. Those recognised in these honours are Australians from across our great nation who have selflessly dedicated their time in pursuit of a better Australia to be shared by all. Hailing from all walks of life, they are exemplary in their leadership, their commitment and their resolve: the three pillars of the Australian spirit. These Australians have taken to heart the words of the old proverb, which exhorts us all to 'be the change you want to see in the world'. As all the members of this chamber well know, I am an immensely proud Victorian. As is the case year in and year out, Victorians are very well represented in this round of Australia Day honours, and I wish to wholeheartedly congratulate all Victorian recipients for the recognition of their achievements, each and every one so richly deserved. More specifically I would like single out my congratulations and thanks to the following recipients who have so significantly contributed to and strengthened the fabric of our society through service and dedication in their respective fields: Professor Caroline Frances Finch, of Soldiers Hill, for being made an officer in the general division of the Order of Australia for distinguished service to sports medicine, particularly in the area of injury prevention, as an educator, researcher and author and to the promotion of improved health in athletes; Ms Joanna Hayter, of Fairfield, for being made officer in the general division of the Order of Australia for distinguished service to women in the areas of gender equality and individual rights, through leadership and policy development roles, and to the promotion of global health, peace and security; Mrs Noela Helen Macleod, of East Keilor, for being made an officer in the general division of the Order of Australia for distinguished service to the community through advisory support and executive leadership of national, state and rural women's programs and associations; the Hon. William Robert Baxter, of Rutherglen, for being made a member of the general division of the Order of Australia for significant service to the people and parliament of Victoria; Mary Therese Draper, of Alphington, for being made a member of the general division of the Order of Australia for significant service to community health as a consumer advocate through contributions to delivery standards and governance, and to stakeholder engagement; Adjunct Professor Ian Maxwell Dunn, of North Fitzroy, for being made a member of the general division of the Order of Australia for significant service to the law, to legal standards, education and specialist accreditation, and as a practitioner in negotiation and dispute resolution; Mr Kenneth Nicholas Marchingo, of Quarry Hill, for being made a member of the general division of the Order of Australia for significant service to the community through social welfare programs and associations and particularly assistance for the homeless; Mr Gary William Morgan AFSM, of Alfredton, for being made a member of the general division of the Order of Australia for significant service to the community through emergency response organisations, and to forest and fire research and management; the Hon. Professor Howard Tomaz Nathan QC, of Bendigo, for being made a member of the general division of the Order of Australia for significant service to the law and to the judiciary through the Supreme Court of Victoria and to a range of cultural, arts and education institutions; and Professor David George Wood, of Tawonga, for being made a member of the general division of the Order of Australia for significant service to chemical engineering education as a researcher, mentor and academic and to professional organisations. To the recipients of the Order of Australia Medal in the general division, my sincere congratulations go to: Mr Robert Gordon Bath, of Ballarat, for diligent service to the community of Ballarat; Mr Gordon Bruce Campbell, of Rutherglen, for passionate service to the wine industry; Mrs Carmel Monica Clemson, of Gisborne, for selfless service to the community of Macedon; Mr David Bruce Gay, of Clifton Hill, for industrious service to business and to environmental pest management; Mrs Jean Lynette Hamilton, of Euroa, for active service to the community of Longwood; the Reverend Father Edward Joseph Harte, of Bendigo, for tireless service to the Catholic Church of Australia and to the community; Mr Claude Lombard, of Keilor Park, for invaluable service to the community in a range of roles; Mrs Margaret Ann Lonsdale, of Keilor East, for service to dance sport; Mrs Marlin Gayle McQualter, of Whittlesea, for her service to the community of Whittlesea; Mr John Barry Mildren, of Ballarat Central, for noble service to the Parliament of Australia and to the community of Ballarat; Mr John Huon Mitchell, of Corryong, for altruistic service to the community as a philanthropist; Mr Graeme Stephen Pearce, of Mandurang, for service to the community of Mandurang; Mrs Margaret Anna Saker, of Benalla, for service to the community of Narooma; Mr Peter John Stoke, of Bright, for untiring service to the conservation of Victorian malleefowl; Mr John Charles Taylor, of Myrtleford, for service to the community of Myrtleford; Miss Carmel Tom, of Werribee, for patriotic service to veterans; Mr Russell Alastair Walker, of Gisborne, for service to the community of Victoria through a variety of roles; Mrs Frances Adeline Walsh, of Rutherglen, for service to local government and to the community of the Indigo shire. I wholeheartedly congratulate those who have been awarded medals for their outstanding and selfless public service. And, while there are too many to name individually, I would like to make a special mention to just a few: Mr Adam Phillip Fennessy of Bendigo for outstanding public service to a range of government departments in Victoria; Mr Russell Keith Manning from Bendigo, who has been awarded the Australian Fire Service Medal for outstanding public service to a range of government departments; Mr Glen David Marks of Darley, who has been awarded the Australian Fire Service Medal for 38 years of outstanding public service to the Metropolitan Fire Brigade; and Ms Melissa Buckingham from Buninyong, who has been awarded the Ambulance Service Medal for her outstanding public service through leadership and development roles during her 30 years at Ambulance Victoria. Finally, I would like to extend my personal and warmest congratulations to a diligent and conscientious servant of the Liberal Party of Australia. Mr Brian Loughnane's service has been duly recognised in this year's Australia Day honours through his appointment as an Officer of the order of Australia, AO. Brian has held a variety of positions as a business and political strategic adviser, most notably, of course, as Federal Director of the Liberal Party from February 2003 until January 2016. I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate and pay my respects to all the members of Australia's Defence Force, both here and those deployed overseas. All of the members of the ADF serve as role models for the rest of our country for their unrivalled selflessness, their teamwork and their incredible bravery. It is wonderful that our great nation does not take for granted the hard work, the dedication and the sacrifice of these great men and women. This evening I would especially like to congratulate those recipients of the military crosses, the medals and the commendations, many of whom cannot be publicly named due to their ongoing operational commitments. There are two very, very special times of the year in which the government and the community can express our sincere gratitude to those exemplary citizens who represent the very, very best of the Australian spirit. It is an absolute honour to be able to stand here this evening to name and to honour these dedicated and conscientious Victorians. I thank the chamber for its indulgence. Middle East: Human Rights 111 22:02 Senator SINGH M0R Tasmania I rise tonight to talk about the rights of children in detention and, in particular, to talk about a very valiant young girl, a young girl whose courage in defence of her family and freedom has struck a chord with people around the world calling for justice. The young girl I speak of is a 16-year-old Palestinian girl. Her name is Ahed Tamimi. She should be in high school. She wants to become a lawyer, but instead she's imprisoned in an Israeli jail. Ahed is in prison because she slapped a heavily armed Israeli soldier. Last year on 15 December, Ahed's 15-year-old cousin was shot in the face with a rubber-coated metal bullet fired from very close range by the Israeli occupation army. The little boy is recovering, very slowly, but some of his skull bones, which were removed in surgery, won't be returned to their place for another six months. This was a result of a protest in the Palestinian village of Nabi Salih, near Ramallah. Soldiers trespassed into a house owned by Ahed's family in a village under Israeli occupation. Ahed was deeply disturbed and upset by what happened to her little cousin. She was so upset that in her anger she slapped a soldier from the same unit when they returned to their family home an hour later. A family member managed to film the incident, and since then it swiftly went viral around the world on social media. Four days later during the night, on 19 December last year, Ahed, her mother and her cousin were taken from their home by Israeli soldiers and dragged in front of an Israeli military court. Israeli military courts deal exclusively with Palestinian prisoners. In 2010 the system self-reported a conviction rate of 99.74 per cent. They are charging Ahed with 12 offences—assault, incitement and throwing stones—which could carry a sentence of 12 years in prison. She remains in prison now. The judge has refused her bail, so Ahed could spend months or even years behind bars before getting a fair trial. As the Co-Chair of the Parliamentary Friends of UNICEF, I am brought to the edge of despair, frustration and anger when I read about the suffering of Palestinian children arrested by Israeli security forces. An Israeli journalist, Gideon Levy, wrote in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz on New Year's Eve: … what would you have felt if soldiers from a foreign army had invaded your home at night, kidnapped your daughter from her bed before your very eyes, handcuffed and arrested her for a lengthy period, simply because she slapped the soldier who invaded her home … I also support the statement by Emeritus Professor Stuart Rees, from the University of Sydney, that, even if Israelis' cruelty to Ahed is 'perceived in Australia as no different from Minister Dutton's cruelty towards asylum seekers and refugees, the general issue of Israeli justice and the future for Palestinians merits attention.' Indeed it does merit our attention. According to Defence for Children International, Israel brings 500 to 700 Palestinian children before military courts each year. Some are as young as 12. It imprisons an average of 200 children in any given period. In fact, groups like UNICEF, Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem, Amnesty International and Defence for Children International all agree that three out of every four Palestinian children arrested by the Israeli army experience violence during their arrest or their interrogation. They are frequently arrested in raids at night on their homes. Eighty-five per cent of arrested Palestinian children were blindfolded, and 95 per cent were handcuffed. The 2013 UNICEF report Children in Israeli military detention concluded: Ill-treatment of Palestinian children in the Israeli military detention system appears to be widespread, systematic and institutionalized. These are practices in violation of international law that protects all children against ill-treatment when in contact with law enforcement, military and judicial institutions. According to a letter her father wrote to the Israeli newspaper, Ahed Tamimi belongs to the second generation of Palestinian children under occupation who have known only a life of checkpoints, identity papers, detentions, house demolitions, intimidation, humiliation and violence. I do not believe that this particular child's act of courage and defiance in the face of over 50 years of illegal occupation justifies her continuing detention. I believe Ahed Tamimi's real crime in the eyes of Israel has been to shame that country's illegal occupation of Palestine and her point-blank refusal to accept or bow down to that 50-year-old occupation and the guns that come with it. I add my voice in this parliament to the global outrage about the imprisonment of children, Palestinian children, in Israeli prisons. I note with disappointment that there has been silence of the Australian government about this, whether it be to decry the unjust imprisonment of a young girl or protest against the thuggish comments made about her by some in the Israeli government. Even if the politics on this are hard, Australia must raise its voice. What sort of friend to Israel are we if we look away and ignore what we feel are transgressions? Around the world, it is generally accepted that the biggest hurdle in the peace process is the ongoing construction of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank. But now Australia has an opportunity with its new membership of the UN Human Rights Council. We have a commitment to protect and advance human rights, and we must live up to that commitment wherever human rights are being abused, be it in an adversary like North Korea or in an ally like Israel. In the words of French academics and intellectuals who two weeks ago wrote an open letter to Le Monde about the plight of Ahed Tamimi and the 360 Palestinian child prisoners in Israeli prisons, we cannot look away while children are illegally detained far from their families. I wish to thank those international organisations, non-government organisations and academics that have been reporting on this, including UNICEF, Amnesty International Australia and B'Tselem. I thank them for their defence of Palestinian children and their human rights, and for their defence all of those living either in Israeli prisons or under Israeli occupation. Ahed's act of defiance in the face of ongoing Israeli occupation does not justify her ongoing detention, so I call on the Israeli Prime Minister to release her. There is no reason for her to be held like this. She was taken away for, yes, slapping an armed officer after an Israeli soldier shot her little cousin in the face. Why are they not focusing on the shooting of a minor by Israeli soldiers? I say to Ahed and all of the children wrongly held in Israeli military jails that I stand with so many in the international community for your freedom and for an end to practices that violate children's rights. Children should not be wrongly detained, whether it be in Israel or anywhere else in the world, as we have to uphold the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Drought 112 22:11 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Tonight, 1,250 kilometres away on the side of the road around Augathella, lie 1,200 head of cattle and two drovers who've already have walked over 800 kilometres to graze their cattle in the drought stricken state of Queensland. This is just one of God knows how many farmers forced to go to extremes to keep their cattle alive. Some of you might say: 'Big deal. This is nothing new. Drovers have been doing this for decades upon decades.' I'll tell you why it's different: cattle farmers across the mulga country are juggling Queensland tree police, political bureaucracy, drought and banks who share little understanding of the plight of the modern-day primary producer. For those of you in this place who haven't heard, over 80 per cent of Queensland is drought affected, and there are hundreds of farmers, forced to handfeed their mobs, who hope the woody weed called mulga can sustain them until the next decent rain. It's not the lack of water that's got cattle farmers feeling the pressure; it's the Queensland government. The Labor government have zero regard for farmers who rely on the natural resource that acts as fodder during drought periods and keeps cattle alive. In fact, they're that heartless that plans are underway to make tougher vegetation management laws in Queensland, further locking up good agricultural land while whistling in the banks and risking foreclosure. Mulga is a woody weed that is prolific in regions like Charleville, Augathella, Longreach and drought stricken country just like those towns. Before European settlement these same landscapes were grassy plains which were set alight by Aboriginals and natural events like lightning, which kept mulga at bay. When the European farmer saw an opportunity to graze cattle in these regions, fire was wrongly seen as ruining the food source, so they would put fires out. Well-farmed properties kept the mulga at bay, as its canopy would block sunlight from grasses beneath, which would eventually die off, leaving exposed red soils and erosion points when the heavy rains did fall. The Labor government in Queensland believes this weed shouldn't be used as cattle feed, but it is the same government that says it doesn't want to see animals suffer. Well, I am here to tell the Premier of Queensland, Annastacia Palaszczuk, that you can't have it both ways. Not one farmer in the state of Queensland wants to see their cattle starve. Not one farmer in Queensland wants to ruin their second- or third-generation farm by knocking down trees. Not one farmer in Queensland likes it when pencil-pushing, useless, vegan, soya-latte-sipping bureaucrats tell them that their century-old practice of running cattle in these areas is wrong. These woody weeds, which Annastacia Palaszczuk and her Labor-Greens alliance government don't want used as cattle feed, are actually increasing soil erosion and loss, clogging the rivers, increasing the chance of blue-green algae and preventing the growth of native grasses that provide excellent cattle feed and stabilise the soil. According to quotes from National Farmers' Federation executives, Australia has just 90,000 primary producers left, which works out to less than 0.5 per cent of Australia's population. Farmers have lost their voice in this country, and it is time for those parties who say they are all for the farmer to get out and listen to the farmers and ensure their long-term viability in this nation. To the Premier of Queensland: what you are doing to the Vegetation Management Act hurts the environment. It hurts the farmers, it destroys regional Queensland towns, it kills jobs around the state and it sabotages our state's future. Senate adjourned at 22:16 DOCUMENTS 113 DOCUMENTS Tabling 113 Tabling 113