DOCUMENTS

2018-03-20 45 1 5 Senate 0 1

Tuesday, 20 March 2018

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 12:00, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 12:01 The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Indigenous Housing 1 Order for the Production of Documents 1 12:01 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia In accordance with the order of the Senate of 14 February 2018, I rise to ask for an explanation from the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator Scullion, regarding the failure to engage in detailed consultations with the states and territories on remote housing. 12:02 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory I thank Senator Dodson for that question and for the opportunity to respond—as I have done in much detail, through the 52 documents we provided as part of this order for the production of documents. As the order demonstrated, I am clearly in negotiations with state and territory governments, and I refer you to the documents, particularly documents 1 to 6—reference to my letters to my state and territory counterparts. As this order for the production of documents shows, my officials have been in discussions with their state and territory counterparts since 2017, and that would be standard, for discussions to commence after the MYEFO, before a national partnership agreement expires. The order to produce documents also shows that I have written to the states and the Northern Territory government with an unequivocal commitment to future Commonwealth investment in remote housing. But I asked the states and the Northern Territory to provide advice on any investment they have made in remote public housing, given public housing is a state and territory responsibility. I also asked for any future funding commitments states and territories are willing to make. I'm strongly of the view that state and territory governments should make a contribution and not treat the residents of remote communities differently from communities in any other part of their state or territory jurisdiction. Why should the residents of Bamaga, Palm Island, Mimili or Jigalong be treated any differently by their state governments? I welcome the response from the Northern Territory government in my negotiations and its commitment to $110 million a year, which I look forward to investing not only in partnership with the Northern Territory but in partnership with Aboriginal leadership and with Aboriginal control for the first time. I'll obviously have to give some grace to the South Australian government, given it has been in caretaker mode through this process. But I have to say, Senator, I won't be as gracious with your counterparts in Western Australia and Queensland. To date, Queensland and Western Australia have not put a single dollar on the table when it comes to remote housing in either of those states. I will just repeat that: they haven't put a single dollar on the table when it comes to remote housing. So you should be asking Mick de Brenni and Peter Tinley, the housing ministers for Queensland and Western Australia, why no commitment has in fact been made. But I'm here and willing to stand up for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians living in remote Australia, despite your defence of Western Australia's and Queensland's lack of commitment in this important area. 12:05 Senator DODSON SR5 Western Australia by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I thank the minister for complying with the order to produce documents and also for providing me with advance copies of his ministerial letters on the issue. His cooperation with the Senate order is noted and appreciated. Nevertheless, the issue which gives rise to the order remains. As we've just heard, he's obviously got problems with my minister in Western Australia and the minister in Queensland. The documents confirm the fact that this government has abruptly and unilaterally closed the door on a decade of commitment to remote housing, primarily for first nations families. Since 2008 the Commonwealth government has cooperated with state and territory governments to address the urgent needs that have been unmet of first nations communities in remote Australia. These governments—Labor, Liberal and Liberal National Party; all political persuasions—combined to work together for a decade to improve health and wellbeing outcomes in remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities through better housing outcomes. The thinking behind this cooperative approach is clear, agreed and a strong consensus view. In 2008 COAG agreed to the National Indigenous Reform Agreement, which sets out a joint commitment to the National Integrated Strategy for Closing the Gap in Indigenous Disadvantage. A key building block of that agreement was healthy housing: A healthy home is a fundamental precondition of a healthy population. Important contributors to the current unsatisfactory living conditions include inadequate water and sewerage systems, waste collection, electricity and housing infrastructure (design, stock and maintenance). Children need to live in accommodation with adequate infrastructure conducive to good hygiene and study and free of overcrowding. To support this building block, the strategy was agreed between the Commonwealth and all jurisdictions, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory. The main aim of the agreement was to decrease overcrowding and increase housing amenities. The Commonwealth committed $5.4 billion through the strategy from 2008 to 2018. The aims were to build and refurbish houses in remote Indigenous communities and, where appropriate, town camps, including delivery of housing related infrastructure; implement robust and standardised property and tenancy management of all remote Indigenous housing; and increase employment opportunities for local residents in remote Indigenous communities. By 2018 the strategy will have delivered over 11,500 more-liveable homes in remote Australia—around 4,000 new homes and 7,500 refurbishments. It is estimated that over 2,000 jobs have been created, most of them in remote communities where a steady, secure job is as rare as a win in TattsLotto. This increase in supply is estimated to have led to a significant decrease in the proportion of overcrowded households in remote and very remote areas, falling from 52.1 per cent in 2008 to 41.3 per cent in 2014-15, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The government's own independent review panel projects that this will fall further to 37.4 per cent by 2018. These are real achievements made by the program. Real jobs have been created, safety has improved and health preconditions have improved. If there were real leadership from the Commonwealth, this government would have built on these achievements and looked ahead to the maintenance of a joint effort. Getting in and keeping the work going: that's what we needed. The government's independent panel recommended that, after accounting for population growth, an additional 5,500 homes were required by 2028 to reduce the levels of overcrowding in remote areas to acceptable levels. It may well be beyond that figure, but that's the figure we were told. The remote panel recommended the key matters were: a recurring program must be funded to maintain existing houses, preserve functionality and increase the life of housing assets; investment for an additional 5,500 houses by 2028 is needed to continue the efforts on closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage; the cost of a remote Indigenous housing program should be equally shared—and I take the minister's point: it should be equally shared, not given up on because someone won't talk to you—between the Commonwealth and the other jurisdictions; and a regional governance structure should be established to facilitate better administration of the program. It is clear that these are worthwhile recommendations that should be considered and carefully implemented. The documents produced by the minister—we have been pushing for them for some time, since last year—show that these recommendations have been followed through in part, but in a remarkably idiosyncratic way. Rather than considered negotiations, given the sensitivities and importance of this issue and its bipartisan basis, the minister has abruptly chosen this ill-conceived approach. Most of the documents provided—45 out of the 52—relate to correspondence between state and territory officials and Commonwealth officials from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Most of them relate to the organising of meetings with joint steering committees of officials between the Commonwealth and the states. It is appreciated that, in supplying these documents, there needs to be some redactions to avoid providing information that may be commercial-in-confidence, or could damage Commonwealth-state relations and would infringe the privacy of individuals. We accept and understand that fact, but for the life of me I cannot understand which of these provisions is applied to annexure 19. The cover page is of an email indicating the content is a draft letter to the minister from the Norther Territory jurisdiction. Dated 5 December 2017, it's just highlighted with blanks. I'm not sure how to read this; I have no capacity to understand what it says. That's annexure 19. The attachments, some 22 pages, are completely redacted—black page after black page—except a few where the Northern Territory coat of arms is not redacted. That's the only reason I understood it. I've looked closely at the correspondence between officials. It would seem to me that the release of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook in December 2017 was the catalyst for a range of meetings between officials. This was when the states and territories were informed, directly or indirectly, that the existing arrangements for remote housing were not likely to continue past June 2018. This was the first indication that a decade of Commonwealth-state cooperation was coming to an abrupt end. Most of the papers, however, go to wrapping up the reporting to the Commonwealth on expenditure of the current financial year. There is little in the way of any negotiations with the states on any ongoing contribution to a bilateral partnership to continue the work. This is where the correspondence between ministers is critical to an understanding of how this was playing out. There is no indication of that. For my own state of Western Australia—and I'm glad the minister is meeting with my ministers this week, and I hope something more productive than this exchange takes place—the first letter on the issue was dated 11 December. In that letter he indicated that his department had commenced discussions with states about 'the future of remote Indigenous housing and how a new housing program might look'. It seems from the documents provided that such a meeting was not scheduled until 22 February, just last month, at the regular meetings of the joint steering committee. Minister, it is evident that there were no formal intergovernment communications on the issues of intergovernmental agreements on the future of the program. It is evident that there was no high-level dialogue aimed at ensuring that the states and territories were willing to contribute in a bipartisan way to the future of the program. There was no sustained effort to redesign the program to meet the recommendations of the independent review and to build on the successes of the program. Minister, it seems evident that you got rolled in the ERC, the Expenditure Review Committee, that the cabinet of this government decided to pull up the drawbridge on a decade of collaboration, and that there was no effort on the part of you as a minister, or your officials, to enter into serious, respectful and transparent negotiations on remote housing. You did not pick up the phone, it seems to me, to commence negotiations or invite the participation of the states and territories into an ongoing program. Instead, there have been a series of statements from the Prime Minister, Minister Wyatt and Minister Scullion. The Prime Minister responded to two questions without notice in the House on Thursday, 8 February, saying: I just confirm that we are negotiating a new agreement for remote housing with the jurisdictions who remain part of the terminating program. We can now ask if that statement was accurate at the time, given the correspondence shows that the ministers of South Australia, Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia were not signed until that day. On the same day, 8 February, Minister Wyatt told the House: The negotiations that we will continue to have with state and territory governments on this are important … Minister Wyatt had earlier said: The funding has not been cut. It has not been reduced. Senator Scullion is in ongoing negotiations with the relevant ministers. We now question whether Minister Wyatt's statement was correct. On 12 February, Minister Scullion told the Senate in answer to my question: 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. Minister, a couple of letters rushed out of your office to back up the statements in the House and a planned officials meeting in a couple of months time are not at all the grounding for solid bipartisan negotiations. Regrettably, the order to produce documents demonstrates poor faith in negotiation matched by unimaginative leadership; a tendency to say that things are progressing when they have not commenced; and especially a lack of concern for first nations communities in the maintenance of the essential building block of safe, secure and heathy housing. 12:19 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales I rise to take note of the response from Minister Scullion. As shadow minister for housing and homelessness I deal with community groups who are trying to deal with homelessness and housing issues around the country. Today at the Press Club there is an engagement between community housing groups and faith based organisations, which they're calling Everybody's Home. Everybody's Home is absolutely essential, because without housing, you can't educate or look after your kids, nor get a decent health outcome for your family. Housing is so important. Day after day I get reports and see the problems of the lack of engagement from this government on housing and homelessness. What you see in the general community is nothing compared to what you see in Indigenous communities: the lack of effective policy for decent housing and the increase in homelessness are absolutely terrible. For Minister Scullion to stand up and blame the lack of progress on what he describes as a lack of graciousness from state ministers is another demonstration of the incapacity of this government to show any leadership on social issues in this country. One of the key areas where some leadership should be shown is Indigenous housing. This minister put together a review of Indigenous housing. Let's have a look at some of the recommendations of this minister's own review: A recurrent program must be funded to maintain existing houses, preserve functionality and increase the life of housing assets. Minister, that's what you should be doing. You should be in there talking and engaging with the states, but you don't feel it should be done because ministers are ungracious. You should be doing it for Indigenous communities in this country, because they need decent housing. They need to get rid of overcrowding and improve their health and education outcomes. As Minister for Indigenous Affairs you should be engaging with the states, showing some leadership and dealing with this issue. You even put your own report on the backburner and did nothing about it, because you deemed those ministers to be ungracious. It's not about whether or not you're gracious; it's about outcomes for Indigenous communities. Your own report talks about an additional 5,500 houses needed by 2028 to continue efforts in closing the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. You don't do that by coming here and having a pot shot at state ministers; you fix that by sitting down with the states and providing a decent outcome. It's alright for the National Party, who don't give a hoot about Indigenous disadvantage or disadvantage in regional and rural areas. Senator O'Sullivan 247871 What nonsense! Senator McGrath 217241 You live in Sydney; you've never been to regional Australia. Senator CAMERON AI6 It's alright for you guys sitting there and going on at me when I'm raising a key issue. You're just not in the game on regional or Indigenous housing. You're absolutely hopeless, a government that has no idea about the key issues facing Australians—especially Indigenous Australians. Senator McKenzie 207825 Like mining jobs! Senator CAMERON AI6 Mining jobs? That's all these people can talk about. Indigenous people are dying in regional communities because of bad health, have no access to decent housing and are living in overcrowded, unsanitary conditions, and all this minister can do is to say, 'The states are ungracious, because they won't talk to me.' You need to show some leadership. Why the National Party have been given Indigenous housing beggars belief. The National Party, of all groups in this area, have no clue about what is required for housing. Another recommendation the review talks about is: The costs of a remote Indigenous housing program should be shared 50:50 between the Commonwealth and the jurisdictions. I'm sure the jurisdictions—the states—would be happy to talk to this minister about the key issues needed. Because by not getting an agreement in place, we've actually seen some good things happen over the years as a result of the Labor Party's initiatives in this area to deal with insecurity in housing, bad health outcomes and bad education outcomes in Indigenous communities. What this minister should be doing is getting on the phone today, ringing the various states and getting them to a meeting to get an agreement in place. He shouldn't be hiding behind the secrecy that this government revels in. You're a do-nothing government. You don't answer any questions and you ignore the key issues for Australians and Indigenous communities. You should stop hiding behind bureaucracy, and you should stop hiding behind your incapacity. You should be getting some decent advice. Look at the recommendations that have been put in place and actually deal with the issue of looking after Indigenous communities. The recommendation also said that there should be a regional governance structure to facilitate better administration of the program. What has the minister done about improving regional governance structures? Not much. There should be greater transparency. A regional governance and performance framework would be better than a collection to be made available to individuals and communities. Where is that up to, Minister? All you do is come here and make excuses. All you do is come here and hide behind the bureaucracy. You hide behind what someone else is not doing, instead of showing some leadership as a minister and dealing with one of the great social problems in this country. The recommendations also said there should be a five-year rolling plan to fix the program. Where is the rolling program? What initiatives have you come up with? Absolutely nothing. You can't even communicate effectively between your ministry and the representative minister in the House of Representatives. We get different stories from each area. This is a minister who is just not up to the task. I've come to the conclusion this minister is not up to the task. The National Party can moan and wail all they like, but they are not up to the task either. When it comes to housing, when it comes to homelessness, when it comes to Indigenous housing, the National Party do not have a clue how to fix any of those issues. These are key issues. When we've got Indigenous families with intergenerational health issues, surely the National Party and this minister should be taking the issues seriously, not coming here and simply saying it's ungracious of the state governments. You need a bit of leadership and a bit of backbone to stand up against those in your own party—those in the National Party and those in the Liberal Party—who don't care about Indigenous housing or Indigenous social disadvantage. How about a bit of backbone, Minister? Stand up and do something to fix these terrible problems that Indigenous communities are facing. Where is the comprehensive planning across governments? Where is the funding that you should be putting in place? You have failed to do it as a minister, and you have failed to deliver for Indigenous communities. The first thing you lot did was to cut half a billion dollars out of support for Indigenous communities around this country—that was your first act. The 2014-15 budget will never be forgotten in this country. That was when you stood back and allowed Indigenous funding to be cut across a range of portfolios. You should stand up, you should show some commitment, and you should get in there and argue in your cabinet to make sure that the Indigenous communities in this country are looked after. Senator O'Sullivan interjecting— Senator CAMERON AI6 We've got Senator O'Sullivan bellowing away in the background continually. They're doormats for the Liberal Party until One Nation actually becomes the partner for the Liberal Party—they'll be pushed to the side by One Nation. You are too worried about your relationship with the government and your relationship with the Liberal Party. Senator McGrath 217241 They are the government. Senator CAMERON AI6 No, they're not the government; they're the doormats. We know fine and well what the National Party are: the absolute doormats, with no capacity to deliver on key policy issues. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 204953 Senator Cameron, resume your seat. Senator McKenzie on a point of order. Senator McKenzie 207825 I know we've got Senator Cameron on his favourite topic, but his last three or four minutes of diatribe are not relevant to the matter before the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 204953 There is no point of order. Senator Cameron. Senator CAMERON AI6 Thanks, Mr Acting Deputy President Gallacher. Again, they're trying to shut people down when the message doesn't suit them; that's their position: We know that the National Party are in absolute chaos. We know that the National Party are leaderless. We know that the new leader of the— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 204953 Senator Cameron, resume your seat. Senator McKenzie on a point of order. Senator McKenzie 207825 I rise on a point of order, on relevance. Mr Acting Deputy President, Senator Cameron's contributions since you made your earlier ruling on my point of order have been simply to continue to talk about the National Party and not actually talk about the motion before the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 204953 I don't believe there is a point of order, but I do encourage Senator Cameron to return to the topic before the Senate. Senator CAMERON AI6 Well, I'm happy to return to the incompetence of the National Party and the incompetence of the minister who is a member of the Liberal-National party and who is unable to deal with the issue of Indigenous housing, unable to deal with the issue of Indigenous health and unable to deal with the issue of Indigenous education. And when asked to show some leadership, failing to show any leadership is pretty typical of the National Party—pretty typical of the government from the Prime Minister down. They are not prepared to deal with the real issues affecting people in this country and are unable to make sure that there is employment in those areas. Here we are with a national partnership that has created thousands of jobs for Indigenous people around this country. The housing program put in place by Labor created thousands of jobs. It created hundreds of businesses. It created hundreds of apprenticeships and brought some capacity for long-term, stable jobs relating to housing in Indigenous areas. And this minister has been incapable of understanding that it's not just about housing: it's about health; it's about education; it's about employment; and it's about getting an economy established in the Indigenous areas. This is a minister absolutely incapable of dealing with issues of importance in his own portfolio. He is an absolute failure in this area, an absolute failure. Just ask the National Party what a failure—a leaderless failure—we have as a member of this government. We have huge issues for Indigenous groups around the country. Overcrowding has come down a bit, but not enough. Indigenous health is still a problem under this government. Indigenous education is still a problem. Indigenous people can't get decent health and can't get decent education unless they've got a home to go to, a home that is culturally appropriate for Indigenous groups. These are the issues that this minister should be dealing with. These are the issues that this minister seems to be incapable of dealing with. This minister allowed half a billion dollars to be cut out of Indigenous support in this country and said nothing about it; he was mute when it came to an attack on Indigenous communities around the country. That was how he started off his career as Minister for Indigenous Affairs—a failure to start with, a failure ongoing and a failure in the future. That's why we need a change of government. We need a change of government federally so that we can look at exactly the issues that are needed for both Indigenous communities and communities around the country. We need to stop this ideological attack by the coalition against Indigenous people, against the trade union movement, against workers' penalty rates and against the rights of workers when they go on the job. This is an absolutely pathetic government that shows no leadership and has no capacity to understand how difficult it is for Indigenous communities around this country to make their way, with bad housing, poor health outcomes and poor education outcomes. Minister, it costs money to fix these problems and you are incapable of getting a clear commitment or negotiating with the states to get an outcome on housing for Indigenous communities around this country. You should pick up the phone, you should talk to the various ministers across the country who have responsibility for this area, you should get a national agreement put in place, you should look at the recommendations that your own review recommended and you should start implementing them. We've got children dying in Indigenous communities because of overcrowding and unsanitary situations. You've been there now for years. You have failed to deal with some of the basic problems in Indigenous communities in this country. You are too busy carving each other up, too busy fighting with each other and too busy defending the absolutely indefensible as a government—a rabble of a government, a government with no capacity to lead, a government with no economic policies and no social policies. All you want to do is use fear and loathing as the basis of your policy proposals. This is a government that is in absolute decline; a government in internal decline. And nothing epitomises the decline of this government more than their approach on Indigenous affairs. We've got the Closing the Gap approach, and this government, who were going to be the grown-ups—well, no-one can look at this government and use the word 'grown-up'—have failed to deal with the key issues that are important to all communities in this country, especially Indigenous communities. You can argue all you like about what you may have done and what you will do, but the reality is that you have failed miserably to deal with the issues of health, education and housing for Indigenous communities. You must get a situation where we've got a minister that can actually focus on this. I don't think there is one politician on the Liberal-Nationals side, either in the lower house or in the Senate, who has the capacity to deal with these issues, because you are so obsessed with each other, so obsessed with having a go at each other and so obsessed with the rabble that you have become that you cannot concentrate on the key issues for Indigenous communities in this country. We need to improve the health of Indigenous communities. We need to improve education for Indigenous communities. We need to ensure that there is a business case to build these houses, and that's the job of this minister. This minister has been incapable of delivering on what is a fundamental right everywhere in the world, and that is to have a roof over your head. This minister is just incapable of doing that. Senator O'Sullivan interjecting— Senator CAMERON AI6 And it doesn't matter how much Senator O'Sullivan rants away behind the minister, trying to defend the indefensible; it is just not going down with the community. The community know that you are a rabble. The community know that you are incompetent. The community know that you are weak from the Prime Minister down—a weak Prime Minister and weak ministers, incapable of dealing with education, incapable of dealing with health and incapable of dealing with the issues facing Indigenous communities. Maybe, Minister, your next contribution should just be to resign and make sure that we get somebody in that can actually look after the Indigenous community, because you patently cannot. (Time expired) 12:40 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I rise to take part in this debate on the motion to take note of the minister's explanation. This is an extremely important issue that, it is very clear, needed very strong leadership from the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has been investing in remote housing—in fact, in social housing—for a long time, but in particular in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander housing. This is an absolutely essential area where the Commonwealth should be providing leadership, and it was very clear, even before the review came out, that there was a need for ongoing Commonwealth involvement and, in fact, an agreement with the states and territories around this issue. That was confirmed, of course, through the review document, which clearly points out in its leading recommendations: 1. A recurrent program must be funded to maintain existing houses, preserve functionality and increase the life of housing assets. 2. Investment for an additional 5,500 houses by 2028 is needed to continue efforts on Closing the Gap on Indigenous Disadvantage. It was very clear that there was need for further investment and that there is a need to continue to build houses. But just as important was to send the signal very early that this was going to occur. We all know in this place—because I'm sure every single senator has had representations from constituents on these programs, whether it's the remote housing program, soil and land conservation programs or whatever programs you're talking about—that, as programs are coming to an end, there is a need to send a very clear signal as to whether they're going to continue, because things grind to a halt. You lose essential staff, contracts can't be made and they can't plan for the future. What we see here are a lot of organisations and a lot of people that are employed, because part of this process is employment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It's very clear that signals should have been sent much earlier than they were that this program was going to continue. There has been huge disquiet in the sector about knowing the future of this program. Yes, the program to date has been addressing issues of overcrowding, but, as the review pointed out, more houses are needed. You just have to go into communities to know that we still have an exceedingly high overcrowding problem. On top of this, this has also manifested in concern in communities, because in my home state of Western Australia—and we heard Senator Dodson talking about our home state earlier—we have had to contend with the past government talking about closing remote communities. Then, when there's uncertainty over whether this housing funding is going to continue, that exacerbates concerns that still exist in communities about closure of those communities. Again, there is a need for some leadership to be clearly demonstrated by the Commonwealth. I think that we could fund a number of years worth of election campaigns if I had a dollar for every time I heard the Commonwealth government blame the states and territories and the states and territories blame the Commonwealth. It happens in this place virtually every day, and that's exactly what we're seeing here: blame for the state and territories and failure to show leadership, despite the fact that it was very clear that further investment is needed and that the community expects the Commonwealth to be showing leadership on this issue and on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues in general. On one hand, while we've got the government failing to take action here, we've got the Refresh program for Closing the Gap. We know that housing is absolutely fundamental to addressing issues of Closing the Gap. We need to be addressing issues around the social determinants of health, and we know that housing plays a critical role there. An issue we are yet to resolve is otitis media and the impact it has on Aboriginal children, and poor housing and overcrowding is a key component of that issue. We had a workshop in Perth the week before last, where we were talking about those essential social determinants of health to ensure that we can deal with this. Make no mistake, OM is at pandemic levels in this country. We have one of the highest rates of OM in the world, if not the highest. This is just one example of the issues that we are yet to resolve where housing plays an absolutely critical role. We have to reduce and get rid of overcrowding. We have to ensure that people can live in hygienic circumstances. As the review pointed out, we have to ensure that existing houses are maintained and we have preserve their functionality and increase the life of the housing assets. That is absolutely critical. But building more houses and addressing this issue in remote communities is absolutely essential. I have addressed OM in particular because it is an issue that I think is fundamental; it is a classic example of why we need to be addressing this issue. I have had a lot of contact from constituents asking about this. People are asking a lot of questions. Why the focus first on NT? It has been commented that half of the housing problem is in the NT. Does that mean that half of the money is going to the NT? Why was the focus there first? I appreciate that there are some very important issues there. I have been in the communities a lot of times, so I understand the nature of those issues in the Northern Territory. But we also have those fundamental issues in Western Australia, as does Queensland. These are important issues that people want answers to. I put in a long list of questions at estimates, which I presume will go to the minister at some stage when the department has answered them. They are fundamentally important. Organisations also need to know whether this funding is going to continue. In terms of planning into the future, communities need to know. Employment programs will cease if there is not ongoing commitment to these programs in a timely manner. As I said, we knew a long time ago that this investment was going to have to continue. Yet we are still playing the blame game. Yes, of course there has to be investment from the states and territories. But a much more conciliatory approach to negotiations, in a timely manner, should have occurred first instead of being reduced to this game of brinkmanship. From the outside, to a whole number of people, it looks like that is what is happening. Delays will cause very significant issues to building programs, to employment, to the outcomes that we are all looking for. So at the same time that we are talking about the Refresh program and updating Closing the Gap, we are back to basic principles of fighting over housing. That is essentially what we are talking about here. We are back to fighting over housing, and the delays that brings with it. We know very well, as I said when I started, that urgent action is needed to address this issue. To those who have been working in this space—including the minister, who has been working in this space for a very long time, organisations that have been working in this area and communities that have been agitating to know what the future of this program will be—it's absolutely clear that it needs to continue. Ever since I've been in this chamber, I think, we've been debating this issue. We've also been debating funding for this issue. Every time a funding program is about to run out, we are back to debating who pays, when they are going to sign up, how much it's going to be, and what the states and territories are going to kick in—all of those issues. You would have thought by now that we could have been addressing those issues in a timely manner. But, no, we're not. We're back to this issue yet again, with people waiting with bated breath to find out what funding will be available and what states are going to be putting in. As I said, it's fair enough that states are contributing as well. But it's all happening again at the very last minute. Again, how many times have we been in this place having these debates about programs? It comes down to the line when they are going to be funded, and this is yet another example. It comes back to a lack of leadership in trying to get these issues resolved. The government are trying to withdraw the Commonwealth from these issues if they can possibly get away with it. It's time that this issue was resolved as a matter of urgency. That may mean getting the states together with the Territory to resolve this issue. It is absolutely critical that this issue be resolved, that there be certainty and that the recommendations be implemented, such as the additional investment with a recurrent program so that these sorts of debates don't have to be held every time a funding program is going to run out. We know, as was pointed out in the review, that 5,500 houses are needed by 2028. Let's get in place an ongoing recurrent program that deals with this issue so that we can accomplish the elimination of overcrowding, so that there is certainty for the program and so that there is certainty that we can have a Closing the Gap Refresh, knowing that a key component of that can be delivered. We are not going to close the gap if we don't address some of these fundamental social determinants, of which housing is a critical component. If we don't address that issue, we will fail to close the gap, and that has been pointed out by many people who have been contributing, particularly recently, on this extremely important area of investment, where the Commonwealth can show leadership and in fact must show leadership. 12:53 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I rise to speak in response to the explanation on housing provided to the Senate by the Minister for Indigenous Affairs. In his statement, he mentions that he waits for each territory and state jurisdiction to show the money. Well, in the Northern Territory, the Chief Minister, Michael Gunner, and the housing minister, Gerry McCarthy, have worked on their preparation in terms of what they will offer with housing across the Northern Territory, and they have put forward $1.1 billion over 10 years. I would like to let the Senate know that this was the first offer, I think—and correct me if I'm wrong—from a state or territory jurisdiction to the Commonwealth in terms of that full-time commitment. The minister made a comment in relation to that in Gunbalanya in January, and that comment was to support the payments by the Territory, so naturally there was a great deal of positive confirmation coming from the federal government at that point. However, that has since been rescinded. It is not the $1.1 billion commitment in equal terms with the Northern Territory over 10 years, which is a great concern. Reading through these documents that have been tabled by the minister, a number of things come up. One of them that comes up straightaway—and I think it's important for the Senate to be aware of some of the issues—is that here we have a jurisdiction that has shown the money, so to speak, and yet we do not have the political will within the Turnbull cabinet to support a jurisdiction that has already shown the money. We know, in the Northern Territory in particular, the desire to have improved and certainly increased housing for our remote communities. Looking through the papers that the minister has tabled here in the Senate, there is an agenda item, from 'Capital works milestone'—it has been redacted, so I'm not sure who it has been prepared by—which focuses on this situation: 'As of 30 November 2017, a total of 117 new houses have been completed since July 2016, with 122 new houses underway.' The Commonwealth, then—and I understand this to be the COAG meeting—in November, was alerted to the fact that the NT government 'remains committed to deliver the target of 300 new houses under the national partnership on remote housing, as per schedule F of the agreement, but the achievement of that target by 30 June this year is at risk, due to factors that are outside the Northern Territory government's control. These include'—again, this is for the benefit of the Senate, to understand the intricacies that impact on the lives of first-nations peoples in this country. The first issue here is leasing. Delays in securing land tenure have delayed contracts being awarded, most notably in the communities of Yarralin, Pirlangimpi and Mutitjulu. There are seasonal impacts. The wet season in the Northern Territory has considerable impact on the ability to deliver capital works, and the 2017-18 wet season has commenced early in some parts of the Northern Territory, including at Amanbidji, a community programmed to receive six new replacement houses. The third area of concern, in terms of these risk factors, is transitional accommodation. Capital works cannot commence in a community until appropriate accommodation is provided for people who need to move from a dilapidated house or those needing a new house, so they can be accommodated somewhere in the interim. So works have to be aligned to ensure transitional housing is in place, to avoid delays. The Northern Territory government requested then, in November, via ministerial correspondence, that the new house target of 300 be revised to an achievable 243 by 30 June 2018, with a commitment that the remaining new houses be contractually committed to this date and then rolled over beyond June 2018 into the financial year of 2018-19. The status of that request is still unclear. But, again, that was an important request by the Northern Territory government. There are issues that are compounding here for residents in the Northern Territory. Again, these are questions for the minister and his department. There is the issue of rental payments as a key element of funding for repairs and maintenance. The current system of tenancy management is dependent on large rental contributions from tenants. So what is the impact of the record and disproportionate number of fines and suspensions of unemployment benefits and CDP payments to Aboriginal tenants? We've had debates in here about CDP payments and the concerns in relation to breaching and those participants on CDP who are breached. There is actual evidence within the housing department that shows there are concerns as to the rental payments because of reductions in people's CDP payments and welfare benefits. The other question around housing for the Northern Territory is homelands and town camps. In 2012 the Labor government set aside $10 million from the ABA funds for homelands and outstation housing. In 2015 a full audit of homeland and outstation housing and infrastructure was conducted by the Centre for Appropriate Technology in Alice Springs with the support of the Commonwealth and territory governments. The Commonwealth is now insisting that the land councils carry out a similar audit to determine the priority for infrastructure investment in the same homelands and outstations. So what payments will be made for the land councils to be able to rescope infrastructure work on outstations? These are the conversations that need to be had well before June 2018. Hasn't the Commonwealth previously stated that it wants no further involvement with outstations since it paid out the Giles government? The Commonwealth created 600 to 700 outstations from the 1960s onwards, and has now walked away from any responsibility in that regard. In terms of town camps, the Commonwealth has offered nothing to address the substandard infrastructure that it created across the Territory. We know that the minister is currently underway with the Closing the Gap Refresh. One of the areas that consistently comes up is the importance of housing. As we've heard previously from Senator Dodson and Senator Cameron, the importance of housing and homelessness links to the fact that we cannot close the gap in health, in education or in employment. I know that as part of the conversations that are now taking place around closing the gap, it is absolutely critical that this government looks at the importance of housing and the lack of it, and the impact that it's having on the very policy that it stands up to give a report on in the House in February every year on the life expectancy of first nations people. The government needs to connect it. If there were the political will 10 years ago to have a 10-year agreement on an incredibly visionary housing program for our country and for our remote and regional areas, where is the political will today? It is completely absent, abrogating every kind of responsibility to find excuses and reasons why it is not this parliament's duty to the first nations people of this country to make sure that the government shows leadership in navigating a way through the absolutely complex and political process within the state and territory jurisdictions to have that vision again. Have that vision again! Have the backbone to have that vision again. Have the will to have that vision again. That's what is required for a 10-year vision on housing for our remote and rural regions in this country. I'll give you another example. Only 18 months ago—in fact, the minister may remember this—we celebrated the handback to the community of Yarralin in the VRD region, west of Katherine. We celebrated the handback after 40 years where the people of Yarralin had been waiting and had their struggle for land. The story is that a group of Aboriginal workers walked off the job at a cattle station in the NT over 44 years ago to protest about a lack of pay and about mistreatment. Today, more than 50,000 hectares belong to them. Fifty thousand hectares of land were returned at that moment. I was there, the minister was there, the Northern Land Council was there and all the men, women and children of the VRD region were there. What was promised as part of that handback was at least 20 new houses and 17 upgrades. I have spoken with people from that region who are incredibly disappointed that not enough has been done in that space. And that's just one example of a number of communities that are waiting. I say to the Prime Minister: if you want to close the gap, if you are sincere about wanting to close the gap, you have to be committed in every way—not cherry-picking when you want to dive in and dive out—and you've got to back it all the way. We know that housing is a critical aspect of improving the lives of everyone, and the ones who need it the most in this particular instance are the first nations people of our country. The cabinet needs to have the backbone and the vision, because it is within your power to make a real difference here. It is within your power to break the stalemate. It is within your power to rise above the politics of every situation here when you look at the figures of our families and our children on the ground, who desperately need this parliament to get it right. Thank you. 13:06 Senator RHIANNON CPR New South Wales I rise to take note of Minister Scullion's comments. What we now know is that, under the Turnbull government, housing in remote communities will continue to be overcrowded for years to come. The minister's comments were underwhelming. No-one could have confidence that the Turnbull government has a commitment to remote housing with what we're seeing in how this policy is playing out and what we've heard today. We know this is not just a housing crisis; it's a jobs crisis. While the current program is not perfect, it's not adequate to the degree that's needed, what it has done is provide not only some houses but also desperately needed jobs for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. What we have here is both a housing crisis and a jobs crisis because of the appalling way the government is acting. We know that the current program had reduced overcrowding by 46 per cent. There are few success stories when it comes to this federal government and housing. Again, this program is not perfect, but it's heading in the right direction. So here we had something in the housing area at a federal level that actually had something to show for what it set out to do. What I'm referring to there is that it was delivering new homes, refurbishing homes, providing maintenance for homes. That is significant for anybody, but when you live in overcrowded premises it's incredibly important. I thank Senator Dodson for putting forward this motion so that we can have this debate and assist the remote communities—particularly in Western Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory, as well as across the whole country—that are now in such an uncertain period. It really has put the spotlight on the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing. I also congratulate my colleague Senator Rachel Siewert for her work in this area, which has been very extensive. She spelled it out very clearly, as have others, in her speech about how important housing is for those other essential rights, basic human rights, of education, of health. All of these issues are connected, and when you have overcrowding you're going to run into so many other problems that are impacting on people's day-to-day lives and costing the government money. So much of what they're doing here is short-sighted. We know the remote housing program is not a huge amount of money, so what is going on here? This is a real reminder of how this really is a government of inequality. Previous federal governments committed $776 million to the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing. It's been cut to $100 million. That extra $676 million that they think they're saving—I mean it's not a huge amount of money. It should have been improved, increased, not what we're seeing here today. What we also know—and this comes from the latest census work of the Australian Bureau of Statistics—is the whole impact that overcrowding has on communities. It really is worthwhile reminding ourselves how serious this is. The ABS stated that the overall number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people experiencing homelessness in 2016 was 23,437 and more than two in three were living in severely crowded dwellings. Those figures are shameful. We are a rich country and this should not be happening. The ABS stated that people living in severely crowded dwellings—which are defined as requiring four or more extra bedrooms to accommodate the people who usually live there—was the greatest contributor to the national increase in homelessness. It is disgraceful that this is where we are at in this country. These are recent figures; that is the latest census data. Again, we should remind ourselves about the overall housing crisis caused by the shocking policies of the federal government—and I acknowledge that the work of many of our state governments in this area is also below par. The 2016 census data showed that the rate of homelessness in Australia over the last five years has gone up by 5.6 per cent. It is increasing, not decreasing; it is not even staying the same. At every turn, the way this federal government, under Prime Minister Turnbull, is handling housing is shameful. Again, that is why they are increasingly being called the government of inequality. The National Partnership Agreement for Remote Indigenous Housing and the Remote Housing Strategy have been very significant. The remote housing review gives us some insight into how significant it has been. By this year, the strategy will have delivered 11,500 more livable homes in remote Australia. And I will repeat a comment I made earlier. When we are talking about the number of homes that are being delivered, there are new homes, there is refurbishment and there is maintenance. And what does that mean? It means hundreds and hundreds of jobs. And we cannot emphasise enough how important that is in remote Australia. In regard to overcrowded dwellings for people in remote areas, the review found that this increase in supply is estimated to have led to a significant decrease in the proportion of overcrowded households in remote and very remote areas—falling from 52.1 per cent in 2008 to 41.3 per cent in 2014. The panel projects that this will fall further—to 37.4 per cent by 2018. That is really welcome; those figures are good; at least it is heading in the right direction. There could be a lot more improvement, but I would still say that it is welcome; there is much more to do, but it is welcome. It is welcome because we know we need to improve the strategy and continue to invest in remote housing. The remote housing review has recommended that an additional 5,500 houses be built. Where does all that sit with where the government is at now? I have not read all the documents that the minister has put forward, but you would have thought he would put all the good news up top—and there wasn't good news there in terms of the uncertainty this whole sector is facing. The minister has been incredibly inadequate in terms of how he has handled the portfolio. The minister really has questions to answer here. Why has it taken so long? Why has it got to this point? What justifies leaving communities and housing providers in so much uncertainty? That is one of the very shocking things that is going on here—where it leaves these communities. We don't know why they are doing that, but we do know the impact it is having. Firstly, it is reckless and it is mean-spirited and it is bringing more hardship and uncertainty. When it comes to housing, people should be confident that they and their family and their loved ones—the people they are sharing their home with—can have a roof over their head and not have to be worried about it in a month's time or a year's time. That is a human right. People have a right to homes and to have secure housing. It is actually set out as a human right, but this government appears not to know that. Again, let's emphasise that we're not talking about a lot of money here. It's been about $540 million per year so far. Compare that to the roughly $8 billion of public money we're expected to dish out, and we do dish out, that goes on the negative gearing and the capital gains tax discounts in one year alone. This why I say we're a rich country and we can afford it. We know where the money can come from: clean up negative gearing and clean up capital gains tax discounts. That's one way to reduce the inequality in this country and have money to fund these essential programs. Essentially, what the Turnbull government should be doing here is to end the uncertainty. That's the first thing. They need to come out with a very clear position that the current system remains and that it's going to be improved on, and we're not all left wondering what happens when this 10-year agreement ends. The state and territory governments should not have to siphon off already constrained funds for these housing programs. You get the sense when you listen to the federal government that that's their idea with housing, 'Oh, well, it's basically a state issue and so we can just get away with pushing it onto state governments.' As I've heard other speakers say, the Turnbull government needs to find some backbone on this. They need to find a commitment. Again, we hear all the fine statements about Aboriginal rights and Closing the Gap, but here is a case in point: this is where they can actually do the job, and, surely, that's what they should be doing. What we've heard today from the Liberals and Nationals is another reason why this government needs to be defeated. It's ruthless, it's shocking and this is clearly another example why this government should be voted out of office. Thank you. 13:16 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory There have been a number of contributions and I thank everybody for them. I particularly acknowledge my senator colleague from Western Australia, Senator Dodson. I know you have an ongoing and genuine interest in this matter, and I thank you for your ongoing interest, mate. I will try to deal with a number of the questions and assertions that've been put up, but let me, perhaps, get the dross out of the way first. Senator, your contribution certainly stood in stark contrast to the contribution from the shadow housing minister. I wasn't actually aware that Senator Cameron was the shadow housing minister. When he got to the four-minute mark he decided to blither on to personal insults and to say that the National Party doesn't care about Indigenous people. I guess we're used to it. There are some people in this place—there's certainly one—who everybody in Australia should factor in. He is so offensive in his nature that he should just be ignored. We do our best under a torrent of specific and personal offence given by this man. We don't forgive him. He's just what he is and we just ignore it. It was insightful that he ran out of steam after four minutes and went into the remainder with the of sort of rubbish he normally makes in a contribution. But h should be held to account for a couple of things. He said that Indigenous homelessness has increased. He's the shadow minister, he should have a bit of a clue about that, wouldn't you reckon, Senator Dodson? He should have a clue about a fact that he's just put on the table. He said, 'Indigenous homelessness has increased.' Perhaps I can point him to a number of articles and statistics that he should inform himself of—after all, this is his shadow portfolio. The number of Indigenous people counted as homeless has fallen by 12.3 per cent in the five years leading up to 2016, and it goes on. I'm not suggesting in any circumstance that that is okay, but to say that it's gone up not down, I think, is something he won't ever be held to account for. Nobody takes him seriously, but I thought I would, again, just correct the record. There were a couple of other issues. Senator Dodson, you brought up document 19, and I agree, to have an entire document that is redacted you'd think was a bit awkward, but I have it on good advice that this is the process. This process of redaction is by agreement. I will tell you, through the redactions, it was actually a draft letter from your colleague in the Northern Territory government. It was a confidential draft working document that belonged to Gerry McCarthy, the housing minister in the Northern Territory. Throughout this debate, there may well have been positions put that have not been clearly understood. So let me be absolutely crystal clear: the Commonwealth remains committed to remote housing. But, as for the increase, we want the states and territories to take their place. We want them to take responsibility for their housing. It is entirely their responsibility, and I believe that they have abdicated that responsibility over the entire time of this agreement. I believe that if they are held to account in the way they can be we can get the same outcome that the leadership of the Northern Territory and the federal government have provided for. What I'm saying about the Northern Territory outcome is that twice as much money will now be invested, twice as much as ever before. That's not a bad bloody outcome. And we have Indigenous people who are standing right there, making sure the administration and all of the other processes in place are actually observed in a transparent way. We have ownership by Aboriginal people and the land council. It is significant reform not only in the amount of money that goes in but in how it is provided. On all of those predictions, we can reach them in half the time if we can build twice as many houses, so this is an outcome that is achievable. There's been a general theme of: 'I'm very nervous; it's all at the last minute.' But the fact of the matter is that in the Northern Territory, Queensland, Western Australia—the builds that are going on at the moment—the notion that everyone will finish on the 30 June 2018 is a complete nonsense. I'm very much aware of the program. And in Queensland assertions were made that everyone has to finish on the 30 June 2018 by no less than the Queensland local government authority, mostly from North Queensland. I had quite a large contingent come and see me to say they were concerned. I said, 'That's an odd concern to have. I'm not like that. Why would we do that?' They said, 'It was put to us by Minister De Brenni directly that I had written a letter to him saying that everyone has to put pens down on 30 June 2018.' I said, 'There's no such letter, I said no such thing.' It's pretty disingenuous for people to suggest this program is suddenly ending. There's a large taper. In Queensland it will go on for a long time, 12 months or so in addition to the remaining period of time. And so I am absolutely confident that we'll come to a settlement on where we go in Queensland, Western Australia and in South Australia. The Northern Territory has already got a clear direction where we're going to go, so there's not going to be a hiatus of activity in this particular area. People have been talking about leadership, particularly about me, and asking why don't I show some leadership? As I have just indicated, you could not ask for a better outcome. I went to the Northern Territory government. They run their budget on an annual basis, unlike the Commonwealth—we run our budget over three-year forward estimates. That is entirely a matter for them. It is just a different way in terms of scale. I am not criticising them for that. They've indicated they're going to put $110 million in a fund, not in their own budget, and I've said that we'll match whatever you put in that fund. They indicated there's one year's funding in the fund and they are going to get back to me about the second year, and I hope to have it on the second year. We'll be matching the funding they put in there. As I have indicated, you can't ask for much more than doubling the investment in some of the most needy parts of Australia. That opportunity is, in fact, available to Western Australia, Queensland and South Australia. As I indicated earlier, I can give some grace to the South Australian government, because they've just been in caretaker mode and they're unable to negotiate through letters—that's just a fact—but it is very important that we continue to make a joint effort. What I want out of the state and territory governments and what I've asked them to provide—as you'd see by your letter, Senator Dodson—is effectively three things. I think people need to know how many dollars they have provided from their own budgets over the last decade. The Commonwealth are clear: we've invested $5.4 billion. That's been our investment in NPARIH. We've also made some investment through special purpose payments, national partnerships and Commonwealth rent assistance. Commonwealth rent assistance puts it up to about $49 billion or $50 billion in the last decade. Commonwealth rent assistance will take that apart. Whilst it's a huge number, I think we need to set that aside and just look at those funds that were available for investment by the states and territories that were funds given to them. I know that, because we have records of the funds that have been provided to the Queensland government, to the Western Australian government, to the South Australian government and to the Northern Territory government over that period of time. I want to know how much of their own funds they've provided from their own budgets. I'm talking about 'in remote areas', and that's actually defined. I've asked them if they would provide the number of houses that have been built by them in those areas. I've also asked them: 'How many dollars are from the Commonwealth funds that we provided you for public housing for your most needy?' Between the special purpose payments and the national partnerships on homelessness, over the last decade there's been about $5.5 billion in those specific areas. That's an investment that could've been made to the most needy in those jurisdictions. The most needy live in those remote areas. That $5.5 billion is almost the same as the Commonwealth amount, isn't it, Senator Dodson? Imagine what you could do with that. I've asked them: 'How did you go with that, and how much have you invested?' Western Australia had $1.5 billion of discretionary funds that they could have invested over the last decade, Queensland had $2.6 billion, South Australia had a tad over $1 billion and the Northern Territory had $300,000. That's the discretionary funding that has been allocated over the last decade for investment in public housing. I wanted to know that. I think it's very important we all know that. It's very important, as we go into the future, that people talk to me. Senator Dodson, you said, 'We need to be serious. We need to be respectful. This needs to be a joint effort. This needs to be a collaboration. This needs to be equally shared.' I agree entirely, which is why we're taking this approach. We've asked them that. I have to say, Queensland has written me back a highly political letter. You would have seen that. It doesn't tell me anything, and it certainly doesn't answer those questions. The most fundamental question, of course, is: how much are you going to put on the table in the future, given what you've just done? I haven't got an answer from Western Australia, but I'm really looking forward to meeting with their minister later this week. The answers to those are the sorts of questions I think you should be putting to your Minister for Housing in Western Australia. We've had New South Wales take on its own responsibilities. That's it; they're out—they're taking on their own responsibilities. The funds that they get they're now allocating to the most in need, and their remote areas they're going to be able to service. Victoria have taken the same approach. They're going to be servicing those people most in need. Tasmania has said, 'I'm going to take over my responsibilities as a state, and a fundamental responsibility is the provision of public housing.' Yes, the Commonwealth help out in certain ways. We now need the same approach. I know what the states have been provided. I want to know how much has come out of that. I want the answer to the question, but sadly—through you, Acting Deputy President O'Sullivan, to Senator Dodson—it appears, certainly in Queensland, and I'm looking closely at Western Australia, they haven't provided the answer to the question of how much of that discretionary $2.6 billion did they actually invest? I suspect the answer is zero. It is just depressing to think about why that would be the case. Perhaps because of the colour of someone's skin you would decide that these discretionary funds are not available to an entire demographic because they happen to live in remote areas. I'm not sure of the answers to those questions, Senator Dodson, but I am, as you are, looking forward to them. As I've indicated, I will share the answers in the letters from the jurisdictions with you and other interested parties. I hope I have dealt with most of the issues that were brought up. People have indicated there is some concern. There were some discussions about outstations and the $40 million, of course, that is going through the ABA, Senator McCarthy. I have been in discussions with all four land councils, as you'd be aware, and we want to ensure that that is rolled out using Indigenous labour and procurement. I thank everybody for participating in this important debate. It is so important, as Senator Dodson indicates, that this should be a shared responsibility. I think the rolled-gold example is the example of the Northern Territory government. The Northern Territory government have stepped up to the plate. They have been fair dinkum. Yes, they can only do it year by year, but they've indicated that about $110 million a year will be forthcoming. We've indicated that we'll meet that. We've also indicated that it will be separate from the Northern Territory government's budget and that it will be overseen by including the land councils in that. That's a significant move forward. I would encourage the other states to genuinely and openly embrace this opportunity to be part of a future in which your First Australians in your jurisdictions are an absolutely central part of that. In conclusion, I thank the Senate for the debate, and I look forward to further negotiations with the state and territory jurisdictions. Question agreed to. BILLS 14 BILLS Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 14

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017

In Committee 14 13:32 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 247871 The committee is considering the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 and the amendments moved by Senator Siewert on sheet 8288. The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 8288 be agreed to. 13:32 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia When the adjournment was proposed last night, we were just in the middle of a question and answer process, and I had at that stage said this was my last question, but unfortunately the adjournment was proposed before it could be answered, and I was a bit premature, because depending on the answer I actually may wish to ask another question specifically on that. The TEMPORARY CHAIR 247871 Not having been in the chair, I wasn't aware of that, Senator Siewert. Senator SIEWERT e5z No, of course. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: So debate can continue. Senator SIEWERT e5z I was asking about the appeals process for the one-week penalty, the two-week penalty and the four-week penalty. You will recall that we had had significant discussion around when people could appeal, and I was asking what happens with those penalties in terms of income support. 13:33 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you, Senator Siewert, for restating the question. Under the new compliance framework, while jobseekers are able to appeal any financial penalty, they will not receive payment pending the outcome of the appeal or payment pending review. However, jobseekers will be paid back pay if their appeal is successful. Under the current compliance framework, in practice, payment pending review is only available for eight-week serious failure penalties and unemployment non-payment periods, which will no longer exist under the new framework. Payment pending review is currently not available for the majority of penalty types. Before a jobseeker faces any financial penalty under the new framework, they will have missed a minimum of five requirements in six months without reasonable excuse, or will have refused work and therefore be demonstrably capable of obtaining work. The jobseeker's capabilities will also generally have been assessed twice, by both their provider and Human Services, before any penalties are applied. These arrangements are intended to ensure that only those jobseekers who are fully capable of meeting their requirements, but deliberately choose not to, will lose payment. The intention is to provide such jobseekers with a strong incentive to change their behaviour or find work. Allowing payment pending review for such jobseekers would significantly undermine this incentive effect. 13:35 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia The issue here, as I articulated yesterday, is that we still may have vulnerable jobseekers who get to this point if they haven't disclosed. In effect, what we've got is people being able to access the first appeals process, the departmental appeals process and then the AAT. For a start, we know the AAT takes quite a long period of time—certainly more than the four weeks. Well, it's seven weeks, but the maximum one-time suspension is four weeks, and it certainly takes longer than that. I've got a couple of questions. What is the time it takes for the departmental review? Following that, if somebody has appealed and they do their four weeks—say it's the four-week one—what happens if they're still under appeal? Do they still go back? If they are still appealing—say it's an AAT or departmental one, but it's more likely AAT because they take longer—do they go back to the start of the process? What happens if they are still under appeal? Is that clear? So they've appealed and they've actually done their four weeks off income support—you've just said they would not be receiving income support. Do they then go back to the start, as everybody else does? What happens there? 13:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Senator Siewert, I'm advised they go back to where they were in the intensive compliance phase. I've also managed to get you some additional information in terms of another question you were asking about last night, which was around what happens if a jobseeker is already in the penalty phase and they develop issues affecting their capacity to comply, or they reveal previously undisclosed issues. If a jobseeker had no issues when they underwent their compliance assessment, but their circumstances change while they're in the penalty phase, they will remain in the penalty phase but will have their requirements adjusted, if necessary, to ensure that they can meet them. They do not return to the demerits phase because they were capable of meeting the requirements when they incurred their demerits and underwent their capability assessment. However, if the jobseeker does fail to meet a requirement, Centrelink will not apply a penalty if the jobseeker's barriers provide a reasonable excuse for failure. Also, providers would continue to monitor jobseeker requirements and take personal circumstances into account following any further noncompliance. If a jobseeker reveals a previously undisclosed barrier whilst in the penalty phase, and it results in the retrospective application of an activity test exemption, any demerit incurred within the exemption period will be removed and they will return to the demerits phase. I hope that gives you a little bit more in terms of what we were discussing last night. 13:39 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia How long does it take for the departmental appeal process if they're in the penalty phase or in the suspension phase? 13:40 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Given that there are a number of amendments, can I take that one on notice and provide you with information when we return after question time? I assume we will be coming back after question time. 13:40 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Sorry, I realise I asked that question last night. I think I should rephrase it to say 'the last group of questions', because the minister's answers have led to other queries. Can we just go back to the point that you made when I was asking what happens when someone has appealed? You said that if they've done their compliance of four weeks, their suspension for four weeks, they go back to the intensive phase, not to the— Senator Cash I0M Correct, they go back to— Senator SIEWERT e5z Their slate isn't wiped? 13:41 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Yes. I will reconfirm: they go back to the beginning of the intensive phase, yes. Not the jobactive provider side, the intensive phase. 13:41 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I may have misunderstood an answer that you gave last night. So anybody who finishes that goes back to that intensive phase? 13:41 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Two circumstances: yes, in relation to the question you have just asked; however, what we were also talking about last night was if you then have a three-month period in which there is no noncompliance then you reset; you start again. 13:41 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Will that process also apply to somebody who has appealed? For an AAT process, that's actually going to be a long time frame. That's not having a go at the AAT; I know they have a heavy case load. 13:42 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That is correct. 13:42 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia So where it's subsequently found that their appeal, for example, is successful, then basically what will happen is that they will get back pay? 13:42 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That is correct. 13:42 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I want to ask questions in relation to schedule 17, with respect to information management. We've expressed our strong opposition to this schedule. We've expressed our concern that the schedule limits the privilege against self-incrimination, which we see as a basic and substantive common law right. We're concerned that your changes to this schedule provide— The TEMPORARY CHAIR 247871 Senator, I'm loath to interrupt you, but is your contribution here relevant to this particular amendment? Senator PRATT I0T No, but we have varied around each particular set of amendments. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: We should deal with each amendment. Have we completed the debate in relation to it? Senator PRATT I0T Yes, I would be happy to vote on that now. The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 8288, moved by Senator Siewert, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [13:47]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)

30 AYES Bartlett, AJJ Bilyk, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Kitching, K Lines, S Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Singh, LM Steele-John, J Sterle, G Storer, TR Urquhart, AE Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 33 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ (teller) Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID McGrath, J McKenzie, B O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Williams, JR 4 PAIRS Cameron, DN Molan, AJ Farrell, D Smith, D Gallagher, KR Sinodinos, A Wong, P Cormann,

Senator Ketter did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Brandis
Question negatived.

13:51 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I want to ask some questions with respect to information management, schedule 17. We've very firmly put our opposition to this schedule. As we understand it, it seeks that the secretary of the department will be able to get from a person information that can be used as evidence to investigate and prosecute that person for criminal offences. We're concerned that it limits the privilege against self-incrimination, which, in our view, is a basic common law right. You're putting forward to this place a schedule that means that a person subject to the coercive information-gathering power will not have the right to refuse to provide information or documents on the basis that it may be incriminating or will expose a person to a penalty. What you're doing, as we understand it, is to effectively allow the department to circumvent the need to obtain admissible material by search warrants pursuant to section 3E of the Crimes Act 1914. We're extremely concerned that, in practice, this means that a person can be asked to provide information to prove that they've not complied with their obligations as a welfare recipient, and any information provided can be used as evidence against them. You have to ask yourself where the onus of proof is here. I've certainly seen, in relation to robo-debt, a considerable reversal of that onus within DHS. I'm very concerned that the information can also be used as evidence that a person has not fully complied with the requirements to give information or documents, or has provided false or misleading information or has engaged in forgery. Importantly, the Social Security Rights Network, whose advice I very much respect, has expressed their significant concerns about this schedule. They're very concerned that it limits the privilege against self-incrimination and can be used to gather information from welfare recipients that can be used against them in criminal proceedings. Minister, does the government believe that this schedule limits the privilege against self-incrimination, which is a basic and substantive common law right? 13:54 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In relation to the measure itself, what the measure actually does is streamline the process of referrals for welfare fraud prosecution by allowing information or documents obtained in the course of an administrative action by the Department of Human Services to be used in subsequent investigation and criminal prosecution. You raised a number of issues in the statements that you just made. In relation to the amendments and their impact on the debtor's right to silence, I can advise that this amendment does not change any rights to silence, as the common law right to silence has been retained, other than in proceedings for the provision of false information. Third parties do not currently have a right to silence. In relation to your questions around self-incrimination, the proposed changes retain the common law right to silence, preventing the use of information or documents against the person providing them. That is retained in the bill. Again, the exception to this is in relation to proceedings for the provision of false information. Therefore, the only way that the information provided by a person could be used against them is if that information were false. If the person provides correct information, it logically flows that that information would not be able to be used against them. This is consistent with the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Infringement Notices and Enforcement Powers, which deals with the privilege against self-incrimination. The guide states that the privilege against self-incrimination does not apply where it is alleged that a person has given false or misleading information. 13:56 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Thank you. I want to ask now whether this schedule means that information can be gathered from welfare recipients that can be used against them in criminal proceedings? Senator CASH I0M I'll just take you through how the bill actually deals with self-incrimination. For example, a new section 197A will be inserted into the Social Security (Administration) Act to clarify the effect of the privilege against self-incrimination on a person's obligation to respond to a statutory demand. Subsection 197A(1) provides that a person is not excused from giving information or producing a document or record that may incriminate them or expose them to a penalty. In short, that person cannot refuse to provide the information or document on the grounds that it may incriminate them. Well-established law dictates that a person cannot be compelled to convict themselves from their own words, and subsection 197A(2) section applies to this principle. Section 197A(2) provides for what is called use or derivative use immunity for an individual providing information or documents in response to a statutory demand to produce. The subsection sets out that any information given or any document or record produced by an individual may not be admitted in evidence against the individual in criminal proceedings, with only limited exceptions. 13:58 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia What are those exceptions? 13:58 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The rationale for abrogating the privilege against self-incrimination is that the information requested is often essential to maintain the integrity of the social security system—for example, through fraud prevention and detection—and is rarely, if ever, used against the person providing it. Generally, only information that is relevant to another person's social security payment under the social security law is sought from persons. For example, information may be sought from an employer about cash-in-hand income received by a social security recipient or from a financial institution about a social security recipient's financial assets, incomes and outgoings. Section 197A(2) ensures that only limited criminal consequences flow from the person's inability to refuse to provide information. The use and derivative use immunity in subsection 197A(2) is subject to certain exceptions. Essentially information or documents given by an individual are admissible in criminal proceedings against that individual that relate to the falsity of the information. Progress reported. The PRESIDENT I0Q It being 2 pm, we move to questions without notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 18 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Schools 18 14:00 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. I refer to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham, who has accused the Victorian Catholic education office of being 'bought by a few pieces of silver'. In a debate about education funding, does the minister think it is appropriate to use an analogy from the Christian scriptures to compare the Catholic education office to Judas Iscariot? 14:00 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank Senator Collins for that question. Our school-funding reforms, for the first time, put all schools on an equal footing. Ours is a genuinely needs based funding system, without special deals. Of course, Senator Birmingham, as an outstanding education minister, has been able to secure historic reforms when it comes to our school-funding arrangements. But let me read to the chamber what the perception of Mr Shorten's approach to school funding is by the Australian Council of State School Organisations— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Cormann, please resume your seat. Senator Farrell on a point of order. Senator Farrell I0N A point of order: we haven't asked a question about the government's education policy. We've asked a specific question about a statement made by Senator Birmingham and we'd ask you to direct the minister to answer that question. The PRESIDENT I0Q On the point of order, Senator Farrell: I cannot direct the minister how to answer a question. I remind the minister of the question asked and that he has a minute and 11 seconds to answer. Senator CORMANN HDA Our government values the contribution of the Catholic education system. Minister Birmingham values the contribution of the Catholic education system. What I would point out, though, is the critique of Mr Phillip Spratt, from the Australian Council of State School Organisations, who is very upset about Bill Shorten wanting to reintroduce special deals. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Cormann, please resume your seat. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left! Senator Wong on a point of order. Senator Wong 00AOU The point of order is direct relevance. The question goes to whether it is appropriate to liken the Catholic education office to Judas Iscariot. That is the question that ought be answered. The PRESIDENT I0Q Thank you, Senator Wong. As I've pointed out before, I can't direct the minister how to answer the question. He is allowed to address parts of the question as asked. I remind the minister of the question and call him to continue his answer. Senator CORMANN HDA As I've said, our government values the contribution of the Catholic education system, as we value the contribution of all parts of our education system, and indeed that is the position of the minister for education. What I would say is that the public school system across Australia is very concerned about the fact that the Labor leader wants to reintroduce special deals into our school-funding arrangements, when this government has been able to secure historic reforms, putting our school-funding arrangements on a genuine needs based foundation. Labor wants to go back to the discredited ways of the Gillard government and have a plethora of special deals. That is not the way that we will proceed moving forward. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Collins, a supplementary question. 14:04 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria The Executive Director of Catholic Education Melbourne, Stephen Elder, says that Minister Birmingham has shown a lack of respect while 'sneering' at parents of Catholic students. Is Mr Elder correct? 14:04 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I'm sure that the minister will engage in a conversation with Mr Elder in the next little while to talk through any issues. Let me tell you, as a parent of children that go to Catholic schools, I'm not concerned about the statements by Minister Birmingham. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Collins, a final supplementary question. 14:05 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria Does the Prime Minister agree with his senior colleague who has described Minister Birmingham's comparison of the Victorian Catholic education office to Judas, the apostle who betrayed Jesus Christ, as disgraceful and highly offensive? Has the Prime Minister counselled Minister Birmingham for his statement which has caused offence to Catholic Education Melbourne, his own colleagues and the whole Catholic community? (Time expired) 14:05 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Firstly, I haven't seen the comments that Senator Collins is referencing. All I can say is what I have said all the way through: our government values the contribution of the Catholic education system to the education of our children. I've also just been advised that Mr Elder's actually said publicly that he wasn't offended by the reported remarks. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 19 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:06 The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of delegates from the 23rd National Schools Constitution Convention. On behalf of all senators and the Senate, I wish you a very warm welcome. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 19 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Queensland: Mining 19 14:06 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia and relates to a matter that's very important to my state of Queensland. I ask the minister if he could give us details of the value of coal exports out of Queensland and, in particular, out of Central and Northern Queensland, which I try to represent as well as I can in this chamber. 14:07 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I thank Senator Macdonald for his question and recognise his longstanding support for a very important industry in Queensland. He understands well how important the coal sector is for the economy of Queensland. The strength of the North and Central Queensland economies certainly does track the strength of the coal sector. Not only does Senator Macdonald know and support that but we saw in results in a poll published in The Sunday Mail on the weekend that 80 per cent of North and Central Queenslanders agree with the statement that the coal industry is very important to the economy and jobs in Central and Northern Queensland. That's why we support it and that's why we back it. It has been a couple of tough years for the sector, as prices fell and some projects were mothballed, but things are on the improve, with coal prices more than doubling in the past 18 months, coal exports increasing by 35 per cent last year and three mines are reopening: Blair Athol, Collinsville and Baralaba. This is great news for the coal sector because, as Senator Macdonald indicated in his question, the revenue from this sector that benefits Queensland and this country is substantial. There were $36 billion in exports last year from Queensland; nearly $3 billion in wages to over 20,000 employees; and $4 billion in royalties to the state of Queensland. In addition, $11 billion is spent by the coal sector on goods and services to supply that industry. That means it's not just the people employed in the sector that benefit but also people like Brad Hamilton, who I met last week, who runs a small business in Mackay called Diacon Australia. He supplies goods to the mining sector and his business is intimately linked to the strength of that sector. It goes further than that. I met Roger Penrose last year at Great Keppel Island. He manages the resort there and is a third-generation miner. He understands the better the coal sector goes, the more people come out to the reef and the more people go through the tourism sector. If you want to support the economy of Northern and Central Queensland, you have to support the coal sector. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Macdonald, a supplementary question. 14:09 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland I thank the minister for that very important information. Minister, could you indicate how the value of coal to Queensland would be increased by the anticipated production from the developments proposed in the Galilee Basin? 14:09 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Senator Macdonald knows well how important the opening up of the Galilee Basin is. According to figures from the Queensland government, the six proposed mines there could deliver more than 15,000 direct jobs to the Queensland economy. That is very important. There are 29 billion tonnes of coal potentially to export and sell from that sector. If we're able to do that, it will create a lot more job opportunities for people. Senator Macdonald lives in Townsville, so he knows that the Adani company is there right now employing nearly 200 people in what the opposition likes to describe as fake jobs. They think these people are currently in fake jobs. They are real people, some of whom have moved their real families up from Brisbane to work in Townsville, to contribute to the economy, and we want to sustain those jobs. The new leader of the Nationals, Mr Michael McCormack, also understands the importance of those jobs. He visited Adani's offices in the last fortnight, something I don't think any Labor politician has done yet. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Macdonald, a final supplementary question. 14:10 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland Could I ask the minister if he could clarify approaches from other people to coal mining in Queensland, because in Townsville we have some elected representatives who are giving very conflicting views. I ask the minister: is aware of approaches from other political parties? 14:11 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Members on this side of the chamber and in the other place are not embarrassed about talking to people who work in the coal industry. We regularly go and talk to them, including Adani, who have opened up the only headquarters of a mining company in a regional town. You'd think the party that calls itself the Labor Party would be going to meet labourers and workers, but on Mr Shorten's recent holiday visit to North Queensland—funded by the Australian Conservation Foundation—he literally flew over the Carmichael mine site and landed at the Doongmabulla Springs and had a look at the springs but didn't meet any people. I have been to the springs. They are important springs and we should protect them, but we should also protect people. We think springs are important but we also think jobs are important. We think birds are important, but we also think people are important. That's the approach that a proper party that wants to represent this nation would take. Education 20 14:12 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. I refer to former Prime Minister Abbott, who yesterday told 2GB that the Turnbull government education policy was, 'going to make low-fee schools in middle-class suburbs almost impossible to run'. Is former Prime Minister Abbott correct? 14:12 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank the senator for her question. The answer to her question is no. The reality is that the Turnbull government's reforms are ensuring that schools across Australia are receiving fair, consistent funding. It sees growth in funding lift to around $23 to $25 billion over the next decade. We see real, consistent, needs based funding being applied. It means that non-government schools, regardless of their background, affiliation or otherwise will be funded based on their need. The Turnbull government believes schools should be funded based on the need of the children in those schools, not on the political deals that can be done, like the Labor Party seeks to do. When the Gonski report was handed down the response of the then Labor government was to say, 'Let's do a bunch of special deals rather than apply the Gonski report.' In the context of the 2013 election, the then Labor government ripped $1.2 billion out of the schools-funding budget. They took that money away from states like Western Australia and Queensland and from the Northern Territory as well. Then they had the gall to come into this chamber and vote against the Turnbull government's application of the Gonski reforms. They voted against a model that was endorsed by David Gonski himself, that was endorsed by a number of other members of the original Gonski panel. Now, in a reversion right back to the start of Mr Shorten's response to the original Gonski report, they are trying to go back to do special deals. The truth is there is additional funding to core school sectors right around the country, to the independent sector, the Catholic sector and the government sector, but it is being delivered fairly and consistently on the basis of need. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Neill on a supplementary question. 14:14 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Thank you, Mr President. I again refer to former Prime Minister Abbott, who said, 'If the government was smart, we would have a look at our existing policy.' Given that even coalition MPs recognise the need to revise the government's policy, why won't the minister take up former Prime Minister Abbott's suggestion? 14:15 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The government is indeed working through some of the issues that were raised by Catholic Education in terms of the socioeconomic status review. We are doing that by having adopted a recommendation from the Gonski panel report to have an independent National School Resourcing Board, on which Catholic Education and others are represented. That will report by the middle of this year. The opposition appears to have again rejected that approach. They have rejected the work of the independent National School Resourcing Board that is looking at these issues, in favour of going ahead and playing politics once again. It is little wonder that the Council of State School Organisations has slammed the opposition for their tactics and what they've done. It's little wonder that they have described Mr Shorten's policy as a partisan move by the Leader of the Opposition, which has astonished many parents, families and staff teams of public schools. They have criticised it as going against fair, simple, transparent and truly needs based funding agreements—and so it does. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question. 14:16 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Thank you, Mr President. Given that former Prime Minister Abbott recognises that Catholic schools will 'suffer a big loss in funding' has Minister Birmingham sought advice from former Prime Minister Abbott about how to work collaboratively with friends and colleagues? 14:16 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The truth for Catholic education across Australia is that, on a per student basis, funding is growing quite significantly. In terms of additional funding, Catholic education around the country will this year receive around 4.7 per cent more funding than they received last year. Over the course of the next four years there is more than 20 per cent growth; over the course of the next decade, it is closer to 56 per cent. That is real, strong growth in funding into Catholic ed—above inflation and above wages growth—along with real additional funding into public schools, who have been so critical today of the Labor Party's policy. And all of it will be delivered according to a consistent principle. The shame of those opposite is that you have thrown any principle out the door in favour of politicking. You have wasted the time of David Gonski and his panel, you have turned your back on their work and instead you just think you can buy votes in schools rather than fund them according to the needs of their students. Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 Mr President, on a point of order. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Birmingham has run out of time for his answer. What is the point of order related to? Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 The point of order is that the minister is misleading David Gonski. The PRESIDENT I0Q Take your seat, Senator Collins. I have called you to order on numerous occasions. I would ask you to at least pause between interjections when I do call you to order. Australian Bushfires 21 14:18 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria My question is to the Leader of the Government, representing the Prime Minister. Minister, my heart goes out to the many people who have been affected by the bushfires in Tathra and in south-western Victoria. They have suffered terrible losses and we must all come together to help them rebuild. I have spoken to many who have lost their homes after previous bushfires—including some of my own neighbours. Like them, they have asked me—in fact, pleaded with me—to bring up the link between climate change and bushfires. They say that treating the symptoms and not the cause is putting them at risk. Minister, you say that now is not the right time to talk about climate change. What do you say to those many people who have called on us to say that right now is precisely the time to be talking about climate change and the impact it is having on them in their lives? 14:19 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia We do talk about climate change, and the government is taking effective action against climate change, consistent with commitments we have made internationally. No amount of Greens posturing would have prevented the sad events that we have witnessed in recent days. I think it reflects very poorly on the Greens in general and on Senator Di Natale in particular that he is making this link in this way on this occasion. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question. 14:20 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Minister, why is your position any different to that of the NRA in America, who, whenever there is a shooting of innocent people, claim it is not the right time to talk about gun control. Why is your position any different? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Before I call Senator Cormann, I will insist that I can hear him. 14:20 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia In due deference to and out of the great respect we have for the many people affected by the tragedies in New South Wales, Victoria and the Northern Territory, I will resist providing a political answer, except to say that if you listen carefully to what I said in response to the primary question, I made the point that not only are we talking about climate change; our government is taking effective action against climate change. As such, the premise of your question is false, and if you had listened more carefully to the answer to the primary question, you would have adjusted your supplementary question accordingly. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Di Natale a final supplementary question. 14:21 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria Minister, it's true that you talk about climate change, but you talk about it to deny it. How is supporting the Adani coalmine helping people to mitigate bushfires? How is reducing the Renewable Energy Target supporting action on climate change? How is bringing a lump of coal into the Australian parliament and waving it around doing anything to advance the action we need to take when it comes to dangerous climate change? 14:21 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia This government believes Australia is in a great position to help reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, including by contributing our cleaner coal into markets around the world where it would displace dirtier coal which would otherwise lead to higher global greenhouse gas emissions. Australia has a unique contribution to make to the world by exporting our gas and cleaner coal, and we are able to develop our economy, create jobs and achieve better environmental outcomes at the same time. We believe that is our responsibility to the Australian people. Association of Southeast Asian Nations 22 14:22 Senator MOLAN FAB New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. Can the minister advise the Senate how Australia is working with its ASEAN partners to promote regional economic growth and security? 14:22 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Molan for his question. ASEAN came into being with a vision of peaceful development in the region, and Australia's hosting of the ASEAN-Australia Special Summit demonstrates our commitment to that long-held vision. It was the first meeting of its kind in Australia and an historic point in our engagement with ASEAN. There is no regional grouping of countries more important to Australia's security and prosperity. ASEAN as a group is our third largest trading partner, with two-way trade worth over $100 billion in the last financial year. As we noted during the special summit, we have the potential to do more, especially in investment. The summit itself brought together business and government to create better conditions for stronger growth, to our mutual benefit, including through an initiative for ASEAN and Australia to develop and increase the use of digital trade standards to promote digital trade and inclusive growth; a smart cities initiative providing education, technical assistance and support for innovation to help ASEAN develop cities in smart and sustainable ways; and programs to help address the region's infrastructure needs more broadly. We are also working with ASEAN countries to keep our region safe. The foreign minister signed a counterterrorism memorandum of understanding with the Secretary-General of ASEAN, and the summit focused significantly on the region's evolving strategic environment. During the deliberations we conveyed Australia's support for the speedy conclusion of a China-ASEAN code of conduct for the South China Sea that is binding and consistent with the norms, practices and laws. The summit particularly demonstrates the Turnbull government's commitment to working with our ASEAN partners to promote economic growth and to strengthen the international rules based order. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Molan, a supplementary question. 14:24 Senator MOLAN FAB New South Wales Can the minister advise the Senate of how Australia's future defence cooperation with ASEAN will strengthen regional stability? 14:24 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales We have a long and proud history of defence cooperation with ASEAN member nations and we're very committed to strengthening our defence engagement with our regional partners to both build capacity and improve interoperability. We are also very committed to building people-to-people links within our region. As a result of the special summit, we're establishing a new ASEAN-Australia Defence Postgraduate Scholarship program, through my department, which will see one person from each ASEAN nation awarded a scholarship to study here as part of a cohort. Commencing in early 2019, the program is designed to foster cooperation and equip ASEAN practitioners further in the field of regional defence engagement through a two-year Master of Strategic Studies postgraduate degree in Australia. This exemplifies the new era in our defence partnership with ASEAN and strengthens our substantial and practical contribution to regional security and prosperity, a number of aspects I saw in action last year in my visit to a number of ASEAN nations. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Molan, a final supplementary question. 14:26 Senator MOLAN FAB New South Wales How is Australia looking to strengthen its bilateral relationships with ASEAN nations? 14:26 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales We have very strong bilateral links to each of the 10 ASEAN nations, and we are very committed to continuing to strengthen those economic and security ties in particular. On Friday of last week the foreign minister and I hosted the Australia-Indonesia 2+2 defence and foreign affairs ministerial meeting on the eve of the special summit itself, with Minister Marsudi and Minister Ryacudu. Both Australia and Indonesia are strongly committed to a region of peaceful development in line with ASEAN's vision. We had productive discussions on cybersecurity, on counterterrorism and on maritime security in particular. We also signed a Maritime Cooperation Plan of Action, which will drive increased cooperation across a number of areas, including economic development, maritime security and combating illegal fishing, to name just a few. So, whether it's bilaterally or through multinational forums such as ASEAN, we are absolutely committed to our efforts to promote economic growth and stability and security across our region. Taxation 23 14:27 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. Can the minister confirm that since 2001 the cost to taxpayers of dividend imputation refunds has increased from $550 million to $5.6 billion? 14:27 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia What I can confirm is that this is money that has been overpaid in tax and that is appropriately refunded to the taxpayer. If the senator wants me to comment on specific numbers going back to 2001, I will take that part of the question on notice. But what I would say to you is that this is not money that is spent by the government. This is money that is reimbursed to taxpayers. Senator Wong 00AOU It's revenue forgone. Senator CORMANN HDA Revenue forgone—that is a fancy way of calling it a tax hike. If you're going after revenue forgone—this reminds me of a conversation I had with Senator Cameron in a scrutiny of new taxes committee some years ago when he essentially argued that all of the money in the economy is the government's money and through the tax system we decide how much of the money we leave with the people. Our view is that all of the money is the people's money and through the tax system we've only got to take as much as necessary to officially fund the services of government. We believe in smaller government and lower taxes so that businesses across the community can grow, can prosper, can create jobs and can pay higher wages, whereas your starting position is that all of the money in the economy is yours to take and that you decide through the tax system how much you leave with people. Senator Wong interjecting— Senator CORMANN HDA Let me say that the importance of franking credits to the Australian economy is very simple: they represent tax that has already been paid by companies on shareholders' behalf. That is actually what the Labor Party used to believe. For 20 years this was a bipartisan position, and it took Bill Shorten to walk away from it and to put his hands into the pockets of self-funded retirees and pensioners while trying to pretend that this is about going after the rich. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McAllister, a supplementary question. 14:29 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Given the minister described the blowout in the impact of the cash refundability of the imputation credits—which is now upwards of $5 billion—as 'not that much at all', is it any wonder that, under this minister, the deficit has blown out eightfold to $23.6 billion, net debt has doubled to $350 billion and gross debt has reached the highest level in the nation's history, crashing through half a trillion dollars? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left! 14:30 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I'm surprised the Labor Party would go back there, because this is very embarrassing to the shadow finance minister and the shadow assistant minister. The question that I was asked in an interview was whether this was a blowout that cost the economy too much. The point I made was: no, it doesn't cost the economy too much at all because the money stays in the economy. Leaving the money with the people doesn't take it out of the economy; it leaves it with people that are better able to spend the money more efficiently on their own needs than the Labor Party in government would ever be. Clearly the Labor Party doesn't understand the difference between the budget and the economy. If you refund money to people that belongs to the people, does that have an impact on your budget bottom line? Yes, it means that your revenue is lower than it would be if you stole people's money, or if you stole more people's money. But it stays in the economy. I would challenge you to explain to me how that money does not stay in the economy by leaving it with the Australian people. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I will have some silence before I call Senator McAllister for a final supplementary question. 14:31 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The cash refundability of the imputation credits is heading rapidly towards a cost to the budget of $8 billion per year. Can the minister confirm that $8 billion is more than the government will spend on public schools or child care, and that it's three times what it will spend on funding the Australian Federal Police this year? 14:31 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia (—) (): That is a completely illogical argument. Essentially what you're saying is, if the government don't keep raising more taxes, we are imposing a cost to the budget. By that argument, you're saying, if we don't take 100 per cent of people's income out of people's pockets in tax, we are somehow imposing this massive cost on the budget. Well, do you know what? There is a limit to how much money you should take out of people's pockets, and no amount of Bill Shorten trying to pretend that he's going after the undeserving rich will hide the fact that he is putting his hands into the pockets of pensioners and self-funded retirees—the people that Kim Beazley used to stand up for, and the people that Bill Shorten is selling out in his desperate pursuit of more cash to direct into his reckless spending promises. Remember, he took $16 billion in higher deficits to the last election. (Time expired) Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Wong and Senator Bilyk! National Day of Action against Bullying and Violence 24 14:33 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Education and Training, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister update the Senate on the National Day of Action against Bullying and Violence, which was held on 16 March? 14:33 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I thank Senator Hume for her question and her concern about the very serious issue of bullying, and bullying in schools in particular. Of course, schoolyard bullying is as old as schoolyards themselves. But, of course, we see advances in relation to the problems of schoolyard bullying as a result of the advent of the internet and the reality that bullying in schools can now, tragically, follow children home in a whole variety of ways, into their lounge rooms or into their bedrooms, and follow them 24 hours a day. That's why it's so important that last Friday, 16 March we held the eighth national day against bullying and violence. The Turnbull government has consistently supported this and has committed further support to ensure the continuance of this day into the future. We are very pleased that there was record participation last Friday, with almost two million Australian school students—and I acknowledge the many school students who are in the gallery today, from the national constitutional convention, who I know would acknowledge that this is a critically important issue. Nearly two million Australian students took part in the national day across nearly 4,600 schools. These numbers, importantly, were more than double last year's participation level. It demonstrates the effectiveness of our call to action to Australian schools to do more to engage, and to talk more about this important issue. Senator Hume, in your home state—and yours as well, Mr President, through you—more than 315,000 students across 702 schools participated in this day. It's a day in which we acknowledge that there is no single silver bullet, but it allows school communities, encompassing parents and students, principals and teachers, to all come together to address the multifaceted approaches to raise awareness, to make sure that they are aware of the resources available to talk about bullying and to combat bullying, and where, of course, to take concerns and seek help when required. It was very important, and I was delighted to join schools— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Hume, a supplementary question? 14:35 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Will the minister inform the Senate on the support the Turnbull government is providing for students, families and schools to prevent bullying? 14:35 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia This is an ongoing initiative. Last Friday, as I was saying, I was delighted to join with year 6 students at the Sacred Heart school in Mitchell Park in South Australia, where they undertook a range of activities: they took a pledge against bullying, talked about what their superpower could be to stop bullying, and, most importantly there, that was of course a superpower— Senator Farrell I0N Somerton Park! Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X No, the middle school is in Mitchell Park, Senator Farrell. They talked about their superpower to stop bullying, and how it is that we can tell people—tell an adult; tell a teacher; tell a parent; tell your peers in your school community; talk to one another; talk to those who are engaged in the bullying, if you possibly can—to help combat these problems. Of course, this was an issue discussed by chief ministers at the last COAG meeting, and we have committed to education ministers discussing it at the next education council. I've asked each jurisdiction to bring their best practice policies to the table so that they can share their lessons and ensure that every school across the country has the best opportunity to— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Hume, a final supplementary question? 14:36 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Can the minister further advise the Senate as to how the Turnbull government is supporting parental involvement in antibullying initiatives? 14:36 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The work of the eSafety Commissioner established by the coalition government is critical, not just for students or for teachers and schools but also for parents to be able to access appropriate resources. Last Friday, the eSafety Commissioner, along with 13 wellbeing groups, issued a clear call to action: to encourage people to talk about bullying and violence with their children as early as possible; to make sure they seek help, and encourage children to reach out as soon as issues arise; and to ensure that there is a high level of awareness about what to do and how to get help. Of course, it is also underpinned by the Turnbull government's decisions and actions to provide greater support to youth mental health initiatives, such as headspace, to ensure that there is ongoing assistance available to students who need it. All up, this is critically important in terms of awareness: action in schools; action by parents; awareness of children about how to best stop bullying; how to create a culture of inclusion; but also, where bullying does occur, how to reach help as quickly and effectively as possible. Taxation 25 14:37 Senator ANNING 273829 Queensland My question is for the Minister representing the Treasurer, Minister Cormann. First, Minister Cormann, thank you for explaining the fact that the franking credits have already been funded by the very people who are receiving the benefits. But my question, Minister, is: it has long been recognised that policies around franking credits have the potential to negatively impact many vulnerable Australians. Minister, can you please explain the vital importance of franking credits to the Australian economy and retirees? 14:38 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank Senator Anning for that very important question. The importance of franking credits to the Australian economy is very simple. Franking credits represent tax that has already been paid by companies on shareholders' behalf. To deny the use of credits and refunds for excess tax is double taxation. It results in both corporate tax and personal income tax being paid on the same income. The Labor Party used to know this, and I know that yesterday they were all having a bit of a laugh, because it was in 1998, and I haven't been able to find a more credible Labor document in more recent years. But to deny the use of credits and refunds for excess tax is double taxation. The Labor Party, of course, in their policy document back in 1998, said that they would complete the implementation of the imputation system, and that Labor would: 'provide a cash refund for those shareholders who can't make use of their imputation credits because they do not pay income tax. This will be a significant benefit for older Australians, especially self-funded retirees on lower incomes.' Two decades ago, they called that 'reform'. Today they want to rip, by their own admission, $60 billion away from more than one million retirees and pensioners, and now they say that is reform. Two decades ago Labor said that refunds—and I'm quoting them—'will ensure that investors who currently pay little or no tax will not be unfairly disadvantaged'. That's on page 41 of their policy. But that was Labor then. That was when Labor actually cared about the self-funded retirees on lower incomes. Now they are ripping away $60 billion from more than one million pensioners and self-funded retirees, but this is supposedly only affecting the wealthy. In reality, those on higher incomes are unaffected by Labor's $60 billion tax grab, and that is the truth. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Anning on a supplementary question. 14:40 Senator ANNING 273829 Queensland Can the minister please explain how refundable franking credits are a vital source of income for retirees to avoid becoming overly dependent on the welfare system? 14:40 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Yes, that is a very good question by Senator Anning. We've got to remind ourselves who it is we are talking about. We are talking about Australians who have worked hard all their lives, who have saved hard, who have been encouraged by governments of both persuasions to save hard and to invest in superannuation, to invest in Australian shares. If you are on a fixed lower income in your retirement years and you are in a lower personal income tax bracket, the Labor Party is now saying you should not be able to adjust your tax on the basis of the tax that has been prepaid on your behalf by the company that you are a shareholder in. Two decades ago Labor said refunds would benefit 'many thousands of pensioners', but that was Labor then; that was when they cared about pensioners. Now they are ripping away, as I said, $60 billion from more than one million retirees and pensioners. As Senator Anning rightly points out, taking retirees' own money away from them will make retirees more dependent on social welfare. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Anning, a final supplementary question. 14:41 Senator ANNING 273829 Queensland What is the government doing to protect the dividend imputation system and ensure it works for all Australians? Senator Polley e5x It's not working for all Australians now! 14:42 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I will pick up that interjection by Senator Polley. It is actually working for all Australians and it is providing the same opportunity to all Australians. All Australians have the same opportunity to save and to invest in shares. All Australians have the opportunity to work hard, to save hard and to put themselves in a position where they can either look after their own needs in retirement or complement their age pensions. The opportunity is available to all on the same basis. We will protect the system by opposing Labor's measure and by exposing their falsehoods. Labor claims that this will not hurt low-income earners. Well, that is false. Just look at what Labor said back in 1998. The Leader of the Opposition says, 'No-one will lose a cent from their share dividends, not a single cent.' That's false. More than one million people will now pay more tax. If not, where on earth does Labor's estimated $60 billion in revenue come from? The Leader of the Opposition says that— (Time expired) Migration 26 14:43 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia My question this afternoon is to the minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. On Sunday, the minister told the ABC's Insiders program: The humanitarian program's credibility comes from the fact that it is non-discriminatory and that each application is assessed on its merits. As far as I'm aware, there are no plans to change that visa program.' Does Minister Bishop's statement reflect government policy? 14:43 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales As Senator Pratt has indicated, the minister advised that all claims for humanitarian visa entry into Australia are assessed on their merits. The foreign minister was stating government policy. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Pratt on a supplementary question. 14:44 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia The Minister for Home Affairs, Peter Dutton, last week said that white South African farmers deserve special attention, and that they 'need help from a civilised country like ours'. Why is the Minister for Home Affairs articulating a policy completely contradictory to that of the Minister for Foreign Affairs? 14:44 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales The Minister for Home Affairs was not. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Pratt, a final supplementary question. 14:45 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Which is government policy—are they both government policy?—that of the Minister for Home Affairs or that of the Minister for Foreign Affairs? 14:45 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales If the senator had bothered to read the whole transcript of the Minister for Home Affairs or that of the Minister for Foreign Affairs she would know that they were consistent and representative of government policy. Indigenous Affairs 27 14:45 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland My question is to the best Minister for Indigenous Affairs that we have had in generations, Senator Scullion. Can the minister update the Senate on the government's support for the Indigenous business sector, including through the Indigenous Business Sector Strategy? 14:46 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory I thank the senator for that question. The initiatives of this government are supporting all hardworking small businesses across Australia. Whilst those opposite oppose corporate tax cuts, instant asset write-offs and the TPP—and they still can't work out whether they are pro mining or anti mining—it is becoming painfully clear that only a coalition government stands for small business and Indigenous entrepreneurs. We know that Indigenous businesses face barriers to success other than just the Labor Party. Undercapitalisation has flowed from a lot of historical policies. So through our Indigenous Business Sector Strategy, which the Prime Minister recently launched, we have a suite of new initiatives to help overcome historical disadvantage and grow the sector to parity rates. Upon our re-election we launched a $90 million Indigenous Entrepreneurs Fund for Indigenous businesses in remote and regional Australia to apply for capacity-enhancing plant and equipment grants to grow their businesses. More recently, we announced a $27 Indigenous Entrepreneurs Capital Scheme, which will unlock commercial finance for more established and mature Indigenous businesses. We have also refocused Indigenous Business Australia's operations. They are now offering financial products such as a new start-up package and a new procurement loan designed to make payments coincide with an Indigenous Procurement Policy contract. For those at the very start of the journey in remote areas, where accessing a bank is virtually impossible, we are doubling microfinance to help turn CDP activities into microbusinesses. All of these fantastic new initiatives will be brought together in Indigenous Business Hubs, which will effectively be one-stop shops for all of these services. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Sullivan, a supplementary question. 14:48 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland Thank you, Mr President. Can the minister advise how the government support of the Indigenous business sector is leading to corporate Australia increasing their own engagement with Indigenous businesses? 14:48 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory Clearly, our Indigenous Procurement Policy has been a complete game changer, with around 1,000 Indigenous businesses across the country winning Commonwealth contracts worth over $1 million in the first 2½ years of the policy. That compares to just $6.2 million in 2012-13 under the policies we inherited. What is most pleasing is that the Commonwealth leadership in this space has caused corporate Australia to sit up and take note. During Closing the Gap week, the Business Council of Australia stood with the Prime Minister and announced that they are introducing a template Indigenous procurement policy for their members to adopt. I commend them for that. That is a fantastic commitment that builds on the $356 million of business that their members are already procuring from Indigenous businesses. That's what I call making a real difference in the lives of the first nation Australians, and it is this government that is backing them with the right policy. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Sullivan, a final supplementary question. 14:49 Senator O'SULLIVAN 247871 Queensland Thank you, Mr President. Can the minister explain why supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander small businesses leads to better outcomes for Indigenous communities? 14:49 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory Clearly, backing Indigenous small business is positive, not only because it's getting people into small business ownership but also because it's getting more Indigenous job seekers into work. We know that the Indigenous businesses that are winning contracts under the Indigenous Procurement Policy have a workforce that is 41 per cent Indigenous, on average, which is 60 times that of other Australian businesses, which have workforces that are around 0.7 per cent Indigenous. This is reflected in the results. Since the last census there's been a 30 per cent increase in the number of Indigenous businesses compared with the last census and a 23.3 per cent increase in the number of Indigenous Australians in a job. Our policies across the board are working. We're getting record numbers of people into jobs, and we're giving some of the most disadvantaged Australians the dignity of work. (Time expired) Pensions and Benefits 28 14:50 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. I refer to an answer the minister gave in the Senate yesterday when the minister was defending her government's cuts to pensions, and I quote: 'What are you going to come up with next? Negative gearing on the family home?' Can the minister explain the circumstances in which it is possible for a taxpayer to negatively gear their family home? 14:51 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Senator Bilyk, if you were listening you would have heard me say that I was talking about the introduction of death duties, potentially on the family home. Now, you guys over there have obviously discussed it, because you'll dream up absolutely anything— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong on a point of order. Senator Wong 00AOU Yes, a point of order on direct relevance. I can assist the minister. The direct quote is, 'What are you going to come up with next? Negative gearing on the family home? Death duties on the family home?' We have asked the minister about the first part of the quote, not the second. The PRESIDENT I0Q Thank you for your assistance, Senator Wong. I think the minister has been reminded of the question. I consider her as being relevant to the terms of the question asked. Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t Senator Wong, quite frankly, you guys on the other side would come up with anything, given the tax hole that you have now dug yourself and given the six years of fiscal vandalism. My point was this, Senator Wong: you have basically declared war on pensioners and retirees, many of whom will be thousands and thousands of dollars worse off, and you plan, as Senator Cormann said today, to double-tax pensioners and retirees in a bid to bail yourselves out of the budget black hole that you cannot pay for. The latest invention: more than half of all refunded franking credits are paid to individuals who earn less than the $18,200 tax-free threshold, including pensioners and self-funded retirees—97 per cent— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Collins on a point of order. Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 The point of order is again on relevance. The minister is not in the least referring to negative gearing, which is what the question was. And it leads us to wonder: will she correct Hansard if she claims it is not what she said? The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind the minister of the question. Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t It's a bit like The Castle. In the end, you will abolish negative gearing. You are now making an enormous tax grab into the pockets of self-funded retirees who have been working all of their lives, and you are coming along and taxing them. Today it's self-funded retirees. Who will it be tomorrow? That is the point I was making. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Bilyk, a supplementary question. 14:54 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Given the minister's clear comprehension of negative gearing, can she explain how a couple on $130,000 a year— Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my right. Senator Macdonald! Senator Bilyk, can you commence the question again because I lost track of it? Senator BILYK HZB Yes. Given the minister's clear comprehension on negative gearing, can she explain how a couple on $130,000 a year in superannuation income and $15,000 a year in dividend income could be considered low income? I'll add one more part to the question, isn't this the same misleading use of taxable income as the government unsuccessfully used in its attempt to— The PRESIDENT I0Q The time for asking the question has expired. Senator Bilyk, please resume your seat. The time for asking the question has expired. Senator Fierravanti-Wells, respond to the terms of the question for as much as you heard. 14:55 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Thank you, Senator Bilyk. Let me tell you about negative gearing. Let me tell you that if you are returned to government after the next federal election we will see a repetition of the six years of fiscal vandalism. Negative gearing will go, rents will go up, and, as I was saying, what will it be next? What will it be next? Of course, we can always go back to the previous years when Labor were in government. Remember Paul Keating and double-digit inflation? Remember interest rates of 18 per cent on mortgages? Remember your huge government debt? Remember the recession we had to have? All that you ever know—it's the true adage: Margaret Thatcher said it: 'The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money,' and that's what you are doing. You will run out of other people's— (Time expired) Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q It's only Tuesday! Order! Senator Bilyk, a final supplementary question. 14:56 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Maybe if I keep going back in time. Seriously, since question time yesterday has the relevant minister, their staff, departmental staff or someone who understands the government's policy on negative gearing sat the minister down and taken her through it? 14:57 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Thank you, Senator Bilyk, I have continued to receive emails in relation to concerns about the Labor Party if you do get into government. As I was saying, in the end you are now, basically, raiding the savings of self-funded retirees and pensioners. An incident having occurred in the gallery— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order in the galleries! Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t Thank you. Basically, as I was saying, it was six years of fiscal vandalism. Mr Shorten, you're having a go in relation to pensioners, but what you are doing is ripping thousands of dollars out of the pockets of pensioners and self-funded retirees—people who have worked all of their lives and saved their money, and now you are coming along and you are going to rip them off. Shame on you! Pyeongchang Paralympic Games 29 14:58 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania My question is to the champion Minister for Sport, Senator McKenzie. With the Winter Paralympics in Pyeongchang— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Marshall, on a point of order? Senator Marshall 00AOP Yes. I draw your attention to standing order 73(1)(f): questions should not contain ironical expressions. The PRESIDENT I0Q I will let the minister respond. As a former Deputy President, Senator Marshall, you know better than to raise points of order like that, especially given it's only Tuesday. Senator DUNIAM 263418 I can assure Senator Marshall that there was no irony in that at all. The Winter Paralympics in Pyeongchang came to a close on the weekend. Can the minister update the Senate on Australia's achievements at the games? 14:59 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Thank you, Senator Duniam, for your question and for the non-ironical adjectives associated with it. The 15 amazing athletes that have represented our great nation in South Korea over the past few weeks have all done us exceptionally proud. They've all shown resilience, courage and heart, not only to make it to Pyeongchang but to participate in what for us as a nation has been a highly successful Winter Paralympics campaign. Sport has the unique ability to unite people in communities and encourages everybody to reach their potential. Our elite athletes such as our Paralympians inspire Australians to have a go and participate in sports at all levels, and I thank them for their contribution to our sporting communities. I would like to congratulate the whole team—led by our chef de mission, Nick Dean—and their coaches and families, for an outstanding performance over the last few weeks. A special mention goes to our medal winners. Simon Patmore from Nundah in Queensland won Australia's first gold medal in 16 years for the para snowboard cross, and I tell you: we're not bad at surfing in this country and we're not bad at para snowboard cross, or, indeed, anything that looks like surfing on ice. This is a significant achievement both in itself and because he's the first male in Australian sporting history to have won a medal at both the summer and winter Olympic Games. Simon claimed bronze in a 200-metre track event at the London 2012 Summer Paralympic Games. So congratulations, Simon, for an outstanding performance in Pyeongchang. Melissa Perrine with her sighted guide, Christian Geiger, competed in her third Winter Olympics campaign and won two bronze medals, one in the super combined and one in the giant slalom para alpine skiing event. Melissa narrowly missed out on taking home a third bronze, coming fourth in another event. So congratulations to her for her very strong performance across all those events. We can all acknowledge the importance of the— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator McKenzie! The time for the answer has expired. Senator McKENZIE 207825 Oh! The PRESIDENT I0Q You will get another opportunity. Senator Duniam, a supplementary question. 15:01 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I thank the minister for that answer and I just wonder if the minister would be able to outline what support the government provides to Paralympic sport in Australia. 15:01 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria They are incredibly inspiring athletes. Our elite athletes inspire and motivate all of us who watch them compete on the international stage. They inspire us not just with their talent but also with their effort, discipline and drive. They motivate us to do our best, whether we're playing A grade or D grade. They motivate us to be more physically active and to improve our own mental and physical health. They also bring us together as a community to cheer and support those representing our nation in the variety of events. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Farrell on a point of order? Senator Farrell I0N If I can take a point of order against a question asked by the government of one of their own, the minister was asked about funding for Paralympic sports. I know she hasn't yet released the National Sport Plan, but she could at least explain and seek to answer the question she was asked by her own backbencher. The PRESIDENT I0Q Thank you, Senator Farrell. There's a reason it's unusual for that to be done. It is unusual to do that, Senator Farrell. I will call the minister to continue the answer. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I'm very happy to take that point of order, Senator Farrell, because my next 30 seconds are devoted to telling you what the coalition government has done. Through the Australian Sports Commission, we've provided $15 million to the Australian Paralympic Committee to support the Pyeongchang efforts, $1 million to Ski & Snowboard Australia, and direct grants to our Paralympians to assist them with the cost of becoming an elite athlete. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Duniam, a final supplementary question. 15:03 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Can the minister update the Senate on the government's priorities for participation and inclusivity in sport? 15:03 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria The Australian Sports Commission recognises and funds eight national sporting organisations for people with a disability. This funding ensures that athletes with a disability have access to high-quality infrastructure, support and opportunities. We also provide a total of over $1.2 million through the ASC to these organisations for participation, aiming to create an inclusive environment and get more Australians with a disability participating in sport more often. Finally, our government is focused on delivering a sports plan developed around key pillars of participation, preventive health through physical activity, integrity and high performance. Grassroots participation in sport and physical activity is a particular priority of the government, given the role it plays in supporting the health and wellbeing of Australians. I'm committed as sports minister to getting more Australians moving more often. This will be outlined in our Sport Plan, which will be presented later. Senator Cormann HDA I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT 30 QUESTIONS TO THE PRESIDENT Parliament House: Cleaning Services 30 15:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Mr President, as I indicated both to my counterpart and to your office, I have a question to ask of you. My question relates to the contract for cleaning services at Parliament House. Has the contract for cleaning services at Parliament House been awarded and, if so, can the President advise the Senate of the name of the company and whether the cleaners at Parliament House will be paid 'clean-start' wages or be forced onto the lower award rate? 15:05 The PRESIDENT I0Q I thank you for the courtesy of notifying my office you'd be asking a question and leaving it until the end of question time to do so. I understand previous evidence to estimates committees has reflected that the timing of the tender was likely to be concluded in April and that the award would be the baseline in the tendering process. I will seek advice on the specific nature of your question as to whether it has been concluded and I'll come back to the chamber with that. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 30 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Education 30 15:05 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) and the Minister for Education and Training (Senator Birmingham) to questions without notice asked by Senators Collins and O'Neill today relating to school funding. I farewell those students from Sacred Heart College in South Australia. It's a very fine school, a terrific school. About Easter time 100 years ago my grandfather was at the Western Front, fighting in World War I. He'd been born in Jamestown in the mid-north of South Australia, not far from where the Musk batteries are now. His father was Irish and his mother was Australian, but her mother was also Irish. His mother had died when he was one year old, and he ended up being brought up by his grandmother, Ellen Silverthorne. Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 I hope this is going somewhere. Senator FARRELL I0N Yes, it's coming to the point, Senator Macdonald. Senator Payne M56 Today? Senator FARRELL I0N Yes, today. While he was fighting in World War I in Ypres 100 years ago—in fact, not that far from where Senator Cormann came from—his grandmother used to write to him. Being of Irish extraction, she was very critical of the fact that he had decided to sign up and fight for England, but he persisted. He was injured at one stage and gassed at one stage, but fortuitously he returned to South Australia after 3½ years at the front and then married my grandmother. Coming back from that war, he was looking for employment. He was an accountant before he left, but unfortunately it was a very difficult time for Irish people and particularly Irish Catholics in South Australia, and they were discriminated against. On the doors of employers where jobs were available there were signs saying, 'Catholics need not apply.' I thought we'd seen the end of discrimination, bigotry and sectarianism in South Australia, but I've been very surprised by the comments of Senator Birmingham in the last couple of days referring to statements by the Catholic Education Commission of Victoria in support of the Labor Party as being 'bought by a few pieces of silver'. I think he means 30 pieces of silver, but he said 'a few pieces of silver'. I don't believe Senator Birmingham is a bigot or sectarian or seeks to discriminate against Catholics, but it's very easy to interpret his comments in that way, and I think most Catholics would see those comments of Senator Birmingham in that light. There is an opportunity, I think, for Senator Birmingham to correct the record. There's an opportunity for him to now say, 'Yes, I realise these sorts of comments are inappropriate.' They're not the way in which a federal minister in this government should be referring to members of the Victorian Catholic education office. There's now an opportunity for Senator Birmingham to withdraw those comments. I'd strongly urge Senator Birmingham to take the opportunity now to come into this place, come into this chamber and say 'Yes, my comments were inappropriate.' A week and a half out from Easter, this is not the way he should be making references to members of the Victorian Catholic education office. I'd very strongly urge Senator Birmingham to take the opportunity now, before this issue starts to steamroll and get worse and we find ourselves in a situation where we're back to the bad old days in terms of sectarianism in this country and this state, to withdraw. (Time expired) 15:11 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Pot, kettle, black. We've got the Labor Party standing up here today, accusing Minister Birmingham of starting some sort of sectarian battle, when they're the ones who have, quite frankly, made a funding offer to a particular sector of the education system that doesn't apply to any other part of the education system, and in a way that fundamentally misrepresents what this government is trying to do in education. It's one of the myths that we constantly hear—it's important to say this for all those people listening out there and all those people up in the gallery. There are no cuts to school funding from this government. The Quality Schools package in fact delivers an extra $25.3 billion on top of the 2016-17 budget in recurrent school funding over the next 10 years. That's 10 years out to 2027—a very solid and serious commitment to the funding of all students in every education sector of Australia over the next decade. That is both significant and very important. Funding for Catholic schools, in fact, is estimated to grow from $6.3 billion in 2017 to $6.6 billion in 2018, to $7.6 billion in 2021 and to $9.9 billion in 2027. The Catholic schools system will receive a total of $28.4 billion in Commonwealth recurrent funding over the four years from 2018 to 2021. What we are doing here is providing significant and accounted-for funding for all parts of the education sector, including the Catholic education sector, over the next 10 years. This is an average per-student increase in the Catholic sector of 3.7 per cent over the next decade, clearly higher than inflation. Funding is provided directly to the Catholic system and not to individual schools. It is the Catholic systems that redistribute this growing level of funding to their schools according to their own needs based model. The move to a six-year transition for schools or systems below the targeted Commonwealth shares of the funding standard provides additional funding compared to the 10-year transition that was originally proposed. We also have the National School Resourcing Board undertaking a review of socioeconomic status, score methodology and current capacity to contribute arrangements for non-government schools and systems. This will look at the funding in this area and ensure that it is adequate. The board has already met with representatives from the Catholic schools sector, including principals from Victoria. The government will provide additional funding to support transition to the new funding arrangements for ACT Catholic schools. This is a government and a minister committed to providing significant and budgeted funding for schools over the long term, so schools and school sectors, such as the independent sector and the Catholic sector, can plan for the future and can plan with certainty. What's most important for the schools sector is to know what's coming, when it's coming, to be able to plan for increases in students and to be able to plan for the educational needs of those students over time. So what we need are numbers that can be believed—not fantasy numbers, which is usually what we get from the other side. Here we have $25.3 billion in recurrent funding over 10 years. That brings the total Commonwealth recurrent funding to almost $250 billion out to 2027. This is real needs based funding. The real needs based funding is provided and grows from $17½ billion this year to $31 billion in 2027. This is dealing with the education system in a fair way. It's giving students what they need, it's giving the various parts of the education system certainty going forward and it is fair across all parts of the education system. 15:15 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria What Catholic parents understand is that the changes that Minister Birmingham made are not fair. I suggest to Senator Brockman that he have a discussion with former Senator Back, who at least partially understood how these changes disadvantage Catholic schools from his history with the Western Australian Catholic Education Commission board. Unfortunately, unlike former Senator Back, this minister is able to delude his colleagues, as in the talking points we just heard from Senator Brockman—and that is what they are. They are the minister's spin. The minister spun again in question time today. He misled the Senate and he is misrepresenting David Gonski. He's misrepresenting David Gonski because this minister and this government have single-handedly dismantled the Gonski principles. This minister's principles are not the Gonski principles, and anyone who believes otherwise has been fooled. This minister set up his own creation and what he subsequently told us was, 'Oh, gosh, I upset the Catholics and I don't know why. In retrospect, had I known, I may not have done some of this.' Today, you've got this minister claiming that the School Resourcing Board is doing work that Labor is ignoring. That is simply not true. What Labor said in its letter referred to by Senator Brockman, as we have consistently said since this fabrication of Gonski 2, was that Labor would return the $17 billion to government and non-government schools that this minister has ripped out. We said we would return it and we quantified what that meant for Catholic schools over the next two years. There's no shock in that, and Catholic parents are alive to it because they're the ones who are facing the fee increase as a consequence of what this government has done. Senator Cormann and the Prime Minister can keep their heads in the sand if they want. But, if they don't get a sense of the con that this minister is running here and if they continue to defend him, then these problems will occur again and again. You will get, like in the story in today's Australian, Catholic school parents who will clearly say, 'Our priorities are our children's education. I might have voted green in the past, but once I understood'—no politicking here; sheer facts—'what changes this government was making and how it impacted on my school, I was prepared to vote for Labor in Batman.' This is not politicking, as Minister Birmingham might pretend; this is responding to facts. This is advocacy and this is fair game because of the unfair changes that this government has made. Whilst we talk about politicking, boy, has this been the biggest example of projection that I have ever seen. This minister projects by accusing others of politicking, while he reverts, probably through a brain snap that he should apologise for, to cheap sectarianism. He didn't deny it today. All he has said is that he won't apologise, when he should. In my time here I have not come across this type of cheap sectarianism before. I've been accused of many things myself, but I have not seen a senior political representative refer to another party as Judas Iscariot, and it's outrageous. He should apologise. He should be counselled by the Prime Minister. Senator Cormann should not be defending him, and it should be noted for what it was—that is, Simon Birmingham is starting to run out of spin. The facts are coming forward. The parents are facing the increases in school fees. As Paul Bongiorno highlighted in a piece today— Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 Paul Bongiorno—a member of the Labor Party! Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Yes, Paul Bongiorno—Catholic education faces a cut of 12 per cent under Gonski 2, whereas independent schools face only two. Justify that difference. (Time expired) 15:20 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland You know the Labor Party's in trouble when they start quoting Paul Bongiorno—lovely fellow he is, but clearly a card-carrying member of the Labor Party, and he has been for some time. As I said, a nice fellow, and good luck to him for his wrong political opinions, but don't quote him as an authority. Senator Collins has brought a sectarian element into this debate, which I find unfortunate. I'd just say to Senator Collins that she should listen to what the Catholic Church said about her and some of her colleagues in the same-sex marriage debate, when many from the Catholic Church felt left by some members of the Labor Party. I really don't think we should get involved in that, but I want to get back to the principal opposition speaker, Senator Farrell. I'm authorised to say, Senator Farrell, that I found your history of your Irish ancestors and the First World War very interesting—almost as interesting, I might say, as Senator Simon Birmingham's Irish grandfather, who lost a leg at Polygon Wood, a major battle in World War I. Simon's grandfather, Patrick O'Loghlen, would probably have shared the battlefields with Senator Farrell's forebears, and I hope they got on well there together. I'm pleased to enter into this debate, because it allows me to pass on publicly to Senator Birmingham and Mr Turnbull the thanks of a school that I was at just last Friday, up in Charters Towers in Queensland. I pay my respects to Columba College, the amalgamation of the old Mount Carmel College and St Mary's College at Charters Towers. They joined together a few years ago to form Columba College and are the recipients of a $4 million grant from the Turnbull government to do some wonderful extensions to their science blocks, to their school rooms, joining some work that the parents of that school did in improving the school playing fields, the quadrangle and the central meeting area. It was a wonderful experience I had on Friday, and I have many of them in North Queensland, more often than not at Catholic schools. And I mention—not that it matters—that I'm not a Catholic myself. But I love going to Catholic schools. They do wonderful work, and all credit to Columba College Principal Mr Daniel McShea. Congratulations, Sir, on the wonderful work that you and the P&C and all of your staff do there, and congratulations to the wonderful young people at that school. I promised the Bishop of North Queensland and the principal that I would accede to their request of personally thanking Mr Turnbull and Senator Birmingham for the support that they have given to that school and to most other Catholic schools. I well know Catholic education in Townsville—and I pay respects to Cathy Day, who's just about to retire, unfortunately—and understand how pleased the Catholic Church, particularly in the dioceses of North Queensland and Far North Queensland, are with the school funding they receive from the current federal government. Mr Acting Deputy President, I don't have much time left, but, finally, I just want to again correct Senator Collins. She seemed to be playing that basest form of politics, in trying to bring religion and sectarianism into debates in this chamber. But she also got Professor Gonski completely wrong. I remind Senator Collins that actually Professor Gonski stood with the Prime Minister and Senator Birmingham when the new, wonderful package increasing funding to all school children was announced. If Professor Gonski was there, supporting the Prime Minister and Senator Birmingham, you can see how totally false are the claims made by Senator Collins in her very, very poor contribution to this debate in the Senate. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Macdonald. I know that you're focused on your contribution, but I am not 'Mr Acting Deputy President'. Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 I'm sorry. 15:26 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The others really have their heads buried in the sand on this issue. It's quite remarkable—when we've gone through a by-election in Batman, where this was a significant issue, particularly in the last week of the campaign, and where Labor put on record its commitment to supporting Catholic education—and quite interesting that those opposite really dismiss it. They can say, 'Well, that contest in Batman was just Labor versus the Greens; it wasn't really consequential for the Liberals and Nationals.' But what they need to know is: what happened in Batman is going to happen and be replicated right across Australia by the time the next election comes around. I know what families will believe when it comes to school funding, and that's not the spin from those opposite. They'll believe the information coming out from the sector that their children go to school at, and that is going to be rammed home to them. And that's what we saw in Batman. So it's very disappointing—and we've sort of got used to it from Minister Birmingham; we know that he comes in here and delivers his lines—that there's not more fight on the backbench. We see that fight from Tony Abbott, the former Prime Minister. He's prepared to bell the cat and say what is actually happening out there in the community. But those backbenchers on the Senate side at the moment—particularly since former Senator Back has left—have really quietened down. But the issue isn't going away. Those families and parents out there who are concerned and making choices about where their kids go to school want to know that they are being adequately funded. It's outrageous for the minister to attack the legitimate concerns of a sector, the Victorian Catholic schools sector, with the comments that he made. But it's probably not surprising that he would do it, given that the standards of this government are slipping. We saw it over recent weeks, with Minister Dutton and his basic dog whistling when it came to South African farmers. We saw it during the Senate estimates process, with Senator Cash and her comments about the staffers in Bill Shorten's office. Neither one of them apologised. Neither one of them have said that they did the wrong thing. They really backed those comments in. And we've seen the same from Senator Birmingham in the last 48 hours as well. You would really hope that there would be a higher standard from a federal cabinet minister, and you would also hope that there would be a higher standard from the government that would pull these people into line. But we see none of that from those opposite. Let's go to the division that we've seen on this issue. Former Prime Minister Abbott said on radio yesterday that this is 'going to make low-fee schools in middle-class suburbs almost impossible to run'. He went on to say that Catholic schools would 'suffer a big loss in funding'. That was coming from a member of their government—indeed, the former Prime Minister—completely contradicting what we hear from ministers and what we've seen from the contribution of other members in this debate so far today. So, for Senator Macdonald to come in here and talk about some funding for a new building—that's one thing. But this is actually going to the ongoing funding of those schools. As someone who spends a lot of time in Queensland, and regional Queensland in particular, I know the concern that these schools are going to have. Already the opportunities for kids in regional Queensland and other parts of regional Australia aren't as great as they are for those from capital cities. Any further funding divide is only going to accentuate those problems, so there are going to be fewer opportunities for those kids from lower socioeconomic areas, from remote areas, to get the start in life that they need through primary school and through high school. This is what former Prime Minister Abbott is actually laying on the table. Those opposite who repeat the lines from Senator Birmingham and stick to the script are going to pay a price for this when it comes to the election, because parents understand this issue. From what I can pick up when I'm picking my kids up from school, parents absolutely know every issue going on in their school, as you'd expect them to. They understand this issue, and when it comes closer to the federal election they will increasingly look to who they are going to take their advice from about who is going to be better for their schools when it comes to ongoing funding. The final comment that I want to make is a quote from former Prime Minister Abbott: … if the government was smart we would have a look at our existing policy. So the former Prime Minister Abbott is putting it out there that the government needs to relook at its policy. But what we've seen is a stonewalling from those opposite today, not a willingness to engage about legitimate concerns raised by the Victorian Catholic education sector that are only going to spread as we get closer to a federal election. So I urge them to relook at this issue, because it is such an important one for Australian families. Question agreed to. Australian Bushfires 34 15:31 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Di Natale today relating to climate change. Over the last few days, we've all watched in horror as bushfires have ravaged Tathra and south-west Victoria. In Tathra many people remain shut off from their home town for their own safety. Fires are still burning in Victoria's south-west, and we are all hoping that the wild winds die down and that these fires are brought under control. My heart goes out to the people who are experiencing such great loss at this moment. The Australian Greens stand with them. We send out our thoughts and sympathies. We are all committed to working together to help them rebuild. We are all grateful for the efforts of emergency services who have worked tirelessly to get these fires under control. The great irony, of course, is that, in the midst of such adversity and such tragedy, we see people coming together. These tragedies bring out the best in people. I live in rural Australia—in fact, not far from where the Victorian bushfires have been burning. My home's in a high-fire-danger area, the property's been burnt out before, and all around us throughout the landscape we see evidence of past fires. Every time I leave my home to come to this place, I leave behind my wife and my two young boys, and I know that our property, through the bushfire season, could be swept away at any time. In fact, that's the very experience of some of my neighbours who, during the Ash Wednesday fires, lost their homes and, tragically, lost family and friends. So many Australians live with this fear, and occasionally, devastatingly, our fears are realised. Scientists are telling us that, as our climate changes, we're going to see more frequent and more severe bushfires over a much longer season. In fact, the UN Office for Disaster Risk Reduction just today highlighted the impact of the longer bushfire season. We know that our rural and regional communities are now living with an increased risk to their families, their homes, their communities, and their livelihoods. The Prime Minister and, indeed, the Labor Party say we shouldn't be talking about climate change right now. But I say to them: if not now then when? I say that because I do care very deeply about my neighbours, my communities and the communities just like them right across rural Australia who have lost so much in recent days. We have a responsibility to them and the millions like them. To ignore the reality that there is an increased risk of bushfires as a result of unmitigated climate change is the insensitivity here. That is the indecency. I've been speaking with many people who have been affected by this and other fires. They say to me, 'We know, because we live it every day, that there's a link between our changing climate and the risk of wildfire. We want you to call it out. We need you to call it out. We need our governments to take action.' They don't need the Bureau of Meteorology to confirm to them that 2017 was far hotter than average and that rainfall was below average in eastern Australia. They don't need the bureau to tell them that, because they live it. They live it every day. What they do need is a government that looks out for their interests. They need a government that has the courage to have a conversation about how we tackle global warming, because we need to reduce the risk and severity of these fires. As a doctor I know you can't just treat the symptoms of an illness; you need to address the underlying causes if you want the patient to get better. We need our government to recognise this, too—to recognise that to treat the cause of these frequent and severe fires, storms, floods and droughts is important. It's critical. We can't just treat the symptoms. Instead of kicking the can down the road, making the future more dangerous for our children and grandchildren, we need to be taking action now. We need to shift away from the polluting coal that fuels global warming and shift to renewable energy. That's how we look after Australians—by making sure that we prevent climate change and ensuring that these communities remain livable. Question agreed to. NOTICES 35 NOTICES Presentation 35 COMMITTEES 41 COMMITTEES Community Affairs References Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 41 Reporting Date 41 15:37 The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, we will move on. BUSINESS 41 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 41 15:37 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator O'Neill tomorrow, 21 March 2018, on account of parliamentary business. Question agreed to. Rearrangement 41 15:37 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That consideration of the business before the Senate on the following days be interrupted at approximately 5 pm, but not so as to interrupt a senator speaking, to enable senators to make their first speeches without any question before the chair, as follows: (a) Wednesday, 21 March 2018—Senator Martin; and (b) Tuesday, 27 March 2018—Senator Keneally. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 41 MOTIONS Future Bayswater 41 15:38 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania At the request of Senator Smith, I move: That the Senate— (a) congratulates Future Bayswater for their success at the recent 2017 Planning Institute Australia (PIA) Western Australian Awards for Planning Excellence in winning the following awards: PIA 2017 WA Winner of Community Engagement Project, PIA 2017 WA State Planning Champion, and PIA 2017 Commendation, President's Award; (b) notes that the Awards recognise and acknowledges quality, innovation and excellence in planning; and (c) particularly acknowledges Mr Paul Shanahan, Chairman and founder of Future Bayswater, who was named the PIA 2017 State Planning Champion, which recognises non-planners for their advocacy and for making a significant contribution and lasting presence to the urban and regional environment. Question agreed to. Home Care Packages 42 15:38 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of Senator Polley, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the latest waiting list for aged care home packages for the December quarter indicates there are around 105 000 vulnerable older Australians waiting for the home care package for which they have been approved, (ii) the waiting list includes 82 000 older Australians waiting with high needs—many are living with dementia, and (iii) the waiting list has grown by almost 15 000 since the home care package reforms were introduced by the Government just a year ago; (b) calls on the Minister for Aged Care to explain why he described the current waiting list as being on a "positive trajectory"; and (c) condemns the Turnbull Government for failing to care for older Australians and providing no solutions to deal with the growing home care package waiting list crisis. 15:39 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The coalition government is committed to quality care for senior Australians, with a record $18.6 billion of aged-care investment in 2017-18, part of nearly $100 billion committed over five years. In February 2017, we transitioned to a new home-care system which gives consumers more choice and control over their care. This new system for the first time allows us to better understand the extent of demand for home care packages and uncovers the extent of the problem left by the former Labor government. In September 2017, we announced the release of 6,000 additional level 3 and 4 home care packages over 2017-18, more than doubling the planned growth of high-level packages this year. We are now releasing around 3,000 home care packages on a weekly basis. This is a record delivery of home care packages and supports the minister's statement of a positive trajectory. Question agreed to. CONDOLENCES 42 CONDOLENCES Tsvangirai, Dr Morgan 42 15:40 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 739 standing in the name of Senator Moore for today, relating to Dr Morgan Tsvangirai. Leave granted. Senator URQUHART 231199 I amend the motion by omitting, wherever occurring, the word 'Mr' and substituting 'Dr'. At the request of Senator Moore, I move: That the Senate notes— (a) the recent death of Dr Morgan Tsvangirai, long-term leader of the fight for a democratic and free Zimbabwe; (b) that Dr Tsvangirai, a mine worker and strong trade unionist for over 30 years, visited Australia in 2001 and 2013, and provided real inspiration for many Australians who shared the hope for a free Zimbabwe, and open democratic government; (c) that Dr Tsvangirai was the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change opposition, which contested elections against the Robert Mugabe ZANU PF, culminating in a victory in March 2008, and for a term as Prime Minister; (d) that, despite imprisonment, torture and years of violence surrounding elections and challenges to government processes in Zimbabwe, Dr Tsvangirai provided leadership and resilient opposition and his spirit will continue to inspire his party, and the people of his homeland and around the world; and (e) that, while Dr Tsvangirai will not see the transition to a new democratic era in Zimbabwe, the commitment of President Emmerson Mnangagwa "to very peaceful, transparent and harmonised elections in July this year" and the statement by United Nations Development Programme administrator Mr Achim Steiner, noting elections are "first and foremost for Zimbabweans" and welcoming "President Mnangagwa's election pledge for a credible and peaceful election" are important milestones for a successful transition to a more democratic Zimbabwe. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 43 MOTIONS Trade Unions 43 15:40 Senator RHIANNON CPR New South Wales I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that decisions to amalgamate trade unions should rest with the members of the respective organisations as expressed in a ballot; and (b) calls on the Government to respect democracy in trade unions and the role they play in protecting their members' interests. 15:40 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 While the government does not support this motion, it does agree that members should have a say in any decision to merge a registered organisation. That is why the government went to the last election with the commitment to introduce a public interest test. Currently, the Fair Work Commission has very limited ability to do anything other than effectively rubber-stamp a merger approved by just a bare majority of members. It's hard to see how a bare majority was even reached in the current merger of interests between the CFMEU, the Maritime Union and the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union. Less than six per cent of members of the three unions voted in favour of the merger, and CFMEU members were denied the ability to even vote. It is only right that a public interest test applies and that interested parties have their views considered before the Fair Work Commission. Question agreed to. Goods and Services Tax 43 15:42 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) in contrast to New Zealand's comprehensive GST, Australia's GST does not apply to a significant range of products, such as various healthcare products and essential services, including water, (ii) healthcare products that are listed as GST-free in the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 (the GST Act), an Act of the Commonwealth Government, include medical devices and aids, such as incontinence pads, (iii) the Minister for Health is empowered under section 38 of the GST Act to unilaterally declare additional goods to be GST-free—previous Commonwealth Health Ministers have used this power to make various goods GST-free, including condoms, lubricants, folic acid, sunscreen and nicotine patches and gums, (iv) GST on tampons and sanitary pads is estimated to contribute around $30 million to the $63 billion in annual GST revenues, (v) tampons and sanitary pads are essential healthcare products, and (vi) it is therefore inequitable for incontinence pads, condoms, lubricants, folic acid, sunscreen, and nicotine patches and gums to be GST-free on health grounds, and for water to be GST-free on the grounds of water being essential, but for tampons and sanitary pads to be subject to GST; and (b) calls on the Federal Government to remove the GST on tampons and sanitary pads. 15:42 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 Under the Intergovernmental Agreement on Federal Financial Relations and under Commonwealth legislation, a change to the rate or base of the GST would need to be supported by all the states and territories, in addition to the passage of relevant legislation by both houses of the Commonwealth parliament. This process applies to section 38-47 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999, 'Other GST-free health goods'. 15:43 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Labor supports removing the GST from sanitary products. But, given the need for state and territory support, we want to work with them to ensure they're not worse off through a loss in GST revenue. The fact is that the Liberals have little interest in making this reality. There's been a lot of talk but no leadership or action. The Howard government imposed the GST on sanitary products when the tax was first introduced. In 2015, then Treasurer Joe Hockey sought to blame the Australian Democrats for the impost, saying they had not excluded the products from the GST during negotiations on the tax. In 2015, Hockey said that GST should be removed from sanitary products and undertook to raise the issue with state treasurers. However, then Prime Minister Tony Abbott ruled out a change within days. In 2015, four Labor states and the then Liberal-National Northern Territory government supported removing the tampon tax. Federal Labor will continue to work with the states and territories and will have more to say in the future. 15:44 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator HINCH 2O4 It's a disgrace that we're even discussing this. It's demeaning to women. It should not be happening. It should not have been brought in under the Abbott government. It's a thing that we should have just knocked over in two seconds flat. It is a disgrace that women are being put through this in this country, and that we're even discussing it in 2018 is Noddy Land. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 44 DOCUMENTS Federal Circuit Court and Family Court of Australia 44 Order for the Production of Documents 44 15:45 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia I, and also on behalf of senators Pratt, Hanson and Hinch, move: That the Senate— (a) notes: (i) the failure of the Government to adequately fund the Federal Circuit Court of Australia and the Family Court of Australia, (ii) that the Government's neglect of the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit Court of Australia means that families facing the most serious family law issues can wait up to three years before a final trial, (iii) that the continued failure by the Government to adequately resource the family law system has served to create a snowballing effect, the social and economic cost of which will continue to be felt by the community for years to come, (iv) that the Government has failed to consult with the courts and the legal profession to formulate a clear plan for the future, (v) that, in March 2014, a report by KPMG, commissioned by the Attorney-General's Department, into the funding of federal courts was presented to the Government but has still not been released, (vi) that the KPMG report, obtained by The Australian in 2014, warned of significant cuts to service and staffing levels potentially leading to increased delays in litigation, the closure of smaller registries and cutbacks to services in regional Australia, (vii) that the warnings in the KPMG report appear to have gone unheeded by the Government, (viii) that, in 2014-15, as part of the response to the KPMG report, the Attorney-General's Department undertook additional work with Ernst & Young to develop costings scenarios involving federal courts, and (ix) that KPMG's comprehensive report confirming the financial crisis facing federal courts and proposing a range of possible solutions, along with the Ernst & Young costings in response to the KPMG report, should be released prior to the Senate voting on the Family Law Amendment (Parenting Management Hearings) Bill 2017; and (b) orders that there be laid on the table, by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by 9am on 22 March 2018: (i) the KPMG report into the funding of federal courts, and (ii) the Ernst & Young costings in response to the KPMG report. Notice of motion altered on 19 March 2018 pursuant to standing order 77. 15:45 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The government is absolutely committed to ensuring the Federal Courts operate as efficiently as possible and facilitate greater access to justice for Australian families. Thanks to steps taken by this government in the 2015-16 and 2017-18 budgets, the courts have a clear path to financial sustainability. Measures include: a $22.5 million funding injection; $13 million efficiency dividend relief; streamlining courts administration, with all savings reinvested in the courts; $10.7 million for additional family consultants; $12.7 million to establish parent management hearings; and $40 million to transform and digitise court processes. Each of these measures will enhance the courts' capacity to provide services, particularly in family law. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 733 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:50]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

39 AYES Anning, F Bartlett, AJJ Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Burston, B Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Gallacher, AM Georgiou, P Griff, S Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Keneally, KK Kitching, K Leyonhjelm, DE Lines, S Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Steele-John, J Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 27 NOES Abetz, E Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Gichuhi, LM Hume, J Macdonald, ID McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, D Williams, JR 2 PAIRS Cormann, M Wong, P Sinodinos, A Gallagher, KR

Senator Ketter did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Brandis.
Question agreed to.

15:52 The PRESIDENT I0Q I advise senators there are likely to be a couple or more divisions. I will only be ringing the bells for one minute. We will move to motion No. 737 standing in the name of Senator Macdonald. MOTIONS 46 MOTIONS Queensland Teachers' Union 46 15:53 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that the Queensland Teachers' Union (QTU) has committed to ensuring there are Eureka Flags in every school in Queensland in solidarity with the CFMEU; (b) expresses its disgust at the politicisation of education in Queensland by having the QTU attempt to influence students politically; (c) further notes that it is, and reiterates support for, the long observed bi-partisan position that Australian school children should be given the freedom to develop and evolve in an environment that is free from the intrusion of any particular political bias; (d) calls upon the QTU to desist from this unacceptable attempt to politicise classrooms; and (e) commends the LNP for committing to keeping schools a place for learning rather than politics. 15:53 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. 15:53 The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 It's a sticker. It's not a flag; it's a sticker. It's a sticker of the Eureka flag. It's the size of a business card or the size of a bumper sticker, and teachers have been displaying union information in classrooms for years. They've been doing it appropriately, and they will continue to do it appropriately. If only Senator Macdonald showed as much care about the cuts in funding to Queensland schools as he does to this, the Queensland kids would be so much better off. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 737 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:55]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

34 AYES Abetz, E Anning, F Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, D Williams, JR 32 NOES Bartlett, AJJ Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Keneally, KK Kitching, K Lines, S Marshall, GM McAllister, J 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) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 2 PAIRS Cormann, M Wong, P Sinodinos, A Gallagher, K

Senator Ketter did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Brandis.
Question agreed to.

World Oral Health Day 47 15:57 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that 20 March is World Oral Health Day, a day to promote good oral hygiene practices to adults and children around the world, and acknowledge the importance of good oral health in maintaining general health and well-being; (b) acknowledges the publication today, Australia's Children and Young People Oral Health Tracker, placing Australia as the first country in the world to have established clear and measurable oral health targets; (c) expresses concern that: (i) close to a third of children (5 to 10 years old) have untreated tooth decay, and almost half of Australian children had not visited a dentist before their fifth birthday, (ii) almost half of adults have not had a check-up in the last 12 months; 90 per cent of adults have suffered from tooth decay, and approximately 1 in 5 Australians have gum disease, and (iii) three in four Australian children and nearly 50 per cent of adults are consuming too much sugar; (d) recognises that cost is a major barrier to access to dental care across the community, and that the lower a person's income, the more likely they are to have chronic oral health problems; (e) further notes that oral diseases can impact every aspect of life, from personal relationships and self-confidence to school, work, housing and even enjoying food, as well as having very serious health consequences, like leading to low birth weight and premature babies and increased risk of heart disease; and (f) calls on the Government to invest in, and promote the availability of, Medicare-funded dental care to ensure every Australian has access to the oral health care they need. 15:57 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McGRATH 217241 The government does not support this motion as the funding and provision of public dental services is primarily the responsibility of state and territory governments. We are committed to the Child Dental Benefits Schedule, which will enable around three million Australian children to access $1,000 worth of treatments each every two years. This is in addition to our $242.5 million national partnership agreement to support the states and territories to deliver additional $400,000 in adult public dental services until June 2019. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 740 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:59]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

37 AYES Bartlett, AJJ Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Burston, B Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Gallacher, AM Georgiou, P Griff, S Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Keneally, KK Kitching, K Lines, S Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Rhiannon, L Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Steele-John, J Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 29 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Bushby, DC (teller) Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Gichuhi, LM Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ O'Sullivan, B Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Smith, D Williams, JR 2 PAIRS Gallagher, KR Sinodinos, A Wong, P Cormann,

Senator Ketter did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Brandis.
Question agreed to.

MATTERS OF URGENCY 48 MATTERS OF URGENCY Building and Construction Industry 48 16:01 The PRESIDENT I0Q 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 give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need to enforce compliance by all Australian importers and suppliers of building products with Australian Standards including by: (a) preventing the importation of plumbing fittings that contain lead that can be leached into drinking water and banning of the sale of such fittings in Australia; (b) ensuring that plumbing products are Water Mark certified; (c) preventing the importation of other building materials which are non-compliant with the National Construction Code; (d) adequately enforcing the National Construction Code requirements in relation to materials being installed to ensure compliance with Australian Standards; and (e) ensuring there are sufficient measures in place to check materials used on building sites and in industry." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The PRESIDENT I0Q 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. Senator Marshall 00AOP Mr President, the standing order requires four senators, not including the mover of the motion, for support for the motion. I put it to you that the motion was not supported. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Marshall, I counted several in the government pocket up here that easily got me to four, not including the mover. I will proceed unless someone wishes to challenge the count that I undertook. 16:02 Senator GEORGIOU 269583 Western Australia I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need to enforce compliance by all Australian importers and suppliers of building products with Australian Standards including by: (a) preventing the importation of plumbing fittings that contain lead that can be leached into drinking water and banning of the sale of such fittings in Australia; (b) ensuring that plumbing products are Water Mark certified; (c) preventing the importation of other building materials which are non-compliant with the National Construction Code; (d) adequately enforcing the National Construction Code requirements in relation to materials being installed to ensure compliance with Australian Standards; and (e) ensuring there are sufficient measures in place to check materials used on building sites and in industry. I rise to speak on behalf of Senator Burston's urgency motion. Building products are being imported that don't meet Australian standards and are putting the health and safety of all Australians at risk. Only as recently as Sunday, an extensive media report revealed that cheap imported plumbing fittings containing lead can be leached into drinking water. As you all know, lead is a toxin that can be particularly harmful to children. I believe this is a problem Australia must address as a matter of public urgency at a national level. Perth's new multimillion-dollar children's hospital is an example of what can go wrong and how urgent the situation is. The hospital was originally due to open in 2015, but has been plagued by a series of problems including asbestos in roofing panels and lead in the water. A comprehensive report by the state's Chief Health Officer found imported brass fittings to be the likely cause of lead contamination in the hospital's drinking water, which has contributed to lengthy delays in its opening. The report found the fittings had corroded, leaching lead into the water system. It has cost millions of dollars to try and rectify these problems, and the opening of this much-needed children's hospital has been by over 2½ years. Last month it was revealed that there was also lead in the water at the drinking fountains at Perth's new billion-dollar stadium. I believe public health and safety is being put at risk by the flood of cheap taps and other non-compliant parts that have the potential to leak lead and other toxic metals into drinking water. It's a concern which is shared by the WA Master Plumbers and Gasfitters Association and the Plumbing Products Industry Group, which represents manufacturers and importers. TheSunday Times newspaper in Perth reported at the weekend that they had been contacted by plumbers who say they are seeing more and more defective parts which don't comply with the WaterMark Certification Scheme, which exists to ensure products are safe and fit for purpose. They blame a massive loophole that allows hardware stores to sell taps and other plumbing products that aren't WaterMark certified, even though plumbers risk penalties if they install these fittings. They are demanding legislation to close the loophole. Today I spoke to the master plumbers association's chief executive, Murray Thomas, who outlined a series of issues, stating: This isn't about protecting our industry. This is about public health. There is nothing to stop consumers purchasing products that are not WaterMark certified, to prevent retailers stocking them or to prevent wholesalers and builders from directly importing them. This problem is part of a wider crisis in Australia involving non-conforming and non-compliant building products. Asbestos was found in Chinese-made roof panels at Perth Children's Hospital. These panels were cut on site, putting workers at risk, and had to be removed at a considerable cost. As a former tradesman and someone who has real-life experience on building sites, I have spoken to a few colleagues in the industry and they have told me of recent encounters where cheap imported plumbing products, which have the potential to leach lead, have been fitted. At the same time, however, another problem has emerged, with the importation of counterfeit products that pose as being WaterMark certified but in actual fact are not. I am aware that pressure has been placed on plumbers to install non-WaterMark products that, in some cases, a builder or owner has sourced, and if the plumber refuses a residential customer then they may lose that job. As well as being available as over-the-counter purchases in retail hardware stores, non-WaterMark and counterfeit WaterMark products are readily available online, and commercial builders buy them directly, in large volumes, from overseas suppliers for their large projects. Sometimes samples are used to gain certification and then cheaper, non-conforming products that carry the WaterMark logo are supplied. There is no doubt that we are lacking a proper regulatory regime throughout the country, except in Queensland, which I understand has banned the importation of non-compliant plumbing products. What we need here is enforcement, which at the moment is the responsibility of state based authorities, and in some cases they don't even have enough resources to ensure the rules are met. In Western Australia, I have been told, there are only nine inspectors to do this job. People assume their drinking water is safe, as we have the best standards here in Australia, but imports of non-compliant products put the safety of the general public in jeopardy. This is a serious problem which needs to be addressed. Therefore it is my firm belief that, rather than getting separate states to legislate on this issue, we need a national law to bring the whole industry into unison. The plumbing and gasfitting association have said that contamination of water systems as a result of non-conforming products 'is potentially catastrophic, and we'll be failing the Australian community if these problems are not addressed urgently'. There is a clear and entirely responsible expectation by the industry and consumers that if a product is for sale in Australia it will be lawful and fit for the purpose for which it was intended. My office received, only a few hours ago, photos from today which show plumbing products that don't have WaterMark certification on sale at a Perth hardware store. I have also received a statement from the industry body outlining its position on importing products containing lead, and I have to say I give it my full support. It seeks: absolute enforcement that ensures only WaterMark products are sold at all retail outlets, and an introduction of legislation with regard to the point of sale an immediate review of the water-testing process to ensure that testing of lead levels is consistent an in-depth research program, to begin as soon as possible, into the possibility of following the approach of the USA and Canada in removing from the manufacture of any brass product connected to the drinkable water supply all lead that can leach. To sum up, there is mounting evidence that even minute traces of lead found in drinking water can do harm. The World Health Organization already maintains there is no known safe level for lead, and the master plumbers association has said we should follow the American step by reducing lead content to near zero. If we can help protect lives, why shouldn't we do this? 16:10 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland One would almost say this motion is a no brainer. Clearly it deserves support, as does any regulation or law deserve support. I know there is one union around the country, the CFMEU, that thinks that laws are made for everybody else except it. It seems to think that it can choose which laws it will abide by and which laws it will ignore, but the rest of Australia agrees that laws are in place to abide by, even if sometimes we don't think they're appropriate. As law-abiding citizens, we should actually abide by them. What Senator Burston and the One Nation party have done with this motion is to highlight the inconsistencies in regulation, or perhaps enforcement, of the national building code around Australia. I thank Senator Burston for raising this matter; I thank Senator Georgiou for his opening remarks, which highlight the issues of concern. They are no doubt of concern not only to the movers but also, I would imagine, to all of us in this chamber. The Australian government clearly recognises there is genuine community concern about the use of non-compliant and non-conforming building products. Our National Construction Code is amongst the best in the world, and Australians across the board can have confidence in our built environment. We do recognise that we need to continue to work hard to ensure that Australians can continue to have that trust in our built environment. The federal government does not have legislative or regulatory power in this area, but it has an important role in working with the states and territories to ensure the safety of buildings. I congratulate the Minister for Small and Family Business, the Workplace and Deregulation, the Hon. Craig Laundy, for his work with the Building Ministers Forum, which brings together the relevant Commonwealth, state and territory ministers to set strategic directions for building and construction activity in Australia. The key issue that all governments have agreed requires priority focus is addressing building safety in ensuring appropriate compliance with the national code. Now I understand, from Senator Burston's motion and from the speech of its mover, Senator Georgiou, that what One Nation is saying is it shouldn't be left to the states and territories; there should be a national code and national enforcement. You could argue about that, but that is, unfortunately, an element of our federalism: we do have a lot of areas of jurisdiction where the Commonwealth doesn't have power but has, over the years, tried to bring a national approach to particular areas. The Commonwealth is not set up in a public service way to send the police around to enforce the National Construction Code. That has always traditionally been left to the state and territory governments. I understand that One Nation is saying, 'You should get the states and territories out of it and get the Commonwealth to do it.' That opens up the debate on how much the Commonwealth should be centrally controlling everything and how much we believe in federalism, diversification of power and the right of states to administer the things they were left to do under the Constitution. Things that weren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution as Commonwealth powers automatically become the responsibility of the states. That's how it has worked over the years. As I said, there are many different arguments about whether that's good or bad. One area I would like to see the Commonwealth have more involvement in is rivers and streams, and the allocation and control of water in our vast country, but, unfortunately, only in the Snowy Mountains area and the Murray-Darling Basin, where rivers cross state borders, does the Commonwealth have authority under the Constitution. You can see what happened with the Snowy Mountains scheme, and particularly Snowy 2.0, the brainchild—and love child, might I say—of Prime Minister Turnbull. The Commonwealth is able to go in and do things there, whereas in my state of Queensland, as Senator Hanson knows, although the Commonwealth government can get feasibility studies done and provide money for water activity, we can't actually do it, because it is a responsibility of the state government. As Senator Hanson well knows, you cannot get the Queensland Labor government to do anything with water, because of the Greens political party which keeps them in power—although I might say they're not the only party to do so; One Nation's preference arrangements also assisted. Because of that, you can never rely on some of the water regulation and storage projects desperately needed in my state of Queensland, and I suspect in other states also. But I have diverged slightly from the question of this motion, in which the senator has highlighted a number of quite dangerous and concerning activities that should be curtailed. I'm not sure whether the Commonwealth can—perhaps by better use of import and border protection powers—look at some of these imported construction enhancements that are not in accordance with the National Construction Code. They are in the code for a reason. The code was adopted by the Commonwealth and all of the state ministers at the ministerial forum. Each state agreed this code would apply. As I mentioned, it's then up to the regulatory enforcement authorities in the various states and territories to ensure those rules in the code—which, as I understand, are replicated in state and territory legislation—are enforced. In his motion, Senator Burston raises that wider issue: should we leave that with the states and territories or take it over as a Commonwealth responsibility? As I said, that's a bigger concern. But I think that by raising this very important issue in the chamber today when, fortuitously, the other chamber isn't sitting, so we get a little bit more publicity for these sorts of things than we would normally get in the Senate, the mover has highlighted some of the existing problems and the need for enforcement action. As I said before, it's a no-brainer. The law is there for a very valid purpose, and if it's being breached it should be enforced because we certainly don't want the people of Australia to be impeded upon by substandard products that can, at times, be very dangerous. So I thank the mover for alerting the parliament to this. A number of Senate committees have dealt with similar issues, particularly following the fire in London last year. It is an important thing and I'm glad it is being discussed. The more we can draw attention to this, the more we can get community support for the proper enforcement of the laws which deal with construction within Australia. 16:20 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria I indicate from the beginning that the Labor Party will not be supporting this proposition relating to building products. I am surprised that the government is supporting it. It's quite clear that Senator Macdonald has not read the resolution that is before the chamber. I notice that the government was only too happy to stand to support this resolution, but they obviously haven't read it. Whilst I commend the proposal that we should re-regulate the building industry—I commend that, and the Labor Party has quite specific policies for the re-regulation of the building industry—I can't support a proposition, and I'm surprised the government can, that says we should ban the importation of other building materials that are not compliant with the National Construction Code. A ban on all non-compliant building materials would, of course, see very little material come in in terms of building products into this country, given the extent of the failure of regulation for the building industry in this country. We know what has to be done in terms of the aluminium core cladding. We know what has to be done there, and that is that it has to be banned because it is so dangerous. We have made our policy position very clear on that. The government has opposed that position. The government has said, 'Oh, we can't do that.' But now they are supporting a proposition that says that all products that are non-compliant should be banned—all products. We know the situation with regard to the Australian building industry is one where the government is only too happy to fully regulate the building industry when it comes to controlling to reduce the wages and conditions of workers within the building industry. They are only too happy. They have no constitutional problems and there is no issue whatsoever about the capacity of the Commonwealth under a Liberal government to suppress the capacity of workers to protect themselves. But when it comes to the operations of crooks, of shysters, of people that have been ripping off the public, then this is a Commonwealth government that runs a million miles from its responsibilities in terms of public safety. Fundamental questions of enforcement on public safety are quite alien to this government. It is not as if they don't know what's going on; there has been Senate inquiry after Senate inquiry in terms of the operations of aluminium cladding, in terms of glass, in terms of cabling, in terms of steel and in terms of plumbing products. The evidence before this chamber has been overwhelming. Let me give one example in terms of the question of sprinklers in terms of plumbing products. The non-conforming building products inquiry heard that in the run-up to the G20 summit in Brisbane in 2014, the Australian Fire and Emergency Services Council conducted a safety audit of hotels in the Brisbane CBD, and 71 hotels were checked for the audit. These are the hotels that were, of course, the five-star hotels designed to accommodate the leaders of the global nations who were attending the G20, like President Obama and other guests in this country. Of the 71 hotels that were checked for audit, 68 were found to be not up to standard. The sprinkling systems were not up to standard in 68 of the 71. Why was that? Because simple arrangements have now been entered into in the building industry in this country where the certification system has become relationship based. That is, the owner of a building—a hotel, in this case—goes out and subcontracts out the certification arrangement, and under those circumstances they can get the findings they want on fundamental issues as to whether their sprinkler system is working properly and safely. The certifiers now know that their livelihoods depend upon keeping good relations with the building owners, or with the builders in terms of putting up a building. The responsibility for making sure that products and practices conform with appropriate standards has effectively been privatised. That's the position under the national Building Code in this country. This is a proposition that Minister Laundy seems to constantly misunderstand. The assistant minister, you might think, might have further responsibilities to understand his responsibilities. But of course, given that there have been no Liberals turning up to these various inquiries, it's not surprising that the senators aren't reporting back to the government on just how serious these propositions are. But departmental officials have been going. They know the consequences of the failure to maintain our building regulations in this country. They know that the fundamental flaw in our building regulations is the provision that says that there is a capacity—no matter how strict the black-and-white rules—and a provision in the Building Code that says that we can change whatever provision is there, by a code that says, 'We can deem to satisfy; we have a performance based arrangement; we can get around the regulations,' by people who are acting in private industry, with a relationship to the developer, to the builder or to the building owner. It says, 'We've got an alternative to these so-called rigid standards.' Is it any wonder that we have such widespread abuse? And is it any wonder that the overwhelming evidence of document fraud, certification fraud and product substitution is so common in the building industry? What is a wonder is the fact that the government has done nothing about it. Oh, it has another committee look into it. It gets the mirror out. It looks into the problem—and goes on looking into the problem. We've seen this issue in the Grenfell Tower fire in London. The fire officials in this country are saying that the same thing can happen here. The minister says, 'Oh, we've got a sprinkler system regulation here. It's different from the British.' Well, the reality is there's no enforcement mechanism in place. We know this from the evidence to the inquiry—put by not just anybody in the process but by General Manager of the Australian Building Codes Board Mr Neil Savery. He said 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. He said that the sophisticated, performance based code of regulation which was introduced in the early 1990s needed highly qualified people to understand how it works. At the same time, the former, government-run building certification was privatised, and the industry underwent a process of 'deregulation or reduction in regulatory requirements around things like mandatory inspections'. So there is a fundamental flaw in the regulatory arrangements in this country. Then of course there is a system where there is just an appalling record as to compliance, where developers want to cut corners, and they say, 'Well, of course, if you enforce the standards, it's a brake on innovation.' Public safety then becomes a product to be traded. And governments—particularly Liberal governments—that want to promote this notion of deregulation and privatisation say that public safety is someone else's concern. The interim taskforce in Victoria which looked at these issues highlighted the simple facts—which the Senate report also identified—that these were not isolated questions but questions that were systemic, running right throughout the building industry, and that this cost-cutting attitude, this attitude of a cavalier disregard for public safety, ran right across the industry. That's why Labor has said: 'We need a new licensing arrangement. We need to bring public accountability back into the building industry. Everyone in the supply chain needs to be licensed, and if you fail this fundamental test in terms of your obligations to public safety you lose your licence. You lose your livelihood.' We want to ensure that public accountability is restored to the building practices in this country. We do not just want an assault on trade union activity; we want everyone in the building industry to be responsible for meeting their obligations. We do not want a blind eye to be turned, we do not want another buck shoved, we do not want another suggestion that it is someone else's responsibility; we want genuine accountability brought back into the industry. That is why Labor has said we will ban the importation of cladding of a particularly dangerous type. But we will also ensure that there is proper accountability in the industry by having a national licensing system that ensures public accountability. We will also say this: the cabinet minister in the national government takes responsibility for the building industry, not the person who runs behind the organ grinder's cart like the curs in this government—people who have no knowledge of what is going on, no genuine commitment to public safety and no political weight to actually ensure that they can stand up— (Time expired) 16:30 Senator BARTLETT DT6 Queensland I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this and I appreciate a matter of this importance being brought before the Senate for discussion. It is interesting to note that Liberal senators are supporting One Nation in bringing this matter on, continuing the ever-strengthening Liberal-One Nation alliance. And it is even more astonishing to hear Senator Macdonald, the senior Liberal in this place—at least in terms of years served—saying 'any regulation or law deserves support'. I had to write that down to make sure I got it right! That is good to hear because this is a government that in so many areas completely ignores the laws it is required to enforce. And as Senator Carr just outlined—reasonably eloquently!—already they are completely ignoring their own standards, their own requirements and their own obligations in the area that is being talked about. As usual, they say it's the states' fault. Ensuring human safety, ensuring that humans and our environment are not poisoned, has been a core Greens value since the foundation of the Australian Greens. Normally when we are talking about having regulations not just in place but enforced to protect people from being poisoned by corporations that put profit ahead of human safety and community need, you would expect Senator Macdonald to be complaining about green tape and red tape getting in the way of business being able to operate. This government has a fixation on attacking not just the CFMEU but also teachers. Today there was a motion by the Liberals, which, sadly, was supported not just by the usual One Nation-Liberal alliance but by others as well, attacking teachers in Queensland for handing out a sticker with a flag on it. The government are so concerned about the safety of buildings that they want to attack the union that focuses on the safety of buildings to protect the people who have to live in those buildings. That's how concerned they are about human safety. They want to attack the organisation that, more than anything else, focuses on trying to ensure that the building materials are safe. And yet they have the astonishing gall to come in here and say that any law or regulation deserves support! Time and time again, this government deliberately seeks to undermine its own legal obligations—in the environmental area, for starters. They completely and deliberately flout their obligations under our national environment laws and in so many other areas as well. I suppose we should be pleased that at least that statement from the government speaker is on the record, but it is hard to believe that it is actually genuine. It is absolutely crucial that we ensure that the most fundamental aspects of human existence—our drinking water, the homes we live in and the hotels we stay in—are safe from contamination and also in terms of fire standards and all the other building standards that the Greens and others have promoted for years. We continually get attacked for red tape and green tape. What we are about is trying to ensure that sustainability, human safety and the basic rights and needs of the community are put first, rather than corporate profit. But we usually get attacked. Whilst there may be the usual hollow words that we have come to expect over quite a number of years now from Senator Macdonald, it is at least important to have that on the record. So the Greens very much support the need for proper enforcement of construction codes and, in many cases, the strengthening of them to make them more effective. The tragedy of that fire in London that killed so many people was not just because of its basic human loss but because it was a symbol of what happens when corporate profit gets put ahead of human safety, particularly, as it happens, for those who are least well-off—those least able to afford to ensure that their drinking water and their homes are safe. (Time expired) 16:35 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I rise to speak to this motion not necessarily because I support it but because I think it deserves to be debated. It is an issue of concern for someone who spent 25 years working in the construction industry and who has seen the results of this at a practical level, as Senator Georgiou has expressed he has himself. In fact, we're probably rare beasts, alongside Senator Marshall, who was an electrician—is an electrician? I'm not sure whether he still has his licence. Senator Marshall 00AOP I still am; my hourly rate's much higher now! Senator COLBECK 00AOL I'm sure, appropriately, Senator Marshall. I will go to one of the points that Senator Carr talked about. I'm not sure, to be honest, whether he was actually arguing for the motion or against the motion at the time because he was talking about wanting to ban products but then not wanting to ban products. He was talking about regulation but in different forms or another. But I do note the work that he's done in relation to the number of inquiries, particularly around cladding. I have to say I disagree with him on the cladding ban too, because the core element of this whole debate is ensuring that products that are used in construction, whether they be for residential, commercial or industrial, are fit for purpose. Australia has, as a number of senators have said already, a standards based construction code. One of the really good things that has happened in recent years is that that construction code has been put online and is freely available for everybody. Once upon a time, that wasn't the case. When I was in the industry you had to buy it and then maintain it at currency. It wasn't necessarily easy, because one of the elements of our federation, as Senator Macdonald indicated, is that there are different rules and regulations in varying states, which can be an issue. We have progressed significantly over the last couple of decades not only with common recognition of qualifications within the construction industry for various trades but also with bringing some of the standards that exist into the national code. Senator Georgiou, if I were a taxpayer from Western Australia who had contributed to the hospital, for example, or to the stadium, I'd be pretty bloody angry that the circumstances that arose in those places actually occurred. I can recall, as a very, very small contractor in the early nineties, when the big guys in the construction industry in this country decided they'd bring in quality assurance. One of the reasons for bringing it in was that they thought that nobody else could provide it as well. They were looking for quality assurance to be a competitive advantage for them in the marketplace with key customers, particularly government, that nobody else could offer. They would provide that assurance as part of their system of offering design-and-construct packages, particularly to government and to large corporate clients, as to how their project was going to comply not only with the specification but also with the construction codes. One of the genuine questions that I have in this broader debate is: what is going on with that process? Who is actually properly operating their quality systems and the compliance that should fit within those, and then checking those before a contractor goes on to the next project? If I were in the government of Western Australia, I'd be going back through the systems of the people who were responsible for various elements of those particular projects to see where they went wrong. Senator Carr talked about the issue around substitution, and I think Senator Georgiou did also. The bane of my existence in competing in the construction industry as a contractor was knowing that there were a set of specifications provided, particularly when you were dealing with a commercial project, and somebody wasn't providing, in particular, materials that were compliant with the specifications. Again, the specifications are written in a way that refers back to compliance with the standards. So those sorts of things that you talked about raise for me a question about the system: who's looking at that process of compliance when considering the next project or the next tender? Senator Georgiou mentioned the issue of lead in fittings. That was taken out of the Australian system in 1989. The requirement is that fittings be lead free. So here we are, decades later, with a problem. If someone's going to provide a counterfeit product, that creates a particular problem in itself—and that, in my view, is a criminal act in more than one way. There are already rules, regulations and laws in place that deal with that. If you're providing a counterfeit product into the market, if it's not as you present it, it breaches not only consumer law but also other laws in respect of potential safety and a number of other things. Like Senator Carr, I've had representations around glass. I've had representations around plywood. I've had representations around steel. I've had representations around pipework for fire systems, and there have been some incidents—let's not call them 'famous'; let's call them 'infamous' incidents—where, particularly in respect of fire systems, the pipe that was provided wasn't in compliance with the Australian standard required, and it burst. It's been a significant expense to people who are looking to access their building, but also to other contractors through the system. Having also looked at some projects in respect of trying to work out where the fault lay, I think it's a complex and difficult matter. I think the work that is being done, through the body that looks after the national consumer code, to ensure that qualified, competent practitioners are engaged throughout the construction process is very important because, as I said earlier, this is about ensuring that materials are fit for purpose. There's no point putting a 10-millimetre galvanised bolt into a machine that requires something that has high-tensile steel in it. It's going to fail. That's what the standards are there for. That's what the certification processes are supposed to be there for. That's what the specification processes are there for. In circumstances where you've got an architect and an engineer working on a project, part of their job is to ensure that the products that are going into the building are as they have specified. For an engineer, their job is to design a structure such that it's structurally sound, and it's also part of their job to ensure that it's built to that standard, particularly if they are employed to do that, rather than just do the initial design. But there should be a process of ensuring that that's done, and the quality assurance system that I talked about earlier is certainly part of that process. But, in respect of other products that perhaps are not so much structural but part of the fit-out process, it's certainly up to the architects or the supervising agent to ensure that those products are what they specified they were. Substitution in the industry is not a new thing. I can recall submitting tenders and being required, if I wanted to put a substitute product in, particularly in government circumstances, to justify the fact that it was at least equivalent to the product in all aspects to the one that was specified in the specification. One of the real concerns I have in this current debate is actually about compliance and—as Senator Carr said, and I agree with him—enforcement of the system. It's all very well, though, for Senator Carr to try and blame the Commonwealth government for this, but we do live in a federation of states and there is a division of powers. Quite frankly, from my perspective, those who are responsible for managing those things should manage those things. They shouldn't be passing it off to one level of government or another. One level of government shouldn't need to come in over the top of the other. The responsibilities are there for a purpose, and they should be complied with, in my view. 16:45 Senator MARSHALL 00AOP Victoria Senator Georgiou, thank you for your contribution in this debate. I think there is much merit to what you have said. In fact, your resolution wouldn't have been far away from getting support from the opposition. Given it was a motion that wasn't about wedging anyone politically—it was about trying to address a very genuine need, which I accept is there—I would encourage you to talk to us about these matters. We may have been able to get to a position of support for such a resolution, but, as it stands, we can't quite get there. We do support the bulk of it. I certainly support your comments and the concerns that you've raised. I do want to take a little bit of issue, before I get back to some of the substance of it, with some of what Senator Colbeck said. I do this respectfully. Senator Colbeck indicated that there are regulations and standards out there that have to be complied with and that it's those people that are responsible for complying with the regulation who should have the responsibility to do so. That's absolutely self-evident, but what is also self-evident is that people that are responsible for ensuring compliance, under regulations and the code, are not doing so. This is the problem that Senator Carr indicated very clearly earlier is because— Senator Colbeck 00AOL And I agree. Senator MARSHALL 00AOP I'm glad you say you agree. Senator McKenzie interjecting— Senator MARSHALL 00AOP We have a proposition—Senator McKenzie laughed, but Senator Colbeck just indicated he did agree—that we've privatised the system, and we've made it so weak no-one's responsible for doing it. Senator Colbeck 00AOL They are. Senator MARSHALL 00AOP Well, if it wasn't, Senator Colbeck, then we wouldn't have this problem, but we do have the problem. Again, it's self-evident that those that are supposed to be enforcing these standards are not doing so. If they're not doing so and people are being put at risk, it is incumbent to come back to where Senator Macdonald left off. He actually told us: Australians across the board can have confidence in our built environment. Australians should assume and, I think rightfully, do assume that the products in our buildings are safe and fit for purpose, and that if they weren't the government would have done something about it—but they are wrong. There are so many things in our built environment that are not safe and are not fit for purpose, and the government has not done anything about it. As Senator Colbeck pointed out, I'm a tradesperson and I've worked in the built environment, as has he and as has Senator Georgiou. I'm sure Senator Georgiou—even though I think he's a bit younger than I am—will have experienced asbestos in the workplace. I was told by people when I started my apprenticeship: 'You really shouldn't be working with asbestos. It's unsafe.' Nonetheless, all our switchboards had asbestos surroundings. The manufacturer very cleverly renamed asbestos sheet as Zelemite and all sorts of other things. So, we were happily drilling it and putting enormous amounts of asbestos into an enclosed environment in which we were working. And people would say, 'Oh, that's not asbestos; it's called something else now'—putting people at risk. At the time, even though the companies knew that asbestos was dangerous—my employer accepted that asbestos was dangerous—we were still being given those products to work with. At that time we started to say, as tradespeople, that we were not going to work with this anymore: 'We're not going to do it.' You raised the point earlier, Senator Georgiou, about plumbers being pressured to use lead based fittings, and I'll come back to this, because I want to use this example. I and many other tradesmen with my employer started to say, 'We're simply not going to use asbestos anymore; we're just not going to do it', but if I tried to do that now I would have the ABCC down on me like a tonne of bricks. I would be deemed as taking unlawful industrial action, and I would be fined. I would be absolutely unable to push back. If my employer said, 'Well, bad luck; you will use those products,' there would be nothing I could do about it. And if I attempted to do something about it I would be in breach of the code of conduct of the building industry and I'd be prosecuted by the ABCC. That is how bad it's gotten in this country, where the government will spend hundreds of millions of dollars putting up an organisation to ensure that employees can't take anything that looks remotely like industrial action, whether it be about their safety or not, but will spend a pittance, if anything, on compliance with building products. That's where the priorities of this government are completely twisted and completely wrong. Senator Georgiou tells us that he's been talked to by plumbers who are now being pressured to use products that have lead in them, and I say to them that they'd better be very careful in pushing back about that. The fact that they have to go to their senator to complain about it, and not do something themselves in their own workplace, speaks volumes about the lack of rights and the lack of ability of working people in this country now to protect themselves from substandard products—things that are dangerous not only for the people they're being installed for but also for the people doing the installation. So, I'm absolutely in sync with your objectives, Senator Georgiou. You are absolutely right that this is a problem. You are right to point out—and as I said earlier, and Senator Macdonald confirmed—that people automatically assume that in this civilised country the things we're using have been deemed safe, that we would not allow things that are unsafe to be sold. But they're wrong, because there is no compliance. And whether it be just substitution—and I accept that there is an element of criminal substitution, but that's not the whole problem; that's a part of the problem—there are these products out there that can be used. The example of the aluminium cladding is, again, one of those classic examples, with a flammability rate higher than that of petrol. You are effectively surrounding your building with petrol and assuming that that's safe. Yet everyone who bought one of those apartments thinks, 'Well, surely the Australian government and the regulators that we employ would not allow a building to be built out of petrol—surely not!' Yet we do, and we've failed to stop it. This Senate has done inquiries into that matter and made recommendations, and we've still failed to act. It's an absolute abrogation of our responsibility. Quite frankly, I'm gobsmacked. I say to Senator Georgiou: there are a number of ways of really addressing this problem. Senator Carr went through some of the ways we intend to address the problem when we're in government. But I would encourage you to think about the restriction on the rights of working people to push back against employers who want to use these products. And you might ask: 'Why do employers want to use such products? Do they really want to kill people? Do they want to poison people?' Of course they don't! But they're driven by the dollar. They're driven by the profit motive. And while that profit motive is there, if there's weak regulation or a weak regulator and employees can't push back—if no-one can push back—they'll take the dollar. That's the problem: they'll take the dollar. And people can't have confidence in a system that allows that to operate in such a way. So, I'd encourage you, Senator Georgiou, to talk to the opposition about these matters. Senator Carr has been deeply involved in these matters. Let's see if we can get a position that the Senate can agree to and move forward on. We would look forward to your support, but I say, also, to look at the way industrial relations are managed in this country. It has gone so far against the rights of workers, and I think that's worthy of your consideration as well. (Time expired) 16:55 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I rise to contribute to the urgency motion relating to the need for enforcing compliance with Australian building product standards. On 23 June 2015, three former senators—Nick Xenophon, John Madigan and Jacqui Lambie—referred an inquiry into non-conforming building products to the Senate Economics References Committee. Since then, the committee has tabled three interim reports. The most recent, on protecting Australians from asbestos, was tabled in the Senate on 22 November 2017. The evidence presented to the committee was concerning and demonstrated significant issues with non-complying and non-conforming building products. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the committee and, in particular, Senator Ketter, for the extensive work done on this important issue of public policy. I'd also like to acknowledge the work done by the Building Ministers Forum, who I understand has commissioned Professor Peter Shergold AC and Bronwyn Weir to assess problems in compliance and enforcement within the building construction system across Australia. I look forward to seeing the results of this work. From glass windows that cracked and disintegrated at ASIO's new headquarters in Canberra to non-complying electrical products, such as the Infinity electrical cables that posed serious risks to the health and safety of Australians, the impact of non-complying and non-conforming building products cannot be overstated. 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. I could talk about the follow-on fire in the Grenfell Tower where, sadly, the luck at Docklands was not present. I don't feel the need. The Senate inquiry also received submissions and heard evidence that compliance and enforcement are not keeping pace with rapid changes to our economy and global supply chains, or how or where products are manufactured or sourced. There appears to be a growing number of fraudulent documents associated with imported products, and this makes it hard for surveyors to identify what is compliant and what is not. Overseas laboratories are now testing to Australian standards, but their reports have identified major testing and reporting flaws in addition to misuse. This is simply not good enough. I note that everyone who has spoken here today has done so in earnest agreement with the principles behind the motion. This need not have been an urgency motion. If there had been action when these issues were first raised, it could have been managed calmly, strategically and without ever-present risk to life. I look up in the gallery and see primary school children that I fear may still be debating this topic when they are in the Senate. Unfortunately, Senator Burston is right in saying that this is a matter of urgency, and I thank Senator Burston for bringing it to the Senate's attention. Question negatived. DELEGATION REPORTS 57 DELEGATION REPORTS Parliamentary Delegation to Papua New Guinea 57 17:00 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland by leave—I present the report of the delegation to Papua New Guinea in November last year and seek leave to move a motion to take note of the document. Leave granted. Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I first of all thank the members of the delegation, which included my fellow senator Senator Kimberley Kitching and also Mr Ken O'Dowd, the member for Flynn; and Ms Cathy O'Toole, the member for Herbert. I particularly thank Julia Agostino, the delegation secretary. I thank officers from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and representatives from the Crawford business school at ANU for some pre-delegation briefings. I particularly thank His Excellency the high commissioner, Mr Bruce Davis, for the support from him and his staff to the delegation during the trip. Papua New Guinea is our closest neighbour. It's one that I always feel we have an obligation to. It was once a colony of Australia and it is a mere seven kilometres across the water from my electorate, which is the state of Queensland. So we have a lot in common with the people of PNG, and we've worked hard as Australians over many years to bring benefits and progress to that particular place. The delegation was privileged to arrive on the day of the most important thing that has happened in Port Moresby for a long, long period of time, and that was the Rugby League World Cup match between Ireland and PNG, which I'm delighted to report that PNG won. That was a great introduction to PNG and to many of the ministers who we met who were attending that very significant match as guests of the high commissioner. I have to say that PNG comprises many hundreds of different tribes—700 or 800 different tribes and 800 or 900 different language groups. But to me the thing that joins PNG together as a nation is their Rugby League team. When that happens, they are all on the same page. We were privileged to meet not only a lot of parliamentarians but also significant administrative people in PNG. I particularly want to mention just a few. There was our meeting with the Speaker of the parliament, the Hon. Job Pomat, who curiously is the member for Manus. He was able to give us some information not only about the running of the parliament and how his role as Speaker works in that parliamentary assembly but also about his own electorate of Manus, and I often wish that Senator McKim had been there to get the real information on that island. We attended a very productive meeting with the Women in Leadership lunch, went to the National Museum and Art Gallery, and went up to the Western Highlands provincial administration, which was a real eye-opener. It was interesting to see the real progress being made in some areas, and I particularly want to mention the Mul-Baiyer District development administrative office and Mr Mark Kamjua, who is doing wonderful things in that part of the Highlands of PNG. It was interesting to go to a Westpac innovation hub and see people lining up to actually open a bank account. It was of great interest, of great trauma almost, and very surprising for us Australians to find that many people didn't have a bank account and that the actual activity in opening a bank account was almost an once-in-a-lifetime event. We met with the Mount Hagen Chamber of Commerce. We went to Coffee for Connoisseurs, a great commercial organisation. There was a group of people gathered outside the fence of this place we were at and the crowd approached the gate. We thought,' Gee, there's trouble here.' What it was, they were demanding that we come and speak to them. As Australian politicians, having a crowd demand that we come and speak to them was a new experience for us! They were delighted that we were there. We mixed with the crowd. There is a lovely photograph in our report of my colleague Mr Ken O'Dowd addressing them, because Ken was in PNG for some time and was able to speak to them in pidgin English. It was a wonderful trip to build on the relationship we have with PNG, and I congratulate all involved. 17:06 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I wish to respond to that report. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP You don't have to respond to it; you can speak to the motion. Senator McKIM JKM I very much appreciate your assistance and your counsel there, Mr Acting Deputy President. I wanted to make some observations about the situation on Manus Island which, of course, Senator Macdonald referred to and, in fact, he referred to me personally. I will place it again on the record in this place that I've visited Manus Island five times in the last 12 months. I want to say that the many hundreds of men who Australia has abandoned on Manus Island are still there. They are still doing it tough. They still do not have adequate supports. Most of them have no idea what is going to happen to them in the future. And many of them have been profoundly harmed by the experience of the last five years; profoundly harmed by the indefinite detention to which the Australian and Papua New Guinean governments have subjected them; profoundly harmed by the lack of basic human services and supports; and profoundly harmed by becoming—through no fault of their own; through doing nothing wrong whatsoever other than stretching out a hand to Australia for assistance—Australia's political prisoners. The men on Manus Island and the men, women and children on Nauru are like the corpses that used to be impaled on the walls of medieval cities in an attempt to dissuade other desperate people from trying to enter. These people, our fellow human beings, have been treated disgustingly and disgracefully in order to try and send a message to other desperate people that they should not try to seek asylum in Australia and arrive by boat. The United Nations has time after time declared that Australia is in breach of international law and declared time after time that Australia is in breach of conventions that we have signed as a country. Our global reputation as a compassionate country is in tatters, and these people—the men on Manus Island, and the men, women and children on Nauru—are still suffering every day as a result of the policy lockstep within which the Labor and Liberal parties are operating in this country. We still have no idea how many more, if any more, will be sent to the United States as part of the people-swap arrangement, where Australia agreed to accept people seeking asylum in the US in return for the US agreeing to accept some people from Manus Island and Nauru. This is a dark and bloody stain on our country's history, and it's time that people in this parliament got active, rediscovered their humanity and worked together to bring an abrupt end to this terrible chapter in our national story. Decades ago, Australia was held up around the world as a human rights leader and, in fact, was actively involved and showed great leadership in crafting some of this planet's most important human rights conventions. And where are we now? We're lagging because we torture people in this country. The Labor and Liberal parties support torture of innocent people. We are deliberately harming these people. No matter how much members of the Labor and Liberal parties in this place and other parties that support the disgrace that is occurring on Manus Island and Nauru put their hands over their ears, there are still cries for help. As someone who's visited the Lombrum prison run by Australia on Manus Island, I can tell you the cries, the psychological harm and the physical harm will never ever leave me. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 58 DOCUMENTS Consideration 58 COMMITTEES 59 COMMITTEES Consideration 59 Legislation Committees 59 Report 59 17:12 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, I present reports on the examination of annual reports tabled by 31 October 2017. Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security 59 Report 59 17:12 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present three reports of the committee as listed at item 15 on today's Order of Business and move: That the Senate take note of the reports. Two of the reports presented today cover the committee's statutory reviews of four key pieces of counterterrorism legislation. The first report I presented relates to the declared-area provisions of the Criminal Code, which were first enacted by the foreign fighters bill in November 2014. The provisions make it an offence for a person to enter or remain in certain areas in foreign countries that have been declared by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and where a listed terrorist organisation is engaging in hostilities. Two areas have been declared under the laws to date: the al-Raqqa province in Syria, for which a declaration was revoked in November, and the Mosul district in Iraq, which has been recently renewed. The committee concluded that the provisions remain necessary at this time and has recommended that they be continued for a further period of three years with an additional committee review prior to the new sunset date. The committee has also recommended amendments to the laws to clarify the existing exception relating to humanitarian aid; to increase transparency in relation to the range of non-legislative factors that are considered by the minister in determining which areas are to be declared; to provide the minister with an ability to revoke a declaration at any time; to take into account advice from security agencies; and to empower the committee to review and report back to the parliament on a declaration at its discretion at any time. Turning now to the second report, Review of police stop, search and seizure powers, the control order regime and the preventative detention order regime, the committee has similarly concluded that each power remains necessary and has recommended their continuation for a further three years, again with an additional committee review prior to the new sunset date. In relation to the stop, search and seizure powers available to police under the Crimes Act, the committee has recommended increased reporting requirements and an ongoing oversight role for the committee. In relation to the control order regime, the committee has recommended amendments to provide greater clarity in relation to confirmation proceedings, to enable interim control orders to be amended on application, and to provide for extended supervision orders to be issued as an alternative to continuing detention orders. The committee has also recommended that the government extend to seven days the minimum time period between an interim and a confirmation hearing for a control order, subject to legal advice regarding any constitutional concerns arising from this extension. Finally, in relation to the preventative detention order regime, the committee has recommended that the Australian Federal Police be required to notify the committee as soon as practicable after an order is made, and to brief the committee if requested. For each of its reviews, the committee was greatly assisted by the work of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Dr James Renwick SC, who produced his own reports on each of the laws in time to be taken into account by the committee. The committee has supported the INSLM's recommendations in a number of instances. The committee thanks the INSLM and all of the other participants in the review for their contributions. Turning to the committee's third report, the Home Affairs and Integrity Agencies Legislation Amendment Bill 2017 is one component in the establishment of the Home Affairs portfolio that commenced on 20 December 2017. The bill as currently before parliament will amend four existing acts to deal with several specific matters that could not be dealt with administratively. These acts are the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Act 1986 and, finally, the Intelligence Services Act 2001. The amendments proposed in the bill are intended to give effect to the allocation of ministerial powers, including a heightened and strengthened role for the Attorney-General, as announced by the Prime Minister in July 2017. The committee has concluded that the bill be passed, subject to implementation of the committee's recommendations that the bill be amended so that only the Prime Minister has the power to direct the Inspector-General to undertake an inquiry under section 9 of the IGIS Act and that references in the INSLM Act and the IGIS Act to 'the minister' be replaced with 'Attorney-General' to more clearly reflect the government's intent. Finally, the committee recommended that amendments to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act and Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act to facilitate the Attorney-General's ongoing role be introduced to the parliament prior to the conclusion of debate on this bill. In conclusion, I note that the committee is currently undertaking a further inquiry into proposed government amendments to this bill. I commend the reports to the Senate. 17:17 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I wish to briefly make some remarks about this same report. I thank Senator Bushby for his reflection of the committee's views in that report, and I don't intend to reprosecute the case that he has made for some of those amendments and changes. I do wish to briefly highlight the significance of the sunset provisions, as recommended in relation to the two bills that deal expressly with powers to address terrorism. The threat of terrorism to Australian citizens remains, which is most serious, and it's appropriate that we have continuing laws that allow us to address this. However, when these laws were enacted, they were done so on the understanding that it was an extraordinary level of risk and that extraordinary measures ought to be put in place. It was acknowledged that they do in fact burden some of the ordinary protections that would ordinarily be in place in our criminal law, and to that end sunset provisions were included so that these bills would be under constant review. In making these recommendations, the committee has recommended that a sunset provision remain in place. This will allow the PJCIS to reconsider the need for this legislation, and whether it remains in an appropriate form within a specified period of time. These are important qualifications in relation to these laws, which are acknowledged to be extraordinary and exist only because of the seriousness of the threat that we are currently facing. Thank you. 17:19 Senator BARTLETT DT6 Queensland I would note that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is one of those that does not have a crossbench member on it, which, as I said many years ago about some of its predecessors, is always a shame but, nonetheless, that's the way it is. I would like some time to study these reports and I would like to have them remain on the Notice Paper, so I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 61 COMMITTEES Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit 61 Report 61 17:20 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present report No. 470, Defence Sustainment Expenditure, as well as the executive minutes and responses on various reports. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator SMITH 241710 I move: That the Senate take note of the report. In 2015 when reviewing the Defence major projects report, the JCPAA noted the size of sustainment expenditure at $5 billion per annum, and recommended that following the implementation of the Department of Defence's First principles review, that the department improve how it reports on sustainment. In November 2016, the JCPAA readopted a lapsed inquiry into Defence sustainment expenditure, and on 21 June 2017 resolved to also inquire into Auditor-General's Report No. 2 (2017-18) Defence's management of materiel sustainment. The sustainment budget is expected to grow year on year across the forward estimates, to over $11 billion in 2020-21. The percentage of sustainment budget to acquisition budget will average 77 per cent across the forward estimates. Sustainment is defined by the Department of Defence as the provision of the appropriate goods and services required to achieve readiness and sustainability goals for the life of the Defence element. Defence sustainment involves the provision of in-service support, including repair and maintenance, engineering, supply and replacement parts, configuration management and disposal action. Sustainment can apply to platforms, such as ships, aircraft, vehicle fleets, and commodities, such as clothing, combat rations, munitions, and also services, such as calibration, provision of maritime target ranges. The Australian National Audit Office concluded that the fundamentals of the Department of Defence's governance and organisational framework for the management of materiel sustainment are fit-for-purpose. However, the Australian National Audit Office found that there remained scope for the department to improve its performance monitoring, and reporting and evaluation activities to better support management and external scrutiny of materiel sustainment. The committee heard the reintegration of the former Defence Materiel Organisation back into the Department of Defence following the First principles review had had positive cultural effects, but that the department needed to improve its financial and descriptive performance information to provide a 'clear read' across reporting documents. Further, the department should better articulate these positive effects. The committee considered whether there would be benefit in the Department of Defence developing a document like the Defence major projects report to report on sustainment, but has concluded that continued refinement of external reporting, and periodic ANAO reviews of the Department of Defence's reporting are the most effective way of improving sustainment reporting at this particular time. The committee found that while it was difficult for the Australian National Audit Office and the Department of Defence to agree on definitions of the acquisition and sustainment stages of a project, that the department's move to a whole-of-life costing model may provide a better understanding of total asset cost. The committee commended the Department of Defence on its acceptance of the findings of the First principles review and noted that it has declared a moratorium on further reviews to allow for the comprehensive implementation of the recommendations of the First principles review document. In particular, the changes to Systems Program Offices have led to welcome reform and the delivery of efficiencies, as well as improving the way the department utilises its staff. The committee also noted issues around the engagement of Bechtel to provide services to support the implementation of the First principles review. The Department of Defence is undertaking a competitive process to find a suitable candidate to run the Major Projects Office and the committee has called for a report on the outcome of the selection process. The committee has made six recommendations. Several are aimed at improving Defence sustainment reporting, while others seek further information on progress on the continued development of First principles review reforms, an update on the Systems Program Offices review and the whole-of-life costing model, and a detailed progress report on behavioural changes arising out of improvements to internal performance reporting. Finally, the committee has recommended that the Australian National Audit Office review the Department of Defence's new internal monthly reporting system to ensure improvements have been made on information provided to the minister and to the departmental secretary. In concluding, I would like to thank officials of the Department of Defence and the Australian National Audit Office for their contributions to the committee's inquiry. I would also like to extend my thanks to all members of the committee for their deliberations during this inquiry. I commend the report to the Senate. Question agreed to. Treaties Committee 62 Report 62 17:24 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales (—) (): On behalf of Senator Fawcett, I present two reports of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties as listed at item 15 on today's Order of Business. I seek leave to have the tabling speech of Senator Fawcett incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— I rise to make a statement concerning the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' Reports 176 and 177. Report 176 contains the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties' review of three treaty actions: an Agreement to continue support for the Singapore Air Force Flying Training Institute to continue to use the RAAF Base at Pearce in Western Australia; an Agreement with the Solomon Islands to support the deployment of Australian personnel to the Islands in the event of need; and an Agreement with the United States regarding continued support for America's space program. Mr President, the Agreement with Singapore replaces an existing Memorandum of Understanding and will provide a legal framework to support the continuing operation of Singapore's Flying Training Institute in Australia. The Institute has been a central element of Australia's defence relationship with Singapore for almost a quarter of a century. This Agreement will allow Singapore to continue flight training at the RAAF Base Pearce into the future. Mr President, we note that the significant Royal Singapore Air Force presence at RAAF Base Pearce provides economic benefits to businesses in the area and that the community are supportive of the arrangements. We have a significant history of bilateral relations with Singapore and concluded the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with them in 2015. This Agreement further demonstrates our commitment to that Partnership and the ongoing wider bilateral relationship. The Agreement between Australia and the Solomon Islands enables the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Defence Force to deploy rapidly and effectively in the event of an emergency. Of course, this would only happen at the request of the Solomon Islands government. For fourteen years from 2003, Australia led the RAMSI mission to help to stabilise the country after a period of unrest. RAMSI concluded on 30 June 2017. Mr President, while RAMSI was successful, the Solomon Islands still faces many development challenges. This Agreement will allow Australia to provide ongoing support, helping to build long-term stability and enduring growth. We note the importance of stability in this region to Australia's security. We heard about the concerns of Solomon Islanders regarding the conclusion of the RAMSI mission and the withdrawal of its personnel. We were assured that the negotiation of this new Agreement has gone someway to allay those fears and, we were told, it has wide support of Solomon Islanders. The Agreement between Australia and the United States for Space Vehicle Tracking and Communications Facilities consolidates an existing arrangement that has been in effect since 1960. Mr President, Australia's vital support for America's space program is well recognised. Facilities, including the Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex at Tidbinbilla, have provided support for missions including the Curiosity Rover's exploration of the surface of Mars, the Cassini mission to Saturn and the Hubble space telescope. This Agreement will allow the ongoing collaboration to continue for another 25 years. The Committee recommends that binding treaty action be taken for all three agreements. Finally, Mr President, the Report also contains the Committee's review of five minor treaty actions. The second report being tabled today, Report 177, contains the Committee's review of the proposed Extradition and Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties with Jordan. Mr President, the Committee has a history of supporting extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties, and has recommended that the two Treaties being considered here be ratified. The Committee has made two further recommendations and a suggestion to address matters raised during the inquiry. First, the Committee recommends that Australia and Jordan negotiate a less than treaty level agreement setting out how the Extradition Treaty will apply if Australia seeks the return of Australian foreign fighters transiting through Jordan from Iraq and Syria. The Committee believes the less than treaty level agreement will prevent complications arising from the extraterritorial nature of foreign fighter offences. Secondly, the Committee recommends an expansion of monitoring arrangements for Australian residents who have been extradited. Mr President, the Committee feels that monitoring extradited Australian residents contributes to public trust in the extradition process by minimising the possibility that extradited Australian resident will be subject to torture, or cruel and inhuman treatment. Finally, the Committee suggests that, in relation to extradition decisions for persons who may be tried by Jordan's State Security Court, the Attorney-General's Department advise the relevant Minister that this Court may not be independent. Mr President, the Committee believes this is necessary in light of both international and local concerns about the independence of this Court. Mr President, on behalf of the Committee, I commend the Reports to the Senate. Senator WILLIAMS I0V I move: That the Senate take note of the reports. 17:25 Senator BARTLETT DT6 Queensland I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Community Affairs References Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Public Works Committee 63 Government Response to Report 63 17:25 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory I present three government responses to committee reports as listed at item 15 on today's Order of Business. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to have the documents incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows— Australian Government response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee Report: Inquiry into the Effectiveness of Special Arrangements for the Supply of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) Medicines to Remote Area Aboriginal Health Services March 2018 RECOMMENDATION 1 The committee considers that to the extent that compliance with privacy laws and obligations can be maintained, Medicare Australia and DOHA should facilitate the release of information to parties requesting it to ensure that opportunities to understand the impact of the program are not wasted. Response The Australian Government supports this recommendation. The Australian Government collects data in relation to Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and this is published on the Department of Health and the Department of Human Services websites. The Department of Health also publishes Remote Area Aboriginal Health Services (RAAHS) Program annual expenditure data on its website, broken down by State/Territory: (http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health-pbs-indigenous-info). In addition, and consistent with long-standing procedures, other statistical material may be released to applicants where an appropriate request is received by the Department of Health. RECOMMENDATION 2 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government undertake an evaluation to ascertain whether the increased supply of PBS medicines provided by the program is having a clinical impact on the health of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in remote communities. Response The Australian Government supports the intent of this recommendation. The PBS is the mechanism through which the Australian Government provides timely access to affordable, subsidised medicines for all Australian residents. The RAAHS Program specifically supports the delivery of PBS-listed medicines to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians residing in remote communities under section 100 (s100) of the National Health Act 1953. The linking of medicine dispensing data with clinical outcomes is not undertaken. Each medicine listed on the PBS undergoes significant evaluation to determine its clinical efficacy for use by Australians as part of the rigorous Therapeutic Goods Administration approval process as set out in the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. Medicines also go through a rigorous cost-effectiveness analysis as part of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee listing process set out in the National Health Act 1953. The RAAHS Program was not designed to collect clinical data or monitor health outcomes. Clients of RAAHS are able to obtain PBS medicines for free, without requiring a Medicare card or a PBS prescription. The Australian Government acknowledges that, while an assessment of the clinical impact of the program may be beneficial, an evaluation of any links between PBS medicine supply and clinical outcomes would be a major undertaking, requiring considerable research expertise and ethics clearance. Such research is likely to impose a significant reporting burden on relevant practitioners in participating Aboriginal Health Services (AHSs), whose primary role is the provision of healthcare to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. A regular biennial review of health outcomes and the determinants of health is reported through the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Performance Framework. Data analysis of 68 different measures by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare is used to report on progress made under the framework. RECOMMENDATION 3 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government provide specific funding for remote area AHSs to be able to provide dose administration aids (DAAs) to their patients. Response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. At present, the Australian Government funds the provision of Dose Administration Aids (DAAs) through programs and initiatives under the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement (6CPA). The Government has supported the provision of DAA services to the general population through incentive payments under successive CPAs. As part of the historic compact reached between the Government and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, announced in the 2017-18 Budget, from 1 July 2017, community pharmacies participating in the DAA program will receive a fee of $6 per patient per week as a contribution towards the cost of providing DAAs to eligible patients, in place of an incentive payment. As part of the 6CPA, the Australian Government also supports DAA services to clients of rural and urban AHSs through the Quality Use of Medicines Maximised for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (QUMAX) Program. The Australian Government also continues to fund the s100 Support Allowance Program, allowing pharmacists to visit remote area AHSs and to provide quality use of medicines and medication management services to suit individual AHS needs. The Indigenous Australians Health Program Integrated Team Care (ITC) Activity aims to contribute to improving health outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with chronic health conditions through better access to coordinated and multidisciplinary care. ITC Supplementary Services funding can be used to expedite a patient's access to an urgent and essential health service, such as a DAA, where the service is not otherwise available in a clinically acceptable timeframe. The RAAHS program provides for the supply of PBS medicines to RAAHS through a bulk supply arrangement. In addition to these bulk supply arrangements, some states and territories require pharmacies to provide PBS medicines labelled for individual RAAHS clients with chronic conditions. Many of these are supplied through a DAA. In November 2016, the Australian Government agreed to provide an additional payment to eligible pharmacists from 1 January 2017, in recognition of the additional effort required by pharmacists to provide medicines for individual RAAHS clients. This payment will be continued through the 2017‑18 Budget measure Improving Access to Medicines — maintaining Remote Area Aboriginal Health Services pharmaceutical dispensing. RECOMMENDATION 4 The committee agrees with submitters and recommends that program flexibility be implemented to give remote area AHSs increased and direct access to the services of a pharmacist. This could be done by AHSs engaging a pharmacist directly or in collaboration with other stakeholders or service providers. Options for funding and operating these services could include cashing-out existing program funding, access to alternative funding measures, expansion of the Practice Nurse Incentive Program to include pharmacists, remunerating remote pharmacists for services though the Medicare Benefits Schedule, and removal of legislative barriers that prevent the operation of pharmacy businesses in remote areas. Response The Australian Government supports this recommendation. The Australian Government provides a range of funding to AHSs for various activities, including the employment of pharmacists, where this is deemed appropriate by the individual AHS. More than 130 Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services (ACCHSs) in urban and rural areas have access to funding flexibility under the Indigenous Australians Health Program, which was established in July 2014. Activities that support primary healthcare service delivery are eligible for this funding, including development, employment and enhancement of workforce capacity. The 6CPA s100 Support Allowance Program provides funding for pharmacists to provide a range of quality use of medicines and medication management services to remote area AHSs. An individual AHS may employ health professionals, such as pharmacists, subject to its operational needs. However, the remoteness of some AHSs, the low population and lack of community amenities continue to present a challenge in attracting and retaining pharmacists in some areas. These issues are consistent with the wider issues of attracting and retaining other health professionals in regional and remote locations. Commonwealth legislation does not limit the operation of pharmacies in remote areas. State and Territory legislation determines where a pharmacist can dispense medicines. For example, in the Northern Territory, a pharmacist is only authorised to dispense PBS medicines from an approved community pharmacy, not from an AHS. Through the 6CPA, the Australian Government has committed $50 million to support a Pharmacy Trial Program, to fund a number of trials to improve patient outcomes and expand the role of pharmacy in delivering a wider range of primary healthcare services. A particular focus of the trials is on programs which would benefit Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and consumers in rural and remote areas. One of the first trials is a feasibility study that aims to improve medication management for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people through pharmacist advice and culturally appropriate services. The feasibility study, to be jointly led by the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO), commenced in late 2017. In July 2017, the Minister for Health, the Hon Greg Hunt MP, announced plans for a trial that will see a pharmacist working directly as part of a primary care team within ACCHSs. This trial aims to improve patients' understanding of and use of their medicines and will leverage existing relationships with community pharmacies to improve patients' access to programs under the 6CPA. This trial will be jointly led by the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia and NACCHO and is expected to commence in early 2018. RECOMMENDATION 5 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government establish a consultative body of relevant stakeholders to develop proposals and options to increase direct access to pharmacists for remote area AHSs, consult program participants and others, and provide support to AHSs to allow them to make informed choices about options. Response The Australian Government supports the intent of this recommendation. The Australian Government provides funding for remote area AHSs to obtain direct access to pharmacists through the Section 100 Pharmacy Support Allowance Program under the 6CPA. This program provides funding to pharmacies to provide services to support a remote area AHS in its implementation of, and ongoing participation in, the RAAHS Program. These services include provision of education services to AHS staff in relation to the Quality Use of Medicines. The Australian Government undertakes a range of stakeholder consultation activities for programs supporting AHSs and the delivery of healthcare for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Australian Government is committed to ensuring that the views of stakeholders are heard and meetings with a range of stakeholders are held regularly to enable their views to be heard by Government. This includes ongoing discussions with NACCHO, a peak stakeholder organisation representing community controlled AHSs across Australia. Under the 6CPA, wide-ranging consultation with stakeholders is designed to assess how well current arrangements work and how they can be improved. This includes consultation to improve clinical outcomes for consumers and extend the role of pharmacists in the primary healthcare setting. The Review of Pharmacy Remuneration and Regulation (the Review) was an independent assessment of pharmacy services provided under, and outside of, the community pharmacy agreement model. As part of the Review, stakeholder views were sought on programs responsible for delivering PBS medicines to remote communities and the arrangements for distribution and guarantee of supply to community pharmacies across Australia. This occurred through 'town hall' type meetings, targeted consultation meetings, written submissions, on line surveys and a national interactive webcast consultation. Remuneration for supplying government-subsidised medicines and rules governing the location of pharmacies were also examined under the Review. In addition, how existing arrangements contribute to patient health outcomes and improved quality use of medicines, including for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, was examined. Aboriginal Health Services and other peak groups were provided with opportunities to contribute to the Review. The Final Report on the Pharmacy Remuneration and Regulation Review is currently being considered by Government. RECOMMENDATION 6 The committee is surprised to note that there is no universal system in place to provide for accurate and legible labelling and recording of medicines. The committee therefore recommends that the Commonwealth Government urgently support the development and introduction of efficient standardised systems for accurate labelling of medicines in remote area AHSs, and that these systems are developed to ensure accurate collection of medicine data and use. Response While the Australian Government supports the intent of this recommendation, labelling of dispensed medicines is a state and territory responsibility. The Australian Government provides funding to the States and Territories, and to ACCHSs under the Indigenous Australians Health Program, to support the provision of clinical and cost-effective health services. This may include the purchase and development of relevant systems. The Australian Government does not generally direct how this funding is used. Aboriginal Health Services in remote Australia participating in the RAAHS Program can access the s100 Support Allowance Program, which provides AHSs with the opportunity to negotiate arrangements with 'support pharmacists' to provide a range of quality use of medicines and medication management services to suit the individual AHS' needs. Each State and Territory has its own legislation concerning the labelling and recording of medicines dispensed by community pharmacies and hospital authorities throughout Australia. Commonwealth law requires collection of certain information about medicines that are funded under the PBS. Pharmacies and AHSs participating in the RAAHS Program must adhere to the relevant State and Territory laws which vary between jurisdictions, which limit the implementation of a universal system for labelling and recording medicines for the RAAHS Program. RECOMMENDATION 7 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government publish information on the status of recommendations from previous reports, making it clear which recommendations will be implemented, timeframes and responsibility for implementation. Response The Australian Government supports this recommendation. The Department of Health submission to the inquiry, available at http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/Completed_inquiries/2010-13/pbsmedicines/submissions, provided a significant amount of detail on the way in which the Government has responded to the recommendations of previous reports. The independent Review of Pharmacy Remuneration and Regulation considered programs designed to improve access to, and affordability of, medicines, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The interim Review Report was released in July 2017 and included a proposal that access to medicines programs for Indigenous Australians under the RAAHS Program and the Closing the Gap PBS Co-Payment Measure be reformed so that the benefits to the individual follow that individual, regardless of where the prescription is written or dispensed. The Final Report on the Pharmacy Remuneration and Regulation Review is currently being considered by Government. RECOMMENDATION 8 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government ensure that participants in the section 100 program have sufficient opportunities to participate in the implementation process. Response The Australian Government supports this recommendation and will build on the existing range of mechanisms to ensure this recommendation is realised. The independent Review of Pharmacy Remuneration and Regulation considered programs designed to improve access to, and affordability of, medicines, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The interim Review Report was released in July 2017 and included a proposal that access to medicines programs for Indigenous Australians under the RAAHS Program and the Closing the Gap PBS Co-Payment Measure be reformed so that the benefits to the individual follow that individual, regardless of where the prescription is written or dispensed. The Final Report on the Pharmacy Remuneration and Regulation Review is currently being considered by Government. RECOMMENDATION 9 The committee would like to see greater integration of existing programs to provide complementary services to patients of AHSs. The evidence the committee received during the course of this inquiry supports this. Therefore the committee recommends that DOHA develop a process for integrating existing programs, and that a clear policy and program logic is published to show how these programs will work together. Response The Australian Government supports this recommendation in principle and is committed to the development and implementation of programs and services that are well integrated. The PBS medicine supply programs and related measures have the same intended aim, to overcome barriers that inhibit access to PBS medicines by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, wherever they reside. In order to ensure programs meet the varying needs of the community, such as geographic isolation, socio-economic factors, and/or the availability of health infrastructure, flexibility needs to be built in to allow for different ways to access medicines. RECOMMENDATION 10 The committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government clarify the application of the section 100 supply program to remote aged care facilities, and advise operators of these facilities accordingly. Response The Australian Government agrees to this recommendation. Commonwealth funded residential aged care facilities (RACFs) are not included within the definition of an AHS under the RAAHS Program. That is, they cannot receive bulk supply of medicines and store them for resident use. Accordingly, they are not eligible to participate in the RAAHS Program. PBS medicines in RACFs are provided under normal PBS arrangements. The operators of aged care facilities that have contacted the Australian Government for advice on this matter have been advised accordingly. The Department of Health will ensure that this and other related information continues to be made available to RACFs. Australian Government response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report: Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Integrity) Bill 2017 [Provisions] Introduction On 16 August 2017, the Migration and Other Legislation Amendment (Enhanced Integrity) Bill 2017 (the Bill) was introduced into the Parliament. On 17 August 2017, the Senate referred the Bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 17 October 2017. On 17 October 2017, the Committee released its report. The report makes two recommendations, which are addressed below. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1 2.35 The Committee recommends that the wording of paragraph 338(2)(d) is reconsidered to ensure that the paragraph is clearly understood while also achieving its policy objective. Response - Noted Paragraph 338(2)(d) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Migration Act) sets out the circumstances in which onshore applicants for prescribed visas can apply for merits review of a decision to refuse to grant a visa. Some of the visas prescribed for the purposes of paragraph 338(2)(d) require the visa applicant to be sponsored and nominated by an approved sponsor; others only require sponsorship. The intention of proposed new paragraph 338(2)(d) is to clarify the circumstances in which applicants who require both sponsorship and nomination can apply for merits review. This addresses the decision in Kandel v the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCCA 2013, which interpreted current paragraph 338(2)(d) of the Migration Act in a way that is inconsistent with the policy intention. Proposed new paragraph 338(2)(d), as currently drafted, achieves this intention, whilst also ensuring that visa applicants who do not require a nomination are not negatively impacted by this amendment. Recommendation 2 2.36 The Committee recommends that the bill be passed. Australian Government response to The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works Report 2-2017 Inquiry into the Proposed Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre Hardening Project at Mitchell Avenue, Northam, Western Australia Government Response to Recommendations: The Australian Government accepts recommendation 2 items 3.43 and 3.44 of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works final report for the inquiry into the Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre Hardening Project, Mitchell Avenue, Northam, WA. Recommendation 2: 3.43 The Committee recommends that the Department of i mmigration and Border Protection seek to establish community consultation groups for all of the immigration detention centres in Australia, and to use these groups as: A means of providing the local community with information on all construction works undertaken at immigration detention centres; and A means for local residents and groups to ask questions, provide feedback on, and raise concerns about proposed construction projects. 3.44 The Department of Immigration and Border Protection will provide the Committee with three-monthly updates on the progress and outcomes of community consultation for the hardening works at Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre until the completion of the project. Response: The Department is committed to strengthening stakeholder and community engagement in all communities in the vicinity of an immigration detention facility. Community Consultation Groups exist for all facilities in the immigration detention network, and the Department engages with these groups on significant infrastructure works. The Department has engaged with the Northam community since the Yongah Hill Immigration Detention Centre (YHIDC) Hardening Project was endorsed by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works (PWC) in March 2017. This dedicated Community Consultation Group has been established with local business representatives, local Indigenous Elders, the Shire of Northam, the Northam Chamber of Commerce and the WA Legislative Assembly Member for Central Wheatbelt. These meetings provide an opportunity for community members to raise any issues or concerns. The meetings are held quarterly and focus on welfare, services, infrastructure issues, recruitment processes and opportunities for local businesses. The Department is currently providing the PWC with three-monthly updates on the progress and outcomes of community consultation for the hardening works at YHIDC, and will continue to do so until completion of the project. The Department signed the construction contract for the hardening project on 18 December 2017, with practical completion expected in mid-2018. Construction will commence in January 2018. COMMITTEES 68 COMMITTEES Consideration 68 Constitutional Recognition of ATSIP, National Disability Insurance Scheme 68 Membership 68 17:27 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 00AOP The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees. 17:27 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory by leave—I move: That Senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples—Joint Select Committee— Appointed—Senator Siewert National Disability Insurance Scheme—Joint Standing Committee— On 26 March 2018— Discharged—Senator Steele-John Appointed—Senator Siewert On 27 March 2018— Discharged—Senator Siewert Appointed—Senator Steele-John Question agreed to. BILLS 68 BILLS Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017 68

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017

In Committee 68 17:28 The TEMPORARY CHAIR 00AOP The committee is considering the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Welfare Reform) Bill 2017, and the question before the chair is that the bill as amended, subject to requests, be agreed to. 17:28 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I need to ask the minister whether there are any calculations with respect to amendments tabled by One Nation before the Senate. One Nation has told us that they increase the amount of payments that are available under the bereavement allowance to either the equivalent of what is currently paid in a bereaved situation or more. Is that correct? 17:29 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory I will have to take that particular information on notice. I don't have advice on that to hand, but I'm sure I will have it to hand shortly. 17:29 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia We are seeking advice as to the extent to which those amendments reinstate and improve eligibility for those allowances, and the extent to which they reinstate payments. As we understand it, the payments have been reduced to the equivalent of the jobseeker allowance, and we want to know what the One Nation amendments increase them to. 17:30 Senator SCULLION 00AOM Northern Territory Thank you very much for that clarification. As I indicated, I should soon have the answers to what the impact of the One Nation amendment would be on those particular payments, so I'll take that on notice. 17:30 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia You're aware that a bereavement allowance is a payment for people whose partner has died and is paid for a maximum of 14 weeks currently at the rate of the age pension. Is that the rate that these amendments will pay the allowance at? I might also direct this question to Senator Hanson. 17:31 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I heard half the question. Would you like to repeat that, please? 17:31 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia You have some amendments before the Senate that amend the bereavement allowance, schedule 4, which you had your colleagues vote to oppose yesterday. That vote was then reinstated when you said you would support the government. Now you've put forward amendments in this place that completely contradict your support for the government on schedule 4, because they're much closer to changing the payments. What are those payments changed to in your amendment? 17:32 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Thank you very much for your question. We opposed the amendment the Labor Party put up because it wasn't as good as the amendment we have put up. In 567FB the amount of payment is seven times better for the person. Previously it was only the Newstart payment; then there was a one-off payment two weeks later. My proposed amendment is far better for the people. No-one is going to be worse off under this. Some people are going to be better off with it. The government's costing for the bereavement was $1,040,000. It will cost a little bit more to instate this, but it is important that people in bereavement be looked after. That's why we put up this amendment. I understand you are going to support this amendment, and I'm pleased to hear that. 17:33 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia You've asserted some people would be better off under this amendment. What do you mean by that statement? 17:33 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland After talking to the government with regard to this, the minister assured me no-one will be worse off and some people will be better off under the proposal I put forward, which is what I wanted to ensure. The payments they will receive will be better under this amendment. 17:34 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Who exactly will be better off under this amendment? 17:34 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland The government have the costings for this. I suggest you direct your questions to them. 17:34 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Senator Cash, Senator Hanson has asserted that some people will be better off under the Hanson amendment. Can you please explain to us who these people are. 17:34 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia This gives me an opportunity, Chair, to advise the Senate that the government will be supporting the amendments put forward by One Nation. It's an amendment to schedule 4. Schedule 4 of the bill closes bereavement allowance and provides support to bereaved persons through a new jobseeker payment or youth allowance from 20 March 2020. This amendment changes the formula for calculating payments to those who lose a partner, to ensure that no-one will receive less in financial support under the new arrangements than they would receive under the current system. I believe they are the people that Senator Hanson is actually referring to. The government supports this amendment, which builds upon the government amendments to support bereaved pregnant women. This amendment ensures that no bereaved person will be worse off with the cessation of the bereavement allowance. Bereavement allowance is paid at the pension rate of payment, compared to the jobseeker payment, which will be paid at the allowance rate of payment. As the bill is currently drafted, a bereaved person claiming jobseeker payment or youth allowance will receive a one-off lump sum payment, in addition to their ongoing fortnightly payment, following the death of their partner. To ensure that no bereaved person is worse off under the new jobseeker payment, this amendment will, from 20 March 2020, change the way payments are calculated for bereaved persons to ensure that there will be no difference between what a bereaved person will receive under the jobseeker payment or youth allowance and what they would receive under bereavement allowance. Again, they are the people Senator Hanson is referring to. I need to point out that with the removal of the potential difference in amounts between jobseeker payment and bereavement allowance, the new system provides a much better arrangement for those who are bereaved. Those who lose a partner do not have to apply for another payment as they do under the current system. Instead, they will receive an exemption from any mutual obligation requirements, to support them in their time of bereavement, and will seamlessly move into job search or other mutual obligation activities once the period of exemption ends. 17:37 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Minister, I seek your advice. Senator Hanson asserted that some people will be better off under these amendments. Do the amendments to schedule 4 bring the payments up to what they are under the existing arrangements? Is anyone going to be paid more than they would currently receive under the existing bereavement entitlements? 17:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Yes, I understand that some will be paid more. 17:37 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Who are the people that will be paid more? What kind of circumstances are you describing? 17:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'm instructed that they are those people who would be on bereavement payment for less than 14 weeks. 17:38 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Can you take me through the eligibility requirements for that and how it is that this amendment makes it so? What will that payment be? How much above the existing bereavement payment will it actually be? 17:38 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'm advised that eligibility is through the pension income and assets tests. 17:38 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia It's through the pension income and assets tests. So is the eligibility for this payment more or less stringent than for the existing payments? 17:38 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Under the jobseeker payment, the answer is yes, because it is an allowance. 17:39 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I'm sorry; you might need to explain that to me a little more. Our understanding, from looking at this amendment, is that while some people will be better off they'll only be better off relative to the schedule as you amended it, not better off compared to the bereavement payments as they are currently paid—is that correct? 17:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Yes, that's basically what I said when I was responding to your questions on Senator Hanson; yes, it's the amount paid that means they are better off. 17:40 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia They are better off in relation to the schedule as it stands in the bill before us, but not in relation to the payments as they are currently paid if someone is bereaved today? 17:40 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Do you mean people who would be eligible, or people who would be paid? 17:40 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I'm asking in terms of the amount paid, not about the eligibility. 17:40 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Those people are better off. 17:40 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I'm still a bit unclear. I've heard that some of the people who are now under the new schedule as amended will be better off— 17:41 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Yes. When we say 'better off'—and I think that is where there is confusion—they will now receive the amount they would have received had they been on the bereavement allowance. 17:41 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Thank you. That is what I wanted to clarify. So there are some people who will be better off and there are some people who will be the same as if they were on the bereavement allowance. Does this affect the changed eligibility criteria? 17:41 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia No. This amendment does not affect eligibility. Senator PRATT I0T In terms of what is currently paid in the bereavement allowances, what are the circumstances of people who will be paid at a higher rate under this amendment than they otherwise would have been paid under the existing arrangements? By 'existing arrangements' I do not mean the schedule before us; I mean the bereavement allowances as they are currently paid. 17:42 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I am instructed that, in terms of the way you have phrased the question, the answer is that no-one will be worse off. Senator PRATT I0T Senator Hanson asserted that people will be better off. I want to know who will be better off. We are talking about relative to the arrangements before this parliament has legislated. No-one is better off under this amendment; it is only relative to what the government had brought to this place? 17:43 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I think that is where the confusion is occurring. The comments that Senator Hanson has made are in relation to the amendment that has already been agreed to by the Senate. The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 Senator Hanson, for formality, would you like to move your amendment? 17:44 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I don't have a copy of that here on my desk. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: We will get one to you. We will keep the questions going, so don't leave the chamber yet. Senator Pratt. Senator PRATT I0T While Senator Hanson prepares to move her amendment, I want to clarify something with the government. The assertion that this amendment will make people better off is based on their being better off in relation to the schedule that is proposed in this bill, not compared to the existing arrangements for bereavement payments? 17:44 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In regard to the existing bereavement payments, they are no worse off. 17:44 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I do now understand that. And, as I understand it, the eligibility for these payments is not changed by this amendment. 17:45 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The answer to that question is yes, as I think I've now stated on several occasions. 17:45 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I have a question for Senator Hanson, when she's ready, but we might give her the opportunity to move her amendments. I might continue asking questions of the government while Senator Hanson prepares herself. As I understand it, the eligibility for this payment is more stringent, because it's moved from the pensions asset test to the job seeker allowance assets test. Is that correct? 17:46 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'm instructed that the figure that relates to your question is that 960 people who would otherwise have claimed bereavement allowance will be able to claim job seeker payment and be no worse off. 17:46 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia That is not the question. My question is about the eligibility for the job seeker payment in bereavement circumstances. The assets-and-income test for that used to be the assets-and-income test equivalent to the age pension, but that is now changing to the income-and-assets test for the job seeker allowance. Is that correct? 17:47 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Yes. 17:47 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia So, Minister, when you say that no-one will be worse off, they will have the same income, but only if they are eligible to receive that income and the eligibility for a bereavement allowance or the new equivalent of it, job seeker allowance, under bereavement circumstances is now more stringent? 17:47 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Yes. 17:48 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Do you have any idea of how many people lose their eligibility for this payment? 17:48 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I am instructed that it is 30 persons per year. 17:48 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia When you say 30 persons per year, that is in fact 30 persons per year who will be worse off because they're no longer eligible for this payment? 17:48 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'm instructed that they will actually have more assets and income than is required for them to be eligible for the allowance. 17:48 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia So those people will be above the income and assets test to receive a bereavement payment? 17:49 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Yes, in the same way that they would be—the answer is yes. 17:49 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia How then can the government or One Nation make the claim that nobody will be worse off under this bill in relation to bereavement entitlements? 17:49 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I understand that most bereavement allowance recipients receive payment for 14 weeks at the high pension rate. Without this amendment, the total amount of jobseeker payments over the 14 weeks, including the lump-sum payment, is estimated at around $1,300 less for bereavement allowance paid for the same period; and, for youth allowance, the difference is estimated at around $2,200. This is now rectified with this amendment put forward by One Nation. 17:50 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia But the opposition, with the support of the Greens, sought to rectify this yesterday by asking this place to vote against schedule 4. If we had voted against schedule 4 in this place then the existing entitlements, which means bereavement allowance paid at the age pension rate, would have been the status quo. Members of One Nation missed that vote and they came back into this place and asked for that vote to be recommitted because they agreed with the government. Now why are you moving this motion today if you agree with the government? The simple fact is: this is exactly contrary to what the government put forward yesterday and, what's more, it does not restore the entitlements for bereavement allowance to everyone who would have otherwise had it under the existing arrangements in the legislation. You should have stuck with your vote to reject schedule 4 yesterday because, had you voted it down, people would receive exactly the same rate as they do now, which is what you're seeking to do with this amendment. But what's more, your claim that no-one will be worse off is completely false, because those 30 persons a year will no longer be eligible for bereavement allowance. 17:51 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland by leave—I move: That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments: (R6) Schedule 4, item 39, page 100 (line 34) to page 101 (line 1), omit section 567FB, substitute: 567FB Amount of payment (1) The amount of the person's payment is worked out using the following formula (except if paragraph 567FA(g) applies in relation to the person): Daily rate of person's youth allowance on the relevant day x 14 x 7 (2) If subparagraph 567FA(g) (i) applies in relation to the person, the amount of the person's payment is worked out using the following formula: [Daily rate of person's youth allowance on the relevant day x 14 x 3] + $2,000 (3) If subparagraph 567FA(g) (ii) applies in relation to the person, the amount of the person's payment is worked out using the following formula: [Daily rate of person's youth allowance on the relevant day x 14 x 3] + Additional amount where: additional amount means the amount worked out in accordance with the following table: (R8) Schedule 4, item 54, page 106 (lines 1 to 4), omit section 660LI, substitute: 660LI Amount of payment (1) The amount of the person's payment is worked out using the following formula (except if paragraph 660LH(g) applies in relation to the person): Daily rate of person's jobseeker payment on the relevant day x 14 x 4.5 (2) If subparagraph 660LH(g) (i) applies in relation to the person, the amount of the person's payment is worked out using the following formula: [Daily rate of person's jobseeker payment on the relevant day x 14 x 3] + $1,000 (3) If subparagraph 660LH(g) (ii) applies in relation to the person, the amount of the person's payment is worked out using the following formula: [Daily rate of person's jobseeker payment on the relevant day x 14 x 3] + Additional amount where: additional amount means the amount worked out in accordance with the following table: Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendments (R6) and (R8) The effect of amendment (R6) is to increase the amount of a one‑off payment to certain recipients of youth allowance under the Social Security Act 1991. It is framed as a request because it will increase the amount of expenditure out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, and so will increase a "proposed charge or burden on the people". The effect of amendment (R8) is to increase the amount of a one‑off payment to certain recipients of jobseeker payment under the Social Security Act 1991. It is framed as a request because it will increase the amount of expenditure out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, and so will increase a "proposed charge or burden on the people". Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendments (R6) and (R8) These amendments will increase the amount of a one‑off payment to certain recipients of youth allowance and jobseeker payment. The statement of reasons for moving these amendments as requests advises that they will increase expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 242 of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999. The Senate has long followed the practice that it should treat as requests amendments that would result in increased expenditure under a standing appropriation. If that is the effect of the amendments, then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that they be moved as requests. 17:53 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I've got a number of questions, particularly for Senator Hanson, about this amendment. I think it is appropriate to direct them to her given that it is her amendment. I assume that this is something she's worked on very hard. My first question is simply: how is this amendment different to the amendment you voted against last night? If it refreshes your memory, last night, you, on two occasions, voted with the government to remove the bereavement allowance. We had to put the vote again because two of your senators missed the vote so they came back in and voted with the government, with the Liberal Party, to cut this allowance. I'm interested to know how it is that this amendment that you're now putting up, that you claim is about supporting the allowance, differs from the amendment that you personally voted against twice last night. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Senator Hanson, do you need more time? 17:54 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland If you look at the government's amendment, at 567FB, you see that the daily rate of a person's youth allowance on the relevant day was times 14, for the 14 weeks, and it was double that amount. Under the amendment that I have put forward, under 567FB, it would be the daily rate of youth allowance on the relevant day times 14, times seven. So the amendment that I am putting up has increased it considerably. The same is relevant to 660LI. It is the daily rate of a person's jobseeker payment on the relevant day, times 14, by two, under the government. Under my amendment, it would be the daily rate of a person's jobseeker payment on the relevant day by 14 by 4½ times. So it is a lot more for the person. 17:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Hanson, you and your colleagues have spent a lot of time today claiming that this amendment will result in many people being better off. Can you tell us how many people will be better off as a result of your amendment? 17:56 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I spoke to the minister last night. I was assured by the minister that, under this, people would be better off. I don't have the resources of the Labor Party or the government to put an actual figure on the number of people that would be better off. The amendment states that it is better for the people, and I stand by that. It is the Labor Party—and you yourself, Senator Watt—trying to make political points on this, by your comments this morning. It is just the usual you. So, if you are— The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 Senator Hanson, I would encourage you to speak to the chair. Senator HANSON BK6 All right; to the chair: as I am saying, if the Labor Party and everyone here is in agreement that this bereavement payment should not be gone, for a cost of $1,040,000, I think it's important that we do support this bereavement allowance. Hence, although the One Nation party voted the way that we did last night, on reflection this is why we have put this amendment forward today—because it should be there and we stand by that. I don't want to cause any pain or undue stress on people, especially those going through this time. As I've said, the amendment ensures that no bereaved person is worse off with the cessation of bereavement allowance. As the bill is currently drafted, from 20 March 2020 a bereaved person claiming youth allowance or jobseeker payment who is not pregnant will receive a one-off higher payment following the death of their partner. To ensure that no bereaved person is worse off under the new jobseeker payment, this amendment will change the way payments are calculated for bereaved persons from 20 March 2020, to ensure that there will be no difference between what a bereaved person receives under jobseeker payment or youth allowance compared to what they would've received under a bereavement allowance. With the removal of the potential difference in amounts between jobseeker payment and bereavement allowance, the new system provides a much better arrangement for those who are bereaved. Those who lose a partner do not have to apply for another payment, as they do under the current system. Instead, they receive an exemption from any mutual obligation requirements to support them in their time of bereavement and they will seamlessly move on into job search or other mutual obligation activities once the period of exemption ends. This will make the system simpler and maintain support for those experiencing one of the most difficult moments of crisis. I have moved my requests for amendment. I hope that they get the support of this chamber and that people stop playing party politics. 17:59 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'm actually not trying to play politics; I'm just asking questions about an amendment that you've moved, Senator Hanson. As I say, Senator Hanson and her colleagues have spent the day claiming to be moving an amendment here which will make many people in Australia better off. I ask you again: how many? Surely, if you were going to make that claim, you would have some idea of how many people are going to be better off. Do you have any idea how many people will be better off as a result of this amendment, given that you've spent the day claiming that people will be? 18:00 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Like I said, when someone loses their partner and is in bereavement at that time, I don't believe we have the numbers for that, because it's something that can happen to a family or anyone. So I don't have the numbers. 18:00 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I also wish to direct a question to Senator Hanson, and my question is this: you maintain that you want to make bereaved people in this nation better off; is that correct? Senator Hanson, I need to ask you: are you aware that there is still an alternative amendment before this chamber that would allow us to knock out schedule 4? You voted with the government yesterday to reinstate that amendment. However, Senator Siewert still has a motion before this chamber that will knock out the schedule as drafted by the government. It will reinstate the existing eligibility arrangements. That means that those 30 people who would miss out on this bereavement payment would retain eligibility for it. The simple fact is that the minister has clarified that, rather than your amendment making people better off, that definition of 'better off' is only relative to the regressive steps in this legislation. No-one is actually better off than the status quo with your amendment. If you truly want to make people better off, will you vote for Senator Siewert's amendment to knock out schedule 4? 18:02 Senator BURSTON 207807 New South Wales I am sitting here absolutely amazed at the hypocrisy of the Labor Party. We are trying to introduce an amendment that will make people no worse off in terms of their bereavement. It is a very sad time in people's lives when they lose a loved one. It is a very difficult time in terms of partners losing their loved one, and for them to lose remuneration or pensions or allowances at that particular time would be very, very distressful. We are trying to play a fair card. We're not playing politics like the Labor Party and the hypocritical senators over there who want to score political points at every opportunity. Senator Chisholm 39801 Thirty people. Senator BURSTON 207807 You can interject as much as you like; it won't concern me too much. I strongly support this amendment by One Nation and Senator Hanson, and you can bellyache all you like. In the public eye, you are just being total and absolute hypocrites, and you just do not like One Nation coming up with policies and ideas that perhaps— Senator Urquhart 231199 That disadvantage people. Senator BURSTON 207807 Well, they don't disadvantage people. I'll take that interjection. They do not disadvantage people. It's 30 people in 25 million. I think that every decision made by parliament will disadvantage someone in some way and will not advantage 100 per cent of the population, so I support the amendment before the chamber. 18:04 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I find it strange that it's being said that this is going to help everyone. There have been claims made that everybody is going to be better off under this schedule. There will be people who will be worse off. That's the point about this whole schedule. That's why we are seeking to disallow the whole schedule, to knock off the whole schedule. It is because people will be— Senator Burston interjecting— Senator SIEWERT e5z Don't get ridiculous! The CHAIR: I remind senators to speak through the chair. Senator SIEWERT e5z Sorry. Through you, Chair, I'm saying to Senator Burston: don't be ridiculous! The point is that people will be worse off under this overall schedule. We've just heard from Senator Hanson and Senator Burston about how people in bereavement are obviously going through a really, really hard time—and they are. That is why we supported the ALP amendment last night to disallow it. At the time I said I had an amendment, too. I will be moving it because the situation with this schedule will be different if this amendment gets up. Senator Burston, you will have the chance to actually make sure nobody will be worse off because we will have the opportunity to vote down that schedule. I'm hoping you will lend support to my amendment that says: 'Let's get rid of this schedule because it is cruel to people who would have been able to access this allowance when they were in fact bereaved. They will now be excluded.' It is a fallacy to say that no-one will be worse off. It's too cute by half to say that when you are supporting a schedule that means that people will no longer be able to access this allowance. Let's be really clear. If Senator Hanson can't provide the numbers for those who will be better off in terms of getting more money than they would have—that is what I understand Senator Hanson to have said—is the minister or the government, who have indicated support for this amendment, able to tell us how many will be better off or getting more money than they would have both under the original allowance and under the process that was passed previously by the Senate in the amendment? Does that make sense? 18:07 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I think I've explained this several times in relation to different questions that have been put. The answer is 960 people annually who would otherwise have claimed bereavement allowance will be able to claim the jobseeker payment or another payment. As I've also already stated, approximately 30 newly bereaved people per year would not qualify for the income support payment due to their income, assets or other circumstances—for example, their age. In terms of what this amendment does, most bereavement allowance recipients, as I've already stated, receive payment for 14 weeks at the higher pension rate. Without this amendment put forward by Senator Hanson, the total amount of jobseeker payments over the 14 weeks, including the lump sum payment, is estimated at approximately $1,300 less than the bereavement allowance paid for the same period. For youth allowance, the difference is estimated at approximately $2,200. So what this amendment will do is ensure that under the legislation that is currently before the Senate—and the government's amendment was passed—no bereaved person is worse off with the cessation of the bereavement allowance. 18:09 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria Last night some of us crossbenchers supported the Greens and Labor in voting in favour of them. I just want to stand up and say that it's hypocritical for Senator Burston to talk about hypocrisy when last night he wasn't even here for the first vote. He was at dinner. He got back for the second vote and voted with the government. Yesterday, One Nation could have voted with Labor and with the Greens and taken care of it all. I will be voting for their amendment, but I just want to make that point that it could have all been fixed up yesterday. 18:10 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Just to be really clear, Senator Cash, on these numbers, you're saying that the original proposal that was voted for last night by the government and One Nation would have transferred 960 current recipients of the bereavement allowance to Newstart or another form of payment which was a lower form of payment, so—let's just be frank—they would have been worse off. There would be another 30 who would miss out on any payment altogether, so they'd be worse off still. The result of this amendment, you're saying, will essentially maintain the payment that 960 people would have received in the form of a bereavement allowance. They might be getting something different now, but the dollars that they get in their pocket will be the same as what they would have received yesterday, the day before—is that correct? 18:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The simple answer to your question is, as I've already stated several times: under the amendment put forward by One Nation, 960 effectively women will be no worse off compared to the current bill. In other words, it will maintain the cessation of the payment. 18:11 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland So last night the bill was put. It was voted for in the end by the government and One Nation and it ceased the bereavement allowance and transferred people to a new form of payment which was a lower amount of payment. What you're saying is that this amendment only takes people to the lower amount of money that they would be provided with as a result of the legislation that was voted on last night? If that's the case, they are worse off. 18:12 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, to answer the question you've put: no, it ceases the payment, but it increases what they would have received under the bill that is currently before the Senate. 18:12 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland So let's just take a hypothetical example of someone who, a month ago, would have qualified for bereavement allowance. Let's just say, for argument's sake, they would have qualified for $2,000. As a result of the clauses that were passed last night, let's say that their payment would have fallen to $1,000. You're saying that, as a result of the amendment that we're currently debating, they will go back to the original $2,000 that they would have qualified for, so they will be no worse off? 18:13 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That is correct. 18:13 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland But there are 30 people who, despite this amendment, will now receive a lower amount—in fact, nothing—when they would have received a bereavement allowance previously. Is that correct? 18:13 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia They won't meet the eligibility for the pension allowance. 18:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland So that's another way of saying: yes, they won't get anything at all, and they will get less and they will be worse off? It has to be. 18:14 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Senator Watt, I've answered this on numerous occasions. The government is simplifying the welfare system. As part of simplifying the welfare system, there will be the cessation of the bereavement allowance. The bill has not yet passed the Senate. In relation to the cessation of the bereavement allowance, as I've stated now several times on the record, from 20 March 2020, up to 960 people annually who would otherwise have claimed bereavement allowance will be able to claim jobseeker payment or another payment. Approximately 30 new bereaved people per year will not qualify for an income support payment due to their income, assets or other circumstances. Senator Hanson's amendment in relation to bereaved persons—and I've stated this several times—provides that most bereavement allowance recipients will receive payment for 14 weeks at the higher pension rate. Without this amendment, the total amount of jobseeker payment over the 14 weeks, including the lump sum payment, is estimated at around $1,300 less than the amount of bereavement allowance paid for the same period. For youth allowance, the difference is estimated at around $2,200. The effect of what Labor wants to do is to continue with the bereavement allowance and not simplify the system. We are committed to simplifying the system. This is what we have put forward. It is now for the Senate to determine if it agrees. 18:15 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Minister, how is it simplifying the bereavement allowance if you are recalculating the jobseeker allowance and paying it at a different rate to the jobseeker allowance? 18:16 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The McClure review recommended the simplification of the system by reducing the number of payments, which is what we're doing. 18:16 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I fail to see how this reduces the number of payments. It is in effect a different payment because you have put in a fancy calculation to restore it to the equivalent of the age pension. What happens when the age pension is adjusted, relative to when a jobseeker allowance is adjusted? We've got no guarantee that the value of the jobseeker bereavement period will retain its relativity to the age pension, because you've put in a completely different formula. I fail to see how this simplifies payments or simplifies the system when we're taking a bereavement allowance that is for bereaved people and calling it a jobseeker allowance for people who aren't looking for work because they're bereaved. 18:17 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Perhaps I should point out that, with the removal of the potential difference in amounts between jobseeker payment and bereavement allowance, the new system provides a much better arrangement for those who are bereaved. Those who lose a partner do not have to apply for another payment as they do under the current system. Instead, they receive an exemption from any mutual obligation requirements to support them in their time of bereavement and will seamlessly move into JobSearch or other mutual obligation activities once the period of exemption ends. 18:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I apologise for any confusion about this, but there have been numbers given and comparisons to the current bill given. There are 960 people who, under the legislation that was considered last night, would have been worse off and who are now going to continue receiving the same amount as they would have done had this bill never been introduced. Is that correct? 18:18 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Some of them would have been worse off; now none of them will be worse off. 18:18 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland By which you mean the 960, rather than the 30 who will be worse off? You're nodding that that's correct? Yes. I'm not sure if we've had an answer yet as to the claim that Senator Hanson and her colleagues have been making today, which is that their amendment will result in people being better off. Is there anyone who, as a result of this amendment, will be better off compared to the status quo? 18:19 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I think you're verballing what Senator Hanson has said—and you're doing that quite deliberately, which is fine. I took what Senator Hanson said to mean that, under their amendments, there are some people who would have received less than what they are currently receiving and, because of her amendment, no bereaved person is worse off. In other words, according to Senator Hanson—and just the way she described it—there are some people who would be better off under this amendment than if the bill were to pass in its current form. That's all I took Senator Hanson to say. 18:19 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Hanson, do you accept, having heard all of this, that there will be no-one who will be better off as a result of your amendment compared to the situation that currently applies? There's no answer? 18:20 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Let's just make it very clear to the chamber: if this chamber wants to make sure no-one is worse off than the status quo, by all means vote for Senator Hanson's amendment, because at least we'll have some guarantee that the situation will be improved. But we still have an opportunity in this place to do exactly what Senator Hanson says and make sure no-one is worse off, and that is by supporting Senator Siewert's amendment to knock out schedule 4. By all means support Senator Hanson's amendment—we'll at least have some baseline guarantee that we won't be stuck with what the government has put forward and what this place voted for last night, including you, Senator Hanson—but the only true way that this place can claim that no-one will be worse off in terms of their bereavement entitlements is to take the opportunity to knock out schedule 4. Schedule 4 will keep the payments as they are, which is all that Senator Hanson's amendment does. In addition, by supporting Senator Siewert's amendment, we will make sure that those 30 people who would lose eligibility under the tightened eligibility criteria would not be worse off. That is the only way that this chamber can make sure that bereaved persons who need the support of the government in their time of need are supported by the government and are no worse off. 18:22 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I note that Senator Hanson didn't answer my last question, which was whether she now accepted that no-one in fact will be better off as a result of her amendment. Does she want to have another opportunity to answer that question? She's looking at her papers, so I assume the answer's no. I might just also respond to Senator Cash, who accused me of verballing Senator Hanson when I said that Senator Hanson and her colleagues had spent the day claiming that their amendment was going to increase the bereavement allowance. I have in front of me a tweet from someone who used to haunt this place, Malcolm Roberts. His tweet at 4.39 pm this afternoon shared the amendment that we're currently debating and said, 'This is the amendment that is soon to be voted on in the Senate. It clearly shows an increase'—he put that in big capital letters—'in support of pensioners who are', and I think he meant to say 'who are society's most vulnerable'. Does the minister want to retract her claim that I was verballing Senator Hanson and her colleagues? Senator Pratt I0T No. Senator WATT 245759 I'm taking that as an acceptance that she was wrong to accuse me of verballing Senator Hanson. 18:23 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria I just want to support Senator Watt. I read former Senator Roberts's comments today, and, even if I was Joe Blow, I would've read that and thought that this is a wonderful thing that One Nation are doing. Then I stopped and thought, 'Hang on a flash! Didn't they vote with the government and vote against it last night?' 18:24 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I have a number of other questions that I want to put to Senator Hanson, but, before I do so, I might just try to put this debate that we're having at the moment in some context. Let's be honest about what's happening here. What's happening here is that Senator Hanson and her colleagues are now scurrying back into this chamber to try to fix the mess that they created last night. They have been shamed into coming back into this chamber to reverse cuts to pensions and cuts to allowances that they voted for only last night. In Senator Hanson's case, she voted for them twice. This is just the latest example we are seeing from Senator Hanson and her One Nation colleagues in their ongoing campaign to sell out the very battlers that they say they are here to represent. This has been happening for so, so long, ever since Senator Hanson and her colleagues came to this chamber after the double dissolution. We've seen it on a range of workplace matters. Senator Hanson and her One Nation colleagues voted for the government's ABCC legislation. What was buried in there was that Senator Hanson—despite all of her xenophobic remarks criticising foreigners, criticising migrants—in voting, along with her colleagues, for the ABCC legislation made it easier for construction companies to bring in temporary overseas workers to replace local workers. If that's not selling out the battlers that she says that she represents, I don't know what is. In voting for the ABCC legislation, Senator Hanson and One Nation also voted to cut apprenticeships in the construction industry. They've actually cut the floor out from underneath the young battlers who they say that they are here to represent, by reducing the number of apprenticeships that are available to young people in the construction industry. In voting for that ABCC legislation, Senator Hanson and her One Nation colleagues also made it a hell of a lot easier for construction companies to bring in labour hire and keep people in insecure work. These are the people that Senator Hanson and her colleagues say that they are here to represent—people in regional Queensland, in particular, and outer suburban areas who are really struggling to make ends meet, who are on labour hire rather than permanent work, who are in casual employment rather than permanent work, who are struggling to get an apprenticeship. Through Senator Hanson's own votes, she is actually making it harder still for these people, by removing what opportunities they do have. Who can forget that we've seen them do it as well on penalty rates? There have been a number of occasions now when we on the Labor side have given One Nation and Senator Hanson the opportunity to stop cuts to penalty rates from going ahead. But over and over again they vote with the government to let these penalty rate cuts go through, to cut money out of the pockets of the battlers that they say they're here to represent. We've seen them do it on child care, by voting with the Liberals to cut childcare payments to low-income families. We've seen them do it again on labour hire, by refusing to back amendments that Labor moved that would have held host employers liable for underpayments to workers made by labour hire firms. These people are the biggest bunch of hypocrites this Australian parliament has ever seen. They spend every day out there, particularly in regional Queensland, claiming that they're the friends of battlers, claiming that they are going to come down here to Canberra and sort out the major parties, and, at every single chance they get, they line up and vote with Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals to cut money out of the pockets of the very people they say that they represent. I'm actually surprised that it's only about 85 per cent of the time that Senator Hanson and One Nation vote with the government. You would think it is 100 per cent. They might as well just go and join the Liberal Party today, which is where Senator Hanson came from in the first place. If you're going to come down here and continue voting with the Liberals to hurt battlers, to allow more 457 visas into construction sites, to cut apprenticeships, to hurt labour hire workers, to cut child care to low-income families and now to cut bereavement allowances, why don't you just go back and join the Liberal Party? You might as well do that since you're voting with them all the time. Here again, on this very bill, we're seeing yet again Senator Hanson and One Nation sell out the battlers that they say they represent. They might sit there and smirk about it. It is actually not funny. It's not funny that you get out into regional Queensland and tell people that you're going to protect them and you come down here and leave them in the lurch by voting with the Liberal Party over and over again. It's not funny; it's dishonest, and you should be ashamed of the fact that you keep on doing it. These people have a right to be represented in the way that you say that you're going to, not sold out every time you come down here to Canberra. On this bill, let's just cut through the nonsense that we've been seeing from Senator Hanson and her colleagues all day today and here tonight. They're trying to proclaim this as some massive win that they've been able to engineer for pensioners. What has actually happened here is that they've been caught out yet again selling out the battlers that they say they represent. Last night we had the farcical situation in this chamber where two of the three One Nation senators weren't here for a vote. The vote, for a Greens amendment, I think, that was backed by Labor to try to protect this bereavement allowance, was put. The Greens voted to protect bereavement allowances. Labor voted to do so. Senator Hinch mentioned that he did. I'm not sure about some of the other crossbenchers. All of us were standing up for the battlers that you say you represent. Senator Hanson came over here, sat with the Liberals and voted to cut the bereavement allowance altogether, and two of her senators couldn't even be bothered showing up. We then had this pathetic situation where those two senators came into the chamber. One said he was detained inadvertently and one said he was in the toilet. Not only did they vote to cut this bereavement allowance once but they demanded that it be put to the vote again so that they could get the numbers up and guarantee this bereavement allowance could be cut once and for all. Don't pretend that you're in here trying to help battlers or trying to protect the bereavement allowance. What you're actually doing is coming in to fix the mess that you created last night by voting with the Liberals not once but twice. The only reason this has happened is that you have been shamed into it. I and a number of other people were out on social media very loudly last night pointing out what you did. And I notice, Senator Hanson, that you spoke to the minister about this amendment last night. I bet that was after you had been exposed for being a fraud yet again and for selling out the battlers that you say that you represent again. I see you nodding there. Is that correct? The CHAIR: Senator Watt, I remind you to direct your remarks to the chair. Senator WATT 245759 I see Senator Hanson nodding there, so I'd be interested to know if it's correct that she only actually bothered to talk to the minister about this after her selling out of battlers yet again had been exposed. It's bad enough that we get this One Nation crowd coming down to Canberra and repeatedly voting with the Liberals to sell out the battlers that they represent, but then to spend the entire day lying about why they are moving this amendment just makes it even worse. Just be honest. Be honest and admit that you made a mistake, you sold out the battlers that you represent, you got it wrong, you've seen the error of your ways and now you're trying to rectify it. Don't get Malcolm Roberts in his tinfoil hat out there trying to pretend something different; just be honest for once. Admit you got it wrong. Admit that you're actually going to stand up for the battlers that you say you represent and you're going to vote with Labor, just like you should have done in the first instance. And maybe you should make a habit of it and vote with Labor on a whole range of other things to protect the battlers that you say that you care about. The claim that you are in here today because you care about pensioners and you want to save people is an out-and-out lie. I'm glad that you've been found out for it and I'm glad that you've come in here and moved an amendment. But as we've heard, despite this amendment, there will still be 30 people a year whose partners will die and they will need support. We're not talking about rich people. Thirty low-income Australians a year are going to die and their partners, who would have once qualified for a bereavement allowance to help them pay for a funeral and get back on their feet—they might not even have a job—will be actually worse off still because of the vote that you cast last night. Why aren't you fixing that? Why aren't you making sure that every single person you sold out last night is going to be no worse off? Why are you still leaving 30 people a year in the lurch? Now that you have seen the error of your ways in relation to the cuts to the bereavement allowance that you voted for last night, what I want to know is: have you got other amendments ready to go now to try to reverse the other cuts that you voted for last night? This was not the only cut to low-income Australians that One Nation voted with the Liberals to get through last night. One Nation last night also voted to cut the wife pension, the widow allowance and the partner allowance and to make people older than 55 now stop volunteering in order to qualify for the dole and make them go out and look for work instead. There are a whole range of other cuts that One Nation voted with the Liberals last night to put through. There are thousands of low-income Australians, battlers who One Nation say they care about, who are still going to be worse off as a result of all these other cuts that you voted for last night. Are you going to move amendments? Are One Nation going to move amendments to reverse the other cuts that you voted for last night or are you still going to leave out thousands of people who once got a wife pension and won't anymore, who once got a widow allowance and won't anymore and who once got a partner allowance and won't anymore? Are they going to be fixed up or are you going to leave them to be hung out to dry with less money in their pocket facing a much harder existence? This is not the only sellout that you committed last night. I really hope that you have other amendments to make up for the sellouts to a range of other people that you committed last night as well. Don't think you get off the hook by fixing one problem when you created many. We are onto you and we are going to keep exposing you for the lies and fraud that you keep on committing every single time you come down here and vote with the Liberals. 18:35 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I just want to add to that contribution. Senator Watt, I still have amendments on the grey where One Nation can support them to actually address some of those very issues, so they can knock off schedule 4. They can support our amendments on the wife pension in terms of overseas portability. There are a range of amendments that, if One Nation really cares about the most vulnerable members of our community, they can still support. Then we will see that we don't just pick out one particular group of people—and of course it's those who are bereaved, and we are all deeply concerned about the cuts to those that are bereaved, which is why we sought to knock that particular schedule off. But there is still an opportunity to knock that off. It's 30 a year, don't forget. It is not just 30 people but 30 a year. The overseas portability of the wife pension is still there. I also asked about the amendments that we sought to move and Labor supported that addressed the issue around that transition rate for the wife pension so that those on the wife pension aren't worse off. So there is a whole range of amendments that are still on the grey that can be supported so that we can make this awful bill just that little bit better. So, again, I would like to pursue this question of clarification around the claims that some people on the allowance will be better off. Does that refer to the 960? They'll be better off than what the government has on the books, but they won't be better off than they were originally under the allowance. That's correct, isn't it? 18:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That is correct, and I think I have stated that now several times. Senator SIEWERT e5z I just want to be clear because those claims keep getting made. 18:37 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I've got a technical question about the amount of payment. I can see the amendment to the schedule in front of me which substitutes section 567FB and puts in a calculation of a person's youth allowance, for example, times the 14 weeks times the seven days to get it up to our 14 weeks. So I want to ask, technically, how it then gets topped up to the equivalent value of the age pension. I am trying to work out the extent to which it's now a lump sum paid in addition to those regular payments and exactly how that's calculated. 18:38 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'm instructed that they will get a lump sum up front which will make up the difference. 18:38 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Will that lump sum, in terms of the difference, maintain its relativity with the age pension or its relativity with the bereavement allowance as it currently stands? 18:38 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I am instructed no. 18:38 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia So it's a top-up to the current rate, which is the bereavement allowance, not a top-up to the age pension? 18:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'm instructed that it is based on current rates. 18:39 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Is it not true that the existing bereavement allowance is calculated to be the same rate as the age pension? 18:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I am instructed yes. 18:39 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia So that relativity of this bereavement allowance to the age pension stops with the passing of this amendment? 18:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That is correct. 18:39 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia So how will this additional top-up payment be indexed? 18:40 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I am instructed that the jobseeker payment will be indexed. 18:40 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia But there will no longer be a relativity to the age pension so that that current factor difference—the top-up payment itself will not be indexed in any way? 18:40 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I am instructed that the top-up payment is indexed because it is related to the jobseeker payment. 18:40 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Okay. So how does that relate to the current rate of bereavement allowance? 18:41 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I don't understand your question. 18:41 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I will try to be clear. The intention of this amendment being put by One Nation, as I understand it, is to maintain its relativity with the current rate. Now, that current rate is the rate of the age pension, so you must have done something that helps you arrive at the equivalent of the age pension rate. I can see how you would do that by calculating the amount of the youth allowance or the jobseeker payment, and then adding on the difference over the 14 weeks of what it otherwise would have been under your age pension. Is that how you've calculated it? 18:42 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'm advised that it is based on current rates. 18:42 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I don't quite understand the answer—current rates of bereavement allowance as it relates to the age pension? 18:42 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia As it relates to Newstart allowance and youth allowance—which will be the equivalent of the jobseeker payment. 18:42 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Yes, I understand that that payment can change because it's the payment that relates to your daily rate and your 14 weeks times seven days. I understand that that component of it will decrease and increase, according to how that payment is calculated. What I don't understand is how the gap payment is calculated. I think you're asserting that it also has a relativity to the jobseeker payment, but I thought the relativity was to the age pension so that you could top it up to the equivalent amount. 18:43 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'm instructed that the answer to the question is that the way the formula has been worked out is based on the current rates. 18:43 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Okay. That still doesn't answer my question. What I want to know is how you calculate the top-up component. 18:44 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Okay. I am advised that the top-up payment is a multiple of the jobseeker payment rate. 18:44 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia If the argument is that the multiple of the jobseeker payment rate plus the daily rate over the 14 weeks is the equivalent of the age pension over the same period of time, how are you calculating the multiple of the jobseeker rate to equal the current age pension? 18:45 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'm instructed that we are not maintaining that current relativity. 18:45 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia But you've calculated it for this point in time for the purposes of Senator Hanson being able to state that people won't receive a cut. You've calculated those payments plus the multiple of the jobseeker rate to somehow equal that gap in the existing point in time. 18:45 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In the most simplistic of terms—just to take you through how it is all calculated—the bereavement allowance is paid at the pension rate of payment compared to the jobseeker payment, which will be paid at the allowance rate of payment. We've established that. As the bill is currently drafted, a bereaved person claiming jobseeker payment or youth allowance will receive a one-off lump sum payment following the death of their partner, in addition to their ongoing fortnightly payment. To ensure that no bereaved person is worse off under the new jobseeker payment, the amendment that we are currently looking at will change the way the payments are calculated for bereaved persons from 20 March 2020 to ensure that there will be no difference between what a bereaved person receives under jobseeker payment or youth allowance compared to what they would have received under the bereavement allowance. In terms of the amounts, as I've already stated, most bereavement allowance recipients receive payment—as we've gone through in terms of the formula—for 14 weeks at the higher pension rate. Without this amendment, the total amount of the jobseeker payment over the 14 weeks, including the lump sum payment, was estimated by the department to be approximately $1,300 less than the amount of the bereavement allowance paid for the same period. In relation to the youth allowance, the difference is estimated at approximately $2,200. They will now receive that additional payment, which takes them back to what they would've received. 18:48 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Thank you. I am now some way towards understanding what you're doing here. It goes back to the top-up payment, as it was attached to the daily rate of a person's youth allowance plus the top-up, which is not as much as it would've been over the equivalent time. So you have calculated a top-up that is relative to the age pension as it stands currently, but it will maintain its relativity to the original payment, not to the age pension? 18:48 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The answer to the question is yes. 18:48 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Over time, we've seen increases to pensions, but we haven't seen increases to youth allowance or to Newstart, which is now the jobseeker allowance. We've seen an increase of just 50 cents announced this week. Will there be no ongoing relativity of the bereavement allowance to the age pension? 18:49 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Senator Pratt, as you would be aware, we can't predict what the increase in the pension will be over time. 18:49 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia But we have more chance of predicting what the increase in the pension will be over time than we have with poor students and poor jobseekers who've been dudded in their daily rates over time. So, if you're bereaved—you might have a casual job and be working full time when your spouse dies and you need time off work to organise yourself but you don't have access to any leave and you don't have access to any other kind of payment, because you're a casual—you're essentially now saying that you will be paid as a jobseeker, even though you're not a jobseeker, instead of at the bereavement allowance rate, which was otherwise equivalent to the age pension. 18:50 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I think we're now just going round in circles. It's actually quite a simple amendment, and I've already answered this question a number of times. The potential difference between the amount of the jobseeker payment and the amount of the bereavement allowance will be removed. The new system is actually a much better arrangement for those who are bereaved, because those who lose a partner will not now have to go through the process of applying for another payment. They have to do that under the current system. The system that is proposed is streamlined and simplified, and they receive an exemption to support them through their time of bereavement. They then seamlessly move into job search or other mutual obligation activities once the period of exemption ends. 18:51 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia The example I gave was of someone who is unable to work because they are bereaved but who otherwise has a job. It is my understanding that people would currently have eligibility for a bereavement allowance because they can't work because they are bereaved. Is that correct? 18:52 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That is correct. However, they would still be able to apply for the jobseeker allowance as a bereaved person. 18:52 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia But is it correct that they may not actually be seeking a job? They may simply be bereaved and unable to work? 18:52 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia It would ultimately be that, after 14 weeks, they don't have to receive any other payment. 18:52 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia You have said you're simplifying these payments. Now, I understand that you're trying to argue that people don't need to reapply if they're already eligible as jobseekers. But the simple fact is that your schedule, amended or unamended, does away with the whole category of bereavement as a separate category; it rolls it into a jobseeker allowance. It seems reasonable that the expectation there would be that people are actually jobseekers. The simple fact is that this is the social safety net for people who are bereaved. It's not that they're necessarily looking for a job. It is simply that they are without a job at that moment in time precisely because they are bereaved. They don't have access to other employment entitlements that see them through that period of bereavement. Question agreed to. 18:54 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 8260: (1) Schedule 15, item 1, page 209 (after line 14), after section 42AS, insert: Division 3AB—Compliance with participation payment obligations: review 42AT Independent review of the participation payment obligations compliance framework (1) No later than 6 months after the commencement of this section, the Minister must cause an independent review to be undertaken by an eminent person with expertise in social services or employments services of the operation of Divisions 3AA and 3A of Part 3 of this Act and instruments made for the purposes of those Divisions. (2) The review must: (a) assess the effectiveness of those laws in enabling people to undertake activities or take action to gain employment; and (b) assess whether any provisions of those laws should be amended or repealed to increase the effectiveness of those laws in enabling people to undertake activities or take action to gain employment; and (c) consider any other matters specified by the Minister. (3) Before completing the review, the person undertaking the review must be satisfied that any consultation has been undertaken: (a) that is considered by the person to be appropriate; and (b) that is reasonably practicable to undertake; and (c) that drew on the knowledge of persons having expertise in fields relevant to the operation of the participation payment obligations compliance framework; and (d) that ensured that persons affected by the operation of the participation payment obligations compliance framework, and any other interested members of the public, had an adequate opportunity to comment on its operation. (4) The review must be completed, and a report of the review must be prepared, before the end of 12 months after the commencement of this section. (5) The person undertaking the review must give the report of the review to the Minister. (6) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving it. 42AU Independent annual reviews of the participation payment obligations compliance framework (1) The Minister must cause annual independent reviews to be undertaken of the operation of Divisions 3AA and 3A of Part 3 of this Act and instruments made for the purposes of those Divisions. (2) An annual review must be undertaken by an eminent person with expertise in social services or employment services. (3) An annual review must assess the matters mentioned in subsection 42AT(2) and any other matters specified by the Minister. (4) A person undertaking an annual review must be satisfied, before completing the review, that consultation of the kind mentioned in subsection 42AT(3) has been undertaken in relation to the review. (5) An annual review must be completed, and a report of the review must be prepared, before the end of 24 months after the commencement of this section, and before the end of each subsequent 12 month period. (6) A person undertaking an annual review must give a report of the review to the Minister. (7) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament within 15 sitting days of receiving it. This would amend item 1 of schedule 15 and provides for a review. I'm aware of the government's comments on review in 18 months of the legislation, and I want to come back to that, but this would be a quite detailed process. In relation to the compliance focused amendments of schedule 15, as you can see, there's a detailed outline of an independent review of the participation payment obligations compliance framework. That's one part of the amendment. The second part relates to independent annual reviews of the participation payment obligations compliance framework. Again, it goes into quite a bit of detail about how that independent review would be undertaken. Again, I touched on this last night, and I also talked about it in my second reading contribution in December. We also had a second reading amendment about it. We're deeply concerned that these changes have been brought in before a full review of the compliance framework was completed. We agree with the government that the compliance process at the moment is outdated. It's also very punitive and it's not producing the results that are effective in terms of helping people to find work. We believe that, in setting up this process and changing the compliance framework—and I think there is pretty universal agreement that we do need to change the compliance framework—we didn't undertake that full independent review. So we thought it was really important, given that that wasn't done. Even though we had a second reading amendment about it being done, that wasn't going to happen before the government brought on their legislation. That's why we feel very strongly that there needs to be an independent review carried out of the operation of the framework, and we also believe it's important that there are more independent annual reviews. That's the outline of this particular set of amendments on sheet 8260. The government articulated and the minister articulated again yesterday some aspects around the review. I'd like to ask some more detailed questions about the nature of that review and whether the government is prepared to put anything more formal to the committee about how the review is going to be carried out, whether it is going to be independent and on what basis that review will be undertaken. The CHAIR: Just before we go on, may I remind the committee that, last year when this bill was under consideration, the committee agreed to incorporate into Hansard the statement of reasons accompanying the requests. 18:58 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Thank you, Senator Siewert. Your amendment would require the minister to commission annual independent reviews of the jobseeker compliance framework with the first to be completed within 12 months of the targeted compliance framework commencing. The government will be opposing this amendment. As I have already stated, the government has already committed to a review of the targeted compliance framework 18 months after the commencement. This review would, of course, look at the effectiveness of the framework and any unintended adverse effects, taking into account the views of relevant experts and stakeholders. There is no need to legislate a review requirement, and legislating the personnel, terms of reference and timing removes flexibility to focus on particular issues, should it be necessary at that particular point in time. Further, a core role of the Public Service is the continued evaluation of the programs and policies which they are responsible for implementing, as well as staying informed about various stakeholder views. The targeted compliance framework was developed in full awareness of the views of all of those with an interest in this matter, including welfare sector organisations, employment service providers and jobseekers. It was also based on detailed analysis of the administrative data, utilising expertise drawn from three government departments. Going to your question on the review, as I've stated, the effectiveness of the framework and any unintended adverse effects will take into account the views of relative experts and stakeholder groups. That's the information I'm able to provide. 19:00 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Will the review be independent? 19:01 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I'm instructed that it will actually be the department that will be conducting the review. 19:01 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia In other words, it's not going to be independent. The concern here is the need for independence of the review, particularly given that this is operating 18 months after the process started. We haven't had that initial review process. I heard what the minister said about consultation beforehand. It's a bit of a different story from what I heard during the Senate inquiry into this legislation. There was a lot of criticism and concern from stakeholders around the way this compliance process is going to operate, so I am deeply concerned to ensure that the review is independent of the department. The other concern there is that the department undertakes a number of reviews and then we don't see them for a long time—or, in fact, we don't see them. If we were to have an independent review process with annual reviews carried out independently, I'm more confident that we would be able to see the reviews, and I think it would give the community a sense of security that the review is independent. They would, quite frankly, have more faith in the review. I'm trying not to malign the department, but they are reviewing the system that they oversee. We need that to be independent. So I express deep concern around the fact that it's not independent and I seek a guarantee from the government around the time frame of the review—that it will be released to the public and that it will be released in a timely manner. 19:03 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia As I've said, the government has already committed to review the targeted compliance framework 18 months from commencement. That commitment has been given. As I've also stated in general terms, the review will look at the effectiveness of the framework and any unintended adverse effects, taking into account the views of relevant experts and the stakeholders. It is the government's position that it will be the department conducting the review. We have full faith in the department and its ability to do this. At this point in time, I'm unable to provide any further information. That's the current position. 19:03 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I want to indicate to the chamber the Labor Party's support for the Greens' amendment. We are very keen to see that such a review is independent, that it is completed in a timely fashion and that it is also made public. 19:04 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I again ask the minister: will the review be made public? If not, why not? If so, will there be a commitment to a time frame for its release after it's completed? 19:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That will be a decision for government at the time. 19:04 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia That is not reassuring at all. Here we have an internal departmental review of the most significant changes that have occurred to the compliance framework and process for a long time. The community is quite concerned about that, and I've expressed concern about that here. The government have not agreed to changes from ourselves and from the Labor Party that I think would have made the system better. The government designed this framework. They're now going to review it internally, and there is no commitment that this will be made public. Will this review be worth the paper it's written on, if we can't see it? Surely the government can commit to making the review public. I find it hard to believe that the government expects the Senate to accept that they're doing an internal review that won't be made public. How is that satisfactory, when people don't have confidence in such major changes to the compliance framework? Surely you can commit to it being made public. The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 8260, as moved by Senator Siewert, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [19:10]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)

30 AYES Bartlett, AJJ Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A (teller) Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Lines, S Marshall, GM McAllister, J 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 Storer, TR Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 33 NOES Abetz, E Anning, F Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID 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 (teller) 5 PAIRS Bernardi, C Kitching, K Cormann, M Wong, P Fawcett, DJ Farrell, D Payne, MA Urquhart, AE Sinodinos, A Gallagher, KR

Senator Ketter did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Brandis.
Question negatived.

19:13 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I would now like to move to the set of amendments on sheet 8254. However, it gets a bit complicated because I have a number of clauses there. Those amendments relate to schedules 1, 2, 5 to 8 and 15. I understand that the ALP want to vote on the item relating to schedule 15 separately. We oppose schedule 15 in the following terms: (30) Schedule 15, page 194 (line 1) to page 220 (line 23), to be opposed. I will come back to the other items, because there's an indication that certainly the ALP want to vote differently on this than on the other items. 19:15 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Just to clarify for the purposes of the chamber, we support schedules 1, 2, 5 and 8 standing as printed, but we don't support schedule 15. 19:15 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The government will be opposing this. 19:15 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia As anticipated. We sought to amend schedule 15 to improve schedule 15. Those amendments have not been supported, hence we don't support schedule 15. As I've articulated on numerous occasions, we are deeply concerned that schedule 15 and the compliance framework as it stands is going to hurt those seeking employment. However, we do agree that there needs to be change; we just can't support the current, unamended schedule 15 as it stands, because it hasn't been amended to deal with some of the more grievous concerns. The CHAIR: The question is that schedule 15 stand as printed.

The committee divided. [19:21]
(The Chair—Senator Lines)

33 AYES Abetz, E Anning, F Birmingham, SJ Brockman, S Burston, B Bushby, DC Canavan, MJ Cash, MC Colbeck, R Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Georgiou, P Gichuhi, LM Griff, S Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Leyonhjelm, DE Macdonald, ID 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 (teller) 30 NOES Bartlett, AJJ Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Cameron, DN Carr, KJ Chisholm, A (teller) Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Gallacher, AM Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Lines, S Marshall, GM McAllister, J 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 Storer, TR Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 5 PAIRS Bernardi, C Kitching, K Cormann, M Wong, P Fawcett, DJ Farrell, D Payne, MA Urquhart, AE Sinodinos, A Gallagher, K

Senator Ketter did not vote, to compensate for the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator Brandis.
Question agreed to.
Progress reported.

ADJOURNMENT 87 ADJOURNMENT Western Australia: Agriculture 87 19:24 Senator SMITH 241710 Western Australia I've often noted during previous contributions in this chamber the importance of our regional industries to the economic strength of our nation. Nowhere is this truer than in my home state of Western Australia. For most people, WA is synonymous, and rightly so, with the resource sector—iron ore, gold, diamonds, oil and natural gas, all major industries which have long contributed to Australia's economic wealth, creating jobs, establishing infrastructure and improving regional communities along the way. However, agriculture has always been, and will always be, an important contributor to the Western Australian economy. Agriculture is WA's second major export industry, with up to 80 per cent of its agricultural production exported, representing about 10 per cent of the state's economy. According to the latest ABS statistics, WA gross farmgate values have risen from $5.4 billion to $8.16 billion over the past four years, and, due to increasing domestic and international demand and investment, the sector is expected to double its current contribution of $8.6 billion per annum to the state's economy over the next 12 years. Overall, broadacre farm cash income in Western Australia is estimated to have increased from an average of $312,700 per farm in 2015-16 to $340,000 per farm in 2016-17, which is around 90 per cent above the 10-year average for 2015-16. And 2017-18 is now looking even brighter. After an erratic year of floods and storms and a mid-winter dry spell, Western Australia emerged as an unlikely bright spot in the nation's grain harvest, with an estimated 2017 harvest of between 12.7 million tonnes and 13.2 million tonnes. In stark contrast to the disappointing end to the season in the eastern states, many West Australian farmers can expect to return a profit on what could've been a disastrous year. For many, this profit has been boosted, with the state's largest grain handler, CBH Group, returning its largest ever surplus and biggest ever rebate to growers, following the previous season's record of a 16.6 million tonne harvest. In the 2016-17 year to September 2017, CBH generated a record surplus, before rebates, of $247 million, up 120 per cent on 2015-16. This enabled it to return a total of $156.3 million to growers through enhanced rebate offerings with more flexible options, an increase of 150 per cent on the previous year's rebates. But it is not just grain that has seen an increase in farmgate values. WA wool auctions roared into 2018 with a year-opening, record-shredding two days of sales, producing the best results for woolgrowers in at least 20 years. Gross turnover at the Western Wool Centre during the opening week was $28,405,043 on 13,287 bales sold, with the average price per bale of wool coming in at $2,137.80. This is the highest Western Wool Centre turnover since June 1997, when the sale of 45,275 bales generated $34.3 million. However, back then, woolgrowers only received an average of $757.72 per bale of wool. Perhaps this is why the latest Rabobank Rural Confidence Survey of 12,000 farmers across Australia found that West Australian farmers are going against the national trend of declining optimism. According to the report, net confidence for WA farmers' outlook on the performance of the agricultural sector over the next 12 months increased from 11 per cent in the December quarter to 23 per cent in March. This compared to a national net confidence rating of minus two per cent, down from 16 per cent in the December quarter, one of its lowest levels over the last four years. Only six per cent of WA producers held a negative outlook for the coming year, down from 11 per cent previously and compared to 21 per cent nationally. In WA, 61 per cent were anticipating conditions similar to last year, and 29 per cent expected an even better year ahead. As well as feeling more confident about their income outlook this year, WA producers have indicated their highest level of intention to invest in their businesses since early 2008. The year is indeed looking good already. Cooper, Professor David, AO 87 19:30 Senator SINGH M0R Tasmania It is with deep regret and sadness that I rise to pay tribute to the late Professor David Cooper AO, who passed away last Sunday. I do so as someone with deep respect for David Cooper but also as deputy chair of the parliamentary liaison group for HIV-AIDS, blood-borne viruses and sexually transmitted diseases. I share that respect with the chair of our committee, Senator Dean Smith. As an immunologist, Professor Cooper was an outstanding scientist and doctor. As a man, he was to many a wonderful friend, colleague and father. It is his work at the Kirby Institute—in fact, it is the Kirby Institute itself—that is Professor Cooper's lasting impact. His contribution to the Kirby Institute at UNSW Sydney, to the health sector and human rights as well as to communities around the world affected by HIV and other infectious diseases was indeed extraordinary. Professor Cooper saved countless lives in Australia and all over the world. He dedicated his life to the prevention, treatment and cure of HIV and other infectious diseases and to the principles that health is a fundamental human right and that no-one would be turned away from the best options available for treatment and prevention, regardless of their social or personal circumstances. He turned Australia into a global leader in the fight against HIV-AIDS. He contributed to every therapeutic drug used in HIV. David Cooper was one of the first Australian doctors to respond to the HIV epidemic when it hit Australia in the 1980s. The research that he published in The Lancet that decade led to the first description anywhere in the world of the so-called seroconversion illness, the first marker of HIV infection in many people. In my role as deputy chair—along with the chair, Senator Dean Smith—of the parliamentary liaison group for HIV-AIDS, blood-borne viruses and sexually transmitted diseases, I was fortunate to visit and meet Professor Cooper. When I spent time with him in April 2016 whilst I was visiting the Kirby Institute in their cutting-edge laboratories in Sydney, he shared with me the innovative work that he and his passionate team were conducting in the pursuit of ending HIV, hepatitis C and other infections. Under his leadership, the Kirby Institute developed from a national response centre with a handful of staff in the 1980s into a globally respected research institute today, employing more than 300 researchers working on the latest discoveries and innovations in HIV, viral hepatitis and sexually transmitted diseases. But his efforts took him further afield. In 1996, Professor Cooper helped to establish a research centre in Bangkok as a focal point for Asian countries facing increasing HIV rates, and until very recently he was overseeing large international clinical trials in Indonesia and Myanmar. His extraordinary achievements and contributions to communities around the world affected by HIV and other infectious diseases led to him being made an Officer in the General Division of the Order of Australia in 2003. Professor Anthony Kelleher, the acting Dean of UNSW Medicine, wrote: 'It will be difficult to imagine our collaborative efforts without him at the lead, but the Kirby Institute is his legacy, and it is one which we are proud to carry on with David's dedication and vision.' I join Professor Kelleher and his incredible team at the Kirby Institute in sharing that pride that so many have for Professor David Cooper and all that he has achieved. To finish, I would like to quote his own approach to his great life: It’s unusual in a medical career to see the evolution of a disease from its beginnings—to a disease that emerged as a global health catastrophe—to this point now, where medical research is bringing it under control. I feel valued to be involved in this work and to have been able to make a difference for so many people. Vale, Professor David Cooper. 19:35 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales by leave—I associate myself with the remarks of Senator Singh. It was my pleasure to meet Professor David Cooper, and he was, indeed, a remarkable man. Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017, Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017, National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017 88 19:36 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia With its package of bills on foreign interference introduced on 7 December last year, it is clear the Turnbull government is determined to undermine civil society, to hamstring it. In fact, the government wants a civil society that is silenced, that is unable to comment on, debate or criticise any government policy. The Turnbull government is continuing the campaign that was started by Mr Howard and continued by Mr Abbott. Mr Turnbull is following in their footsteps. Preventing foreign interference in Australia is important. Indeed, the Greens have long called for a ban on foreign donations to political parties, but the impact of these bills is far-reaching, and they don't fix the problems they seek to address. The bills I am referring to are the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017, the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Bill 2017 and the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Bill 2017. Should they pass, they will negatively affect a vast array of businesses, sectors and organisations in Australia. Charities and not-for-profits in particular will have their hands tied in the work that they can do. Senator Rex Patrick will shortly be tabling a joint communique from 15 charities who attended a round table hosted by the Greens, NXT and the ALP in February. In their communique, these charities and not-for-profits put it well when they said that the proposed bills: … conflate advocacy for good policy with political campaigning for elections. The changes would block, obstruct and constrain non-partisan commentary and advocacy on policies by charities, other community organisations and business … the proposed legislation would tear at the fabric of our democracy, unpicking the freedoms that have made our national conversation so rich. That's just part of the communique that will be tabled. These groups are united in their opposition to the bills and want to see them sent back to the drawing board, with which we concur. The electoral funding and reform bill, in particular, will make it very difficult, if not impossible, for charities to carry out core parts of their work. Constitutional law professor Ann Twomey has written that the bill relies on a greatly broadened definition of political expenditure, which includes any expenditure on the expression of public views on an issue that is 'likely to be before electors in an election' regardless of when that election is held. Professor Twomey notes that this could include anything from expenditure on ads supporting marriage equality, to books on climate change, to websites supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander recognition. The bill will force some charities to choose between public advocacy and accepting international philanthropy. It will tie up many in bureaucratic knots, forcing them to detail political expenditure and their senior employees' membership of political parties, and it will require statutory declarations from any donor who cumulatively gives more than $250 annually, an onerous burden that will certainly impact on charitable giving in this country. We shouldn't be surprised by this government's attacks on charities and civil society. The campaign against independent, progressive voices began some time ago, as I articulated earlier. But in 2016 we witnessed the relentless government criticism of the independent Human Rights Commission and its then commissioner, Gillian Triggs, simply because the government did not like what the commission had to say. The government established the Registered Organisations Commission with the express purpose of attacking unions. The Australian Electoral Commission is investigating GetUp! for being an 'associated entity', which basically means a front group—for not one but two political parties. Previous conservative governments put in place gag clauses that tried to take away the DGR status of various organisations. This suite of bills seems to be the culmination of this worrying pattern of behaviour, where a government in trouble seeks to use the apparatus of the state to stifle dissent. That is what this is about. The Greens will not stand for this. We will oppose this attack on civil society. We won't be supporting these bills, and we urge the crossbenchers and the ALP to stand with us in opposing these bills. (Time expired) Goodwin, Dr Vanessa 89 19:41 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania It is a privilege for me tonight to rise to pay tribute to a wonderful Tasmanian whose life, sadly, was cut far too short, and that's the late Dr Vanessa Goodwin, who was the Tasmanian Attorney-General, the Leader of the Government in the Legislative Council and the member for Pembroke, on Hobart's eastern shore. Dr Goodwin, for those who didn't know her, had a long and distinguished career serving the people of Tasmania, working hard on the areas that were of interest to her and the things that she was passionate about. Vanessa—by way of background—completed her studies in law at the University of Tasmania, continued on with her studies to attain a Master of Philosophy from the University of Cambridge, in the United Kingdom, and then came back to Tasmania and attained a Doctor of Philosophy in the same area, again from the University of Tasmania. Vanessa was no stranger to politics, contesting the 2006 state election in the electorate of Franklin and then, a year later, contesting the 2007 federal election in the seat of Franklin and then, finally, contesting the Pembroke by-election for the upper house state seat, in the south, in 2009, winning it for the Liberals. While Vanessa was one of the most talented and hardworking ministers—or politicians generally—I've come across, she was also incredibly compassionate and cared deeply about the people she represented, the everyday people she ran into and the people she sought to do a good job for. One only had to have a close look at Dr Goodwin's first speech, which she delivered in 2009, after her election, to see what kind of a person she truly was and to see what excited her, what motivated her to do the good things that she did. Vanessa in that speech charted out, early on, her priorities, the things that mattered to her. Chief amongst them was the restoration of trust in government. Vanessa was one of those members of the Tasmanian parliament who led the charge in supporting the idea of the establishment of an integrity commission, a tool which she believed might restore some of the public faith in the democratic institutions of our state. Ahead of her time, she led that debate, and indeed we saw the establishment of an integrity commission. Vanessa also spoke of her very strong desire to work with young Tasmanians to break the cycle of disadvantage. This is something that she continued to work on for the duration of her career, something she was ardently passionate about and something that was born out of the studies that she conducted at the University of Tasmania and Cambridge university. Her deep passion for the area of crime prevention for younger Tasmanians was a hallmark of much of the work that Vanessa did as a member of the Legislative Council and then later as the state's Attorney-General, Minister for Justice and Minister for Corrections. She supported innovative programs like TOOL and U-Turn, which had new ways of tackling youth crime and breaking that cycle that young offenders find themselves in. Vanessa was also a consummate local member. Her door was always open to anyone. I know for a fact that the issues that were presented to her were always taken extremely seriously. That is because I had the good fortune of working with Vanessa not only for a number of years, between 2010 until my election here in 2016, but also for a brief period of time as her chief of staff. So I know just how seriously Vanessa took her job as a local member and as a minister in the Hodgman government. Vanessa was also a true Liberal, following in the footsteps of her mother, Edith. Those from Tasmania who knew the late Edith Langham would know that she, too, was taken from us as a result of a battle with brain cancer. For many years, Vanessa contributed to the life of the Liberal Party in our state. If public opinion is to be believed, politicians are rarely believed to have a beating heart, but I can say for a fact that Vanessa Goodwin truly did have one. Just recently, on Friday, 9 March, there was a fitting tribute to Vanessa, to her life and to the contribution that she made to her state, marked by a packed-out St David's cathedral, where we were able to say farewell to our friend and colleague and a great Tasmanian. On behalf of all Tasmanians, including my colleague Senator Bushby, I can say definitely that Tasmania, and our lives, will be much the poorer without her. Commonwealth Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse 90 19:46 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria I was at an emotional and very informative public hearing of the Community Affairs Legislation Committee in Melbourne recently. We were hearing evidence about the bill officially called the Commonwealth Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2017, and the related bill. It must be proffered to the Senate by this committee before I take over as chairman of a joint parliamentary committee to oversee, to be a watchdog for, the national redress scheme, which the Prime Minister has announced will be launched on 1 July. That's not very far away. I will concede it is still an eon away for some victims of the institutional sexual abuse which has been dissected by the royal commission over the past five years. At that public hearing, I had an epiphany, forced on me by one of the stalwarts of CLAN, Care Leavers Australasia Network. Frank Golding is a passionate and eloquent vice-president of CLAN, but he appeared before us in a private capacity. He jolted me. He more than jolted me; he extracted a confession and an apology. Golding and CLAN CEO Leonie Sheedy graphically pointed out that, for years, all the headlines, all the attention, had been on sexual abuse of children in institutions, when in fact many of the around 500,000 Aussie kids who had been in state and church care had been also emotionally and physically abused—used as child labour, used as child sex slaves, cleaning the orphanages, working in the vegie gardens. At a later meeting with Golding and Sheedy, I was told about three sisters brought up by nuns in a Catholic orphanage. Their education was curtailed—they didn't even get to high school—because they were given the job of looking after disabled children in the institution. They also deserve redress in both financial and counselling terms. Their Dickensian horror stories reminding me of Oranges and Sunshine, the devastating book and movie of that title about British 'orphans' being sent to 'idyllic Australia' after World War II. At the hearing, Golding said: I think it is not just the fact that the royal commission has focused for the last five years on sexual abuse only and has ruled out hundreds of people who want to talk to them about other forms of abuse; it is also that the media has been fixated on this. Headline after headline after headline, radio reports, television reports, hammered home the message of sexual abuse … I interjected: Because those stories are so shocking; that's why. Golding replied: They absolutely are. Please don't get me wrong; they are the worst of all possible crimes against children. Nevertheless, there are lots of people who've suffered other forms of abuse of the sort that we've talked about … He said: They've had to sit in the background and hope that, when the national redress scheme came out, the parliament would have the wit to say, 'We had a royal commission which looked at sexual abuse. We've had all these other Senate reports and so on that looked at other forms of abuse. We can roll this national scheme into a comprehensive redress scheme.' That is why, I think, the bill that you're looking at needs to be scrapped and we need to start again. I know that is not the message you want. And it wasn't. But I did pledge to campaign to get redress in another form. I even raised the prospect, possibly, of a new, non-specific royal commission. To conclude, I want to tell you a story of a 14-year-old boy who was in a Salvation Army institution. He doesn't qualify for redress under the current scheme because he wasn't technically sexually assaulted, but, when you hear this, you may disagree. Don't you think there is a sexual sadomasochistic issue when an adult is caning the naked buttocks of a young boy? I will call him Brian. He was sent to a Salvation Army institution in Queensland. The manager was Captain Victor Bennett, who administered the corporal punishment. After many beatings, Brian stole a bike and ran away. Taken back home by the police, he was punished. He got six of the best on his hands and his naked backside. Then Captain Bennett ordered him to spend the next week naked with welts on his buttocks from the flogging. He would work, line up for meals and sleep on empty potato sacks naked. How perverse is that? Brian remembers even now how humiliated and embarrassed he was when one of the female laundry staff saw him naked. There are thousands of stories like this among care leavers in Australia, and they too, I believe, deserve redress. They deserve financial redress and a lot of counselling. It won't happen under the current terms of reference, but I believe it is our duty to find a way, because they must not remain the forgotten Australians. Regional Queensland 91 19:51 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I want to talk about regional Queensland, federal Labor and federal Labor leader Bill Shorten's ongoing commitment to ensuring that we are representing the interests of regional Queensland. I note as I speak in this chamber that federal Labor leader Bill Shorten is in Gladstone and is already doing his fourth town hall in Queensland this year. He's already done town halls in Townsville, in Mackay, which I was lucky enough to attend, and also in Rockhampton, and tonight he is in Gladstone with our fantastic Labor candidate for Flynn, Zac Beers, who ran last time and got very close but is running again. When we did our town forum in Mackay, we had with us Belinda Hassan, our candidate for Dawson. It's been fantastic to help those candidates get off to a flying start. Part of the commitment from federal Labor to spend time in regional Queensland—and leading by example has been federal Labor leader Bill Shorten—is to ensure that we are listening to those residents on the ground in framing our policies for the next federal election, to ensure that we are in touch with what's going on in those areas. It's really, really important that we have a federal Labor Party that is committed to doing that and listening to those local residents. What we've seen for the last five years from those opposite is plenty of talk but very little action. Probably the best example of that in recent weeks has been around the money for regional unemployment. Despite it being promised 18 months ago, they've only now started to announce some of the money going to local businesses that have been crying out for jobs. If they actually spent any time in these regional communities, they'd understand how disappointed local businesses are that it's taken so long for this money to be promised. It took more than 12 months for the guidelines to be put out, let alone for anyone to actually make a decision about local businesses. Federal Labor doesn't want to look back after five years in government and say, 'What have we done?' We are listening now and we're going to ensure that we can start delivering for these communities if we win the next federal election. Part of what we have been talking about when we have been in these communities this year has been real jobs for regional Queensland, so that those people understand what a Labor government would mean for them. When we were in Gladstone we talked about the port access road, which will ensure that the port will continue to grow, but it also will mean there will be fewer trucks on the road going through other parts of the town. We also talked about Rookwood Weir. For years we've heard the LNP talk about Rookwood Weir, but it was Labor who made the commitment to fund it once the state government had done their study into it to see if it stacked up. We see those opposite refusing to fund the full amount that is needed to go halves with the state in Rookwood Weir. We're excited about the agriculture jobs we'll deliver. Obviously there are the construction jobs that go with it as well, but it will be something that we'll be able to deliver for that part of Queensland for a long time. In Mackay we talked about the next stage of the Mackay ring-road. This will be absolutely vital. What we talked about when we were there with federal Labor leader Bill Shorten was ensuring that those workers who have construction work up there now and do civil construction work on roads are able to continue to live locally, because they know their next job is coming around the corner. That way there is no delay. They can be confident that there's an ongoing pipeline of work that will ensure that they can continue to operate and live locally in those towns, and the community also can have some certainty about that next stage of the ring- road taking place. In Townsville, federal Labor leader Bill Shorten announced an expansion of the port as well, which will lead to more jobs and opportunities. A visit that I made more recently was to Hervey Bay and Bundaberg. In Hervey Bay I met with the acting mayor of the Fraser Coast council, George Seymour. There were some issues there when the previous mayor was recently dismissed, so it was good to go and get a firsthand look at how that council is functioning with the acting mayor. It seemed to be business as usual. They've put a lot of the differences behind them and they are focused on residents and outcomes for the local community. Also, when I was in Bundaberg it was good to get an opportunity to meet with some of the locals there and, also, to talk to some of the local businesses as well. There are some opportunities in these places. It's unfortunate that the federal government aren't delivering on their part to give these communities confidence, but we can assure those people that federal Labor are absolutely committed to listening to them, representing them and ensuring that we have policies that resonate with those communities. Human Trafficking 92 19:56 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia I speak tonight about alarming recent media reports on the surge in paedophile live streaming, also known as cybersex trafficking. In June last year the Senate passed the Passports Legislation Amendment (Overseas Travel by Child Sex Offenders) Bill 2017 with the support of the Nick Xenophon Team. The effect of this bill was to prevent convicted Australian child sex offenders who are on the sex offender registry from travelling overseas. This is to prevent them from sexually abusing vulnerable children in countries such as the Philippines, Thailand and Cambodia, where the law enforcement framework is very much weaker and the activities of offenders are not monitored. This bill has proven very effective in its stated aims. However, the government's success in preventing registered sex offenders from travelling overseas to exploit children has had, very much, a sickening consequence. As reported by the International Justice Mission, a flood of paedophiles are now paying as little as $12 to watch a child be abused live via Skype. In many instances, this is also being facilitated by parents—$12 to watch a child being abused via Skype. At the time of the bill's passage, former Senator Kakoschke-Moore foreshadowed this terrible unintended consequence and moved amendments to combat cybersex trafficking. The Senate did not support Skye's amendments in the circumstances where there was insufficient time to consider them after the government brought forward the bill. There has been enough delay in doing something about this. We all need to act now. I know Skye remains passionate about this issue. She travelled with the International Justice Mission last year at her own expense to see firsthand the incredibly powerful work the organisation does in rescuing children from sexual abuse. What she learned shocked her. She also learned that the demand for online sexual abuse is mainly from Western countries such as Australia. We need to take the responsibility for these evil people and do what we can do as legislators to stop them perpetrating abuse of vulnerable children, not just here but also overseas. The Commonwealth Criminal Code does not adequately address the specific nature of cybersex trafficking, so we were happy to see the government make moves to do so last year. In September the government took up Skye's amendments to combat cybersex trafficking, along with other important measures to protect vulnerable children, with the introduction of the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2017. That was over six months ago, and over nine months since the bill preventing Australian convicted child sex offenders from travelling. Let's bring this bill on—bring it on soon. Arguably, every other bill we are debating is not as important as this one. We need to act, and we need to stop delaying. The longer we wait, the more children are hurt. The depraved acts being ordered by Australians are too appalling to describe. For the past three years the Australian Federal Police have identified the increase in the demand for and proliferation of overseas exploited children and child exploitation material as a significant challenge faced by law enforcement. A UN report from 2009, citing FBI statistics, stated that there were a quarter of a million paedophiles online at any point in time. That was nearly a decade ago. Imagine what that number is now. The same report estimated that the industry that produces child-abuse material generates between $3 billion and $20 billion per year. The internet is creating even greater demands for new material of ever-greater levels of depravity. Those who pay to watch the sexual abuse of a child are every bit as complicit as those who facilitate it, and they must be brought to justice. The government must no longer delay in bringing the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill on for debate so that this parliament can work to protect vulnerable children. First Nations Women's Forum 92 20:01 Senator LINES 112096 Western Australia Tonight I want to briefly report on a women's forum we held last week. I'm immensely proud to stand in the Senate and do this, and I'm even more pleased that Senator McCarthy is here with me. Certainly, as women in the Labor Party, we know that women are often overlooked in our community, on boards, in this place and elsewhere. The fight to be recognised is still alive and well for women. It is much worse for first nations women. So I sought, in a very small way, to try and redress that in Western Australia. I spoke to some Noongar women I know about an idea I had last year to hold a first nations women's forum in Western Australia. I knew that, if we were able to invite Senator McCarthy and Linda Burney, the member for Barton, to the forum, they would be big attractions for first nations women in Western Australia, because they are immensely proud to have first nations women in this place. We pulled together a steering group of first nations women, who I would like tonight to mention and thank for their work: Donna Nelson, Dr Hannah McGlade, Jennifer Gregory-Kniveton, Jackie Oakley, Vanessa Elliott, Dorinda Cox, Cherie Sibosado, Rowena Leslie, Michelle Nelson-Cox, Dot Bagshaw and Marian Kickett. I'd also like to thank those who did our welcome to country. They did a special women's welcome to country, a smoking ceremony, in Kings Park at the women's place at Beedawong. I thank the Kings Park board for allowing us to have a smoking ceremony on a day when it was 38 degrees. We had promised to act as fire wardens and make sure that the park didn't burn down! Noongar elders Mingli McGlade and Liz Hayden started the ceremony for us. We then heard from Charne Hayden. We saw Alice Kearing and her daughters from the Mungart Yongah Nyoongah Arts Enterprise dance group, who did the most amazing, uplifting, women's-only smoking ceremony. There were lots of yarns, and it was a real welcome. What happened the next day? We had the forum in Subiaco. Over 100 first nations women travelled from all around Western Australia, from as far away as Kununurra, Broome, Geraldton, Leonora, Kalgoorlie, the Pilbara and the Perth metro area. We thank all the groups that sponsored those women and enabled them to come to Perth, as well as a number of federal Labor senators and members who put their hands in their own pockets and helped to fund it. The forum was emceed by an amazing woman—I don't know where she's been all my life—Gningala Yarran-Mark, the chair of the Aboriginal Family Law Service. She's an amazing, accomplished woman. One participant described Gningala as: … both sensational and very compassionate about helping our people. Her work as MC was simply delightful and sometimes we need to be reminded and placed back upon our paths in life. To inspire, motivate and promote. We have many hats as mothers, sisters, aunties and grandmothers. Our welcome to country was by Mingli McGlade. Mingli has been an activist and a speaker for Noongar people's rights in Western Australia since the moment she was born. She was one of the group of elders who travelled back to the United Kingdom to receive the head of Yagan, which had been removed and taken as some kind of artefact back to the UK shortly after colonisation. We've just named a square in Perth after Yagan. Sadly, once again, as a demonstration of how overlooked women are, Mingli wasn't invited to that opening. The men were, but Mingli was overlooked, so I pay tribute to her activism in this place tonight. We discussed topics such as human rights, treaty and constitutional recognition. We looked at social and emotional wellbeing. We talked about children, youth and learning. We talked about health and ageing. We will produce a report—and we're in the throes of doing that. It will go back to the steering group and the participants for sign-off. In addition to having Malarndirri and Linda there, we also had our deputy leader, Tanya Plibersek, who was just blown away by being able to participate, and Simone McGurk, our WA Minister for Child Protection, Minister for Women's Interests and Minister for Prevention of Family and Domestic Violence. We had Senator Pratt there and Madeleine King, the member for Brand. It was an uplifting day, and I commend the day to the Senate. Video Game Industry 93 20:06 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Two weeks ago, I had the opportunity to tour the Melbourne based collaborative video game development space known as The Arcade. Guided by the Game Developers' Association of Australia's Tony Reed—whose passion and drive, I must say, are utterly infectious—I found myself amidst some of the most artistically creative and technically innovative minds this country has to offer. From within this unassuming structure in Melbourne's Southbank, 250 entities are at work. Simultaneously interlinked with colleagues across the nation and the globe, they pour heart and soul into the forging of new worlds, the reshaping of old narratives, the breaking down of the barriers that divide us, and the exportation of wonder to the world, all without wreaking irrevocable damage to the biosphere. While there, I had the opportunity to meet the creators and entrepreneurs behind some of Australia's greatest video game successes and most innovative projects, from Crossy Road to Florence. One which stuck in my mind was Enabler, an applied game which enables disability service providers and support workers to interact with various disabled characters and, in so doing, gain the human rights based awareness training that is so vital to their work. Beyond The Arcade, I was lucky enough to experience the breathtaking VR system developed by Oceanic Studios and was particularly struck by the bushfire awareness programs that they had created in coordination with the Victorian emergency services. These projects and others are just the latest fruits borne by an industry which not only represents the technicolour fusion of arts, culture and technology but also so eloquently models the clean, smart and futureproof economy which we Greens so proudly advocate. Indeed, I could not escape the feeling while touring The Arcade that I had slipped through a notch in time and landed in the Australian cultural and economic future which may yet be. This is why I am so excited and proud that we Greens have put forward a comprehensive package to support our Australian video game industry, with $100 million as part of an Australian interactive enterprise fund, $5 million for the co-creation and funding of collaborative working spaces, and the extension of the producer tax offset and the post, digital and visual effects offset available to the current Australian film industry, all delivered under a framework that will positively ensure that the industry into the future is diverse in all aspects. The future of this country lies in clean, smart economics and vibrant cultural discourse. We must invest in creative and talented people working on interactive and innovative projects in Australia. We Greens are committed to rebooting the digital future of this nation, to investing in technology, creative arts and the amazing opportunities which lie at the intersection of the two. I thank the chamber for its time. Charitable Organisations 94 20:10 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Charities play a valuable role in Australian society. From the Adelaide Fringe Artist Fund to the Australian Council of Social Services and from the Women Lawyers' Associations of South Australia to World Vision Australia, they all have a unique place here in Australia. Charities also contribute to robust public policy debate and provide significant public value in a wide range of areas such as health, housing, emergency relief, education and the environment, to name a few. The Senate will be required to vote on an important piece of legislation that will significantly impact on the ability of not just charities but also other community organisations and businesses to comment on and advocate matters of public interest. The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Bill 2017 does at least have the aim of addressing concerns around undisclosed foreign influence, but the parliament must tread carefully to avoid overreach. Not long after this legislation was introduced on 7 December 2017, my office was contacted by many concerned charities and other organisations. When I realised that GetUp! and the Institute of Public Affairs were, perhaps for the first and only time, agreeing on a matter of public policy, I knew the government was either doing something wrong or was completely off track. On 13 February 2018, I, along with my parliamentary colleagues Senator Rachel Siewert and Mr Andrew Leigh MP, hosted a roundtable discussion with a number of representatives from charities and other organisations. The round table was attended by Caritas Australia, the Australian Council of Social Services, the Uniting Church in Australia Synod of Victoria and Tasmania, Oxfam Australia, Save the Children Australia, World Vision Australia, CARE Australia, Human Rights Law Centre, PEW Charitable Trusts, RESULTS International (Australia), the Australian Council for International Development, the Australian Conservation Foundation, Australian Youth Climate Coalition, Global Health Alliance Melbourne and the Community Council for Australia. The round table was a success, and I would like to thank everyone who participated. I would also like the thank Saffron, from the Australian Conservation Foundation, who has been persistent in her advocacy on this issue. I do note the extensive work that has been undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. I would like to thank the committee and all those who have participated in the inquiry into this legislation. The work it has done demonstrates how important committee oversight and scrutiny of government legislation is. Finally, I seek leave to table a document which is a communique from the round table. I understand copies of this document have been circulated in the chamber. The communique from the Hands Off Our Charities coalition reflects the views of those organisations that participated in the round table and are views that I am carefully considering. I understand the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is scheduled to report on 28 March 2018 and I look forward to reading the report and its recommendations. Leave granted. Hands Off Our Charities 94 20:14 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales A few weeks ago, the Labor Party, together with minor parties and crossbenchers, met with Hands Off Our Charities, a group representing organisations as diverse as the Uniting Church, Oxfam and the ACF. These community representatives are very concerned that the suite of bills that the government introduced to combat foreign interference will have a significant impact on their ability to join public debate and participate in civil society. Hands Off Our Charities today put out a communique about that round table and about the three bills, which Senator Patrick has just tabled. I don't intend to address the content of these bills tonight. All three are currently before parliamentary committees—two before committees that I serve on. I don't want in any way to prejudice the work of those committees. But the charities expressed concerns about the bills that fit into a broader pattern of our behaviour that I do want to talk about: the tendency of this government to try to silence its critics. Everyone in politics has, at some point, wished that those who disagree would just go away or see things our way. That desire is understandable. What is not understandable is the coalition's willingness to use the power of executive government and of legislation to stifle dissent. As someone who grew up in a family of Queenslanders living on the Queensland border in the 1980s, I was raised to object strenuously when governments seek to use their legislative and executive power to control their political opponents. Under Prime Ministers Abbott and Turnbull there has been a hostility to civil society. First, there was a push to prevent environmental groups from intervening in court matters. There has been talk of denying charitable status to organisations that engage in advocacy. Charities that deliver social services have been forced to sign gag clauses that prevent them from speaking out on policy issues. Civil society plays a unique and important role in public debate. But this government has been so busy protecting people's rights to be bigots that they have forgotten why free speech is important to begin with. Hands Off Our Charities have put it pretty well in their communique. They say the people of Australia and our country's civil society need to be free to air their views, however uncomfortable for governments or for political parties. This best guarantees that our laws and policies truly support the Australian community. Democracy doesn't start in this place. It starts with free, well-informed debate in the media and around kitchen tables. This needs honest voices that are genuinely interested and will genuinely advocate for the public interest, and nothing else. In other words, we need charities, and we need our legislation to respond to that. New South Wales: Bushfires 95 20:17 Senator MOLAN FAB New South Wales In the time available, I'd like to report to the Senate some impressions of recent events on the South Coast of New South Wales. The Prime Minister and Minister Angus Taylor, the minister responsible for emergency management agencies, and I visited Tathra over the last 24 hours. Tathra, as many people in this chamber will know, is a picture-perfect seaside town on the southern coast of New South Wales at the mouth of the Bega River. It's truly a jewel in the stunning Sapphire Coast. It's a close-knit community, and it's enjoyed a wonderful way of life that's rich in history and long in maritime tradition. On Sunday, Tathra was hit by a vicious and sharp fire that came out of the forest, jumped the river and got as far as the beach. As of a few hours ago, 398 houses had been saved or were not affected by the fire, 69 houses had been destroyed, 39 houses suffered significant damage and 30 cabins or caravans had been destroyed, but there was not one death or serious injury. We arrived there with the Prime Minister and went to the evacuation centre in Bega and to Tathra itself. There I saw, I must admit, our political leaders of both persuasions sincerely caring about Australians. We're a cynical lot, but the people in Bega and Tathra actually seemed to appreciate the presence of their political leaders. The first impression that struck me was the result of firefighting. There were damaged and destroyed houses, helicopters flying with long, dangling buckets, and lines of fire trucks and firefighters on the sides of roads waiting for the next task or about to deploy home, or with crews asleep around them. On surrounding roads were convoys of fire trucks or individual fire trucks coming in to replace tired crews—men and women firefighters with the pride and honour of being blackened. There's a great honour in that kind of blackness for a firefighter because it means they were successful in defending most homes. Some were still fighting fires on the ground, mostly individual smoking trees or stumps, or blacking out. Blacking out is about the most thankless task for any firefighter. There were helicopter bases on sports ovals, tankers of fuel, maintenance crews and wind socks, with helicopters coming in and going out. Hoses were laid out behind trucks to be rolled up. There were RFS command vehicles and even a deployed RFS semitrailer full of something it had delivered. But what we saw everywhere was the comradeship of men and women who knew they'd done a good job and the best job that could be done. We also saw police at every point controlling the flow of traffic, looking after people's belongings and reminding us all that, even though there'd been a tragedy, a disaster, law and order still applied—and perhaps more so. The police also kept overenthusiastic residents from going back into areas with live wires or dangerous asbestos. So they, the police themselves, were in fact lifesavers. We also saw skilled communications crews and electricity crews tucked into strange places by the side of roads here and there in small trucks but also larger trucks with poles on the back and big rolls of new wire and cables to replace everything and erector vehicles. There were vehicles towing generators, and there were generators being connected to critical infrastructure such as phone switches, mobile towers, sewerage works and the evacuation centre. Also, we saw assessors travelling around the town trying to see who lost and who won out of this tragic lottery, asking, 'Is this house okay, damaged or destroyed?' and getting the addresses to convey to the evacuees later. We saw one evacuation centre at the showgrounds in Bega. Only a few weeks ago, we'd been to that same showground for the Bega show, with happy kids, horses and the usual sideshows. Now, of course, it was very different. We saw the media, who were there to tell the rest of Australia what was going on in Tathra, and, from what I could see, with a good degree of consideration. They were considerate of the houses destroyed, of the people who were evacuated and of the officials whose job it was to help. Inside the evacuation centre was the slickness of this nation of ours. We are practised at helping our own people after disasters. The team came together under the local incident commander from, I think, Bermagui. He conducted the action with a sensitivity that was beautiful to watch. The locals unaffected by the fires had, within hours, contributed everything that the homeless needed, from bedding to clothes to toilet gear, and there were chaplains dispensing massive amounts of understanding. The most impressive thing that I saw was the attitude of the people. There was a degree of shock, but many of the evacuees were walking around the evac centre, finding friends and relatives, taking what was needed of the things that were donated and talking and relating to others. It's unfair to mention who was there because I will definitely forget someone, but Anglicare was there, as were other church groups, hotel and motel catering staff, officials who could say what the relief entitlements were and Woolies, of course, to give stuff away. That's because everyone is part of the community that is Tathra, Bega and the whole Bega Valley. Everyone had their own story and was keen to tell it for impact but also as a relief. What I also saw were caring social leaders. I know, again, I'll miss people—and I apologise in advance—but let me have a go. The mayor of Bega Valley Shire Council, Kristy McBain, was there. She hadn't slept for a long time, yet she was everywhere, talking things up, talking about her own community and advocating for the people around her. The state local member, Andrew Constance, was all over the place, talking, relating, caring and fixing what he could. Mike Kelly, the local federal member, was there, as was Bill Shorten today, proving what we all know—that caring crosses political lines. Premier Berejiklian was there and got around to most places. Local media personality Ian Campbell was everywhere, was trusted by everyone and was doing marvellous work. With the Premier was the commissioner of the Rural Fire Service, Shane Fitzsimmons. Shane's a great leader and leads tens of thousands of men and women throughout New South Wales who prove that you can be a volunteer and be totally professional as well. The director-general of the emergency management agency from Home Affairs, Mark Crosweller, was there with his minister, Angus Taylor, who grew up in this area, to tell the world about the state and Commonwealth relief and recovery system. The newly appointed recovery coordinator, Euan Ferguson, had just arrived to take the lead into the future, when all of us and the media and the attention will go away. If you put the firefighting and recovery experience of Shane Fitzsimmons, Mark Crosweller and Euan Ferguson together, you would get about 100 years of rural firefighting experience, as well as an amazing amount of leadership. We are well served. And of course the Prime Minister was there. He spoke with locals affected and not affected. He spoke to fire crews, helicopter crews, helpers and children. He showed true compassion and empathy, as a national leader should but also as any person would. At first, in the afternoon, no-one knew if their houses were lost or still there, and the topic of conversation was how they had escaped, what it was like on the beach where they gathered as the fire approached and when they moved to the surf club and finally the evacuation centre. Stories abounded of some who stayed to fight the fire at their own houses and their neighbours' houses and then ran for it, and how fast the fire went, but most people mentioned to me the overwhelming impression of the noise. And there were questions, as we would all understand—questions that will need to be answered after we have looked after all the people, and questions which may have substance or may not have any at all. But, just like after a battle, all the participants have a different view and a different concern and different memories. I won't repeat the questions, because some of them have no substance and some are, sadly, exploitative. These are the normal questions. They may be valid or they may not be, but they will need to be checked in due course. What is fact is that some of them were being asked by the evacuees and some were, as I said, shamelessly exploitative. I have some knowledge of the Rural Fire Service, and what I do know, as I said before, is that you don't need to be paid to be professional. To conclude, the saddest thing that I saw, apart from people in the evacuation centre, was garden hoses left lying where they fell, across the front lawns and driveways of houses that were not destroyed, confirming that, as the fire approached, residents had fought this monster with the most domestic of implements, the common or garden fire hose. Of course, you only saw them at intact houses. Home Care Packages 97 20:27 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise this evening to speak about another of the Turnbull government's train wrecks that are unfolding before our eyes: the aged-care home-care package waiting list crisis. Today in the Senate we passed a resolution, one that I put forward on behalf of the Labor Party and every older Australian in this country. I want to address my comments to that this evening. If there's anything that demonstrates how out of touch the government are, it's this issue. They have displayed a lack of regard for some of the most vulnerable older Australians. This is a real issue. This is affecting our communities here and now, today. I'm not alone on this. This afternoon, as I said, the Senate passed a motion condemning the Turnbull government for failing to look after older Australians. Home care wait times are blowing out on the Turnbull government's watch. The release of the latest data on the Turnbull government's home care packages has revealed that close to 105,000 vulnerable Australians are waiting for care. This is the care that they receive at home. This includes close to 82,000 older Australians waiting with high needs such as dementia. Staggeringly, 45.8 per cent of people on the waiting list are receiving a lower level of care than they need. This isn't good enough. Earlier today, as I said, I moved the motion which asked the Minister for Aged Care, Ken Wyatt, to explain his bizarre and out-of-touch claim that the growing waiting list is a positive trajectory. It's not positive that the waiting list has grown by almost 15,000 since the home care package reforms were introduced just over a year ago. This is a tragedy not just for older people; there is a direct impact on families and the broader community, and Mr Turnbull needs to act now. My office and the offices of my Labor colleagues are receiving calls weekly from family members of older Australians who are distressed about this issue. They're saying, 'Please help my parents.' Just since the Senate passed my motion this afternoon, I've had an influx of emails and tweets. I've had one tonight; I don't want to give too much detail, because it'll identify the person—and people are afraid to speak up because they may be put further down the list—but this person has been waiting 850 days, having been assessed for a level 4 package of home care. That's almost 2½ years! This is totally unacceptable. We're a rich nation. We have to do better and we can do better. Earlier this month, we heard from the member for Newcastle in the other place that one of her constituents had spent over 300 hours talking to My Aged Care, desperate to get help for her parents. This is the 21st century. This isn't okay. The situation has reached crisis point and is no longer tolerable, especially in Tasmania—my home state—where we have the oldest population and the highest rate of chronic illnesses in the country. Instead of putting consumers at the centre of their care, the Turnbull government is leaving thousands of older Tasmanians in limbo, without the care that they need. The waiting list, based on the Department of Health's own numbers, tops 2½ thousand older Tasmanians, and that is growing. There are almost 2,000 older Tasmanians requiring a higher level package who are either waiting with no care at all or with a lower level of care than they require. This demonstrates very clearly how out of touch this government is. Don't you move around the community? Don't you listen to what people are saying? For the last four years and more, since the election of the Abbott government, we haven't had a minister who has taken responsibility, led the policy and built on the Living Longer Living Better packages that the previous Labor government introduced. Under this government, aged care is no longer just bleeding; it's haemorrhaging. That's what's happening in this country. The Turnbull government has known about the home care package waiting list crisis for almost a year and has done nothing of any substance to try to address it. Mr David Tune's legislative review on the progress of the Living Longer Living Better reforms raised concerns about this. Appointed by this government, Mr Tune raised these issues, but what did we see? The Turnbull government sat on its hands and did nothing. They did nothing when that report was released and they still haven't done anything. The Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook rolled around and still they did nothing. What an insult to those older Australians! Those opposite come in and say that people who have worked all their lives deserve to be looked after—they've paid their taxes. These are the very same people that, having paid their taxes, can't get the assistance they need to see out their life with the support and respect that they need to stay at home. Let's be realistic here, and I've said this time and time again in this place: it is far better economics for any government, no matter what persuasion, to have people ageing in their own residence. It's cheaper, it's better for the individual, it's better for the families and it's better for the bottom line of the nation's budget. But it won't be if we fail to show the respect and give the care that people need. What's happening is these people are going into residential care when they shouldn't be going into care, because there's no alternative. They're ending up at accident and emergency in acute hospitals, which is the last place that older people should be. They just need to have the support to keep them well and healthy and in their own homes. You can't keep passing the buck on these things. The minister was talking about loneliness, and I have to give him credit—loneliness is a big factor for older Australians, but it's not at the core of this issue. As I said, there are people who are dying, waiting for these packages. That's the reality. Earlier this month at Senate estimates, it was revealed that older Australians waiting for aged-care services at home are being left in limbo for over a year without any care. When asked what the average waiting time was for a level 1, 2, 3 or 4 home care package, the department officials said, 'Level 1 or 2—six to nine months; level 3 or 4—over 12 months.' You can't tell, as we have heard time and time again. One person, a 94-year-old man, had to wait another 12 months for the level of care that he needed for him to be able to stay at home. That's absurd—94 and he has to wait another 12 months. Wake up! We need to do something about this. We can't afford to wait any longer. I have another elderly gentleman who is 89 and has high-level needs, who is currently waiting for a level 4 package. He's been on the interim level 2 package for 13 months while he waits for a level 4 package to become available. He has just been told it will be another 12 months before he receives the level of care he actually needs. So he has already waited 13 months; he's now going to have to wait another 12 months. He's 89 years of age. Where is the respect? This cannot continue to happen. I implore the government. We have a minister who doesn't sit in the cabinet room. The Prime Minister needs to take control of this situation. He needs to intervene. We need to see older people being given the support to stay at home. That's what we need. Every Labor colleague in our caucus has raised their concerns because this is the feedback they're getting within their communities. Every time Bill Shorten has a town hall meeting, aged care is raised. Dementia is raised. The government are failing their responsibilities. I urge them: do not follow the same path as John Howard's government when they failed to address ageing and aged care in this country for too long. We had a government where Mr Mark Butler led a reform of this policy that actually set the framework, but he worked with the opposition of the day. We have said since the Abbott government was elected and said repeatedly to every health minister who has had responsibility for ageing that we will work with them to address these issues. We're happy to sit down and work with you, but time is running out. It has unfortunately run out already for some older Australians who were waiting for the care that they needed. We need to see some action. We need to see a genuine commitment from the government that they will address this. Having 105,000 Australians waiting for the care that they need is unacceptable. We will continue to talk. I will continue to lobby. I meet with the sector. I'm listening to the community. We will continue to do that because Labor do not believe this is good enough. Environmental Conservation, Infrastructure: Housing Acquisition 98 20:37 Senator RHIANNON CPR New South Wales In the 1980s, with the help of AusAID—the Australian government's former aid agency—the scientific community, indigenous activists and people from Ecuador and abroad, the Los Cedros biological reserve was created in the Andean cloud forest of Ecuador. The rainforests of Ecuador are some of the most diverse in the world, with many endemic and endangered species of plants and animals. The reserve is now threatened. Former Ecuadorian vice-president Jorge Glas secretly granted mining concessions across 13 per cent of the country. The protected forest of Los Cedros is located within land that can now be mined. Recently, the Canadian company Cornerstone made its first attempt to start prospecting in Los Cedros. This is not just an Ecuadorian issue. It is a global issue. It is imperative that we take action to stop the degradation from proceeding and urge the Ecuadorian government to rescind the existing new concessions that cover three-quarters of a million hectares of bosques protectores, including Los Cedros and a million hectares of indigenous reserves. The indigenous peoples have been fighting against mining in Ecuador for over a decade. These new mining concessions that cover a million hectares of indigenous land will have adverse effects on the people and the environment those people depend on. In December 2017, a large delegation of indigenous activists marched on Quito, the Ecuadorian capital, to demand that the Ecuadorian government respond to their concerns regarding the concessions granted to mining companies. They wanted to know whether these concessions complied with article 57 of the Ecuadorian Constitution, which states that indigenous groups have the right to free and prior consultation before extractive projects take place near or, in this case, on their land. While Lenin Moreno, the new Ecuadorian president elected last year, has promised that there will be no new oil and mining concessions, this has not been enough for the Indigenous communities and their supporters. They are calling for the concessions made by the previous government to be rescinded. Ecuador's protected forest are considered to be one of the most critical global conservation priorities. The impacts of large-scale open pit mining within rainforests cannot be understated. Deforestation, species loss, erosion, contamination of water systems and desertification will occur if mining is allowed to proceed. This deal with mining companies also runs counter to Ecuador's constitution. It was in 2008 when Ecuador made international headlines for the revolutionary decision to become the first country to recognise in its constitution the inalienable rights of ecosystems to exist and flourish. The constitution codified the rights of nature and gave the people the authority to petition on its behalf. The Ecuadorian people are advocating for these forests, but they need our support. In 1988 Australia, through AusAID and the Rainforest Information Centre, helped to create the Los Cedros Biological Reserve. It would be appalling to not take action to stop the devastation that mining will inevitably bring. I urge the Australian government to appeal to President Moreno to rescind the concessions that were made under former Vice-President Glas. We must also urge Australian mining companies not to follow the Canadian company Cornerstone into the unique forest systems and indigenous lands of Ecuador. Now is the time to encourage Ecuador's government to abide by its own constitution. Surely President Moreno will not allow the short-term profits from mining companies to win the day. That path will leave behind a spoilt and impoverished landscape, unable to sustain the people or creatures that rely on it. I congratulate members of the Rainforest Information Centre for their work to save the rainforests of Ecuador, and, in particular, John Seed for his work to set up the Los Cedros Biological Reserve. Housing acquisition is a big issue for many communities who feel done over when it comes to having their homes taken off them. Many acquisitions are plain wrong, like the WestConnex project and Millers Point, both of which are in Sydney. Others, like the Prince of Wales Hospital expansion, are a necessity. In this case the issue is not the acquisition; the problem is how it's done. The Prince of Wales project involved several hundred people living in 89 properties. These are the words prepared by some of the Randwick residents who are losing their homes: 'We have a lot of older people in our neighbourhood. We have seven households that have been in their homes in our communities for over 50 years, 25 per cent of households have been there for more than 40 years and over 50 per cent have been in their homes for 20 years or more. More than half the homes being acquired by the government have had children grow up in them, parents die, and lifetime friends live next door and across the road. This is just one small microcosm of what makes up a community, a community that looks after each other. Four homes have been in the family for generations.' What is happening to this community? Residents were offered compensation of 10 per cent to 30 per cent below the market value and were given only a few months notification before eviction. This is a longstanding Randwick community, and it's being destroyed—with all the implications that we should take seriously. Alternative housing in this area is scarce and expensive, and, until recently, little or no assistance was given to residents to find alternative housing. In New South Wales some 400 people are affected in this way every year. In some cases the infrastructure projects are necessary, but the process by which the acquisition occurs must be driven by human considerations, not legal, financial or bureaucratic processes—which is what is currently happening. Loss of community is serious. A growing body of evidence identifies the importance of community for maintaining social capital, increasing health and education outcomes, decreasing crime and suicide rates, and maintaining overall health and wellbeing among residents. To lose these things is a real cost not just in health and wellbeing but in money as well. Loss of community creates increased costs in services for the government, costs that it conveniently regards as externalities in its current cost estimates. These costs are not externalities but real costs incurred by government action for all concerned. The state government in New South Wales should increase the level of compensation to at least cover the real costs of moving but, more importantly, appoint at government expense a buyer's agent for each resident to assist the residents in relocating and purchasing their new property. That agent must be independent of the purchasing institution. And there is a role for the federal government. They can help harmonise all state provisions for compensation of land acquisition and, in particular, call a national review of land acquisition procedures. Under the New South Wales land acquisition act there are a number of statements in principle to ensure fair compensation and to recognise loss to residents beyond market value of the home. However, in practice, what we find is that the act is applied in a narrow, legalistic way. Here is a letter from a resident. These are some of the problems they have confronted. They said: I would like you to hear the effects this forced acquisition has had on me and many others in my community. Firstly, the manner of notification was appalling. The impact has been damaging, lasting and has created an atmosphere of mistrust. … … … Residents being told they would need to present their homes as if for a 'prudent buyer' is absurd. Doing up our homes to have them bull dozed is a further absurdity. For many this has involved spending thousands of dollars, time and effort in an attempt to achieve a higher valuation. How unethical, ridiculous, immoral and wasteful is this? Surely there must be a more sensible way! The anger and shock of losing my home is still being processed. It is my home not a dwelling, building or structure. Houses are people's homes. They are not a commodity. Acquisitions may be necessary—the Greens recognise that—when infrastructure projects are required for the public good, but they must be done in a way that recognises that we are dealing with people, not simply a process, and people who are part of a community. If they lose their homes and their community, the pain and distress may be so extreme that they may not recover. That is deeply wrong when the public good should always come first in government policy. Tropical Cyclone Marcus, MJD Foundation: 10th Anniversary 100 20:47 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I would like to speak in the Senate tonight about Cyclone Marcus, which impacted on the cities of Darwin and Palmerston and rural areas on Saturday. I just want to point out to the Senate the importance of the Territory spirit. It has been terrific to see, certainly through media reports and from people who I've spoken to. We've been here in the Senate, obviously, as of Monday. In the clean-up on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, the coming together of people in the Northern Territory has been wonderful to see. We certainly heard about the spirit of community in coming together after the bushfires. The same is happening in our capital in the Northern Territory. I make reference, too, to my colleague the member for Solomon, Luke Gosling, who certainly has been out and about with constituents. Many of the community are giving generously of food to those who are hungry, helping those who have had to boil water for a couple of days because of concerns of contamination. We now know those concerns were unfounded and the water is fine. For those people in Darwin who are watching, I just want to read through some of the latest notices that are coming through from the Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services through the office of the Chief Minister, Michael Gunner. The Chief Minister has said that financial relief payments have been activated to help people affected with their immediate emergency needs. The cyclone was quite powerful. It was a category 2 cyclone that had a major impact on Darwin, Palmerston and rural areas, with hundreds, if not thousands, of trees and powerlines down across the city. Thankfully, there have been no major injuries. Winds in excess of 130 kilometres per hour have done significant damage, causing widespread power outages to around 30,000 households as of Saturday, and 2,400 households are still without power. Today Northern Territory Chief Minister Michael Gunner said the immediate relief payment of $250 is available for families who've been without power for over 72 hours. The relief payment is to assist with the costs associated with being without power, and people can apply now from five relief centres. Residents may go there and seek that support. For further assistance, people are welcome to call the Territory Families number, which is (08)89992908. I would like to turn to an important event that also happened in the last few weeks—that is, the 10th anniversary of the MJD Foundation. What is MJD? It is Machado-Joseph disease. It's a hereditary neurodegenerative condition, and the damage that it causes to the cerebellum and brain stem initially causes muscular weakness and progresses over time to a total lack of voluntary control. It causes very significant permanent physical disability. It does impact largely, unfortunately, just in one pocket area. The spread of MJD is in Arnhem Land. In relation to the history of the disease, according to the foundation and other sources, it has been attributed to the 16th century trading and exploration activities of Portuguese sailors. Entry into the Australian population was thought to have been through trading relationships between the Aboriginal people of Arnhem Land and the Macassan people of Indonesia, who in turn traded with the Portuguese. However, in February 2012, research was published which effectively rules out the Portuguese link—that is what it initially was—and instead points to a direct Asian link based on international DNA. This means that the type of MJD experienced in northern Australia is most like the Asian variant of the disease, and this is known to favour an aggressive anticipation effect. The MJD Foundation knows therefore that more people will develop the disease earlier than their parents in this current population. The families who are impacted are largely on Groote Eylandt in the communities of Angurugu and Umbakumba, Bickerton Island, Galiwinku mainland, Yirrkala, Numbulwar, Ngukurr, Oenpelli and certainly some areas of the Darwin mainland. In Central Australia there are affected families in Papunya, Hermannsburg and Santa Teresa. There are also some families who have MJD in mainland Queensland around Cairns, Kuranda and Atherton. So why does the MJD Foundation focus on Aboriginal Australians? Largely because, in the Northern Territory, Aboriginal Australians have a prevalence of this disease 100 times greater than the international average, and many Aboriginal Australians with MJD also live in remote communities. Therefore, there are significant gaps in services compared with those available in non-remote settings. So this foundation is incredibly important. I just wanted to read to the Senate the story of one amazing woman—and there are just so many amazing women in the Northern Territory. Gayangwa is an Anindilyakwa woman of Groote Eylandt, and she's 73 years old. Machado-Joseph disease has been a part of her life for as long as she can remember. Her father developed the disease when he was an older man, and all of her six brothers and sisters were affected by the disease in their 40s. She was the primary career for two of her sister's children for over 15 years, and now the third generation of her family is sick. Her 21-year-old niece passed away in 2014. She has nieces, nephews and grandchildren with Machado-Joseph disease. That's just one story of one amazing person. I remember when I became the member for Arnhem in 2005 and I travelled to Groote Eylandt. I had heard of Machado-Joseph disease, but it wasn't until I started doorknocking around Alyangula and then the communities of Angurugu and Umbakumba that I observed some young people with this incredible disease. It has a profound impact. You are just quite stunned. Not only was it just one person; it was so many families. I remember at the time asking: 'How is it that this disease is here?' That was when I was informed that it is a hereditary disease. It is largely in certain clan groups, and it does pass on. But the fear of course now is that it's passing on a lot sooner to the next generation. As you heard in the story there, some of the younger ones are now getting it way too soon, whereas in decades past it was the older generation. So now we have young people who are suffering from the disease, and many of them need to go to Darwin to get care. I want to congratulate all those who work with the MJD Foundation on the incredible work that you do for the families of the Northern Territory and across to Queensland, firstly to find a cure for this disease and also to give support to those families who know that really it is a life sentence. They know that they don't have too long, and they've got to find ways to make their life as comfortable as they can in these remote regions. So congratulations for the work you do. Thank you for the work you do, and keep going. Defence Facilities: Chemical Contamination 101 20:56 Senator BURSTON 207807 New South Wales Recently, the New South Wales state government, through New South Wales Health, conducted a study into whether a cancer cluster existed in the Williamtown area as a result of PFAS contamination. The study dismissed suggestions that a cancer cluster existed on a heavily contaminated area of Cabbage Tree Road. Over the last 15 years, 50 cancer cases have occurred over a five-kilometre stretch on that road. The results of the study are totally unreliable and lack objectivity. Areas such as Medowie and Karuah were included in the study despite being some 30 kilometres from the red zone. This brought into the study 12,000 residents not affected by the contamination, and it only looked at cancer incidents between 2005 and 2014. I have continued to ask questions of the government in relation to compensation for residents affected by this contamination. The standard answer from the government is: 'There is currently no consistent evidence that exposure to PFAS causes adverse human health effects.' The government says it relies on the advice of eHealth when making decisions on this issue. On 19 March 2018 the Newcastle Herald reported, and I quote the article in part: A leading group of Australian doctors has slammed federal health advice on the chemicals at the centre of the Williamtown scandal, arguing the government's position is "highly problematic", "confusing" and doesn't provide a complete picture of the international evidence. The Department of Health's advice – stating there is "no consistent evidence that exposure to PFAS causes adverse human health effects" – has long been condemned by residents of the red zone, who argue it contradicts warnings from world-leading agencies, including the US EPA. However this is the first time Australia's medical fraternity has publicly weighed into the debate. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) trains and represents over 25,000 medical and trainee specialists across Australia and New Zealand. In its submission to a newly-formed Expert Health Panel on … (PFAS) chemicals, the RACP argues for a national ban on firefighting foam and says Australia should have ratified a global agreement made nearly a decade ago to phase out the contaminants. The document is scathing of the government's health advice, based on guidance statements from the Environmental Health Standing Committee (EnHealth). … … … "We advocate for a change to the national health advice that incorporates the latest international evidence for adverse health effects." … … … "We were really slow at getting the government to ban asbestos and now we’ve done the same thing with PFAS" … "We're conflict avoidant." The RACP advocates for a change to the national health advice that incorporates the latest international evidence for adverse health effects. That evidence is available through the US EPA, the German Human Biomonitoring Commission, Public Health England and the United Nations Stockholm Convention, which all link exposure to PFAS with adverse health effects. What more evidence do the government need? Well, I'll give them some more. I will now name 32 of the 50 cancer-cluster victims, as published in the Newcastle Herald of 16 February 2018: Warren Monro, prostate cancer; Jenny Robinson, breast cancer; Terry Robinson, melanoma; Gaylene Brown, breast cancer; John Hill, non-Hodgkin lymphoma; Lex 'Tex' Facer, deceased 2005, bowel cancer; Boronia Howell, deceased 2003, leukaemia; Ted Howell Snr, deceased 2004, prostate cancer; Ted Howell Jr, prostate cancer; Greg Waters, leukaemia; Gary Price, prostate cancer; Karen Price, breast cancer; Eric Moxey, deceased 2004, pancreatic cancer; Irene Jordan, breast cancer; Luke Gordan, neck tumours; Lorelei Sneddon, deceased 2011, non-Hodgkin lymphoma; Liane Ryan, breast cancer; Michelle Gilchrist, leukaemia; Colin Northam, deceased 2004, liver cancer; Suzanne Quick, non-Hodgkin lymphoma; Raeleen Russell, breast cancer; Neville Haywood, oesophageal cancer; Danielle Proctor, non-Hodgkin lymphoma; David Vial, prostate cancer; David Gordon, deceased 2015, prostate cancer; Judy Gordon, breast cancer; Denis McEnearney, prostate cancer and leukaemia; Craig Coombes, vocal cord tumour and thyroid cancer; Ken Graham, deceased 2012, prostate cancer; Patricia Olsen, lung cancer; Terry Olsen, deceased 2015, prostate cancer; Des Maslen, skin cancer. Do you want more evidence? Sorry, but I've run out of time. So has the government. International Day of Forests 102 21:03 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria Tomorrow is International Day of Forests. While we celebrate the beauty of forests across the globe, it's also a chance for us to have a sober look at what we're doing to the forests of Australia. I can tell you, it is not a pretty sight. But we have a choice. We can let our forests be destroyed, allowing clear-fell logging of forests and broad-scale clearing of woodlands, or we can halt the destruction of our native forests and make sure that they are intact for future generations to come. Australians are rightly proud of our incredible natural landscapes. Our island home is a tapestry of wonders, from the Great Barrier Reef to the vibrant landscapes of Kakadu, with incredible beaches and coasts and the charm of our gorgeous native wildlife. Selfies with quokkas in WA are a global hit for a very good reason; there's nothing quite like a cute Aussie creature. But the stewardship of our natural places and wildlife is failing. We are failing to protect and to restore nature, and we're losing precious parts of our natural heritage, potentially for good. Future generations will ask us, 'How did you let this happen?' I want us to act now so that we don't have to look our grandkids in the eye and just answer with a shrug. On International Day of Forests we have to recognise that here in Australia we are managing our forests with very little regard to their many values. I've been lucky enough to spend a lot of time in our forests, particularly in my home state of Victoria, and I know, like anybody else in this place who has visited a pristine forest, how invigorating it is to breathe in the fresh air, to look up at the awesome, amazing trees, to marvel at the ferns and mosses and to hear cascades of fresh water—fresh and clean enough to drink straight out of creeks and rivers. Most Aussies would assume that we had left the worst of our knock-it-down, ship-it-out logging practices in the last century, but the truth is that the native forest logging industry is still running rampant in forests like these. Victoria takes the cake for the most destruction. On latest figures, there are more logs coming out of Victorian native forests than there are coming out of Tasmania, Senator McKim, and most of these logs are ending up as woodchips. Just think about that for a moment: we are razing forests, including trees that are hundreds of years old, that are the habitat of an amazing diversity of plants and animals and that provide us with clean air and water, largely for woodchips. This is absolute madness. This is all happening despite the fact that we now have plantations providing almost 90 per cent of the wood produced in Australia, without destroying our natural heritage. A clear-felled native forest takes well over 100 years to return to how it was before logging, if all goes to plan. But the plan is to log it again well before then, anyway. There are those in this place, including our current minister responsible for forests, who say our native forests are put there for our taking and that we can cut big old trees down and presume that they'll just magically reappear in their original form in the landscape. But what happens to the balance in the ecosystem in the meantime? What happens to the clean air, the clean water and the habitat these trees provide? What happens to the visitors going for a nice drive? Are they going to wait 100 years for the trees to return to their former glory before they spend their tourist dollars in our regional communities? 'Surely we have laws to protect our forests,' I hear you say. You may be interested to learn what happens under our national logging laws—the regional forest agreements—when a forest-dwelling species is identified as having become threatened or endangered. The answer is absolutely nothing. When a species is listed as threatened under our federal environment laws, nothing happens in terms of changing logging practices. It's carry on, business as usual. Meanwhile, Australia has the highest rate of animal extinctions in the entire world. The 10 regional forest agreements across Australia have been in place for 20 years. They were meant to balance the needs of a sustainable logging industry with protecting our forests. They have failed on nearly every count, leaving industry uncertainty as wood runs out, and leaving our forests in a precarious state. The Turnbull government is committed to simply rolling these destructive laws over for another 20 years. The Greens, in stark contrast, think that the regional forest agreements should be scrapped. The sad case of greater gliders is just one example of how the regional forest agreements have failed. Greater gliders are gliding possums. About the size of a cat, they have a luxurious fluffy coat and big, teddy-bear-like ears. They feed exclusively on the leaves, buds and flowers of eucalypts, and they're active at night, gliding up to 100 metres from tree to tree. They spend most of the day asleep in one of the many dens that they create in the hollows of old trees. Up to 20 of these dens can be spread across their territory of between one and four hectares. Two decades ago, greater gliders were abundant along the east coast, but a combination of land clearing, logging and the rising threat of bushfires linked to climate change has caused their population to crash. They were listed as 'vulnerable' on the federal list of threatened and endangered species in 2016, but that has prompted absolutely no action from the federal government. Clear-felling of the forests, including the old trees where greater gliders live, has continued unabated. Our logging laws say that , if logging is occurring in an area covered by a regional forest agreement, the states and the federal government have a full three years before they even need to begin working on a plan that might do something about reducing the impacts of that logging. But that plan , known as a recovery plan , is likely to be vague and compromised, and it won't even be legally enforceable. It's not just greater gliders, of course . We have critically endangered Lead beater ' s possums . We have critically endangered swift parrots, whose habitat was clear-fell logged in Tasmania late last year, dismaying the scientist s who were trying to protect them. There are only about 2,000 swift parrots left. There is a recovery plan. H owever, it only refers vaguely to encouraging and supporting 'the protection, conservation management and restoration of swift parrot nesting and foraging habitat through agreements with landowners, incentive programs and community projects'. It doesn't specify limits to the loss of habitat through either clearing on the Australian mainland or logging of the birds' critical habitat in Tasmania. Australia is one of the worst offenders globally when it comes to broad scale land clearing and deforestation. In fact, it's the only developed country listed as a global deforestation hot spot. The rate of clearing of forests and woodlands by land holders is rising , especially in Australia's north , and the effects are devastating. The bulldozers go in , they leave native wildlife dead or without a home, and they destroy massive amounts of carbon-storing vegetation. The sharp rise in land clearing has been driven by a weakening of state laws and ineffective federal laws, allowing land holders to clear vast swathes of forested land. As we march through the 21st century with logging and land clearing still continuing, the important role of forests and woodlands as carbon stores combating dangerous global warming has become ever clearer. We Australians like to think of ourselves as a modern, sophisticated nation. So , on International Day of Forests, the question must be asked : will we continue the destruction of our precious forests for such little gain, or will we act to protect them and restore nature for future generations? In this place and in this parliament, we must not squib this one. The choice is ours. Turnbull Government 103 21:12 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales The Turnbull government is in terminal decline. This is a government incapable of addressing the key issues facing Australians. This is a government that lacks cohesive policies on economics, education, health, industrial relations, wage stagnation, housing affordability, infrastructure, climate change, and power prices. This is a government that has no idea how to deal with the growing inequality between the rich and powerful and the majority of Australians. We have a Prime Minister who has sold out what he claims to be his principles and values for the keys to The Lodge. We have a weak Prime Minister , afraid to stand up against the extremists in his own party. We have a Prime Minister who presides over a divided rabble of a government. We have a Prime Minister whose incoherent economic policies have ranged from increasing the GST and handing taxing powers to the states to, finally, a $65 billion tax cut to his business mates , while increasing taxes on hardworking low- and middle-income Australians. Nothing epitomises the incompetence of this government more than its promotion of trickle-down economics —its defence of the well heeled at the expense of working-class Australians. This government has engaged in an over-the-top defence of the rich and privileged. Regardless of the economic and social consequences, they protect their rich mates who access negative gearing, capital gains tax exemptions and unaffordable and unsustainable dividend imputation benefits. This demonstrates how unfit for office they are. This is a government that lacks fair and equitable policies, clear direction and strong leadership. This is a government whose default position is to attack the working poor, the union movement, social security recipients, immigrants and asylum seekers. This is a government that has engaged in economic, social and environmental vandalism by failing to deal with climate change, intergenerational inequality and the largesse handed out by John Howard's economically irresponsible government. Former Treasurer Peter Costello stood idly by while John Howard, for purely political reasons, showered government largesse on well-heeled groups in the community who did not need a transfer of income from the battlers. It was Howard and Costello who created the structural deficit, and it's Prime Minister Turnbull and Treasurer Morrison who are acting in the time-honoured tradition of the coalition to protect the powerful and the privileged. An example of the decay at the heart of this government is the reprehensible behaviour of the Minister for Jobs and Innovation and former Minister for Women and Minister for Employment, Senator Cash. I recently watched a BBC Panorama program called'Taking on Putin'. In this program, reporter John Sweeney outlined the misuse of the police force and government agencies by the Putin government. John Sweeney exposed the intimidation used by government agencies against Putin's political opponents and the propaganda used by the Russian government to discredit anyone who stands against Putin. It was amazing to watch Russian politicians claim that democracy was alive and well. I couldn't help but think of Senator Cash as I watched this program that exposed government agency interference to attack political opponents. Her use of so-called independent government agencies to attack her political opponents is in the best traditions of Putin. Her constant use of parliamentary privilege to attack the government's opponents by using unsubstantiated allegations, hyperbole and misinformation would not be out of place in Putin's Russia. She has established and used so-called independent government agencies to investigate and attack her political opponents. Minister Cash has a web of former coalition advisers planted in so-called independent government agencies that are designed to attack the government's political opponents. In the Panorama program, Putin's political allies were measured, calm and assured in the defence of the indefensible. Senator Cash is anything but measured, calm and assured. In her premeditated and mainly rehearsed diatribes against her political opponents, she is agitated, coarse, unsophisticated, frenzied and furious. It's not a good look for a cabinet minister. This is a minister who once revelled in a completely undeserved reputation as a competent and effective minister. Senator Cash is now a disgraced and diminished politician. She ignored the illegal actions of the former Building and Construction Commissioner Nigel Hadgkiss as he breached the legislation he was handsomely paid to uphold. She failed to take basic steps to gain independent advice and assess the validity of Hadgkiss's claim to be innocent of breaches of the legislation. She authorised her appointee Nigel Hadgkiss to expend over $400,000 of public funds in legal costs defending the indefensible. She provided Hadgkiss with one month's salary to cover court-imposed fines, when she should have sacked him. She misled parliament on five occasions by claiming that no-one in her office alerted the media to Federal Police raids on the AWU offices, raids instigated by her creation the Registered Organisations Commission. She hid behind claims of public interest immunity in order to avoid legitimate questioning about the involvement of herself and her staff in providing advice to the media about the raid on the AWU office. She launched a reprehensible and widely condemned attack on talented and hardworking young women in the office of the Leader of the Opposition in a vain attempt to distract from her and her staff's involvement in the AWU raid. She failed to apologise for her bizarre and sexist behaviour. She continues to cover up the behaviour of herself, her staff and her political plants in government organisations. If we had a Prime Minister with a backbone, he would have sacked Minister Cash. If Minister Cash had any semblance of decency and propriety, she would resign. Rather than do the right thing, the Prime Minister and his frontbenchers accused me of bullying Minister Cash. This nonsensical claim has been widely discredited by political commentators across the political spectrum. These are commentators who have taken the time to read the Hansard and view the footage of the exchange between me and this incompetent and beleaguered minister. In a political puff piece in The Australian Women's Weekly, the Prime Minister claims to have been bullied at school as an eight-year-old. A victim of bullying should not be making incorrect claims of bullying against his political opponents. Bullying is unacceptable, and this pathetic Prime Minister diminishes any credibility that he might still have by making untruthful attacks against me. Minister Cash has had to resort to a new low and undertake an interview with The Daily Telegraph's Miranda Devine, of all people, in a vain attempt to rewrite history and concoct an unconvincing defence of her disgusting attacks on innocent young women. Smearing young women as part of her political attack on the Leader of the Opposition has been condemned by almost every political commentator of substance in this country. If Minister Cash had any political integrity, she would resign. If the Prime Minister was not such a political jellyback, he would sack her. This low point in Australian politics demonstrates that we need a national integrity commission to weed out corrupt and unacceptable conduct by federal politicians and advisers and to maintain the integrity and independence of our statutory authorities. Until we have a national integrity commission, conduct which misuses executive power for political advantage will continue and coalition ministers will continue to hide behind elaborately concocted untruths and ploys such as using public interest immunity to hide unacceptable behaviour. Donations to Political Parties 105 21:22 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The late, great John Clarke once joked that, having defeated Labor in the semifinals, capital was set to take on democracy. 'It'll be an absolute cracker,' he said. 'You won't be able to get a ticket.' Well, he was absolutely spot-on. The fight of the 21st century, the fight of right now, is between capital and democracy—or, to put it another way, it's a fight between money and people. And right now the money's winning. We've seen elections in the US and Europe severely compromised by foreign influence, dark money and big data, facilitated by companies like Cambridge Analytica and i360, a company used by the South Australian Liberals in the recent election campaign there. This corruption of democracy has changed the course of human history, and it is people and the environment who are the big losers. Right now the cosy relationship between parliament and corporate boardrooms is corroding public trust in democracies and parliaments around the world. People know that too many politicians are in it for themselves rather than the people we're supposed to represent, biding their time and doing the bidding of their corporate donors so they can land a cushy corporate gig later on. We've seen it time after time with Labor, Liberal and National Party politicians who now work for big mining, big gaming, big banking, big energy and big coal—working for big money. The fight between capital and democracy is a fight that has many fronts, big and small. In my home state of Tasmania, we've just seen an election bought by pokies barons trying to protect their ill-gotten gains and lock in decades more misery and social harm in our beautiful island state. We'll never know exactly how much was spent by the Tasmanian Liberals and the Tasmanian pokies industry, with assistance from mainland big gaming companies, because Tasmania has the weakest electoral disclosure laws in the country. Most realistic estimates are that between $5 million and $10 million was spent on the Liberals' election campaign and the associated campaign by big gaming in support of the Liberals. It was absolutely unprecedented. TV ads started on day one of the Boxing Day Test last year. They continued unabated for over two months. There were blanket newspaper ads, Facebook ads, Twitter ads, Instagram ads, YouTube ads and Snapchat ads. Pokies barns carried massive banners and cities were turned blue by innumerable Liberal billboards. Staff in hotels wore 'vote Liberal' T-shirts. Warnings against voting for Labor or for the Greens were printed at the bottom of hotel meal dockets. It was saturating and inescapable. Let's say it was $7.5 million—a reasonable estimate of what was spent on the Liberal campaign in Tasmania. To put that in context, it's similar to what was spent by the coalition in advertisements across the country at the 2016 federal election. That is to say, on a per-capita basis, the Liberals and their donors spent around 40 times per voter what was spent per voter at the last federal election. Can you imagine what a federal election would look like with 40 times the advertising that we faced in 2016? That's what we have just suffered through in Tasmania. What do the pokies millionaires get for the money they spent buying government for the Liberal Party in Tassie? They've already managed to change the Liberals' policy to ensure that parasitic poker machines stay in pubs and clubs. This represents a windfall gain of $250 million—a quarter of a billion dollars—direct from the pockets and tables of Tasmanian families into the already obscenely fat wallets of the pokies barons. And it doesn't stop there. In policy documents that were deliberately kept secret from voters until after the election, the Tasmanian Hospitality Association—a key player in the campaign to support the Liberals—will receive $6.8 million from the state government over the next term of government. This is up from $800,000 in the previous term. It sure does pay off helping big gaming buy an election for the Liberals, doesn't it? The collusion between the Liberals, Federal Group hotels, the pokies industry and the THA—the buying and selling of an election and the stain of corruption we've witnessed in Tasmania—is hanging like a dark cloud over the head of Premier Will Hodgman and his new government. It's eroded his personal legitimacy as Premier and, in fact, the legitimacy of his government. The Liberals' campaign had all the hallmarks of the Brexit vote and the US election. It was built on the big lie that over 5,000 jobs would be lost unless the Liberals won. It was all pervasive and featured a blanket presence across social media platforms. Both of these factors were notable in Brexit and the US election, which involved Cambridge Analytica, a company that's now established in Australia and has already met with at least one current federal Liberal minister. There's a huge danger—and I'll call it out now—that what happened in Tasmania and what just happened in South Australia with the involvement of a company called i360 is going to corrupt democracy right across the country. It is people versus corporations right now, and corporations and big money are coming for our democracy. It'll take a massive pushback at every level of society to stop them from taking our democracy from us, but I believe we can do it and I believe the fight is happening already. There are millions of Australians aghast at what the government's doing by pushing ahead with the climate-destroying Adani mine, and no amount of dodgy donations, cosy political deals and corporate lies have changed their mind. This is a fight with capital on one side and with people and the environment on the other. We can see the Adani resistance happening in direct action and protests and votes. The resistance will grow, and it will become more powerful until that mine is stopped. Similarly, the union movement is fighting to change the rules, as people's living standards plummet in a time of record corporate profits. Wages are stagnant at best in this country, and people's right to fight back has been strangled by the Fair Work Act. Meanwhile, the Turnbull government's trying to put more money directly into the pockets of multinational corporations, with a massive corporate tax cut. But the campaign against Adani, the wholesale purchase of the Tasmanian government and the struggle for better wages and conditions for workers should not, and must not, be seen as separate fights. They're part of a far bigger fight, the fight that John Clarke referred to—the fight between people and big money—and at stake is our very democracy. It's a fight to wrest back the power that's been concentrated into the hands of a powerful few over the last 30 years: big money, big corporates and big politics. But I'm here to tell you that the people of Australia know that the system is broken, and they are coming back hard. And they'll continue to fight back until we have a truly democratic Australia with a parliament that actually represents people, not capital and a system that works for people and the environment that sustains us all, not corporate donors and the political prostitutes they purchase. The fight between capital and corporations on one side and democracy and people on the other will be an absolute cracker, as John Clarke said. But don't try for ringside tickets; get involved now, because this is a fight that you cannot afford to sit out. There is simply too much at stake. For the planet, for the people on it and for our democracy, this is a fight we can't afford to lose. World Down Syndrome Day 106 21:32 Senator MOORE 00AOQ Queensland In 2012, the UN decided to designate 21 March as World Down Syndrome Day and called on people across the world to use this day to work together to raise awareness of people with Down syndrome and their right to live in dignity and make their own choices. This year, all people with Down syndrome will have the opportunity to contribute to the community and live valued lives, included on a full and equal basis with others in all aspects of society. People with Down syndrome can, and do, bring so much to our community, wherever they live around the world, when given the opportunity. But many still are prevented from making such meaningful contributions. Tomorrow, on World Down Syndrome Day, we have an opportunity to take part in a worldwide process, calling upon every person with Down syndrome to tell the world what they—you—can bring to our community. This year's international video campaign is called Lea Goes To School. This is another in the long line of incredibly gut-wrenchingly beautiful and engaging videos that have been created by CoorDown, which is the Down syndrome organisation in Italy. This year, it's an animated film about Lea, who is walking down the road to go to school. The video gives us a clear opportunity to look at the need to promote the fundamental human right to inclusive education and full participation in the community—an education system in which every student, regardless of disability or difference, is welcomed and supported in regular classrooms and in which all students learn together and reach their full potential, academically, socially and emotionally. This would be a place that respects and values diversity and prepares all students to be members of the rich communities in which they work and live. This is the world of school to which all students, including students with Down syndrome and other disabilities, are entitled as they prepare to be part of the world beyond it. Lea has that opportunity, and she knows that when children are included from the very start—from the very start of their educational journey—they're given the best opportunity to develop mutual respect and understanding, and the skills they need to live together in today's diverse communities. But we know that around the world many children with Down syndrome and other disabilities continue to be excluded from regular classrooms, denied access to an inclusive education and diverted into an alternate, separate, special life path, with lifelong consequences. In the past in this place, Senator Sue Boyce made a strong argument for the need for inclusive education for people with disabilities, and she spoke here with passion about the way that inclusive education opportunities will make our communities stronger. This is an inclusion which is a true human right. Article 24 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities recognises the right to an inclusive education as a human right of people with disability. People aren't going to read all the UN proclamations, and they probably don't want to wade through a lot of academic research either. But, when you see the animation Lea Goes to School, the message is clearly placed in the voice of a young girl who, when directed towards a special route that would give her special education and special jobs, to live separately in a special way, she stands up and boldly says, 'I'm not special—I'm Lea.' And that's the message of Lea Goes to School. I want to put on record the wonderful work of the CoorDown organisation in Italy. In past years, I've spoken about the impact of their previous videos that look at the world of people with Down syndrome and engage with all of us to listen and learn from the people who know best about Down syndrome—the people who have it. I did admit, in a previous contribution in this place, that I tear up regularly when I see these productions, and I really encourage people to take the opportunity to go to the website and see previous productions from previous Down syndrome days to see the beauty and the creative spirit of this organisation, and how they truly celebrate and engage on Down Syndrome Day. Truly, I think, again this year, with Lea Goes to School, they've come up with another winner. Across Australia, Down Syndrome Australia has asked people to provide their own videos, to come forward and tell their stories about their own experiences and what they bring to their community. There's been a special program of 21 days of videos leading up to tomorrow, World Down Syndrome Day. I really hope that people take the chance to go onto the Down Syndrome Australia website and look at the stories of people who talk about their own lives. It ranges from very small children—there is a gorgeous little girl called Evie who's a dancer. She's very young, but she wants to express her individuality and her creativity in her dance. I want to mention particularly tonight one of the special people who have told their story for World Down Syndrome Day—that's Callum. He is on the website in his red T-shirt working to help his sister Meaghan, who was the candidate for Gaven in the Queensland state election. One of her strongest campaign volunteers was her brother Callum, who worked on this campaign to help his sister in a tough fight to go into the state parliament of Queensland. Callum was described as an integral part of that team from the very beginning. He wanted to help his sister, and he brought his own special skills to the campaign. He was valued and enjoyed working with the other team members. His skills included making tea and coffee for the team when they got together for meetings or campaigning activities, helping out on the barbecue, and even taking part in something that I don't always enjoy, which is the doorknocking campaign. But apparently Callum really enjoyed it. We know now that Meaghan Scanlon did win that election and is now the newly elected member for Gaven in the state parliament, and a minister—the youngest woman minister in the history of the Queensland parliament. On the day that Meaghan was sworn in, Callum and his friends from the campaign and his mum were there together to share in the experience of welcoming Meaghan into the Queensland parliament. Callum was day 13 of the program that was leading up to tomorrow's World Down Syndrome Day. All the stories—of Callum and the other people who are celebrated in that process—talk about the fact that they are living in the community and they are contributing to the community. We need to be aware, we need to learn and we need to experience with people who have Down syndrome, and the families that support them, the value that they bring into our society and the struggles that they have, because often there are tough times. But we see that, when people work together and they have respect and dignity, they can get through those tough times. Another one of the young women, Olivia, talks about when she was in grade 10. She changed the learning support that was involved in her school, and she found the change very hard. But she had teachers who helped her and people who helped her through, and she won three awards at her last prize-giving night. She also did a National Institute of Dramatic Arts course. Again, this celebrates achievements and talks about accepting the challenges of living with Down syndrome in our society. It's very important that we take the time on World Down Syndrome Day this year to look at the importance of a fully inclusive learning environment. We can celebrate with Lea that, while she may not be special when it comes to special needs, she is truly a special human being. Gold Coast: Black Swan Lake, Iraq War, Queensland Teachers' Union 107 21:41 Senator BARTLETT DT6 Queensland I'd like to try to cover a few different topics in my 10 minutes this evening. I'd firstly like to particularly note and pay tribute to a whole range of people in the community on the Gold Coast who have worked for a number of years to protect a small but nonetheless special piece of land known as Black Swan Lake. This area in Bundall, on the Gold Coast—very close, unfortunately for it, to the Gold Coast Turf Club—is a freshwater lake, home to 40 species of wild birds. It was excavated over 30 years ago. It has regrowth bushland at the western end. In 2014, the Gold Coast city council gave permission for it to be filled in for a car park. The community stopped the trucks at that time. The trucks arrived to start filling it in, in spite of the presence of nesting swans, and the community managed to prevent that. They've been fighting to protect that lake ever since. Despite that, the Gold Coast city council in 2016 gave the turf club control of the lake and gave the turf club the right to fill it in. The community has continued to fight since that time, and, even when the trucks finally started arriving and started pouring the dirt into that lake, they kept fighting. And it is wonderful to see that the filling in of that lake has stopped, at least for the moment. A number of people on the Gold Coast city council, including the mayor, have links to the Gold Coast Turf Club. The Crime and Corruption Commission in Queensland is investigating a number of things in regard to the Gold Coast city council, including some of the issues around the decision-making to allow not just the filling in of the lake but also the granting of that area to the Gold Coast Turf Club. The petition in support of protecting Black Swan Lake on the Gold Coast now has over 31,000 signatures. I visited that area a few weeks ago on a particularly rainy day and, despite the rain, was met by a large number of local people. I saw the swans on the lake. I saw the destruction that had already started to be wreaked on that area. I urge the Gold Coast city council to reconsider their decision. I gather they're meeting again this Friday. I'm sure the local community will once again be present to ask them to reconsider that. This is a classic case of local residents having to raise money and launch campaigns because their so-called representatives are more interested in putting the interests of their donors and the corporate sector ahead of the local community and what it wants to see for its own area. The lake is not toxic; it's proven to be an effective way to control pollution from the neighbouring horse stables, according to independent scientific tests. An area like this is a rare piece, now, in the Gold Coast area—at least in the built-up area—of a natural environment that's home to so much bird life and other local wildlife, including migratory birds. For this to be filled in with a car park is extraordinary. For the Gold Coast Turf Club to be required to pay the city council just $1 a year under a licence deal to use that area once it is filled in is a travesty, to put it politely. As a property analyst told the Gold Coast Bulletin, that area: … is worth a fortune. To say it's worth between $6 million to $12 million is extremely conservative. This is an excellent area to develop. For the Gold Coast Turf Club, it is $1 a year. Again, this is an excellent example of the local community not giving up in the face of such things. I'd also like to mention, completely separately, that today is 15 years to the day since the Senate passed a motion—Senator Moore was here, actually, opposing the then government's decision—to launch the war on Iraq and to be part of the invasion forces of Iraq. This decision was made despite the fact that the Senate and the parliament were actually in the process, and had been for a number of days, of debating whether or not our country should be supporting that. So, whilst our parliament's representatives were debating whether or not our country should be involved in this war, our government decided to let it rip anyway. They not only ignored the parliament; they ignored millions of Australians—a clear majority of Australians—who said, 'This is a really, really bad idea.' Unfortunately, we've all been paying the consequences since then. A resolution that was passed by this Senate exactly 15 years ago today, moved by Senator Faulkner with some additional amendments by me and Senator Brown, explicitly expressed opposition to that invasion and explicitly called for the troops to be returned. It was ignored by the government. More importantly, the community was ignored. This was a perfect example—if the word 'perfect' can be applied to something so abominable—of why all of our political parties, and our governments, in particular, need to listen to the community, particularly when the message is so unbelievably clear. Yet, the interests of the friends of the government of the day were more important than the community that they were supposed to represent. That brings me to the final matter that I want to mention this evening, which is the extraordinary motion that was passed by the Senate today. I was surprised it passed. It was moved by Senator Macdonald, who felt it was sufficiently important to attack, misrepresent and slander teachers in Queensland and the Queensland Teachers' Union for distributing a sticker of the Eureka flag to teachers in schools in Queensland. According to Senator Macdonald, schools should be a place for learning rather than politics. As was proven, the majority of the Senate agreed—One Nation, unsurprisingly, once again maintaining their alliance with the Liberals at every opportunity. Having been a high school teacher—and, I should declare for the record, having been a member of the Queensland Teachers' Union—I don't know how you teach history without teaching politics. I don't know how you teach about society without teaching politics. I'm sorry if this is too complex a concept for those who supported a motion that seeks to suppress freedom of speech, but you can talk about political issues to school students—or adults—without saying, 'You must vote for this party.' You can talk about concepts. This idea that students—particularly in high school, but of any age—are just empty vessels who can't figure things out for themselves perhaps shows the narrowness of the thinking of those who supported this motion. As a history teacher, how are you supposed to teach the history of the Eureka Stockade and the Eureka flag without talking about the politics of it? Why is it that this flag has survived for all this time? Why is it that the union movement that has fought for the rights of people to get a fair day's wage for a fair day's pay has survived for so long? How do you teach that to students? The clear fact for the coalition, One Nation and all those people that align with them is they don't want students to know about how to ensure that they can express their own views, stand up for themselves, ask for their rights, ask for a fair day's pay, ask to not be exploited and demand they not be exploited. That is actually what that motion is about. It's not about preventing politics from coming into school curriculums; it's about preventing students from understanding that they can have a say over their own future. It is the union movement and the people who have acted collectively that have ensured that we have a fair day's pay. Australia led the world on the eight-hour day. Australia has led the world in regard to ensuring that people are not exploited in such an extraordinary way. Of course the coalition, speaking in the interests of their corporate masters, don't want people to know about this. They don't want anybody to know about this. They certainly don't want students to know about this. That is what is going on in regard to this motion. Particularly at a time when we have wage stagnation, what we are getting from the coalition is a desire to prevent people from even being able to discuss this issue, to ensure that those in society who are pushing for this are silenced. (Time expired) Senate adjourned at 21 : 51 DOCUMENTS 109 DOCUMENTS Tabling 109 Tabling 111