2018-09-13 45 1 7 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 13 September 2018

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 1 09:31 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings. Customs Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018 Customs Tariff Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018 Question agreed to. Rearrangement 1 09:31 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria I move: That intervening business be postponed till after consideration of the government business order of the day relating to the Customs Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018 and a related bill. Question agreed to. BILLS 1 BILLS Customs Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018, Customs Tariff Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018 1

Customs Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018

Customs Tariff Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018

Second Reading 1 09:32 Senator KIM CARR AW5 Victoria I've not had a lot of time to look at the Customs Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018. I understand they have been brought on in a bit of a rush. Clearly the government is a bit short of business again, so I'll give this lengthy consideration. It is a tragedy to see the once-great Liberal Party descend to this level of chaos and indecision so soon after they thought they'd sorted out all their problems. But they were able to find this somewhere deep in the barrel. They ducked in and produced some legislation that they had to get exempted from the cut-off to allow it to proceed. This is not controversial legislation. It's a straightforward matter. I guess you'll have to dig a lot deeper to get to the next piece of legislation. This will not take a long period of time, I expect, because Labor supports the bills. As much of this legislation goes to development measures as it does to customs and trade matters. These measures amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to implement the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus, known as PACER Plus. Australia, Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga and Tuvalu signed this agreement last year. The agreement is a comprehensive regional economic integration agreement, consistent with World Trade Organization rules. It covers a range of goods and services, investment and established rules and commitment between the various parties to the agreement. The agreement also, as the bill outlines, includes an aid component to help with the development of the region. Under the agreement, tariffs will be cut on 88.5 per cent of Australian exports to signatory countries, apart from New Zealand. It also means that there will be no tariffs on goods imported from signatory countries to Australia, apart from New Zealand. Under the agreement, we will also provide some $4 million to assist Pacific island nations to prepare to ratify this agreement and $19 million for them to update their customs processes. That, of course, does not even begin to compensate for the $11 billion this government has cut from the aid budget. There's a bit of irony that we should be debating bills that provide $4 million when some $11 billion has been cut from the budget. The agreement has been scrutinised by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which has recommended that the agreement include an independent economic analysis of the merits of this agreement. That's a proposition that this chamber should fully endorse. The JSCOT has made the same recommendation for other trade bills, including some of the more contentious legislation that is to come before the chamber. The Labor Party will have more to say on this matter when those bills are introduced, but I give notice that a future Labor government will ensure that all future trade agreements are subject to independent economic analysis. These bills provide for 'free' rates of customs duty, which, when enacted, will mean that a new schedule will be provided for excise-equivalent rates of duty on certain alcohol, tobacco and fuel products in accordance with this agreement. The amendments provide for certain concessional items listed under the Customs Tariff Act to maintain customs duty rates in line with the applicable concession items and in accordance with the agreement. Complementary amendments will be made to the Customs Act by the customs amendment bill to introduce new rules of origin for goods imported into Australia from parties to the agreement. The bill provides that these new rules will determine what eligible goods would be subject to preferential treatment of customs duty in accordance with the agreement. The bill contains no matters which we would regard as being contentious, and it is surprising that it is not being considered in the non-controversial bills section of our normal business. The Labor Party is pleased to support it. I had a look at the details of some of the measures that have taken my interest in regard to Niue. It is a country of some importance, as the ABC told us in a recent story. Niue is a country with a population of about 1,800. I'm told that about 80 per cent of them are actually from New Zealand and that many of them participate in sporting clubs in New Zealand. Of particular note was the appearance of a mallard duck in Niue. People can't quite work out where it's come from. The ABC has given us very good coverage of the issue; there is a lot of news generated in the Pacific these days from the ABC. The duck even has a name—Trevor—and is said to have come from New Zealand. It's described as a major problem, because there are no wetlands and no ponds on Niue, so the fire brigade has to provide the necessary water conditions for Trevor the mallard duck. I understand that it's named Trevor after the Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives. It's said to be a very miserable duck, because it is so lonely. Unfortunately, there are no other ducks on Niue, so it has no partners. We're looking forward to seeing what other biosecurity issues have arisen as a result of this matter and whether or not this agreement will cover these questions in the future. 09:38 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to add the Greens contribution to this legislation. The Greens remain concerned about the power imbalances in PACER Plus negotiations. We've been concerned for quite some time that Australia and New Zealand have used their big-brother, or big-sister, influence in the region to a point where they have disenfranchised some of the smaller nations in our region and undermined their genuine ability to participate. We know, of course, that Papua New Guinea and Fiji, the two largest Pacific island nation economies, are notably absent from this deal, and that Vanuatu and Tonga have at various times withdrawn from the process. We've been concerned that in a modern world such as this, where Australia has a responsibility to help those in our region who aren't as big, don't have democracies that are as stable and aren't able to sustain themselves economically in the way Australia is able to, we have in fact stood over them in these negotiations. We are concerned that that is now being reflected in the PACER Plus arrangement that we're debating today. The refusal of Papua New Guinea and Fiji to sign the agreement is significant, because they represent 80 per cent of the combined GDP of Pacific island countries. If 80 per cent of the economies are not even represented in this deal, you've got to ask yourself why—why is Australia pursuing this in this manner? It raises the question of whether small Pacific nations felt unfairly pressured by Australia and New Zealand to enter the agreement. Anecdotally, of course, we have heard from representatives of these island nations that, yes, they did indeed feel put upon by Australia and New Zealand and felt the pressure immensely. The primary impact of PACER Plus is to decrease tariffs on Australian and New Zealand exports to these Pacific countries. It's very clear that, as the big nations, we are getting the best deal out of this. Some would say that's fine, except that we live in a neighbourhood and we have a responsibility, as the wealthiest nation, the largest economy in the region, to play better and be a bit fairer in this. We know that this disproportionate pact, which benefits Australia and New Zealand, could easily just be agreed to. But what does that mean and what signal does that send to countries in the rest of the region, particularly the smaller ones, who feel they had to agree or are going to be resentful, going forward, of this and the attitude that's been presented by Australia? Proposals by Australia and New Zealand to introduce or increase consumption taxes to offset tariff cuts will not provide adequate compensation for revenue loss. Studies have demonstrated that replacing tariffs with consumption taxes in developing nations only compensates for 30 per cent of lost revenue. Countries in the Pacific region are increasingly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and it's extraordinary that this deal does nothing to address the real-life impact on these countries of rising sea levels and the other impacts of climate change. We know that, despite a growing urgency to support Pacific island countries to combat climate change, this declaration does zilch. Despite the government signing a declaration just weeks ago identifying climate change as the greatest single threat to Pacific peoples, PACER Plus does not even include proper environmental protection measures. It's a case of 'Look over here while we do something else'; of refusing to tackle what will be, beyond any doubt, the biggest impact into the future for our Pacific island neighbours. We know that climate change needs to be tackled and we know that they need help in dealing with that, yet Australia continues to just turn the other cheek. It's not good enough at all. Tariff cuts will disproportionately affect women in the Pacific region. Women in Pacific communities are largely employed in the industries that will be affected most by these tariff cuts, such as clothing manufacturing and small-scale agriculture. We hear a lot in this place from various NGOs and community based organisations about what Australia can do to show leadership in the region in relation to empowering women, giving them a voice and giving them independence and the ability to be economically sustainable. This deal, because of its nature, and because it has been managed quite heavy-handedly from the Australian perspective, is going to impact on our sisters in the Pacific region and those Pacific Islands disproportionately. I think this place needs to consider that when looking at this legislation. The last thing we want is women in the Pacific to be even more disadvantaged just because Australia wanted to squeeze more money out of our poor neighbours and our poor cousins throughout the Pacific. It's not good enough. We should be doing more to support women in the Pacific, not simply allowing this to go through and think it doesn't have an effect. When we talk about clothing manufacturing or small-scale agriculture, we should be doing much more to help these women and their families and communities to become self-sustaining and economically robust. This does the exact opposite. This rips the carpet out from beneath them. It will have dire impacts on these women unless we do something to fix it. The Greens, as I've said, remain very concerned about this. We won't be supporting it. We wish that the government would have been a little more considerate of the desires and concerns raised by our Pacific island neighbours. The fact that climate change isn't in here and the fact that it disproportionately impacts on the poorest women in our region are enough for me to say that this isn't something that Australia should be pursuing. 09:46 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I'm very pleased to speak in support of the Customs Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018. The key theme of these bills is to promote an open Pacific economic integration and to advance development in the Pacific. PACER Plus is a unique framework and an important part of our trade agenda in the region. The Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations, PACER Plus, is a unique framework because it is both a development centred agreement plus a regional free trade agreement. The agreement includes a substantial development assistance package of $7.7 million to help countries to prepare to ratify the agreement, and a further $25 million in the implementation assistance after entry into force. But I cannot go beyond making some observations in relation to what Senator Hanson-Young just said. It demonstrates, yet again, the Greens total lack of understanding and a patronising attitude in relation to our neighbours. On the issue of women, clearly, Senator Hanson-Young, you are not aware that the negotiations for PACER Plus commenced in 2009 and they concluded in Brisbane in April 2017. They have been worked through assiduously with our Pacific island neighbours. PACER Plus opened for signature in June 2017, and, to date, has been signed by 11 countries: Australia, the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. I have to say that your patronising comments in relation to these countries demonstrate, yet again, your total lack of understanding of what is happening in our neighbourhood. On the issue of women, we have had a very successful program of Pacific women shaping Pacific development. It's been a $320 million project over 10 years and has brought considerable benefits to our Pacific island sisters. On the issue of climate change, as part of the $1 billion commitment that Australia gave as part of its commitment to the Paris agreement, $300 million over four years is for building Pacific resilience and addressing climate issues in the Pacific. That's in addition to the $200 million that went to the Green Climate Fund. So, Senator Hanson-Young, before you come in here and pontificate on matters that you know absolutely nothing about, why don't you go and check your facts before you are critical about these issues? Let me get back to PACER Plus. PACER Plus will help drive economic prosperity and raise living standards in our region. Our foreign policy white paper points out that being open to trade and investment creates wealth and supports higher living standards. A strong rules based liberalised international trading system is in the interests of all countries, including providing opportunities for developing countries to engage more in international trade. Perhaps those opposite haven't looked, but some Pacific island countries are in the process of moving towards graduation in relation to their economic status. It is important that Australia be amongst the first countries to ratify the agreement, as early ratification would signal our clear commitment not just to PACER Plus but to this important rules based trade in the Indo-Pacific region. PACER Plus will deliver modest economic and commercial benefits to Australia, and I'm sure that the minister will elaborate on some of these benefits to Australia—modest though they are, commensurate with the size of participating Pacific island economies. In particular Australian producers of goods, suppliers of services and investors will benefit from more liberal and secure market access in the Pacific. By promoting growth and development, and strengthening reform processes in the Pacific, PACER Plus will expand commercial opportunities for Australian countries in the region to trade with their Pacific neighbours. Pacific island countries will have eliminated tariffs on the vast majority, 91.5 per cent, of their tariff lines, covering the bulk, 88.5 per cent, of Australia's exports. Based on 2016 data this represents a total value of $360 million when PACER Plus is fully implemented. Australia's largest services exports to the Pacific are tourism and travel services, transport services and financial services, including insurance. Our Pacific island country signatories have made commitments in each of these sectors, many for the first time. Australian service suppliers will benefit for the first time from commitments from non-WTO members such as the Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, Niue and Tuvalu. The 'most favoured nation' provisions in the agreement will help safeguard access for Australian producers of goods, suppliers of services and investors in the event that Pacific island countries apply more favourable treatment for the producers, suppliers and investors of nonparties, such as under free trade agreements. Our foreign policy white paper identified the following: Economic integration within the region and with Australia and New Zealand is vital to the economic prospects of the Pacific. Growth is constrained for most countries because of a combination of remoteness from markets, limited land and resource bases, the dispersal of people over many islands and environmental fragility. The underlying impetus for negotiating PACER Plus and its goals of regional economic integration align with the narrative in our foreign policy white paper. The formation of an interconnected Pacific market which includes Australia and New Zealand will enable Pacific island countries to create a larger market not only for its consumers but also for its producers. PACER Plus will not only cover trade in goods but also extend to trade in services, in investment, in labour mobility and in development assistance. For many countries in our region this will be the first WTO-compliant free trade agreement. When in force it will stand as a valuable example of the region's collective effort to work together towards greater economic integration. By establishing a common framework through which to transact each element of the participating country's economic relationships, PACER Plus supports the long-term economic development of Pacific island countries through closer integration with Australia and New Zealand, with each other and with the global economy. We recognise that it is important that, for trade to thrive, trade liberalisation has to be accompanied by a supportive policy environment, and that includes sound economic management, reforms and effective service delivery. We have committed to assist our Pacific island neighbours with transition, and we've taken careful consideration of issues like implementation time lines. The region continues to experience significant economic, social and environmental challenges, and, having been minister from February 2016 until recently, I saw this firsthand. I had the opportunity to visit many parts of the Pacific. Indeed, I made over 35 trips to the Pacific during this time, and I saw for myself that distance and weak infrastructure make international trade expensive, but small domestic markets and narrow production bases mean that countries rely on it for income and consumption. And whilst the agreement provides a regional framework for trade and economic integration, dedicated assistance to each of these countries will be vital to address the barriers that those countries are facing and, of course, to unlock the potential of the Pacific and its ability to partake in the benefits. An important component of this is the readiness package. We and New Zealand have provided assistance for readiness activities. To help signatories, we are supporting processes like legislative drafting to assist the signatories to review and update their relevant national laws and regulation as well as customs modernisation, harmonisation, implementation of up-to-date tariff codes and transposition of schedules so that each signatory will be able to implement the latest version of the internationally recognised system known as the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System. There will be training on notification requirements, including helping governments and private sectors in those Pacific island countries to meet the obligations around transparency. There will be funding for public outreach and stakeholder engagement, and there will also be revenue planning and mitigation to help signatories manage any impact on government revenues associated with tariff reductions. There's also a PACER Plus implementation package. Upon entry into force, Australia and New Zealand will provide a further funding package of $19 million and NZ$7 million respectively over five years, and this will focus on rules of origin and the implementation of those tariff commitments; customs; sanitary and phytosanitary measures; technical regulations, standards and conformity assessment; trade in services; and investment. One of the key advantages of PACER Plus—and I have had many conversations with different Pacific island country stakeholders, ministers and the private sector—is that, in short, if Pacific island countries get their biosecurity systems up to a level at which they can export to Australia and New Zealand, then they can export to any other country around the world. Therefore, this is a very, very good thing for the Pacific. This is one of the key features that they have been asking us for, and that's why PACER Plus is so important. One of the other components of development assistance, particularly in the Pacific, has been our Aid for Trade program. As part of PACER Plus, Australia remains committed to our Aid for Trade funding target of 20 per cent of our overseas development assistance budget in the Pacific. This target, of course, will complement the party's own trade related initiatives as Pacific island countries seek to increase growth, generate jobs and increase living standards for their people. Let me share some examples with the Senate of how this is being done. It's being done through agriculture export development. The Pacific Horticultural and Agricultural Market Access Program, PHAMA, helps Pacific exporters meet quarantine standards and other market access requirements of trading partners. It's being done through trade facilitation, export promotion and investment. We have increased funding to the Oceania Customs Organisation to help strengthen Pacific customs administrations, and we will continue our longstanding support for Pacific Trade Invest which provides high-quality export facilitation, investment and tourism promotion services across the region. A separate non-binding arrangement on labour mobility has also been signed by Australia, New Zealand and Pacific island signatories to PACER Plus. Our new Pacific labour scheme will allow workers from the Pacific to take up non-seasonal low-skilled and semiskilled work in rural and regional Australia in growth sectors such as tourism and hospitality, disability and aged care, and non-seasonal agriculture. Why? Because it's about capacity building. It's about developing and affording opportunities to our Pacific island neighbours and people there to develop their skills, to come to Australia, to work in Australia and then to take those skills back into the Pacific, which is vitally important for their own economic development. This, of course, is in parallel with our Seasonal Worker Program. Our Seasonal Worker Program will be streamlined to give more Australian employers access to a reliable, seasonal workforce drawn from the Pacific and Timor-Leste. We know how successful the Seasonal Worker Program has been for our Pacific island neighbours. Since its inception, about 12,000 or 13,000 Pacific island workers have come to Australia, and they often take back to their countries net gains of $5,000 or $6,000, which has enabled families to send their children to school, buy their own homes and do those things that are very important: to pay for their education, to set up businesses, and to build houses and community facilities. Of course, we will continue to work on all the outstanding partners to the agreement, because we consider that the benefits for Pacific economies outweigh any potential costs. I know that those discussions are ongoing, and I'm sure the minister will elaborate on how those are progressing. Whilst PACER Plus will reduce government tariff revenue, it includes lengthy implementation schedules. The first tariff reductions are not required until 10 years after the agreement enters into force, and they are then phased in over the following 25 years. This means that all of the tariff reductions will not be fully implemented until 2053 at the earliest. That well and truly will enable Pacific island countries to take the implementation of this agreement at their own pace and implement it fully within their own economic systems. The agreement underscores the role of open trade and investment in enabling economic development and rising living standards across our region. The agreement will cover an additional 1.5 million people who are not presently captured under Australia's existing FTAs. Whilst the commercial value of the trade with Pacific island countries is modest, this agreement will lay the foundations for its future growth. In 2015, Australia's goods and services two-way trade with participating Pacific countries totalled $1.2 billion of our total trade. As I have said, PACER Plus is an unique agreement, because it is both a trade and a development agreement. It has the potential to shape and reshape the economic fundamentals of the Pacific region by creating new opportunities for trade and investment in our neighbourhood. Overall, we will see simplification and enhancing of regional trade, and also, of course, we will help Pacific island countries grow their economies by accessing international markets. It will facilitate greater integration of Pacific island economies into the global rules-based trading system and, of course, reshape the economic fundamentals of the Pacific region, creating new opportunities for trade and investment that will drive economic growth and, as I have said, raise living standards. It will also help Pacific island countries modernise their economies. For example, we will be able to assist Pacific island countries to modernise their customs and tax systems in preparation for implementation of PACER Plus. Our assistance will help build capacity in trade promotion, in investment facilitation, in biosecurity, and in micro, small and medium enterprises. The region has been slow to implement structural reform, and more needs to be done to integrate business environments and promote intraregional trade and investment. This is a great opportunity to promote reform, and it will provide an important impetus for change. PACER Plus is also designed to remain open to the participation of nonparties, including Fiji and PNG. The agreement will be beneficial for all Pacific island countries, including Fiji and Papua New Guinea, if and when they decide to become parties. And I know that those discussions are ongoing. I, myself, was part of those discussions as minister. The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties noted that the absence of Fiji and PNG from PACER Plus may impact the scope of PACER Plus, but it also noted that, due to the long time frame over which PACER Plus will be implemented, there is sufficient opportunity for these countries to join the agreement if satisfactory conditions can be negotiated. French Polynesia and New Caledonia, having now become full members of the Pacific Islands Forum, can apply to accede to PACER Plus, and perhaps the minister can also advise us as to how those negotiations are going. As with other parties, participation would require them to conclude negotiations on their market access schedules, and we know that those discussions have been had with countries around their potential involvement. As part of the readiness package, parties will be supported in their preparation to initially implement and ratify the agreement to respond to the needs assessment undertaken by the independent Office of the Chief Trade Adviser. Australia, as I have indicated, and New Zealand are assisting with those readiness activities. (Time expired) 10:06 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania As it stands, the Greens do not support PACER Plus, and we won't be supporting this legislation. It's worth pointing out that Papua New Guinea and Fiji, the two largest Pacific island nation economies, are notably absent from this deal, and Vanuatu and Tonga have, at various times, withdrawn from the process. But what remains the elephant in the room as far as the Australian government is concerned in its dealings with our Pacific island neighbours is climate change. Of course, climate change is the elephant in the room as far as this government is concerned with regard to a whole range of public policy matters that it considers, but it is particularly relevant when we think about our Pacific neighbours. There are many Pacific island nations that have actually shown fantastic global leadership on the issue of climate change, and that's because they are going to be disproportionately impacted by climate change, particularly sea level rise, when in fact at a global level they have contributed next to nothing to the problem. It's all very well for Senator Fierravanti-Wells to get up and talk today about some pitifully small amounts of money that Australia has allocated to Pacific island nations to prepare for the climate catastrophe that is looming for them, but let's be clear about the actual opportunity here for Australia. We need to show leadership in emissions reduction, not hand over some pitifully small amounts of money to nations that are likely to disappear off our global maps by the end of the century as a result of sea level rise. What's the Australian government proposing—that a nation like Kiribati, for example, get a few hydraulic jacks under it and jack itself up a couple of metres to avoid it disappearing underneath the surface of the Pacific Ocean in the next century or so? It beggars belief that we had a Pacific Islands Forum recently where the LNP government took deliberate steps to undermine serious action on climate change. And, remember, this government is a wholly owned subsidiary of the fossil fuel sector in this country. The LNP receives tens of millions of dollars in donations every year from dirty, polluting big corporations. We've got a Prime Minister who, of course, is infamous for waving a lump of coal around in the House of Representatives. Typically, he had to have that lump of coal covered in lacquer so he wouldn't get his hands dirty. Well, it didn't work for the Prime Minister, because his hands are filthy with coaldust and they are filthy from accepting donations from big fossil fuel companies. This is a government made up of climate change deniers, a government made up of climate criminals, and it is posing an existential threat to some Pacific island nations. And do you know what? They know all this. Remember that the Minister for Home Affairs, Peter Dutton, and former Prime Minister Tony Abbott were caught on camera a few years ago having a good old laugh at the impacts of sea level rise on Pacific island nations. Until Australia steps up on emissions reduction, until we become a global leader on climate change, we are a bad neighbour to Pacific island countries. We need to do more. We need to take stronger action. We ought to be a global leader in emissions reduction. And we ought not believe that we can somehow buy off Pacific island nations with pitifully small amounts of foreign aid money that, in the words of the government, will enable them to build climate resilience into their economies and their communities when, in fact, it will do next to nothing to help our Pacific island neighbours avoid the most serious impacts of the disruption to our climate—which half of this government don't believe is being caused by humans and which the other half are not prepared to take the required action on because they have been bought off by the fossil fuel sector. 10:12 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I rise to speak on the Customs Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018 and the associated bill. I would note that the bill is, I think rather fittingly, the first bill I am taking through this chamber, and I'm very happy and proud that it is this particular bill. First of all, I'd like to thank those opposite for their support for this very important bill. I think bipartisanship on this particular issue for our Pacific neighbours is particularly important. Before I go into the specifics of the bill, I would like to address a number of the issues raised by the two Greens senators speaking on this. I think there are a number of areas where they have grossly misrepresented the nature and the benefits of this PACER agreement. Also, clearly, they have no understanding of the strategic context. So I'd like to deal with both of those first. In relation to the issue of who is joining this, 11 Pacific countries, as we know, have engaged in this already. In relation to the issue of Papua New Guinea, we would note that this is not the end of the agreement; this is just the start. The nations that are still considering joining this agreement are of course very welcome, but I would point out to the Greens that this is a sovereign decision of those nations. In relation to several comments from Senators McKim and Hanson-Young, I'd make this point: like my colleague Senator Fierravanti-Wells, I found them extremely patronising to those nations involved. These negotiations have been extensive and they have been done with the utmost mutual respect on behalf of all of the nations involved. Our officials and the former minister, Senator Fierravanti-Wells, as we've heard, were deeply engaged in this process. But I don't think the senators stopped to think about that or about our trade negotiators, who have spent many months, if not years, on these negotiations. I think that to suggest they were bullying or intimidating our partners in the region is, quite frankly, insulting, and the facts certainly do not bear that out. In relation to the bill itself, PACER Plus is a regional-development-centred trade agreement. That is why I'm particularly proud to be taking the bill through this chamber today. To date, PACER Plus, as I said, has been signed by 11 member of the Pacific Islands Forum—that is, Australia, Cook Islands, Kiribati, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. As I said, this is just the start, and negotiations and discussions still continue with other nations. PACER Plus will provide commercial opportunities for Australian exporters and investors in a range of sectors. These opportunities will increase over time as the provisions of the agreement lead to more open and transparent policies as wider relationships are built regionally and beyond. The agreement itself reflects Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific island countries' commitment to the principles of free and open trade. The underlying impetus for negotiating the PACER Plus and its goals of regional commercial integration is the formation of an interconnected Pacific market that includes Australia and New Zealand, which will enable the Pacific Islands greater access to a larger market for their own consumers and also for their producers, and that is a very good thing. Despite the somewhat patronising and insulting comments from the Greens, I would just like to remind those in this chamber what this agreement is actually about. Australia and the Pacific island countries are longstanding partners and friends. We have common interests in both economic progress and regional stability. Our partners in the region range from countries richly endowed with people and resources to small atolls with geographically isolated populations. The PACER Plus agreement reflects this diversity as a comprehensive free trade agreement tailored to help Pacific island countries address their specific development challenges and also to assist them in a very sovereign respectful way to better participate in global trade and engage more effectively into global markets. The coalition government has the most ambitious trade agenda in Australia's history. PACER Plus, a unique trade agreement to drive economic prosperity and raise living standards in our region, will complement our trade agreements already in force, which, I would note very happily, are delivering record export growth and creating hundreds of thousands of more local jobs. As Senator Fierravanti-Wells has said, this is not a policy done in isolation and it is an important part of the objectives of Australia's white paper—and, again, I commend Senator Fierravanti-Wells for her role in developing this. The Foreign policy white paper has an important process called stepping up. Stepping up support for a more resilient Pacific is one of five priorities for Australia's foreign policy and is set out in the 2017 Foreign policy white paper released only 12 months ago. The white paper states that the Pacific is of fundamental importance to Australia and that 'Australia will engage with the Pacific with greater intensity and ambition'. The white paper also announced new regional security cooperation initiatives, including the Australia Pacific Security College and work to improve regional information sharing. And we on this side of the chamber, and also the Labor Party, can see that this is an important role for Australia to play in our region. The white paper further reinforces the announcements made by Prime Minister Turnbull at the Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting year that Australia would step up its engagement through three things—that is, stronger partnerships for economic growth; stronger partnerships for security; and stronger relationships between people—and our PACER Plus agreement assists and works in all three of those areas. Australia's longstanding development assistance to the Pacific has helped address many of the acute challenges facing the region over many years, including climate change and responding to natural disasters; sustaining economic growth and boosting education, skills and jobs for growing populations; gender equality and recognising the central role women play in achieving better development outcomes for their nations; the threat of major disease outbreak; and, increasingly, the threat of transnational crime across the Pacific. However, we do recognise that the complexities of these challenges demand deeper engagement, integrated policy and fresh ideas to drive transformative change in the region, and this is where PACER Plus assists in that process. Australia's stepped-up engagement is our response to these significant long-term challenges. In relation to the bills, while PACER Plus provides a framework for integration, dedicated assistance is critical to barriers in Pacific Islands signatories and unlocking the benefits PACER Plus provides for this assistance. The PACER Plus bills represent the key legislative changes required to give effect to the new rules of origin required to implement PACER Plus. The Customs Act 1901 is being amended to include the new rules-of-origin requirements and to enable a full set of related product-specific rules to be made in keeping with our modern free trade agreements. The amendments contained in the legislation will enable eligible goods that satisfy PACER Plus rules of origin to be entered into Australia at preferential rates of customs duty. The Customs Tariff Act 1995 is being amended to set out the preferential rate of customs duty for goods that satisfy the new rules-of-origin requirements. These new rules are consistent with existing arrangements for duties imposed on excise equivalent goods. Without these amendments, Australia would not be able to complete its domestic arrangements, and the agreement would not be able to enter into force. This would prevent Australian businesses from receiving the various benefits that would flow from the agreement, but it would also prevent the equally significant, if not more significant, benefits that would flow to the PACER Plus partners. It is important that Australia be amongst the first eight countries to ratify, as early ratification would signal Australia's commitment to PACER Plus. As we've talked about in this chamber and in other places many times, PACER Plus is very important for the maintenance of rules based order and rules based trade in the Indo-Pacific region. As I said, PACER Plus does provide commercial opportunities for Australian exporters and investors in a wide range of sectors. These opportunities will increase over time as the provision of the agreement will lead to more open and transparent policies, both here and across the other 10 partners who have already signed up. This agreement reflects our principles of free and open trade and rules based trade. PACER Plus will enter into force 60 days after the eighth signatory notifies Tonga, as the depositary, that it has ratified the agreement. I'd just like to come back to the point that the Greens made in relation to the 11 countries who are ratifying this and are initial signatories. They specifically raised Fiji and Papua New Guinea. As I've noted in this place, PACER Plus is a truly regional agreement which has 11 Pacific Islands Forum members. PACER Plus will deliver benefits for these nations. Despite the assertions of those on the Greens benches, this hasn't been done in a way that is disrespectful of these nations' sovereignty and it is not disrespectful of those governments. This has been done over an extended period of time with them as partners. Extensive engagement has been undertaken by these nations. In fact, the information that I have back from the minister and the teams who were responsible for this at the time is that this was done in a truly respectful way. We listened to our Pacific partners. There was wide consultation. The development assistance that is so important that is embedded in this agreement was worked out with each of the individual Pacific island nations, to find out what they needed for this. I would say—through you, Mr Acting Deputy President—to my Greens colleagues in this chamber: this was done with them as full sovereign partners in the process. It was done in a new way to provide the development assistance from Australia and New Zealand that these nations recognise that they need to develop their capability, their processes, their systems and their trade regulations and legislation to make sure that they can engage in the international trade environment. The Customs Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018 represent the main legislative changes for the new rules of origin under PACER Plus. With those comments I again thank those opposite in the Labor Party for their engagement and support for these bills, I thank all those officials who were engaged in these negotiations for that time, and I also commend the government for this agreement, because I as the minister now responsible think that this is the way forward for our free trade agreements: to not only look at how we as a nation might benefit from this process but also assist other nations and other regional partners, ensuring they are capable of maintaining sovereign trade interests and trade with other countries where their size and their location may in the past have prohibited them from doing so. I commend these bills to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bills read a second time. In Committee 9 10:26 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Senator Hanson-Young made reference to an alleged sense of imbalance. I ask the minister to clarify for the chamber. There will be only modest economic and commercial benefits to Australia. Can the minister elaborate on why the trade agreement will assist Pacific island countries more than Australian businesses? 10:27 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Contrary to the assertion by the Greens senators in this place, all 11 countries have entered into this agreement as equals, because they realise that there are benefits to their own nations. They have done so in close consultation with our trade officials at minister-to-minister level. A number of countries have been very clear, and we've consulted with them, on the development support they need so they can engage as equal partners in international trade relationships. PACER Plus is a landmark agreement that covers goods, services and investment. It removes barriers to trade, including tariffs, increasing the flow of goods and investment in the region, generating growth and jobs, and raising living standards in all of its signatory countries. Ultimately what's in it for the nations who have already come on board is the fact that they realise that this is a pathway to greater industry, greater exposure to international markets and greater job opportunities and income for their families, which, as I said previously, is at the heart of the Australian government white paper's proposal for the Pacific, which I know you are fully aware of, Senator Fierravanti-Wells. PACER Plus is unique. It is both a trade and a development assistance agreement. Australia and New Zealand have committed $33 million in development assistance to help Pacific island countries implement their commitments and strengthen their capacity to trade. That, as all of us in this place except the Greens realise, is a good thing for all the nations involved. There are a number of specific proposals. It provides a vehicle for Pacific island nations to liberalise and reform their economies, a number of which are very small, and also to reverse their economic marginalisation at a pace they are comfortable with. As Senator Fierravanti-Wells noted earlier on, this process takes us through to the 2050s, so it is up to the nations involved as to the time frame and how we do that. Each of the nations has to be comfortable with a range of flexibilities that recognise their own special challenges. The PACER Plus will also help to facilitate trade in the Pacific island countries. That means it will enhance transparency and harmonisation and reduce the cost of trading and doing business for each one of these Pacific island nations. It also establishes in the development corporation chapter a framework for mutually agreeing with Australia and New Zealand the appropriate support to assist the Pacific island countries develop their capacity to trade. It also provides a modern template for engaging in international trade. This is important for Pacific island countries, as it is for every other country in the world that is not a member of the World Trade Organization, and it is also very important for the Pacific island countries as they move forward and have a greater capacity to negotiate other free trade agreements elsewhere. Probably the fifth major benefit is that, under labour mobility arrangements, it actually expands the opportunity for labour mobility opportunities amongst Pacific island countries, and that includes Australia. 10:30 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales One of the wrong assertions, I think, which has been made in relation to PACER Plus is that Pacific island countries would suffer revenue loss as a result of their PACER Plus commitments. Minister, can you just elaborate on that? 10:31 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Thank you very much for your question. This issue was raised again in this debate by the Greens senators. Revenue loss will occur under this agreement, but it will be very modest and very small in comparison to the benefits that will flow from these agreements. Reliance on custom duties has been, in the long term, in decline across the Pacific already. Kiribati abolished all of its ordinary customs duty on imports in 2014, while the Cook Islands and Niue apply tariffs on relatively few tariff lines. Most Pacific island countries generally have low tariffs and all Pacific island countries have been negotiating tariff reductions under their existing free trade agreements and with the WTO. The Office of the Chief Trade Adviser estimated that, when PACER Plus tariff reductions are fully implemented, reductions in tariff revenue for most countries will equate to between one and three per cent of current government revenue. Australia will, of course, continue to assist Pacific island countries undertaking revenue reform through the Pacific Financial Technical Assistance Centre under the auspices of the International Monetary Fund. Target assistance is also available to Pacific island countries under the PACER Plus Readiness Package. Yes, there will be some very modest, one to three per cent, initial impacts in some nations, but the benefits that this arrangement will bring will far outweigh that. We are also providing many other opportunities to assist these nations as they move through that transition period. 10:33 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Can the minister update the Senate on the progress of negotiations with Fiji and Papua New Guinea? 10:33 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia As I pointed out in my speech—and I thank the senator for the question—PACER Plus is a truly regional agreement, and the first 11 nations are just the start. Discussions continue with a number of other nations—in particular, with Fiji and Papua New Guinea. Australia would very much like to see Papua New Guinea and Fiji join because they have much to contribute to and, I think, would also gain from PACER Plus but, ultimately, as with all nations, their participation is a sovereign matter for their respective governments. PACER Plus will remain open for others to join, including Fiji and Papua New Guinea, even after it comes into force. 10:34 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales One of the things that obviously has been a feature of discussions in the Pacific is very much the concept of 'talanoa'—the sitting down, the understanding and the talking through. That has really been the spirit with which this agreement has been under consideration and under discussion. Perhaps at times there have been issues pertinent to whether this is in the public interest of a particular country. Can you elaborate on the ability of Pacific island nations to regulate and to ensure that what they are doing is in the public interest and to put those public interest issues to bed? 10:35 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia That is another very good question that goes to the heart of some of the matters that have been raised here in this chamber. Pacific Islands countries don't lose their ability to regulate as a result of PACER Plus. One of the most important points here is that this is still respectful of all nations' sovereignty. PACER Plus does not compel parties to give up their regulatory powers and parties are able to introduce new regulations or amend existing regulations. The commitment of PACER Plus to preserve the right of parties to regulate is highlighted clearly in the preamble to the agreement, which I'll share with the chamber. The preamble says this: Recognising their right to regulate and their resolve to preserve the flexibility of the Parties to set legislative and regulatory priorities, safeguard public welfare, and protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as public health, safety, the environment— I'm sure the Greens would like to know that it does respect their sovereignty in relation to the environment— the conservation of living or non-living exhaustible natural resources, the integrity and stability of the financial system and public morals; So that clearly does indicate that the nations do not lose their ability to regulate as a result of this agreement. 10:36 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales One of the issues that certainly arose was in relation to alcohol and sugar based products. Is this going to in any way impede the ability of countries to regulate in relation to those? I'm talking more about kava and other issues that are important to Pacific Islands countries. 10:36 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia In short, the answer is: no, it will not impact in any way their ability to do that. 10:36 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Could you give us some details in relation to the estimated benefits to Australia, especially in terms of export volume and whether there has been any analysis done? I know work was being done in relation to that. Can you tell us where that work is at and what the outcome of that analysis is? 10:37 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Yes, I can. According to the National Interest Analysis, once PACER Plus is fully implemented Australian exporters will gain tariff-free access to PACER Plus markets for nearly 92 per cent of all tariff lines carrying 88 per cent of Australian exports to the region. There are clearly significant benefits to Australian exporters and many different commodities right across our nation. Economic modelling of trade agreements is only one tool to assess whether an agreement is in the national interest. DFAT commissions economic modelling of trade agreements on a case-by-case basis. I've been advised that statistical and methodological limitations mean that current models are unable to estimate the total impact of a free trade agreement on the economy. For example, it is difficult to model accurately the changes to non-tariff barriers, trade facilitation, increased regulatory certainty and other aspects of a free trade agreement such as the rules that are imposed. Also, statistical data on international trade and services, and investment flows into the Pacific, are incomplete. Two qualitative assessments were undertaken of PACER Plus as a whole. The first one was by the Institute for International Trade at the University of Adelaide, who prepared a report called the Research study on the benefits, challenges and ways forward for PACER Plus, and they did this in June 2008. It did provide an early assessment of issues for consideration in the negotiations. The second one was by the Office of the Chief Trade Adviser, who undertook and published the PACER Plus impact and sustainability assessment in 2016. It was prepared independently by the organisation with input from consultants. It presented an assessment of the potential economic, social and environmental impacts of trade liberalisation under PACER Plus for the Pacific Islands nations themselves. 10:39 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Earlier this year the opposition joined then Foreign Minister Bishop and me on a trip to the North Pacific. Obviously, one of the issues under discussion was the North Pacific countries of the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. They have concluded negotiations on PACER Plus, but they haven't yet signed. There was also an issue there in relation to the compact because they are compact countries with the United States. Minister, can you elaborate on where we're at with the North Pacific countries? In particular, can the North Pacific still join PACER Plus if they don't sign the agreement before it enters into force? How does that work vis-a-vis the compact with the United States? 10:40 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia The short answer is yes. Should the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau and the Republic of the Marshall Islands not sign PACER Plus before it enters into force, they will be able to accede to the agreement as per provision 9 of article 15, which covers accession. The Federated States of Micronesia, Palau and the Republic of Marshall Islands already have full suites of market access schedules in the PACER Plus legal text. This would significantly expedite their accession to PACER Plus should they decide to do so, but we would very much prefer the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau and the Republic of Marshall Islands to sign PACER Plus as soon as possible so they can start to benefit from the agreement as soon as possible and also access the readiness package that is being made available as part of this agreement. In relation to French Polynesia and New Caledonia, they joined the Pacific Islands Forum as full members last year. As such, we would also welcome their accession to PACER Plus should they so decide. We would be pleased to see them both join PACER Plus because both nations have much to offer the other nations in that agreement. But also I believe they have much on offer from the agreement with greater economic engagement with other nations in their region. But, as with other new parties, their participation would require French Polynesia and New Caledonia to take an initial market access offer to actually commence the negotiations. We will continue to engage with both countries, should they so desire, on the PACER Plus arrangements. 10:42 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales I have one other area which I'd like to cover. We do have other trade agreements that include Pacific island countries, including the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement. Minister, can you outline how PACER Plus is going to work in that framework and, in particular, how it will interact with other frameworks of which Pacific island countries are members? 10:42 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia In short, again, the answer is yes. There are a number of forums and arrangements. The first one is with the World Trade Organization, and some Pacific island nations are already members of the World Trade Organization, as Australia is. WTO members already include Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. Other Pacific island countries do not have the resources needed to participate yet in the WTO, but that is exactly one of the reasons why this PACER Plus program, and its assistance program, is so important. It allows and facilitates these nations to enter the WTO. Regional economic integration between PACER Plus parties will lead to the deeper and broadened economic integration that is possible between WTO members and it will do so close to home. PACER Plus will cover investment, establish modern rules of origin and also facilitate regulatory cooperation. PACER Plus will actually bring some benefits to WTO membership for Pacific island countries that do not yet have the resources to do so, and that is absolutely a great thing for these nations. It is providing them with development assistance so that they can fully participate in the World Trade Organization arrangements, as well as in other agreements. PACER is a treaty, but it doesn't contain any trade provisions. PACER itself is not a trade agreement, but PACER does have a closed membership. Another organisation, the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement, is not itself a regional economic integration agreement and it does not provide for the liberalisation of all of Australia's tariffs, so it is nonreciprocal from Australia's perspective. These rules of origin are antiquated, because they don't cover services, investment, transparency, cooperation or development assistance. Another benefit of the new agreement, PACER Plus, is that it provides greater sovereign capabilities for partners to PACER Plus. 10:45 Senator FIERRAVANTI-WELLS e4t New South Wales Senator Carr earlier made a wrong assertion, I think, that we had the $11 billion. Perhaps, Senator Carr, I can correct you on the issue of your allegation of cuts of $11 billion from the foreign aid budget. This all started when Tanya Plibersek, some years ago, started spreading fictitious and misleading information about your record on foreign aid. Tanya Plibersek repeatedly made claims that the coalition had cut $11.3 billion from the foreign aid budget. This is wrong. It stems from misinformation—lies—and projected forecasts under your own inflated fiscal mismanagement. Only those opposite can spread lies about trying to spend money that they didn't have beyond the forward estimates. Let me take you through the history, because I keep hearing those opposite going on and on about this $11 billion. ABC's Fact Check found Tanya Plibersek's claim on Labor's own foreign aid budget, that Labor doubled the aid budget whilst in government, was overblown. Looking at real foreign aid spending, Labor's last budget showed that foreign aid, based on 2011-12 prices, increased from $3.5 billion in 2007-08 to a forecast $5.5 billion in 2013-14, which was an increase of only 55 per cent, not the doubling that Tanya Plibersek keeps harping on about. The reason I go back to this is that this is a lie upon a lie that goes back to 2015. Those opposite keep harping on about this when they know it is not right. Indeed, in an op-ed penned in 2006, Tanya Plibersek wrote, 'Our aid efforts should be focused on the alleviation of extreme poverty, not on short-term political gain, such as funding the Pacific Solution.' I have to say to those opposite that this is hypocrisy writ large, because for a short time when you were in government you actually diverted money from the aid budget for onshore processing costs for asylum seekers. Indeed, you became one of the highest recipients of your own aid budget. The countries that suffered most as a consequence of that act were the very Pacific island countries that you are now coming in here and bleating about. I really wanted to put that on the record because, Senator Carr, you should go back and check your facts. When the ABC's Fact Check tells you that you have your figures wrong, perhaps you ought to heed those comments. I have a final question for the minister. On balance, assertions have been made that this is not a framework that is actually going to benefit Pacific island countries. We have heard this peddled by those opposite. Can you, in your summing up comments, outline for us the actual economic gain that this is going to give to Pacific island countries? 10:49 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Yes, I can. There are a number of elements to that support. One of the points I'd make is that the Pacific region continues to experience significant social, economic and environmental challenges. We all in this place acknowledge that. Distance and weak infrastructure make international trade expensive, and small domestic markets and narrow production bases mean that countries rely on their internal economies for growth and for consumption. While PACER Plus provides the framework for regional trade and economic integration, dedicated assistance is absolutely critical to addressing barriers in signatory countries and to unlocking the Pacific's ability to partake in a global market. The PACER Plus Readiness Package—which I think the Greens senators who spoke earlier clearly hadn't even read, or understood what was there—is absolutely vital to providing those benefits. The readiness package is that Australia and New Zealand will provide joint funding packages of $8 million for readiness activities. This is to assist signatories from other nations to ratify their PACER Plus agreements and also, as we've said, other agreements—for example, through the WTO framework. The support that we're providing in this bill is for things like, firstly, legislative drafting to assist signatories to review and update relevant laws and regulations in their own countries. Secondly, there is Customs modernisation and harmonisation, implementation of up-to-date tariff codes and transposition of schedules. Those sound a little bureaucratic but are vitally important for small nations to be able to do. Each signatory will be able to implement the latest version of the internationally recognised systems known as the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding Systems. Again, it sounds very bureaucratic and technical, but for these nations to engage fully in the World Trade Organisation and also in other FTAs this has to be done. We're also providing support to those nations as they require. There is training on notification requirements, including helping governments and private sectors to meet PACER Plus obligations around transparency. We're providing funding support for public outreach and stakeholder engagement, and also for revenue planning and mitigation to help signatories manage any impact on their government revenue associated with tariff reduction, as discussed earlier. As part of PACER Plus, Australia's commitment to an aid-for-trade funding target is for 20 per cent of its official ODA budget in the Pacific. This target complements the party's own trade related initiatives to increase economic growth, to generate jobs and to increase living standards in each and every one of these Pacific nations. As I said, they're challenged by distance, by size and also by having very small agencies which need to be able to deal with those issues. I will leave you with two examples. The first one is agricultural export development. The Pacific Horticultural and Agricultural Market Access Program helps Pacific exporters meet the quarantine standards and other market access requirements of their trading partners. Again, it is very practical and very development focused assistance to enable these countries to engage in the international trading market. The second example is trade facilitation export and promotion and investment. Australia has increased funding to the Oceania Customs Organisation to help to strengthen Pacific Customs administrations, and will continue our longstanding support for Pacific trade and investment. It provides high-quality export facilitation investment and tourism promotion services across the region. My final comment to this chamber is that I wholeheartedly endorse PACER Plus and the enabling legislation. This is a good thing. I'd conclude by, again, thanking the Labor Party for their engagement and their support for this very important bill to enable the PACER Plus program. Thank you. Bills agreed to. Bills reported without amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 13 10:54 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I move: That these bills be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill 2018 13

Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill 2018

Second Reading 13 10:57 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales This is a continuation of my contribution to the black economy discussion, as part of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill 2018 that's before us. This bill, as I indicated in my previous contribution, reflects two of the Black Economy Taskforce measures: electronic sales suppression tools and third-party reporting. These are issues that are becoming more important because of the expansion of the so-called gig economy, where working people are becoming more and more subjected to bad conditions outside of the award system or any agreement system, and the expansion of contracting to try to build a barrier between the employer and the employee so that the employer can simply say that the employer is not responsible for the workers who are doing the work to make the employer's business profitable. These are issues that have been concerning Labor for some time. The issue of contractor tax compliance in the building and cleaning industry is really important. I'm involved in an inquiry into the cleaning contractors in the retail sector, where major companies like Woolworths—making billions of dollars of profit year on year from the Australian community—won't employ cleaners directly. Those cleaners are then subjected to contractors' pyramid subcontracting. Many of these migrant workers are being forced to work for $7 an hour under the guise that they are being trained. This is reprehensible conduct. The problem is that we have a government that are so divided that they can't focus on the issues for working people or the community in this country. They are so focused on their internal hatred of each other that issues like this do not receive the appropriate attention that they should. The expansion of the taxable payments reporting system is a good thing. The measures before the chamber will see about $132 million of payments coming in over the forward estimates, with about $56 million of them going back to the states. But what we've seen in relation to the government's incompetence is that there was a $230 million discrepancy in the data that was provided for this bill because Treasury did not up upload the proper data into their analysis. We take the view that this is a start. The Black Economy Taskforce looked at a massive range of issues. We agree that this is a start, and we will support this bill. I indicate that Labor will also be supporting the amendments from Senator Whish-Wilson and the Greens. We don't believe that enough has been done by government on the anti-money-laundering and counter-terrorism-financing area. More needs to be done in that area. But when you're too busy carving each other up, when you're too busy knifing your own leader, when you're too busy displaying your hatred for each other in the public arena day in and day out and when you're too busy bullying female coalition members to try to get the numbers to knock off a certain Prime Minister, is it any wonder that the important issues for this country don't get dealt with appropriately? That's exactly what we have. Is it any wonder that the now leader of this divided, decaying, decrepit government called his own members muppets? Of course they're muppets. We have the muppets sitting across here too busy fighting each other to deal with the issues. What we need in this country is a government that can actually address the issues for workers in areas all over the country. If the black economy is working in cash-in-hand payments, employers who do the right thing cannot continue to be competitive. If there's underreporting of income, legitimate companies are put under pressure because they can't compete with the companies that are ripping off the tax department. If companies don't have proper records, or poor or false records, then these are issues that should be addressed by any government worth its salt. These are issues that have been raised in the Black Economy Taskforce. Phoenixing is when a contractor gets a contract with a company that goes bust the next day, and then the same people are sitting in the same building, at the same desk, under another name and ripping workers off. It's just not good enough. Sham contracting is forcing workers to take out ABNs when they are not businesses. There's underpayment and exploitation of workers. We had Senator Molan defending Woolworths at estimates the last time I was there. We had coalition senators defending multibillion dollar companies against cleaners. I think it says everything about this coalition. They are too busy defending their mates. They are too busy fighting each other to actually make this a better country. That's the problem we have. ABN fraud and abuse are rampant, and this is one of the issues that was raised in the Black Economy Taskforce. Using interposed entities to avoid tax was also raised. These are all issues that we see reported in the Black Economy Taskforce, but what do we get? We get a couple of recommendations. One of the recommendations that the Black Economy Taskforce made was that this government should work with the trade union movement to try and deal with and identify some of the rorts that are taking place. But can you imagine this government working with the trade union movement? They are too busy funding the ABCC and the Registered Organisations Commission. They are too busy putting their own people, putting their mates, into these so-called independent bodies to attack the trade union movement. This government are a disgrace, an absolute disgrace. We get this problem where they get so engrossed in attacking working people's representatives, attacking the people who actually increase wages and conditions for workers, that they just lose the plot. That's why we've got two recommendations in this bill when there should be a number, a raft of recommendations, coming through. The gig economy, contractors doing the wrong thing and businesses operating on a basis that undermines legitimate companies should all be dealt with. But this government, the muppets, the muppet show that this government is, just can't get their act together to deal with the issues. That's why there is no stability in the government. The government is absolutely unstable. In the period 2013 to 2018 the Labor Party has had one leader and one deputy leader. What have we had with the coalition? We've had Prime Minister Abbott and Deputy Prime Minister Truss. We've had Prime Minister Turnbull and Deputy Prime Minister Truss. We've had Prime Minister Turnbull and Deputy Prime Minister Joyce. We've had Prime Minister Turnbull and Deputy Prime Minister McCormack. Now we've got Prime Minister Morrison and Deputy Prime Minister McCormack. Is it any wonder that in that period of five years this government could not get its act together in a whole range of areas? They are an absolute disgrace. They are a government that just can't get their act together— Senator Watt 245759 A rabble— Senator CAMERON AI6 I've just been reminded that they are an absolute rabble of a government— Senator Brockman interjecting— Senator CAMERON AI6 No wonder you're laughing, because you know it's true. You know that you are a rabble of a government. The coalition is an absolute rabble. The National Party is a rabble. The Liberals are a rabble. The Liberal rabble doesn't like the National rabble and the National rabble doesn't like the Liberal rabble, and the Liberal rabble don't like each other. That's the bottom line with this mob. They are too busy attacking each other like a bunch of schoolkids to actually bring a bill here that deals with the rip-offs of taxation in this country, deals with the black economy and provides more tax, so that you can invest in schools, invest in health, invest in the community and invest in infrastructure. This government is so bad, so disjointed and so insecure that none of these big issues get dealt with. It's about time that the people of Australia get an opportunity to make a decision about this rabble of a government. The sooner we get to an election the better. The sooner people can make a judgement about this new Prime Minister—who was at the heart of all of those changes in government and who defended the attacks on the Australian community in that first Abbott budget, attacking pensioners, reducing pensions, reducing the capacity for families to put food on the table and attacking young people who couldn't get a job—the better. The sooner that people understand that this new Prime Minister, Prime Minister Morrison, was at the heart of every one of the attacks on working families in this country the better. Was this new Prime Minister, when he was Treasurer, prepared to deal with black economy issues? No. Was he prepared to deal with the banks, which are ripping workers off, ripping families off, ripping pensioners off and ripping disabled Australians off? No, he was not. On 26 occasions, he stood up and said, 'We should not have a banking royal commission.' Now that he is Prime Minister, he has changed his mind. We know what this government will do. They will do the same as the John Howard and Peter Costello government did. When they're in trouble, they will throw money at every interest group to try to get a vote. We know the argument that they are good economic managers is an absolute myth. The eras when this country behaved in an economically incompetent manner were under Bob Menzies and under John Howard. They are the times when things went really bad. When the money just keeps pouring in, they throw the money out and don't build for the future. They don't build the infrastructure, build the education systems or build the health system. It's a demonstration of the incompetence of this government. We want a future for our kids. We want a healthy future for our kids. We want an environment that our kids can look forward to in the future. We want to say that they will have the same benefits we had—that is, of a decent environment—but those opposite are too busy carving each other up on environmental issues. They now simply say it's all about reducing electricity prices. Well, it's not simply about reducing electricity prices; it is about maintaining a future for our kids and grandkids. This incompetent government should go, and this bill demonstrates that they don't have the capacity to deal with the issues effectively. 11:12 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I will just start by responding to some of the things Senator Cameron put before the chamber. I think the Australian people very well remember the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years and the true rabble they were and the economic mess that we inherited from that government. The 2014 budget and the governments the coalition have led have done an absolutely magnificent job of putting the budget back on track and getting the economic circumstances in Australia back on a positive note. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill 2018 does represent an ongoing effort from this government in the space of the black economy and in the space of those who aren't paying their fair share of tax that all Australians require of both the business community and individuals. Everyone has to make a contribution under the law, and this bill reflects that fact. It reflects an ongoing commitment from the Prime Minister in this area as well. I will bring us back to the 2018 budget. Senator Cameron said we had done nothing in this space. But then-Treasurer Morrison announced a number of changes in this area: new phoenixing offences, to target operators who conduct or facilitate phoenixing activities; changes preventing directors from being able to improperly backdate resignations to escape liability; changes limiting the ability of directors to resign, if resignations would leave the company with no directors; changes restricting the ability of related creditors to vote on appointing, removing or replacing external administrators; and changes extending the director penalty regime. This bill represents a step in an ongoing process of making sure that everybody—businesses and individuals—pays their fair share of taxation. This is never something that reaches a finishing point. We always see technological change, particularly—and other things, but technological change, particularly—as being one of the ways in which some people in society seek to avoid paying their fair share of tax. That is what this bill addresses. The government is committed to a fair taxation environment for businesses to ensure that all businesses are compliant with the law. This is absolutely critical to fairness in society. Government has announced these measures to address a growing issue in the black economy, and this is particularly in relation to deliberate tax fraud carried out through interference with point-of-sale technology. The measures in this bill form one part of a broader suite of reforms that the government is progressing through its response to the Black Economy Taskforce final report. So what does this bill do? It bans the manufacture, distribution, sale and use of sales suppression technology in Australia. This is technology with no purpose other than to facilitate tax fraud by allowing businesses to conceal their income by manually altering sales figures. It extends the taxable payments reporting system to two industries that present tax compliance risks, and they are the cleaning and courier businesses. This is to ensure that payments made by businesses to contractors in these industries are reported to the Australian tax office. Schedule 1 deals specifically with the electronic sales suppression tools. The schedule creates a number of new offences pertaining to the manufacture, distribution, possession, sale and use of electronic sale suppression tools for the purposes of not disclosing business income. This technology is used solely for the purpose of tax evasion; it has no other reason for being on somebody's computer. The new offence will restore integrity to the tax system. There is evidence that the prevalence of this technology is on the rise globally, with a number of international jurisdictions taking similar actions to crack down on this activity. This is where the government's involvement in international forums that deal with these sorts of issues is so important, because we see these practices spread out globally. Often, the software is not developed in the domestic context; it's developed overseas, and these matters often appear in other jurisdictions first. By being involved in those forums we are able to get advanced warning that this may be coming our way and be able to take action in a timely fashion. But, as I said, this is an arms race. Our legal system as it stands is never going to be able to take into account what may come next year, or in five years or 10 years, so this place and the government need to be responsive to these changes. And that's what this government has been. The sales suppression software comes in the form of a physical device or program, or some other thing capable of manipulating or destroying records that an entity is required to keep or make. As I said earlier, there is no legitimate use for these tools. Their only purpose is to erase the transaction records from point-of-sale or accounting systems, leaving no audit trail. Common techniques include the reclassification of GST taxable sales to GST non-taxable sales, or reducing the amount that the sale was for. This is done in such a way that there is no evidence trail of the changes made, making prosecution or recovery very difficult for the ATO. It is important to note that, while these practices are already illegal, this bill seeks to criminalise the software and devices which allow businesses to evade detection for these offences easily. Obviously, some of these things are very hard to track down—particularly when these pieces of software and devices are specifically designed to erase all records. That's why it's very important that we actually ban the tools themselves and not merely the practice. The offences being introduced by the government are subject to strict liability and heavy penalties to deter the use of this technology and to clamp down on these practices. Schedule 2 involves third-party reporting. The second schedule implements the third-party reporting requirements for businesses in the courier and cleaning industry. This is in response to evidence that there is significant underreporting of income in these sectors as identified by the Black Economy Taskforce and the Australian tax office. We're ensuring that we do have a fair taxation system. The government is committed to making sure everyone pays their fair share of tax. But this is also about making sure that taxes are as low as possible. If everyone pays their fair share, then taxes do not need to be in any way artificially high. We need to maximise the revenue under the current system, not seek to impose new taxes on people. Individuals and businesses engaging in illegal tax avoidance undermine the integrity of the entire system and unfairly shift the burden onto law-abiding Australians, which we must always remember is the vast, vast majority of Australians. The vast majority of Australian businesses and the vast majority of Australians are not involved in these kinds of practices, and we cannot tar all industries and all businesses with the same accusation or brush. We don't want to think that every business is involved in this activity. It's simply not true. We know that the vast majority of businesses do pay their fair share of tax. However, those who don't unfairly shift the burden onto those who do. Just as we have delivered on our plan to crack down on multinational tax avoidance by introducing new laws to close loopholes and ensure that profits are taxed in Australia, as they should be, we're also ensuring that Australian businesses are paying their tax according to the law in this particular area. These measures form part of the government's commitment to cracking down on tax avoidance so that we can continue to deliver to all Australians the services that are essential and so that we can afford to deliver our agenda on tax relief for hardworking Australians. So, we can continue to do all the things that a government does that are worthwhile for people. However, we also need to recognise that business plays a fundamental role in employing and that contracting is not something that is illegal or that should be in any way restricted in our society. It's a very important tool for business. It's a very important way for people to gain jobs, Senator Cameron. Senator Cameron AI6 Seven bucks an hour. Seven bucks an hour. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 It's a very important way for people to get a job. All businesses should comply with the law, but it is a very important way in which people find employment, and employment is a source of worth. It is a source of dignity. It is the best thing that we can do for people, and it is certainly far, far better than any form of welfare. So I commend this bill, and I certainly hope that we see it through this parliament. 11:22 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill 2018. Creativity is fundamentally human. When art is found on the caves of Arnhem Land, we know beyond any doubt that it was a human being who drew it. Yet this bill seeks to place creativity under the cloche of the criminal law. Schedule 1 of this bill makes it illegal to create software that can be used to falsify point-of-sale records of businesses. A software creator faces a reverse onus of proof in the event of prosecution. This is contrary to the fundamental principle of our system of justice, dating back 700 years to the Magna Carta, that the accuser makes the case. It also contravenes another principle—that it is the intent of the criminal that matters, not the tools used. A criminal act requires a guilty mind. Tax evasion is a crime in Australia. Criminalising the creativity of software developers whose tools might be used to evade tax is not the answer; better enforcement of tax evasion law is. Sales and tax return information can be recorded by hand, fairly obviously, with no software, all quite legally. Yet if a shopkeeper uses such means to falsify sales records in order to commit tax evasion, should we seek to ban paper or ink? Clearly this is ridiculous. Schedule 2 to this bill continues the confusion about whom the law should target—the criminal or the consumer. It seeks to impose a regulatory burden on companies that employ courier or cleaning services. The justification for this is that these services are said to be particularly prone to tax evasion. Again, this is wrong. It should be the courier and cleaning operators that are targeted by tax evasion enforcement authorities, not the innocent people or businesses that pay for their services. This is no more than punishing the innocent for the crimes of the perpetrator. I oppose this bill. 11:25 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill 2018. A black economy is one that seeks to avoid the obligation to contribute to the welfare of our society, and it penalises Australians in all walks of life. Its defining feature is an intent by individuals and businesses to avoid making a fair contribution to the operation of this country. It's a problem, and at times it can be looked upon by those who participate in the black economy as their being clever in their efforts to avoid the taxman. The consequence of that deprivation, though, is that we have less available for us as a society to invest in health, education and the range of other essential services that are provided by government. It means that the people who are honest in their financial dealings are penalised by having to carry a greater impost or a greater share of what's necessary to run this country. What are the features of a black economy? It can be as innocuous as paying the tradie cash to get a lower quote for some work around the house or accepting cash wages off the books. It can be welfare fraud, moonlighting, undeclared income or phoenixing. More worrying is its link to crime and criminal activity. The laundering of money is a major feature of the black economy—or, as it's sometimes called, the cash economy or the underground economy. It's easy to think of this as a victimless crime, but it's not. The victims are those people who do the right thing, the individuals and families who contribute fairly to the tax system, the small businesses who do the right thing but suffer because their competitor isn't operating on the same level playing field. Another invidious feature is the potential that gaming the system will become endemic, putting increasing pressure on those people and businesses that are doing the right thing. We hear Labor banging on all the time in this place about inequality. Well, here's a classic example of inequality whereby many people are doing the right thing while another group are not. Any growth in the black economy becomes even more disconcerting, given the recent economic observation that 40 per cent of taxpayers are net contributors to the budget while 60 per cent are net consumers from the budget. With the ratio of people who are working to those who are not working in decline as the population ages, the dollars that aren't collected will exacerbate the problem of funding the core operations of a government. As an aside, while talking about people and organisations carrying their fair share of tax contribution, it's difficult not to query why trade unions and the quite enormous enterprises that many of them run also escape the tax system. When organisations like the CFMMEU have assets in excess of $350 million, quite substantial commercial business operations and an annual income of over $130 million that comes through it but pay no tax, it's a distortion. I'd have to say that that's a classic example of inequality. While the black economy can be traced back to the time that taxes were first collected, its sophistication has increased with the advent of technology and changes in business models. The sharing economy and the ability, through computer coding, to be clever bring new challenges to the tax system. How big is the black economy and what are its dynamics? Unfortunately, it seems that the black economy is growing at a rapid rate. The Black Economy Taskforce has estimated that the black economy is worth three per cent of GDP, or approximately $50 billion per year. This is 50 per cent larger than the figures estimated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2012. That's an acceleration that is not sustainable. What's just as concerning is that cash wages and unstated business income make up only half of the black economy. For instance, $16 billion is lost to money laundering, $7 billion to $10 billion is lost to illegal drug activity, $3 billion is lost to phoenixing and $2 billion is lost to identity fraud. This $50 billion burden on the Australian economy hinders the government's ability to fund essential services for those who really need them, to provide the basics of a secure Australia, to provide, quite importantly, tax relief and to pay off the debt and deficit left to us by the Labor Party. And $50 billion could pay for a lot of things. It could pay down an awful lot of debt. It could pay for the construction of 100 new high schools, 22 new hospitals, 12 new submarines or even 15 coal-fired power stations. I am pleased that the government has recognised the problems of the black economy and responded to the Black Economy Taskforce's final report as part of the 2017-18 budget. Proactively, the government has announced these measures to address the growing economic and social problems that arise from the black economy: banning the manufacture, distribution, possession, sale and use of sales suppression technology, which allows businesses to conceal their income, and extending the taxable payments reporting system to two industries that currently present tax compliance risks, the cleaning and the courier industry, to ensure that payments made by businesses to contractors in these industries are reported as they should be to the Australian Taxation Office. The bill delivers on the 2017-18 budget decisions. The measures in this bill form one part of a much broader suite of reforms that the government is implementing through its response to the Black Economy Taskforce's final report. In schedule 1 of the bill, the government addresses electronic sales suppression tools. One of these is a device, program or other tool capable of manipulating or destroying records that an entity is legally bound to keep or make. The primary function of sales suppression software is to facilitate the understatement of a business's income to facilitate tax evasion. I can't see a legitimate use for this kind of technology. It's there for the purposes of avoiding an audit trail. Currently, penalties are only imposed on the taxpayer for evading tax or not keeping proper records in the first instance, but they don't, at present, explicitly penalise any part of the supply chain for the possession or use of this kind of software. The new offences target each stage of the software supply chain, including manufacture, production and sale. The schedule creates new offences for the manufacture, distribution, possession, sale and use of electronic sales suppression tools for the purposes of not disclosing business income. There is no legitimate reason for having these tools. They remove transactions from electronic record keeping systems. They change transactions to reduce the amount of each sale made. They can modify GST taxable sales into being GST non-taxable sales for the purposes of those records. In all instances, no audit trail of the process of making those changes is kept. The government is introducing offences that are subject to strict liability and heavy penalties to deter the use of such technology right across the software supply chain. This technology is used solely for the purposes of tax evasion, and the purpose of these offences is to ensure that there is integrity in the tax system. Recent reports from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, have highlighted that this software is spreading globally. Its use has been identified in a number of jurisdictions, including Canada, the United States of America, Germany and Sweden. Many of those have also implemented measures to address this risk. The ATO has uncovered concrete examples of the use of this software in Australia. It was recently reported in the US that sales suppression software was allegedly used to collect $20 million in fraudulent sales from the restaurant industry that was sent to Hezbollah, the terrorist group in Lebanon. In Sweden, an undercover documentary team identified 100 companies that were using the software. In Norway, the Norwegian Hospitality Association estimates that between 10 and 20 per cent of sales in the restaurant industry are fraudulent because of the use of tools like this. And sales suppression in Canadian restaurants is estimated to cost Can$2.4 billion per year. Schedule 2 of the bill deals with third party reporting. From 1 July 2018, it would require businesses in the courier and cleaning industries to give an annual report to the ATO regarding the payments they make to businesses for the provision of courier or cleaning services. Those reporting obligations would apply from the 2018-19 income year, and reports would be required by 28 August 2019. The measure is estimated to result in the inclusion in the ordinary tax system of $132 million in taxes over the forward estimates period. Business-to-business payments for courier and cleaning services are within this scope. The implementation of taxable payments reporting systems in the building and construction industry resulted in improved contractor tax compliance and the reporting of income. This is an extension of that policy—that approach—to other industries that are regarded as high risk for black-economy-type activity. The ATO has prepared guidance material designed to assist businesses that operate in the courier and cleaning industries to transition to compliance with these reporting requirements, to try and ease the process of compliance with these measures. The information that's reported to the ATO is used for the pre-filling of tax returns or activity statements which should, in fact, ultimately make it easier for contractors to be able to lodge their income tax returns and allow for data matching to ensure that contractors are complying with their tax obligations, such as correctly lodging their income tax returns and complying with business activity statement obligations. These are all welcome measures to address the black economy and they need to be considered in light of the wider reforms the government has undertaken in changing tax arrangements. This government is getting on with the job of building a strong and fair economy and creating jobs—all within the fairness of a tax system that works for all businesses and for all Australians. I support this bill. 11:37 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I rise today to say that the Greens support the Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill 2018, but I note that I will move a second reading amendment when I finish this speech. We, as a party, have taken tax avoidance in this country very seriously. My previous colleague and leader, Tasmanian Christine Milne, initiated the original Senate inquiry into multinational tax avoidance. That kicked off nearly four years ago. A number of senators in this chamber have been involved in that long-running inquiry. It's still continuing in various forms, but we've managed to get some good outcomes in this place—one is all of us working together on multinational tax avoidance. We still have a long way to go; there are still many more things we have to do. We have to continue to prosecute the case in Senate estimates every time we speak to the ATO, and we need to continue to push for stronger measures to crack down on tax avoidance across the board. This bill also targets tax avoidance. It outlaws the use of electronic tools that are used by a business to falsify their sales so as to reduce their recorded income and to misrepresent their employee records. The measures in this bill should ensure that more businesses are paying their fair share of tax and paying their workers their fair due. That's ultimately what this is about: it's about making sure that businesses pay their fair share of tax. We, as individuals in this country, all know that if we don't do the right thing in our own tax returns we run the very serious risk of severe penalties. It shouldn't be any different for the corporate sector. We have to make sure that the Australian tax office and our other regulators have the right resources to audit and monitor tax avoidance, and we need to work through international treaties to target some of the biggest tax avoiders in this country. While we are strictly talking about tax avoidance, or illegal and unethical behaviour, we should also be tackling some of the bigger issues around corporations not paying their fair share of tax, by looking at things like the petroleum resource rent tax. I have said it a million times in this place and I'm going to continue to harp on about this: we can't talk about fairness and equity and tackling inequality in this country unless we talk about tackling the petroleum resource rent tax. Nearly $300 billion in legal tax credits have been granted through a system, a rort, which has been in place in this country for nearly two decades. It allows some of the biggest and most profitable countries on the planet, which happen to be also the biggest polluters on this planet, to avoid paying tax and avoid paying royalties to the Australian people for the resources that they extract from our sovereign nation. In my opinion, that is very low hanging fruit—for the Senate to bring in changes to the PRRT. There are others around this chamber who want to see this happen. We had the specific sub-inquiry into this issue through the multinational tax avoidance inquiry, and it is something which we absolutely need to get on with. Nevertheless, all these challenges face us. Bills like this matter, in the aggregate. We support this bill, as we do any measures that are genuinely designed to crack down on the black economy. But, if we are going to talk about the black economy and raise these issues in the federal Senate chamber, then we need to talk about money laundering in the bigger context, especially money laundering through real estate. I will use the opportunity provided in this bill today to move a second reading amendment that highlights 12 years of inaction on this issue—12 years of inaction on what is arguably the biggest issue in the black economy. I don't think there is anyone in this chamber who could deny the reason we haven't cracked down on the dark heart of money laundering in this country, and that is that vested interests have lobbied so hard to stop this from happening. I'll be outlining the details in my second reading amendment. There are a couple of points to note—they are in my second reading amendment, which I hope all senators have had a chance to look at. The explanatory memorandum to the 2006 anti-money laundering and counterterrorism financing bill forecast a second tranche of legislation that would regulate real estate agents and a range of non-financial transactions provided by accountants and lawyers. That was in 2006. Twelve years ago that legislation said: 'This has to happen. This needs to go the next step.' Once again, I ask senators to reflect on why we haven't got there in 12 years. While I'm not downplaying the importance of what we're doing here today, the biggest issue in money laundering in this country is still an issue, and there has been no solution and no legislative change that has come before this chamber to propose cracking down on that. There has been a discussion paper, which has been looked at by several governments over the years. I understand Senator Brandis himself wanted to tackle this issue before he finished up as Attorney-General, but it never happened. So, even back then, they were saying, 'We need to go this next step.' In April 2016, the government released a statutory review of the AML/CTF laws—the anti-money-laundering laws. This review recommended that the government develop options for regulating lawyers, accountants and real estate agents under the act. Exactly 10 years later, the government review recommended that we take action on this issue. The government then undertook consultations on the regulation of lawyers, accountants and real estate agents under the act, and this finished in January 2017 with a promise to act soon thereafter—so 18 months or so ago. But, once again, we have seen nothing since. Action on this issue has been stalled. In the few seconds that I have left before we move to other items—and I presume I will be in continuation after that, Mr President—I just once again ask the Senate to reflect on why we're having a bill like this before us today and yet the issue that's most critical hasn't come to the Senate in legislation. I move: The Australian Greens amendment on sheet 8499 as revised: Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill 2018 At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate: (1) notes: (a) the explanatory memorandum to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Bill 2006 forecast a second tranche of legislation that would regulate real estate agents, jewellers, and a range of non-financial transactions provided by accountants and lawyers; (b) in April 2016 the government released the statutory review of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 that contained a recommendation for the government to develop options for regulating lawyers, conveyancers, accountants, high-value dealers, real estate agents and trust and company service providers under the Act; (c) the government commenced consultation on the regulation of lawyers, conveyancers, accountants, high-value dealers, real estate agents and trust and company service providers under the Act, and submissions to this consultation closed in January 2017; (d) the Financial Action Task Force's April 2015 Mutual Evaluation Report on Australia's measures to combat money laundering and terrorist financing stated that Australia is an attractive destination for foreign proceeds of crime, particularly corruption-related proceeds flowing into real estate; (e) the December 2017 OECD Phase 4 Report on Australia's implementation of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention recommended that Australia address the risk that the real estate sector could be used to launder the proceeds of foreign bribery; and (2) calls upon the government to introduce legislation that would address money laundering through real estate." The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Whish-Wilson, you will be in continuation when debate resumes. Being 11:45, the debate is interrupted. PETITIONS 20 PETITIONS Burqa 20 NOTICES 20 NOTICES Withdrawal 20 11:45 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales Pursuant to notice given on 12 September 2018, I withdraw business of the Senate notices of motion Nos 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 standing in my name for 14 November 2018, proposing the disallowance of: (1) health insurance regulations 2018, (2) marine orders 501 national law amendment order 2018, (3) marine order 507 2018, (4) Remuneration Tribunal amendment regulations 2018 and (5) superannuation amendments instrument 2018. COMMITTEES 21 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 21 Report 21 11:46 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania I present the 10th report of 2018 of the Selection of Bills Committee, and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 10 OF 2018 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 12 September 2018 at 7.20 pm. 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the provisions of the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission Bill 2018 and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 October 2018 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); and (b) contingent upon introduction in the House of Representatives, the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 12 October 2018 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the following bill not be referred to committees: Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2018. 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Commonwealth Places and Services (Facial Recognition) Bill 2018 Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2018 Shipping Registration Amendment Bill 2018 Social Services Legislation Amendment (Ending the Poverty Trap) Bill 2018 Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Australian Farmers) Bill 2018. Senator BUSHBY HLL I move: That the report be adopted. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 21 BUSINESS Rearrangement 21 11:46 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That— (a) government business orders of the day as shown on today's order of business be considered from 12.45 pm today; and (b) government business be called on after consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (a) and considered till not later than 2 pm today. Non-controversial government business— No. 5 Education and Other Legislation Amendment (VET Student Loan Debt Separation) Bill 2018 Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2018 No. 6 Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2018 Social Services Legislation Amendment (Student Reform) Bill 2018 [subject to exemption from bills cut-off] Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2018 [subject to exemption from bills cut-off] Question agreed to. 11:47 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows: (a) general business notices of motion— No. 1051 standing in the name of Senator Collins relating to energy and climate change policies, and No. 1052 standing in the name of Senator Patrick relating to free trade agreements; and (b) orders of the day relating to documents. Question agreed to. NOTICES 22 NOTICES Postponement 22 11:48 The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators that the question may be put on any such proposal at the request of any senator. NOTICES 22 NOTICES Presentation 22 COMMITTEES 24 COMMITTEES Education and Employment References Committee 24 BUSINESS 24 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 24 11:48 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5 to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings: Customs Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018 Customs Tariff Amendment (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations Plus Implementation) Bill 2018 Social Services Legislation Amendment (Student Reform) Bill 2018 Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2018. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 24 MOTIONS Vaccination 24 11:48 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of Senators Moore and Duniam I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) increased immunisation of children, which is essential for protecting them against diseases including pneumonia, polio, rotavirus diarrhoea, meningococcal and measles, now saves the lives of 2 to 3 million children per year – nevertheless, 1.5 million children still die each year globally from vaccine-preventable diseases, (ii) in 2017, 85 per cent of children globally received the full course of the diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis vaccine, a key measure of vaccine coverage, however this left nearly 20 million children not covered by this vaccine, (iii) globally, 85 per cent of children receive the polio vaccine, however gaps in polio vaccine coverage allow some children to contract the disease, with 15 cases in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2018 so far, (iv) Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, to which Australia has been a consistent contributor, has supported the vaccination of more than 690 million children, and saved an estimated 9 million lives – in December 2018, Gavi will hold a mid­-term review to assess what changes to its strategy are needed to achieve increased and equitable access to vaccines, and (v) Australia also partners with the World Bank Group to support countries in Southeast Asia and the Pacific to strengthen immunisation systems and help ensure they are sustainably financed and managed; (b) recognises that: (i) Australia co-sponsored a resolution at the 2017 World Health Assembly to accelerate access to vaccines, calling for the extension of immunisation services beyond infancy, increasing domestic financing, and strengthening international cooperation to achieve global vaccination goals, and (ii) funding to the Global Polio Eradication Initiative (GPEI), to which Australia contributes, is due to decline as polio nears eradication – this funding covers one-fifth of the World Health Organization's (WHO) costs, and accounts for a high proportion of the health and vaccination workforce in several countries, and GPEI and WHO are undertaking transition planning to ensure that skilled staff and services remain in countries where polio has been eradicated; and (c) calls on the Australian Government to: (i) participate in planning to accelerate progress in making vaccines available to all children, including through the Gavi mid-term review, and (ii) work with countries now receiving polio support and multilateral agencies to ensure that transition from GPEI funding results in increased resources for other health and vaccination programs. Question agreed to. Foster Care Week 25 11:49 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of Senator McAllister, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) 9 September to 15 September 2018 is Foster Care Week, (ii) there is a shortage of foster carers nationally, with over 40 000 children in the out-of-home care system nationwide, and (iii) Foster Care Week is an opportunity to recognise the work of foster carers and the difference they make in the lives of vulnerable children and young people; (b) commends the work of foster carers around Australia in keeping children and young people safe; and (c) urges members of the Australian public to consider becoming a foster carer if they wish to have an impact on the lives of children and young people at risk. Question agreed to. National Security 25 11:49 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that 18 September marks the five-year anniversary of the launch of the Abbott Coalition Government's Operation Sovereign Borders policy, a military-led operation designed to break people-smuggling activities – principally originating from Indonesia – with boat turn­ backs and intelligence gathering; (b) acknowledges the roles of policy co-author, and now senator, Jim Molan and the then Minister for Immigration, Mr Scott Morrison, in successfully implementing that policy; and (c) affirms its strong support for the policy and continuing to protect Australia's borders. 11:50 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator RUSTON 243273 The first and most important priority of the government is securing our nation and keeping Australians safe. In doing this, it is critical that we first secure our borders. Operation Sovereign Borders has ended the deaths at sea and has returned integrity to our migration program. We will decide who comes to this country, not the people smugglers. We must never return to the disastrous policies that saw 50,000 people arrive on more than 800 boats, 8,000 children detained and at least 1,200 people drown at sea. Question agreed to. Racial Discrimination Act 1975 26 11:50 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that 15 September marks the anniversary of the Racial Hatred Act 1995, through which section 18C was inserted making it an offence to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person on racial grounds; (b) further notes that the position of Race Discrimination Commissioner fell vacant in August 2018; (c) also notes that the Institute of Public Affairs stated in a research brief, distributed to members and senators in May, that the Commissioner's role fulfils no substantive function, is merely one of political advocacy and promotes division in the community; and (d) calls upon the Federal Government to refrain from appointing a new Commissioner or, if it does so, ensure that it appoints someone who will: (i) unite Australians around Australian values, and (ii) refrain from publicly campaigning or advocating that Australians make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission under section 18C. 11:50 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator RUSTON 243273 The Race Discrimination Commissioner has the role of promoting understanding and acceptance of and compliance with the Racial Discrimination Act, promoting understanding, tolerance and friendship among all Australians, including racial and ethnic groups, and of leading the Australian Human Rights Commission's work for all Australians. The government is actively considering applicants for the position of Race Discrimination Commissioner in order to ensure that these roles and the benefits of the position are realised for all Australians. 11:51 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator FARUQI 250362 I am so sick of this rubbish. I am so sick of people who will never experience racism telling us that it doesn't exist. Senator Bernardi will never be told that you have no place in public life because of the colour of your skin. I hope that one day Australia will not need a Race Discrimination Commissioner, but that day is definitely not today, because racism is a reality and millions of people are harmed by it. Sudanese Australians are demonised by the media. Aboriginal Australians are dying in custody. Muslim Australians have been demonised and demeaned in this very parliament. So don't pretend that racism doesn't exist. If you cared to step outside your bubble, you would know that it does exist. Shame on you— (Time expired) Senator Bernardi interjecting— Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting— Senator Faruqi 250362 and shame on anyone who supports this motion today. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Faruqi, the time has expired. Take your seat. Senator Bernardi and Senator Whish-Wilson! This is not a time in the Senate for extended debate. These statements are explanatory. I remind senators of that again. The question is that motion No. 1045 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:57]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 4 AYES Anning, F Bernardi, C (teller) Hanson, P Leyonhjelm, DE 44 NOES Bilyk, CL Brockman, S Bushby, DC Chisholm, A Colbeck, R Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Duniam, J Faruqi, M Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Hume, J Keneally, KK Lines, S Marshall, GM Martin, S.L McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKenzie, B McKim, NJ Molan, AJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Pratt, LC Rice, J Ruston, A Scullion, NG Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DA Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Stoker, AJ Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Waters, LJ Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Greyhound Racing 27 12:00 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I, and also on behalf of Senator Hinch, move: That the Senate— (a) notes: (i) that tens of millions of dollars in public money is handed over to the greyhound racing and gambling industry each year by states and territories in prize money, for building new tracks and in tax breaks, (ii) Greyhounds Australasia estimates that the industry is responsible for the unnecessary deaths of anywhere between 13 000 and 17 000 healthy greyhounds a year, and (iii) that millions of Australians want to see greyhound racing banned on animal welfare grounds, and do not want to see public money subsidising greyhound racing and gambling; and (b) calls on state and territory governments to withdraw public funding of greyhound racing, and put the tens of millions of dollars towards health, education and drought relief. (general business notice of motion no. 1047) 12:01 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator RUSTON 243273 Greyhound racing provides significant economic activity, employment and social benefits to rural and regional communities. Public funding of greyhound racing is a matter for state and territory governments to determine. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 1047 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:02]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 13 AYES Di Natale, R Faruqi, M Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D McKim, NJ Patrick, RL Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Storer, TR Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 34 NOES Anning, F Bernardi, C Bilyk, CL Brockman, S Bushby, DC Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Dodson, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Hanson, P Hume, J Keneally, KK Leyonhjelm, DE Lines, S Marshall, GM Martin, S.L McCarthy, M McKenzie, B Molan, AJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Paterson, J Pratt, LC Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Singh, LM Smith, DA Smith, DPB Stoker, AJ Urquhart, AE (teller) Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 National Security 28 12:05 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the Senate— (a) acknowledges that the wearing of full-face coverings, such as burqas and niqabs, has no place in a modern western society; and (b) calls on the Federal Government to move immediately to ban any form of full-face covering, such as balaclavas, full-face helmets, burqas and niqabs, in places where identification is necessary and security is an issue. 12:05 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator RUSTON 243273 All Australians are free to choose their religion and are entitled to express and practice their religion and their beliefs without intimidation and without interference as long as those practices are within the framework of Australian law. This includes the freedom of people to express their religion through choice of clothing. The government will not be banning the burqa or any other form of religious dress in Australia, as it would be inconsistent with our principles and traditions of religious freedom and tolerance. 12:06 Senator LEYONHJELM 111206 New South Wales Mr President, could I ask that you put sections (a) and (b) separately, as I intend to vote differently? The PRESIDENT I0Q I'm happy to do so, Senator Leyonhjelm. 12:06 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I seek leave to make a brief statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator HANSON BK6 The government made a comment about people's choice to wear a religious garment of their choice. That has nothing to do with this motion. Wearing a full-face-covering item, a burqa or a niqab, is not a religious requirement; it is actually a choice of dress. The motion moves the fact that this is actually for security reasons. Religion does not come into this. 12:07 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DI NATALE 53369 Senator Hanson should hang her head in shame. She's just a disgrace. She's an absolute disgrace. Today it's Muslims, yesterday it was a nine-year-old schoolkid who she wanted expelled because they didn't stand up to sing the national anthem, on another day it's Asians, on another day it's Indigenous people— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Di Natale, take your seat. Senator Di Natale, take your seat when I order you to. Senator Leyonhjelm? Senator Leyonhjelm 111206 Mr President, this is contrary to standing orders. Motions are not intended for debate. Senator Di Natale is debating the issue and abusing another senator in the bargain. The PRESIDENT I0Q Firstly, I've made the point—and it has been discussed numerous times at the Procedure Committee and is continuing to be discussed—that this particular section of Senate business is not ideal for complex matters and is not for debate. The growth in one-minute statements—by leave, I hasten to add—where any senator can deny that opportunity, is a courtesy granted by senators to allow people to explain a position of themselves or their party. Senator Di Natale, when I call someone to order, I expect them to heed that. I also counsel senators to be very careful of unparliamentary language and imputations and reflections upon other senators, because some of that language may well be appropriate outside the chamber but is not appropriate inside the chamber. I call you to continue, Senator Di Natale. Senator DI NATALE 53369 I'm done. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Di Natale has concluded. I will put part (a) of that motion. The question is that part (a) be agreed to. Question negatived. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question now is that part (b) of the motion be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:10]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 4 AYES Anning, F Bernardi, C Hanson, P (teller) Leyonhjelm, DE 43 NOES Bilyk, CL Brockman, S Bushby, DC Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Cormann, M Di Natale, R Dodson, P Duniam, J Faruqi, M Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Hume, J Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Lines, S Marshall, GM Martin, S.L McCarthy, M McKenzie, B McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Paterson, J Patrick, RL Pratt, LC Rice, J Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Singh, LM Smith, DA Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Stoker, AJ Urquhart, AE (teller) Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Dairy Industry 29 12:13 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the dairy industry in Australia was de-regulated in 2000, and since that time milk production has fallen from 12 billion litres a year to 9.5 billion litres a year, while the population has increased from 19 million to 25 million people, (ii) the number of dairy farms has declined in Queensland from around 1,500 to about 380, (iii) Queensland dairy herds are now in immediate danger through a failure of the winter and summer seasonal crops, and the shortage of quality feed means it is likely that whole herds will be sent to the slaughterhouse and families destroyed, (iv) the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's (ACCC) dairy inquiry report was handed down in April 2018, and found that an increase in the fresh milk price in supermarkets would not benefit dairy farmers, only the processors, (v) none of the eight recommendations in the ACCC's report have been implemented by the Federal Government, (vi) there is an immediate need to deal with the imbalance in bargaining power between dairy farmers and processors by legislating to make unfair contracts and, in particular, multi-year contracts (which bind farmers but not processors) unlawful because dairy farmers do not have the means to pursue these unfair contracts through the courts, and (vii) it is a myth that milk prices are set by market forces because farm-gate prices for milk are set by processors, that are often foreign-owned; and (b) calls on the Federal Government: (i) to provide immediate additional financial support to dairy farmers who cannot feed their herds, (ii to implement all of the ACCC recommendations, and (iii to regulate the price of milk per litre paid by processors to dairy farmers to ensure a viable dairy industry. 12:13 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator RUSTON 243273 The government strongly supports Australia's dairy farmers and the dairy industry and acknowledges that many are doing it tough at present. The Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources is currently considering the ACCC's dairy report and has acknowledged industry and processor support for a mandatory code of conduct following a regulatory impact statement. The government will work to address the significant imbalance in bargaining power and marketing information for dairy farmers through the code and particularly through its dispute resolution mechanism and other means where suitable. 12:14 Senator ANNING 273829 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator ANNING 273829 Katter's Australian Party will, of course, be supporting this motion. Any action that helps the dairy industry has our full support. The dairy industry in Australia has been gutted in recent years as a result of deregulation, which has simply stolen wealth from farmers and handed it to giant transnational corporations. The motion is entirely correct in saying that this has led to a gross imbalance in bargaining power between farmers and those to whom they sell their products. The only solution to the crisis facing the dairy industry is to return to a statutory marketing board that allows farmers to collectively bargain on the sale of their products. Just as employees have the right to join a union to collectively bargain on the sale of their labour, farmers need to be given the right to form organisations such as co-ops to collectively bargain on the sale of their goods. The only long-term cure for the problem facing the dairy industry is legislation to allow us to return to orderly marketing. 12:15 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Labor will not be supporting Senator Hanson's motion. Whilst there are many points Labor could provide strong support for, sadly there are other points that have an eye more to an election, rather than to assisting farmers. Labor also condemns the Morrison government for its lack of action in relation to the ACCC report. Labor has been working closely with the dairy industry. In October we will be holding a roundtable with representatives across the supply chain in Queensland to discuss key issues and challenges facing the industry. 12:16 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator RICE 155410 The Greens will be supporting this motion today, but I did want to put on the record a clarification of our position on regulation. We support regulation around the way that processors set prices, including with the prevention of unfair contracts, but we do not see that that necessarily means the government's setting the price per litre of milk or kilogram of milk solids. But, clearly, some regulation is necessary. We absolutely are also in favour of support for drought-stricken farmers and support of the extension of the Farm Household Allowance from three years to four, which went through this place a few weeks ago, and we entirely endorse the ACCC's recommendations and hope that the minister's now stated intention of introducing a mandatory code of conduct is indicative that the government will be moving to implement the ACCC recommendations. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 1049 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:18]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 13 AYES Anning, F Di Natale, R Faruqi, M Griff, S Hanson, P (teller) Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Patrick, RL Rice, J Siewert, R Steele-John, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 35 NOES Bernardi, C Bilyk, CL Brockman, S Bushby, DC Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Dodson, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Hume, J Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Lines, S Marshall, GM Martin, S.L McCarthy, M McKenzie, B Molan, AJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Paterson, J Payne, MA Polley, H Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Singh, LM Smith, DA Smith, DPB Stoker, AJ Urquhart, AE (teller) 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 International Day of Democracy 31 12:20 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) 15 September 2018 is International Day of Democracy, (ii) Australia's democracy faces systemic challenges in the corrupting influence of political donations and the under-representation of minorities in decision-making positions, and (iii) Australia's Parliament does not reflect the composition of the Australian population in terms of gender or cultural diversity; and (b) calls on the Federal Government to: (i) ban corporate donations from industries with a history of undue influence in Australia's Parliament, such as mining, development, tobacco, alcohol and gambling, (ii) withdraw proposed electoral funding legislation that restricts the ability of civil society to advocate in the public interest, (iii) take measures to increase the participation of women and people from minority backgrounds in Australia's political systems, and (iv) urgently establish a national anti-corruption body with investigative powers to address parliamentary and ministerial misconduct. 12:20 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 This is just another hypocritical example of the Greens claiming they oppose corporate donations, having already accepted a $1.6 million corporate donation, one of the biggest in Australia's political history. The Greens were even happy to accept half a million dollars from a professional gambler, one of a secret group called the Punters Club being investigated by the Australian Taxation Office for fraud. Labor believe in genuine electoral reform. That's why we have moved to ban foreign donations from our political system, that is why we have moved to protect civil society from the government's regulation overreach, and that is why we oppose the Greens' virtue signalling on this issue. 12:21 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I seek leave to make a 10-second clarification. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator WATERS 192970 I will just note that neither of those contributions that were mentioned by the senator were made by corporations, so he is, in fact, factually incorrect and we stand by the motion. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 1057 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:23]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 11 AYES Di Natale, R Faruqi, M Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Patrick, RL Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 38 NOES Anning, F Bernardi, C Bilyk, CL Brockman, S Bushby, DC Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Dodson, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Gichuhi, LM Hanson, P Hinch, D Hume, J Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Leyonhjelm, DE Lines, S Marshall, GM Martin, S.L McCarthy, M McKenzie, B Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Paterson, J Pratt, LC Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Singh, LM Smith, DA Smith, DPB Stoker, AJ Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Australian Football League Women's Competition 32 12:25 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria Before I move this motion, I seek leave to amend the motion to add the name of Senator Farrell. Leave is granted. Senator HINCH 2O4 I, and also on behalf of Senator Farrell, move: That the Senate— (a) notes: (i) the success of the AFL Women's (AFLW) competition during its first two seasons, (ii) the successful expansion of the AFLW competition to include 10 teams from all over Australia, (iii) that, under the changes being introduced to the AFLW 2019 season, not every team will have an opportunity to play each other, and (iv) the critique by Melbourne captain, Ms Daisy Pearce, that the competition risks becoming "gimmicky" if the length of the season does not allow for teams to play each another at least once; and (b) encourages: (i) the AFL to increase the number of AFLW rounds from 7 to 10 in 2019, enabling each team to play each other, as promoted by football legend Mr Kevin Sheedy, and (ii) the Federal Government to work with community and commercial organisations to promote women in professional sport. 12:26 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia I just seek leave to insert the word 'biological' before 'women' in this motion. Leave not granted. 12:26 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The success of the AFL Women's and other elite women's sporting competitions has inspired a wave of female grassroots sport participation. Highly visible female sporting role models are inspiring Australian women and girls to take part in sport, enjoy its benefits and pursue their sporting dreams. Labor believes that we need to build on the growth in women's sport that Australia is currently experiencing, so we support this motion. I'd also point out that it's become obvious through other issues in the public domain that the government has a hotline to Gillon McLachlan, the AFL CEO, and I'd encourage them to pick up the phone and demand a better deal for AFL Women's. 12:27 Senator HINCH 2O4 Victoria I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator HINCH 2O4 I just want to make two quick points. First, I've been coerced, and I'm now a very proud member of the AFLW Bulldogs team—a member not a player! Second, I'd like to say that this motion was inspired by the great player and coach Kevin Sheedy. Question agreed to. Palestinian Liberation Organization 33 12:27 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1054 standing in my name for today relating to the Palestinian Liberation Organization be taken as a formal motion. The PRESIDENT I0Q Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal? An honourable senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q There is an objection. Bureau of Meteorology 33 12:28 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I wish to inform the chamber that Senators Whish-Wilson, Bilyk, Brown, Polley, Singh and Urquhart will also be sponsoring the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Whish-Wilson, Bilyk, Brown, Polley, Singh and Urquhart, move: That the Senate— (a) notes: (i) that the Bureau of Meteorology intends to replace regional weather forecasting teams with a more centralised and automated model operating out of Melbourne and Brisbane, (ii) that with a changing climate and more frequent extreme weather events, Australian regions need accurate localised weather forecasting services now more than ever before, (iii) that this loss of localised weather forecasting and expertise will affect and concern many sectors, including emergency services, agriculture, fisheries and shipping, (iv) for Tasmania, the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) has estimated this move will affect 15 to 20 specialist weather forecasting jobs, (v) that Tasmania's local weather forecasters have provided critical local knowledge to Tasmanian residents, businesses and emergency services during extreme weather events, such as the Hobart floods and Dunalley bushfires, (vi) the United Firefighters Union Tasmania has stated it is "absolutely crucial to have local knowledge" during reduction burns and high fire danger periods, and (vii) the CPSU Tasmanian union, which represents parks and forestry firefighters and the State Emergency Service, has stated it is "stupid and short-sighted" to separate forecasters from crews on the ground; and (b) calls on the Federal Government to ensure the Bureau of Meteorology abandons its plans to centralise forecasting services, and maintain the current levels of jobs, expertise and forecasting services in regional areas. 12:28 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania I seek leave to make a one-minute statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmanians rightly value the services provided by the Bureau of Meteorology. That is why the community concerns at proposed changes by the bureau have been fully acknowledged. The Prime Minister has guaranteed that there will be no job losses, and the bureau is consulting widely to embrace concerns. The bureau has never had any plans to reduce jobs or services in Tasmania. It is working with all stakeholders, including staff, to improve its services to community and increase engagement with users so that its forecasting services remain world-class into the future. While the Greens aspire to maintain services, the government, along with the Tasmanian Liberal Senate team, is looking at enhancing, and value-adding to, the services. Consultations to improve services continue on the basis that no decisions have been taken, jobs are secure, local forecasting will continue and community stakeholders will continue to be consulted with. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that motion No. 1053 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:34]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 32 AYES Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Chisholm, A Collins, JMA Di Natale, R Dodson, P Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Hinch, D Keneally, KK Ketter, CR Kitching, K Marshall, GM McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ Moore, CM O'Neill, DM Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Rice, J Siewert, R Singh, LM Smith, DPB Steele-John, J Storer, TR Urquhart, AE (teller) Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 25 NOES Abetz, E Brockman, S Bushby, DC (teller) Cormann, M Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Fierravanti-Wells, C Fifield, MP Gichuhi, LM Hume, J Macdonald, ID McGrath, J McKenzie, B Molan, AJ Paterson, J Payne, MA Reynolds, L Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scullion, NG Seselja, Z Sinodinos, A Smith, DA Stoker, AJ Williams, JR 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 COMMITTEES 34 COMMITTEES Membership 34 12:36 The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I have received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees. 12:36 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Education and Employment Legislation Committee— Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Waters to replace Senator Faruqi for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Fair Work Amendment (Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Bill 2018 Participating member: Senator Faruqi Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Joint Standing Committee— Appointed—Senator Faruqi National Capital and External Territories—Joint Standing Committee— Appointed—Senator Faruqi Senators' Interests—Standing Committee— Appointed—Senator Faruqi Question agreed to. BILLS 35 BILLS Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Amendment Bill 2018, Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding for Proprietary Companies) Bill 2017 35

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Amendment Bill 2018

Corporations Amendment (Crowd-sourced Funding for Proprietary Companies) Bill 2017

Returned from the House of Representatives 35 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 35 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Social Security (Parenting payment participation requirements - classes of persons) Instrument 2018 (No. 1) 35 Disallowance 35 12:37 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move: That the Social Security (Parenting payment participation requirements – classes of persons) Instrument 2018 (No. 1), made under subsection 500(2) of the Social Security Act 1991, be disallowed [F2018L00238]. This relates to a disallowance on the Social Security (Parenting payment participation requirements—classes of persons) Instrument 2018 (No. 1). This instrument specifies two classes of persons—specifically, the targeted participant and the intensive participant. These two classes of persons correspond with the two program streams—specifically, the targeted stream and the intensive stream—under the national expansion of the ParentsNext program in all non-remote areas of Australia that commenced on 2 July this year. This instrument supports the expansion of the ParentsNext program. This is about the ParentsNext program. This exemption will impact 68,000 parents annually. Approximately 96 per cent of participants will be women, and 10,000 of these women will be First Nations peoples. ParentsNext is a pre-employment, compliance based program for parenting payment recipients with young children—mostly women—with the aim, supposedly, of helping them with their education and training or employment goals. Ultimately, the program is designed to increase the work readiness of parents by the time their youngest child is six and to increase female participation in the workforce. The national expansion of the program follows a trial in 10 locations from 4 April 2016 to 30 June this year. By 31 May this year, 24,109 people had participated in the trial. As I mentioned earlier, this expanded program has two streams. The intensive stream will be operating in the 10 existing trial locations and in 20 additional locations that have a high proportion of First Nations peoples who are receiving the parenting payment. Those who are still participating in the trial of the program at the rollout date will have been transitioned to the intensive stream of the expanded ParentsNext program. The targeted stream will be delivered in jobactive employment regions across the country, except in the locations that the intensive stream will be operating in. In the instrument, two classes of persons are set out for those two streams; for each, it specifies that the parent must: have a child under the age of six, have been receiving the parenting payment for at least six months and have not been receiving income from employment in the last six months. I want you to remember that point about not receiving income for the last six months, because I'll come back to that matter later; it is one of the issues that we have with the program. In addition, for a parent to be within the scope of the intensive stream, they must either be an early school leaver, where their youngest child is at least six months old—inother words, predominantly women, by far, are expected to be participating in this when their youngest child, their baby, is six months old—or be highly disadvantaged, where their youngest child is at least six months old or they have a youngest child aged five years of age. For a parent who was within the scope of the targeted stream, they must also be an early school leaver, where their youngest child is at least one; be highly disadvantaged, where their youngest child is at least three; or be from a jobless family, where their youngest child is at least five or they have a youngest child aged five years of age. In other words, they are trying to capture anybody who is on the parenting payment whose youngest child is aged at least five. Basically, any parent receiving the parenting payment for more than six months without receiving income from employment will be subjected to this program when their youngest child turns five. Many, though, will be subjected to it much earlier, with two of the three additional criteria for the intensive stream requiring parents to commence when their youngest child is six months old—remember that. It's when their baby is six months old. The criteria for the intensive stream participants, which I mentioned above, differ from the criteria used for the trial. Previously, parents receiving the pensioner education supplement in the three months immediately prior to the addition to the parenting payment were not within the scope of the criteria for the trial. The government removed this additional exemption when drafting this instrument that we are discussing today. This is one of the issues that we have with this instrument. This means that those already undertaking education—such as year 12, certificate III or higher education—will be included in the scope of the eligible parents for both streams, even though they are already studying. In other words, even though they are already doing the thing that the government wants them to be doing, they are subjected to this trial. This makes you wonder why the government is including them when they are already studying. There are also limited ways for participants to exit the program, specifically: when their youngest child turns six, if they cease receiving the parenting payment, if they move to a remote area or if they gain stable employment. Notably, taking up study is absent from this list. The definition of 'stable' is questionable, because I know, or I've heard from, people who have employment who are included on this program. If they're in employment, they shouldn't be included in the program; but people are being caught up in the program even when they're working. Those who fall within the classes of persons for the two streams are required to engage with their choice of ParentsNext provider and create a participation plan with this provider that they then must adhere to. Because the participants of the rolled out program are also going to be subject to the targeted new compliance framework, which passed through the Senate earlier and came into effect from 1 July this year, they will receive payment suspensions if they do not meet a requirement—for instance, if they fail to agree to a participation plan, fail to attend an appointment or fail to comply with their participation plan. If they do not have a reasonable excuse for failing to meet a requirement they will receive a demerit point. Once they accrue five demerit points they will be subject to financial penalties for each subsequent demerit point they accrue, up to eight. As of the— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 244247 ( ): It being 12:45, we now move to government business orders of the day. Senator Siewert, you will be in continuation until we get to item 18 on the order of business later this afternoon. BILLS 36 BILLS Education and Other Legislation Amendment (VET Student Loan Debt Separation) Bill 2018, Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2018 36

Education and Other Legislation Amendment (VET Student Loan Debt Separation) Bill 2018

Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2018

Second Reading 36 12:44 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise to contribute to the concurrent debate on the Education and Other Legislation Amendment (VET Student Loan Debt Separation) Bill 2018 and the Student Loans (Overseas Debtors Repayment Levy) Amendment Bill 2018. The VET student loan debt separation bill will amend the VET Student Loans Act and the Higher Education Support Act to establish VET student loans as a separate program under the VET Student Loans Act. The second overseas debtors repayment levy amendment bill will amend the Student Loans (Overseas Debtor Repayment Levy) Act to ensure that arrangements for students with VET student loan debt who are living overseas are updated to reflect the changes in these bills. Labor cautiously supports these bills. While Labor supports increased transparency regarding student loans, this bill reminds us of all the work that needs to be done to ensure that we have a world-class postsecondary education and training system. Tweaking the current system will not deal with the profound systemic problems that we know exist in the VET system; nor will it deal with the inequalities that have grown as student loans have expanded and costs have been shifted onto young people, including apprentices and trainees. This bill reminds us that the coalition government doesn't care enough, or have the capacity, to do the hard work that needs to be done to build a better postsecondary education system. Effective vocational education and skill formation is essential to national economic and social prosperity. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government has ripped more than $3 billion out of TAFE skills and training funding over the past five years and has presided over the fall of more than 140,000 apprenticeships and traineeships. That's a lot of lives interrupted, because of the action of this government. In towns and regional centres across Australia, TAFE campuses have closed, courses have been scaled back and fees have been increased. Nationally there has been a 30 per cent drop in government funded training happening at TAFE since this coalition government came into office. The training regulator ASQA openly recognises that the training market has created what they call 'a race to the bottom', with fast turnaround and poor quality training putting enormous pressure on quality education and training providers like TAFE. VET FEE-HELP turbocharged rorting where profiteering and dishonest private providers targeted students and saddled them with unfair debt. The government sat on its hands while corrupt for-profit trading providers, like Careers Australia, reeled in hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money. The future of TAFE is an issue of great national importance, but this internally riven government consistently washes its hands of it. They have no answers on jobs, no answers on skills, no answers on vocational education and no answers on TAFE. Now more than ever we need a postschool education and training system that works for every Australian. We know that the progress we need isn't being delivered in the system that this government is operating today. In its first 100 days in government, Labor will establish a once-in-a-generation commission of review into postsecondary education. The sweeping inquiry will look at every aspect of the vocational and higher education systems to ensure that they can best respond to the needs of the Australian economy and our society. Labor's commitment to TAFE is unequivocal. TAFE is the backbone of our skills and vocational education sector. Only Labor will get rid of the rorting and guarantee secure and stable funding for TAFE, skills and apprenticeships. Labor has made the committee that at least two-thirds of public funding will go to the TAFE network, with the balance going to not-for-profit community educators, and only high-quality private providers, with demonstrable links to industry. Labor will waive the up-front fees for 100,000 students to attend TAFE and invest $100 million in modernising TAFE facilities around the country. Labor will ensure that at least one in 10 jobs on priority Commonwealth-funded projects are done by an apprentice or a trainee. Labor will provide 10,000 pre-apprenticeships for young people wanting to learn a trade and 20,000 adult apprenticeships for older workers who want to or need to retrain. A government without a plan for education and training has no plan for Australia's future. It's clear that the members of the Morrison government have no plan beyond saving their own jobs. 12:51 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The Education and Other Legislation Amendment (VET Student Loan Debt Separation) Bill 2018 enables the separation of VET student loan debts from other forms of higher education loan program debts. This bill also enables a clearer and more effective transition of approved courses eligible for VET student loans. Vocational education and training is central to Australia's economic prosperity and employment outcomes for students. For the benefit of senators, I would like to outline how these changes will improve our system for students, employers and policymakers. Income contingent loans in VET help achieve this prosperity by assisting students to access higher-level VET qualifications. The government supports income contingent loans. Without them, students would miss out if they could not afford to pay full tuition fees to undertake high-level VET qualifications. The VET Student Loans program provides capped income contingent loans to students undertaking higher-level VET qualification. With over a year of the program being in force, it is clear that it is meeting its objectives. Completion rates are up and the course list is successfully balancing industry needs, employment outcomes and student choice. This is imperative if Australia's economy is going to have the skills sector that reacts to demand and an education system that fulfils the promises of employment to students. The capping of loans to $5,000, $10,000 and $15,000, with the exception of aviation courses, given their high cost of delivery, has limited the excessive price gouging experienced under VET FEE-HELP. In addition, payments in arrears and student progression requirements are ensuring that loan amounts are being paid for genuine students, putting an end to unacceptable enrolment practices in the now closed VET FEE-HELP scheme. With these measures successfully achieving their objectives, this bill will better measure the program's fiscal sustainability. There is currently limited capacity to measure the sustainability of the VET Student Loans program, because debtor HELP repayments are not disaggregated by loan type. Irrespective of whether the debt applies to a HECS-HELP, FEE-HELP, SA-HELP, OS-HELP, historical VET FEE-HELP, or VET student loans assistance, loan repayments are made towards a single aggregated HELP debt. This means the government cannot accurately determine what proportion of which form of HELP assistance paid by the government has been repaid by debtors. Similarly, where a HELP debt is not being repaid, it is not possible to identify the form of HELP assistance the debt relates to. This bill will separate VET student loan debts from other forms HELP debts, providing greater transparency of repayment rates for VET students and better information to inform policy decisions and the public. This information will be vital to delivering a responsive skills education system for students and employers. From 1 July 2019, individuals who incur a VET student loan debt will access a separate statement of account for their VET student loan debt. From 1 July 2020, the individual's notice of assessment will display VET student loan repayment details. This bill will enable more timely, transparent and accurate reporting on the financial sustainability of the VET Student Loans program and support greater public accountability of the program. The repayment thresholds, repayment rates, renewable HELP balance and indexation with respect to VET student loan debts will be the same as the repayment thresholds, repayment rates, renewable HELP balance and indexation for HELP debts. A person must start repaying a debt in relation to a VET student loan once they have finished repaying any HELP debts. Consistent with existing arrangements for HELP debts, persons residing overseas who have a VET student loan debt will be required to make repayments with respect to those debts. A key feature of the success of the VET Student Loans program is the course list—the VET Student Loans (Courses and Loan Caps) Determination 2016. This bill also enables better continuity and more flexibility in delivering approved courses for VET student loan providers—providers who have proven their quality through a rigorous application process. Loans are only available for courses on the course list. This list ensures students are only incurring a debt for courses that have a high national priority, meet industry needs, contribute to addressing skills shortages and align with strong employment outcomes. The list is updated twice yearly. Courses are specified by reference to their course code. If a course becomes superseded or noncurrent, or if a course is reaccredited, students cannot be approved for loans to undertake the new version of the course until the course list is updated. Each time the list is updated, a number of courses are replaced by the superseding or reaccredited version. The bill lays the groundwork for the course list to refer to the National Register as defined in section 3 of the National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011. The National Register is the authoritative information source on nationally recognised VET courses and training packages and their status. By enabling the course list to refer to the National Register, students will be able to be approved for a loan when a course on the list is replaced without having to wait months for the list to be updated. It is not possible to include anticipated replacement courses on the list. We considered alternatives before coming to the conclusion that referring to the National Register is the best approach. The VET system is dynamic. A key feature is the capacity to provide nationally recognised training to build skills across almost every industry and sector in the Australian economy through over 2,000 courses. Qualifications developed under training packages are reviewed by industry on a regular basis, with the Australian Industry and Skills Committee meeting six times a year to consider course updates. A qualification only gets a course code once it is included in the National Register. The accreditation of accredited courses is considered by the relevant VET regulator. The regulator can determine to extend the currency of a course until the accreditation of the course is reviewed and approved. Reaccredited courses are assigned course codes once approved and put on the National Register. It is not possible for the course list to predict what courses will be considered and approved by the Australian Industry and Skills Committee or VET regulators in advance; nor will those courses be allocated a course code until they are approved. Updating the course list to refer to the latest version of the course on the National Register won't open up the course list and doesn't change the methodology for adding courses to the list. It just ensures that students are not disadvantaged when a course is replaced. The National Register already has clear linkages between current and superseded or expired training package courses. This ensures that students will only be able to access loans for courses that supersede training package courses on the National Register. We are working to make further changes to the National Register to ensure the accreditation of accredited courses is also clearly indicated on the National Register. These changes are expected to be made before the determination is updated to refer to the National Register. The integrity of the VET Student Loans program will not be compromised. In addition, I would like to clarify some points that have been raised in relation to this bill. The Senate committee has reviewed the bill and found that it should be passed, with some comments made by the Greens and Labor. In reference to the comments made, the committee found that, while questions around policy differences relating to different forms of higher level education are worth examining, the committee has not received enough evidence to support the changes these submitters advocate. In addition to this, the committee saw many wide-ranging views provided to it in relation to the broader education policy, including that there should be a wholesale overhaul of the system. However, the committee believed that such suggestions were outside the scope of the committee's inquiry. Finally and importantly, the committee found that, if enacted, the bills will ensure that both policymakers and students have access to more accurate information to help inform future decisions. The committee concluded that improved accountability and fiscal sustainability are worth pursuing, and it therefore supports the bills in their entirety. I would also like to quickly note that changes were made to the bill in the House earlier, which I will clarify for senators. Parliamentary amendments made by the House to the Education and Other Legislation Amendment (VET Student Loan Debt Separation) Bill provided for a renewable HELP balance so that VET student loan debtors' repayments, both voluntary and compulsory, will offset their HELP balance. This will apply from 2020 for repayments made after the 2019-20 financial year. These amendments are consistent with parliamentary amendments to the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Act 2018. The parliament amendments also include minor technical amendments, some that are consequential to the enactment of the Higher Education Support Legislation Amendment (Student Loan Sustainability) Act 2018. The others are related to the rounding down of amounts at certain steps of the calculation of a person's accumulated VET student loan debt. The amendments relating to the rounding down of amounts ensure that the Australian Taxation Office, which deals with the collection and repayment of student debts, has absolute consistency with the existing arrangements for HELP debts under HESA. The former Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills, the Hon. Karen Andrews MP, tabled a correction and addendum to the explanatory memorandum for the VET student loan debt separation bill in the House, which responds to the Senate's Scrutiny of Bills Committee's request for more information on a provision in the VET student loan debt separation bill that applies an offence of absolute liability. As I've discussed, targeting access to higher-level VET qualifications that industry needs and that are associated with strong employment outcomes is the key objective of the VET student loan program. I commend the bill. Question agreed to. Bills read a second time. Third Reading 39 13:01 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 244247 As no amendments to the bills have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bills be considered in Committee of the Whole. 13:01 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That these bills be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2018 39

Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2018

Second Reading 39 13:01 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales The Customs Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2018 contains a number of small amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995. Labor will support this bill. These changes will: support businesses, including Australia's agricultural industry; ensure ongoing relations with Indonesia; and clarify the framework relating to tariffs. It has taken the out-of-touch Turnbull-Morrison government much longer than anticipated to implement these changes. Some of these commitments were first announced by the former Prime Minister and the President of the Republic of Indonesia on 26 February 2017, before being reannounced on 20 September 2017. Labor believe that any free trade agreement that Australia reaches with Indonesia should be in the best interest of Australian businesses, consumers and local workers. We urge the government to take the utmost due diligence. This bill implements an early outcome of the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. This bill brings forward the removal of customs duties for certain herbicides and pesticides from Indonesia. By bringing the removal of these duties forward, Indonesian pesticides and herbicides used by Australian farmers will be more competitive in the Australian market, offering greater choice to consumers. However, I urge the government to monitor any impacts of the removal of these duties, including ensuring that illegal or counterfeit pesticide products do not enter Australia. The bill simplifies import reporting requirements for medicaments and placebos imported for use in clinical trials, with the aim to promote Australia as a destination for international clinical trials. The financial impacts of the bill before the house are minimal: a total of $3 million over the forward estimates period, with zero financial impact from the 2020-21 financial year onwards. Following these commitments from Australia, the Indonesian government has agreed to reduce customs duties on Australian sugar exports in return. I am pleased that Indonesia's agreement has been welcomed by Australian sugarcane growers. Australia is the second-largest raw sugar exporter in the world, with countries in Asia, such as South Korea, Indonesia, Japan and Malaysia, being some of the most important markets to which we export. The value of sugarcane production is worth $2.5 billion. Hopefully, these tariff changes that Indonesia has committed to will allow for further exports and for growth in revenue for an industry which is vital to Australia's economy. Whilst it may take some time to see the economic benefits of Indonesia's tariff reduction, Labor welcomes the Indonesians' commitment because it means opportunities for Australian sugarcane growers. Labor will always hold the current government to account to ensure the complex and important tariff framework is clear and is functional. I urge the Liberal government to continue to work with their Indonesian counterparts to ensure the best possible trading environment for Australian businesses and consumers. 13:05 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I commend the Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2018 to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 40 13:05 Senator KETTER 244247 Queensland No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Does any senator require a Committee of the Whole stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading. 13:05 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Social Services Legislation Amendment (Student Reform) Bill 2018 40

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Student Reform) Bill 2018

Second Reading 40 13:06 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Student Reform) Bill 2018 will expand access to youth allowance for regional and remote students who move away from home to study. We know that young people in regional Australia are half as likely to have completed a university degree when compared with their urban counterparts. It was a Labor government that introduced the youth allowance regional workforce independence criteria in 2011 as part of our reforms to increase the number of regional students attending university, and we certainly don't need a study to tell us that rural and remote students face extra and sizeable hurdles in undertaking post-secondary education. The 2017 Universities Australia student finances survey showed that a larger proportion of regional students were experiencing a shortfall between their income and their expenses. Shockingly, it found that almost one in five regional students were regularly going without food or necessities because they couldn't afford them. Many students from regional and remote areas have had to defer studies because they've been unable to continue. According to Universities Australia, under Labor's policies there was an increase in regional and remote undergraduate enrolments of nearly 50 per cent between 2008 and 2016. Regional and remote families won't forget the government's cuts to regional universities and they also won't forget the government's attempt to unleash cuts on regional students—attempts to cut the energy supplement and cuts to Centrelink that have led to long wait times for student payments. But this is the reality for students under this government: cuts to universities, attacks on youth allowance and longer payment and Centrelink wait times. 13:07 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The Social Services Legislation Amendment (Student Reform) Bill 2018 introduces changes to improve access to youth allowance for regional, rural and remote students who have moved away from home to study. It will also make technical amendments regarding approved courses for student payments. Schedule 1 of the bill will increase access to youth allowance for regional students who have to move away from home to study. The measures are part of a package of measures announced in the 2018-19 budget that respond to the independent review of regional, rural and remote education. The independent review, carried out by Emeritus Professor John Halsey, identified that young people in regional Australia are half as likely as their city counterparts to have completed a university degree. The review conducted consultations across Australia with educational authorities, peak bodies, schools and communities and received over 300 submissions. The youth allowance regional workforce independence criteria aim to address the lower participation rates of regional students in tertiary education. They are intended to make it easier for students from regional, rural and remote areas to qualify as independent for youth allowance purposes. When students are regarded as independent, their youth allowance payment is no longer reduced by parental income testing. Regional students can qualify as independent under these criteria if they demonstrate that they are financially self-supporting through paid employment. When it was first introduced in 2011, these criteria required that students prove their independence by showing that they had either been working part time for 15 hours every week over a period of two years since they had last left school or been self-supporting for a period of at least 18 months since they had last finished school by earning at least the equivalent of 75 per cent of wage level A of the national training wage schedule included in a modern award. The requirement that students engage in employment over an 18-month period after they've finished school meant that many students were deferring their university studies for two years. In 2016, the government announced it would reduce the 18-month self-supporting period to a 14-month period. This means that students can now satisfy the independence criteria by taking a single gap year rather than having to take two gap years. This reduction responded to evidence that, the longer students are disengaged from study, the more likely they are not to recommence study. To be assessed as independent under the current criteria, students are required to live away from home to undertake full-time study; their combined parental income must be less than $150,000 a year; and a student's family home must be characterised under the remoteness structure as 'inner regional Australia', 'outer regional Australia', 'remote Australia', 'very remote Australia' or on 'Norfolk Island'. The $150,000 parental income threshold was set in 2011 and has remained at $150,000 since its introduction. This threshold is the same, regardless of family size. This doesn't reflect increasing wages or the extra costs associated with raising a larger family. The criteria aim to support regional students, but, due to the normal effects of income growth, fewer families fall under the $150,000 threshold. To address this decline, the bill will increase the threshold from $150,000 to $160,000. In addition, it will introduce a $10,000 per child increase in the parental income cut-off for larger families. It means that, for the average two-child family, the parental income threshold for the youth allowance regional workforce independence criteria will be $170,000, which is a significant increase on $150,000. This improvement will commence from 1 January 2019. This bill means that more regional students will get more youth allowance in their pockets because students who qualify as independent for youth allowance will not have to have their payments reduced by parental income testing. In addition, feedback from some students has indicated that when they finish school their parental income may be under the threshold, but, by the time they have completed their self-supporting period, their parental income may have increased, therefore preventing them from qualifying as independent. This bill will provide certainty for these students. It contains a provision so that the parental income threshold can be applied to income in the year that precedes the self-supporting period. This means that students who had parental income that was under the threshold at the beginning of the 14-month self-supporting period will be able to use this income assessment when applying for independent status. That way students will know before they decide to take a gap year whether their parental income will be under the threshold. The bill will provide greater access to youth allowance for regional students. It is expected that the number of students who qualify for youth allowance under these criteria will increase by 75 per cent or about 2,300 individuals. As well as improving access to youth allowance, the schedule also makes some technical amendments to the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to address minor legislative anomalies related to the youth allowance maintenance income test reconciliation process and the calculation of the maintenance income test reducibility amount. Schedule 2 of the bill makes a minor amendment to strengthen the rules relating to courses approved for student payments. This amendment is technical in nature and reflects current arrangements for the payments. The schedule will broaden the legislative instrument-making power for the Student Assistance (Education Institutions and Courses) Determination 2009 (No.2) into the Social Security Act 1991. This will better allow student payment recipients undertaking courses that lose approval for student payments, including master courses, to remain approved in specified circumstances. In summary, this bill allows for the implementation of measures that will help students from regional, rural and remote Australia who must move from home to study. In addition, this bill ensures recipients of student payments, including Abstudy, who are subject to the maintenance income test receive their proper entitlements. I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 42 13:13 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bills be considered in Committee of the Whole. 13:14 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2018 42

Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2018

Second Reading 42 13:14 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise to make a contribution in this debate on the Veterans' Entitlement Amendment Bill 2018. This bill seeks to re-insert an element, inadvertently removed in 1996, that deals with the provision of bereavement payments and recovery of an overpayment to the surviving partner. When a veteran passes away, the surviving partner is entitled to a bereavement payment, which is made up of 14 weeks of the partner's income support payment. This payment is to assist the individual with costs following the death of a partner and provide a period of time for the surviving partner to adjust their finances. However, during this time it is not uncommon for there to be a delay in advising the department of the death of the veteran, which results in an overpayment to the partner. In these circumstances, rather than send an overpayment notice, DVA instead deducts the overpayment from the bereavement payment account. This is consistent with similar processes of the Department of Social Services. While DVA has the legal authority to provide bereavement payments and the legal authority to recover the income support pensions paid to veterans after their death, the amendment in this schedule will confirm this authority and streamline the administrative process. Bereavement payments, and the way in which overpayments are recovered, are compassionate processes that have the support of the Alliance of Defence Service Organisations and their member organisations, the War Widows' Guild and Partners of Veterans Association of Australia, in particular. As such, Labor offers our support to this bill. 13:16 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I, too, stand to make a contribution on the Veterans' Entitlements Amendment Bill 2018. The importance of family cannot be underestimated in the support they provide to both our serving personnel and our veterans. This government is committed to supporting veterans and their families, and this bill will maintain the current practice for veterans' families when a beloved member dies. The current entitlements to bereavement payments are not changing. The government recognises that these are important payments for our veterans' families during this difficult time. The payment is a one-off, non-taxable payment of 98 days, or 14 weeks, of service pension and is paid to the surviving partner. It is designed to assist the surviving partner with costs following the death of their partner and to provide a period in which to adjust their finances following the cessation of the deceased partner's payments. The bereavement payment is paid automatically once the family notifies the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Prior to their death, a veteran may have been receiving an income support pension under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Generally, there is a small period of time after someone has died before the family notifies DVA and this may result in an overpayment of a pension, usually somewhere between $500 and $1,000. The practice when an overpayment occurs is that DVA adjusts this amount from the bereavement payment. For example, if a veteran dies on 7 June 2017 and his pension continues to be paid at the rate of $622.80 per fortnight, including the final payment on 22 June for the period 6 to 19 June, and DVA is advised of the death on 30 June, the veteran was not entitled to $578.31, being the amount paid for 13 days of the final payment period. A bereavement payment is the equivalent of 98 days of the difference between the service pension rates payable to the surviving partner before and after the death of a deceased partner. A service pension totalling $2,935.80 is payable to the partner. The amount of $578.31 is recovered from the bereavement payment, meaning a payment of $2,357.49 is payable from DVA to the partner's account. This ensures that the adjustment is made in a single administrative process rather than through a number of more-formal debt recovery processes. This avoids the need to recover debts from the deceased estate and it avoids disturbing the family during the grieving period. This is a compassionate, sympathetic and unobtrusive response. The bill will provide legislative certainty for past and future recoveries of pension overpayments from bereavement payments and, out of respect to veterans' families mourning their loss, will maintain the current discreet practices. I understand that the Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee wrote to the minister today requesting a response to concerns relating to the retrospectivity of this bill and whether it will adversely affect people. A revised explanatory memorandum is currently being drafted and will be tabled once finalised. I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 43 13:19 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 13:19 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill 2018 43

Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill 2018

Second Reading 43 13:19 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I was just going through a time line of inaction on money laundering or the black economy through real estate. I just wanted to make a point that similar deadlines for action have been set by various governments in this country previously—in 2008, in 2010, in 2012 and in 2014—and all of them have come and gone. There were another six times when the issues that I'm raising here in the Senate have not been acted on by this government. I think I've set out a very comprehensive time line of numerous committees, numerous reports, numerous inquiries and numerous times the parliament's actually looked at this issue but hasn't acted on it. We have a gaping hole in our laws around money laundering. If this parliament is serious about giving law enforcement more powers to crack down on the black economy then we must deal with money laundering through real estate. Gaping holes in this country's laws have allowed money laundering through real estate to reach epidemic proportions. The ANZ's head of financial crime, Guy Boyd, said last year that Australian real estate is: … obviously an attractive destination for capital, both legitimate and illegitimate. I wouldn’t know if it I would call it a haven but certainly it is a place of choice for illegitimate money. There’s been probably a lack of political will and that’s probably been driven by some very vocal opposition from those industry sectors. In other words, it's what we see in here every day: rent seekers and vested interests lobbying to get what they want. I would propose to senators in this chamber and others who are listening that if one of the big four banks is saying that we as a country have got a money laundering problem then we've probably got a money laundering problem. I think they would know better than most. And if one of the big four banks is saying that lobbyists are stopping these laws from being introduced then that's probably true, too, because they would know a thing or two about lobbying. Let's talk about international concerns. Not only are Australia's lax laws a source of local concern, but there's global concern about Australia's inaction on money laundering through real estate. I'd also like to note here in my contribution to this second reading debate that the Financial Action Task Force's 2015 report stated: Australia is seen as an attractive destination for foreign proceeds, particularly corruption-related proceeds flowing into real estate. A 2017 OECD report recommended that Australia address the risk that the real estate sector could be used to launder the proceeds of foreign bribery. Further, Transparency International's 2017 report identified Australia, Canada, the UK and the USA as the top four spots globally for laundering money through real estate and said that, on the indications that they used, Australia was likely the worst, failing to address 10 out of 10 identified legal loopholes. Then there's money logging and the Adelaide Hilton. The Bruno Manser Fund is a Swiss based anticorruption organisation that I have met with. The fund and its executive director, Lukas Straumann, the author of Money Logging, have detailed the horrendous destruction of Borneo's rainforests, the displacement of its Indigenous people and the involvement of the so-called Asia timber mafia in this illegal logging. This is a well-known story globally. Central to this story is the governor of Sarawak, Mr Taib Mahmud, and the ownership of the Adelaide Hilton by Taib's family. Under Taib's governorship nearly 90 per cent of Sarawak's native rainforests have been logged. Despite Taib's modest income as a politician, his family has interests in more than 400 companies in 25 countries around the world, including the Adelaide Hilton, which it acquired in the 1990s and through which it seems it has been able to continue to launder money. But, because we have a gaping hole in our anti-money-laundering laws here in this country, we don't know for sure, and AUSTRAC can't pursue this issue. Nor can it look into the billions more of dirty money that have likely gone into Australian real estate in more recent times. Last year Fairfax reported that Australian real estate agent giant Raine & Horne's offshore arm was involved in a global corruption scandal involving the sale of prime Melbourne property. The scandal centres around the vastly inflated valuation of a 280-room city apartment building, UniLodge, which mostly houses overseas students, on Swanston Street near Melbourne university. Raine & Horne International's Kuala Lumpur office valued the property at $43 million, despite the fact that the building's seller, Australian businessman Lionel Harber, had simultaneously valued it at $23.5 million. Another big issue is China. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that a large part of the recent spike in Chinese investment in Australian real estate and in many other parts of the world is money laundering. This is what has been suggested by the French based Financial Action Task Force. But we wouldn't really know, because Australian authorities have no authority to go chasing this. I reiterate to the Senate chamber: this is a problem that we've known about for 12 years. I've outlined a substantial time line of references to this specific issue by a number of governments, a number of committees, a number of task forces and a number of inquiries over a period of time. When are we going to deal with it? While we support the bill today—as I said earlier, everything we can do, in a holistic fashion, to crack down on this will be a positive—money laundering through real estate is a very serious problem that the government should act upon. I ask the Senate to support the Greens second reading amendment that I have moved. It should have been circulated. Let's get on with tackling the heart of the issue. 13:27 Senator MARTIN 275266 Tasmania The Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill 2018 is an important measure demonstrating this government's commitment to being responsible fiscal managers and ensuring level playing fields for those who are willing to have a go. The measures listed before us address the growing economic and social scourge created by the black economy. This black economy scourge unfairly disadvantages businesses doing the right thing, particularly small businesses across the country and in my home state of Tasmania. This includes family owned businesses that rural and regional communities rely on not just for jobs but also for the provision of products and services which support the community's way of life. How is this fair? Not only does the black economy scourge unfairly impact business and the community in which it sits; the black economy goes further by denying the government tax revenue which could be used to pay down debt created by the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government or spent on upgrading more roads of strategic importance in regional communities or on funding mobile black spot solutions, grassroots sports programs for our kids or training programs for our young people. This is why the government has taken action and is responding to the Black Economy Taskforce interim report. The measures in schedules 1 and 2 of the bill seek to address the black economy scourge. Schedule 1 implements the banning of the manufacture, distribution, possession, sale and use of sales suppression technology. It is an important step in addressing participation in the black economy. Electronic sales suppression technology allows businesses to understate their taxable income and, as such, creates an uneven and unfair playing field for business. It fosters the exploitation of workers, erodes trust in the taxation system and results in loss of government revenue and unwarranted welfare expenses. The schedule creates new offences for the manufacture, distribution, possession, sale and use of electronic sales suppression tools for the purpose of not disclosing business income. These offences are subject to strict liability and heavy penalties to deter the use of such a technology across the entire software supply chain. There is no legitimate reason for these tools. These tools remove transactions from electronic record-keeping systems, they change transactions to reduce the amount of each sale and they can modify GST taxable sales to GST non-taxable sales. In all instances, no audit trail of the changes made exists. Have no doubt that the sole purpose of this technology is to evade tax. The ATO has uncovered instances of this software in operation in Australia, and recent reports from the OECD have highlighted that this software is spreading globally and its use has been identified in a number of jurisdictions, including Canada, USA, Germany and Sweden, many of which have implemented measures to address this risk. In relation to Schedule 2, the non-reporting of income by contractors and the use of technology to understate income are two activities that are targeted in this bill. The deployment of the taxable payments reporting system in the building and construction industry has been successful, both in terms of industry acceptance and revenue outcomes through improved contractor compliance. The expansion of the taxable payments reporting system initiative to contractors in the courier and cleaning industries is expected to yield similar benefits, by ensuring payments made by businesses to contractors in these industries are reported to the Australian Taxation Office. In fact, the measure is estimated to result in a gain in tax receipts of some $132 million over the forward estimates period. From 1 July 2018, businesses in the courier and cleaning industries will be required to give an annual report to the ATO regarding the payments they've made to businesses who provide them with courier or cleaning services. The reporting obligation will apply from the 2018-19 income year, and reports will be required by 28 August 2019. To assist businesses in the courier and cleaning industries to comply with the reporting requirements, the ATO has prepared guidance material. The information reported to the ATO is used for the prefilling of tax returns or activity statements, which should make it easier for contractors to lodge their income tax returns, and for data-matching processes to ensure that contractors comply with their tax obligations, such as correctly lodging their income tax returns and BAS obligations. I think we can all agree that hardworking Australian businesses deserve a level and fair playing field. I support the bill. 13:33 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I rise today to speak in favour of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill 2018. As the chamber is well aware, the Morrison coalition government has been taking decisive action in the fight against the black economy for a number of years now. The black economy, as we know, undermines community trust in the tax system and gives some businesses an unfair competitive advantage. It puts unnecessary and undue pressure on the margins of honest businesses and often includes the exploitation of vulnerable employees through the underpayment of wages and the loss of entitlements. The reforms outlined in the legislation we are speaking about today in this chamber follow recommendations made by the Black Economy Taskforce. The Black Economy Taskforce was put together some months ago. It had very broad consultations and has finally reported to government. It will be followed up with a comprehensive suite of supporting measures which build on a number of existing significant tax integrity measures that have already been outlined by the former Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer MP. She established that task force a long time ago—I think it was back in December 2016—to examine exactly how best to crack down on illegal black economy activity. It was a multi-agency black economy standing task force. It undertook a cross-agency approach to combating the black economy, with more effective exchanges of information to develop increased intelligence, and it was equipped to identify and prosecute the most egregious cases of black economy activity. As the chamber may recall, additional funding was provided to the Australian Taxation Office, the ATO, at the time to expand its data analytics and data-matching capabilities and to allow a much better leveraging of community through the introduction of a hotline. The hotline was for reporting black economy and illegal phoenixing activity. It was a significant breakthrough, that new capability. It was supported by an enhanced enforcement strategy, including mobile strike teams to break up illegal behaviour as it was identified. You may recall, Acting Deputy President McCarthy, that there was a story discussed in the media and also reiterated at the economics estimates committee about how Commissioner Jordan had charged a group from the Black Economy Taskforce to go out and speak to traders at one of the markets in Victoria—it was the Queen Victoria Market, if I remember rightly. It wasn't supposed to be a confrontational experience; it was supposed to be helping some of those traders that tend to be associated with black economy activity. It gave them a heads-up. They said, 'On Thursday there will be members of the ATO coming to help you and talking to you about your businesses and how best you can report to them more transparently, more openly and more accurately.' Interestingly, the story goes that when the members of the ATO, the friendly faces of the Australian tax office, turned up to the market on that day—as prescribed, as warned—it was amazing how many traders were unwell and had their shutters drawn. I think that while it's obvious the black economy is something that's used for egregious purposes it can also be used mistakenly in these cash economies. But it does cost: it costs the taxpayer, businesses and workers millions and millions of dollars every single year. So it's important to tackle it and to tackle it seriously. I'm very proud to be part of a government that has done exactly that. It's not a new problem; a black economy has existed since time immemorial—since taxes began to be charged people have tried to avoid them. But it is important, and this government recognises the importance of not just taxing people but also ensuring that they pay a fair amount of tax—that everybody should pay their fair amount of tax. It is important that this particular issue, the black economy, has been tackled in a very systematic, a very professional and a very thorough manner. The Black Economy Taskforce should be commended for the work that they've done—as should, dare I say it, the former Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Kelly O'Dwyer, who has now moved portfolios to take on issues of industrial relations. But she has certainly left a legacy behind her in this particular space. When we think about the cost of the black economy to the Australian economy as a whole we can only think about what we could spend the money raised in tax revenue on that we are now foregoing because of the existence of the black economy. What could we spend that money on? What could we implement that would benefit the Australian population as a whole if the appropriate amount of tax was paid by those who are currently avoiding it? Things like new hospitals. Things like new energy solutions. What about pension payments? What about putting more drugs on the PBS? There are so many things that we could do, with appropriate amounts of tax paid, in the form of distributions, which is why it is so important. Everybody attending the chamber today knows that they have to pay their taxes at the end of the day. It's part of our civic duty. It's part of our moral duty. To avoid it, to partake in the black economy, denies your fellow man, all other Australians, access to better services and a stronger economy. As you may well recall, the government responded to the Black Economy Taskforce interim report as part of the 2017 budget delivered by then Treasurer Scott Morrison, now Prime Minister Scott Morrison. The government announced the measures to address the growing economic and social problems associated with the black economy, banning the manufacture, distribution, possession, sale and use of sales suppression technology in particular. This is technology that allows businesses to conceal what income it is that they are earning. Remember the old days, when we used to have the system of two books? It's similar to that; it's a technological version of the two books. This bill also extends the taxable payments reporting system to two industries that present tax compliance risks, cleaning and couriers, to ensure that payments made by businesses to contractors in these particular industries are reported to the Australian Taxation Office. This bill that we have before us today delivers on those particular 2017-18 budget decisions. The measures in the bill form only one part of a much broader suite of reforms that the government is progressing through its response to the Black Economy Taskforce final report. The Black Economy Taskforce has been working now for nearly two years to put together its thorough recommendations. I think we should go into a little bit more detail on the first schedule of this legislation. This schedule creates a new offence for the manufacture, distribution, possession, sale and use of electronic sales suppression tools for the purposes of not disclosing business income. There is, it is important to note, no legitimate reason to produce, distribute, possess, sell or use these particular electronic tools. They actively remove transactions from electronic record keeping systems and they change transactions to reduce the amount of each sale. Essentially, it's falsifying records. They can modify things like GST taxable sales to GST non-taxable sales. In all instances, no audit trail of those changes exists. There is no reason to have this particular software or these particular tools unless you are actively avoiding tax. It's not enough to just ban the sale or the use of them; it's also important to ban their manufacture and distribution. The government is introducing a number of offences that are subject to strict liability and very heavy penalties to deter the use of such technology across the software supply chain. Because that technology is used solely for the purposes of tax evasion, the new offences will restore a level of integrity to our tax system. Recent reports from the OECD have highlighted that this particular software is spreading globally. Its use has been identified in a number of jurisdictions, including Canada, the USA, Germany and Sweden. Obviously the black economy is a problem that pervades not only the Australian economy but also the global economy. Many of those countries where this particular software or these electronic suppression tools have originated or proliferated have already implemented measures to address that risk. This legislation simply brings Australia into line with our global counterparts. The ATO has uncovered a considerable number of incidents already where this software has been in operation in Australia. That's schedule 1 of this legislation. Schedule 2 is in respect of third-party reporting. From 1 July this year, businesses in both the courier and cleaning industries will be required to give an annual report to the ATO, the Australian Taxation Office, regarding the payments they make to businesses for them to provide courier and cleaning services. This particular reporting obligation will apply from the 2018-19 income tax year and reports will be required by 28 August 2019. The measure is estimated to result in a gain in tax receipts of $132 million over the forward estimates period—the four years of the forward estimates. That's $132 million. It's a very significant tax revenue increase from one measure alone. Business-to-business payments for courier and cleaning services are within scope. Clearly, these industries have been targeted for black economy activities. Implementation of the tax payments reporting system in the building and construction industry has resulted in improved contractor tax compliance and reporting of income. The government has also decided to extend this reporting system to other high-risk industries. The Australian Taxation Office has prepared significant and detailed guidance material to assist businesses in those sectors, the courier and cleaning industries, to comply with their reporting requirements. The information reported to the ATO is then used for the pre-filling of tax forms or activity statements, which should make it much easier for contractors to lodge their income tax returns and also for data-matching purposes to ensure that contractors comply with their tax obligations, such as correctly lodging their income tax returns and also their BAS obligations. As you can see, the government has acted on the concerns raised by many, many stakeholders that mixed businesses providing those courier or cleaning services may have a disproportionate compliance burden where the provision of those services is merely a small part of the overall activity of the business. The introduction of this threshold test will mean that businesses that receive payments for courier or cleaning services that are less than 10 per cent of the business's overall GST turnover for the reporting period will, in fact, be exempt from the reporting payments they make to contractors commissioned to complete these services. The Commissioner of Taxation, Commissioner Jordan, may, through legislative instrument, amend or alter the threshold test in response to a change in compliance risks or compliance burden identified in these industries. Any alteration to the threshold test would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The Australian Taxation Office will also publish guidance material to assist those businesses providing courier or cleaning services to determine when they need to report. I think you can see, Acting Deputy President, this new approach, which is boosting our capabilities to tackle the black economy, will deliver a targeted, stronger and far more visible enforcement, and it will demonstrate the very, very real consequences of participating in the black economy. There are other aspects of tax reform that have been tackled under the umbrella, I suppose, of the Black Economy Taskforce. One of them which I want to touch on, although it is not necessarily directly pertinent to this piece of legislation, is the new measures that this government has introduced to tackle illicit tobacco. The illicit tobacco market is one of the barnacles of the black economy. It seems to rear its ugly head over and over again. The problem with illicit tobacco is it's inexorably intertwined also with the flow of funds to organised crime syndicates. It's important to tackle it not just for its own sake but also as a crime prevention strategy. The previous Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, Kelly O'Dwyer, put together a new multiagency Illicit Tobacco Taskforce which comprised members of law enforcement, border security agencies and the ATO to deliver a multifaceted approach that leveraged the whole-of-government capabilities and powers to proactively target, disrupt and prosecute organised crime groups at the centre of the illicit tobacco trade. The government has introduced an economy-wide cash payment limit of $10,000 applying to payments made to businesses for goods and services, and that will apply from 1 July 2019. That cash payment limit captures high-value transactions and helps stamp out opportunities for criminals to launder the proceeds of crime into goods and services or for businesses to hide transactions that reduce their tax liabilities. As you can see, there are a number of aspects to tackling the scourge of the black economy: the Black Economy Taskforce and the legislation that we are considering today are just one piece of the puzzle. There is more to do. However, the government thanks the Black Economy Taskforce in particular, which was led by Michael Andrew AO, as well as the stakeholders who participated in that very broad, detailed and thorough consultation process. The aim of the game for the government, of course, in its response to the Black Economy Taskforce's final report, is to improve fairness for businesses to ensure there is a level playing field and to continue to strengthen the integrity of our tax system. Fairness isn't all about everybody paying the same thing and receiving the same thing; fairness is about paying what you owe and not avoiding paying what you owe. As a very proud member of the coalition, I say we should all be very pleased with the work that the previous Minister for Revenue and Financial Services, the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer, has done in this space. It's fantastic to be part of a government that has tackled one of the most difficult issues in our economy, a scourge on our economy, for many decades. 13:53 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales I'll just make a quick contribution to the debate on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Black Economy Taskforce Measures No. 1) Bill 2018. I always say that life's about fairness. This bill is about clamping down on tax cheats and the black economy. As you know, Madam Deputy President, there are two certainties in life: death and taxes. I've always been of the opinion that, while ever you've got cash in the country, you'll have tax evasion. If you're handing around $50 notes, $20 notes—whatever—and paying people by cash, of course people avoid tax. However, when they do spend it, at least the GST is paid and the states will benefit from that. But this bill is about the saving of $132 million over the forward estimates—perhaps not a lot of money in the face of a $450 billion budget, but every bit helps. It is about fairness. As Senator Hume said, everyone paying their fair share of tax, their proper share of tax as they should pay, is fair. If they don't pay those taxes, of course, as you go right across the black economy, it leaves a hole in the budget. What happens then? Government debt grows. They've got to cut spending, and those important finances provided by the taxpayer, via the government, are for aged-care facilities, for our defence, for our child support, for our day-care support, supporting working mums and dads—in most cases working mums—and the many, many services that are provided out of Canberra right throughout our nation and of course overseas. So, the more that is cheated, the less that can be done and the more the budget is under pressure. We all know in this place that the budget has to come back to the black. We can't go on borrowing for ages. We should have had it back in the black a lot earlier, but the Senate blocked many of those savings. If we'd listened to those opposite, Mr Wayne Swan, the Treasurer for the Labor government, was going to have it in the black well and truly by now. Of course, black print is something you rarely ever see at the bottom of a Labor government's budget. Getting the budget back in the black is most important, and every bit contributes, whether it be increasing revenue through catching the tax cheats, cutting spending or, as we have done, growing the economy, growing the GDP, hence growing the tax take for Canberra. As we head towards $560 billion of gross debt, of course that does include the HECS debt. What's the HECS debt? Forty-odd billion dollars? Amazing. When I went to university, you either paid your way or you got a scholarship. I was lucky to get a scholarship, but I didn't stay for long in tertiary education, because I thought I'd spent enough of my life with my nose in a book and I didn't really want to spend much more, so it was back to the bush, shearing sheep, driving trucks and farming, which I thoroughly enjoyed—perhaps another mistake I made in my life! The more you cheat the tax system, the more others have to fill the gap, the others being the honest taxpayers, the honest businesses, the PAYG workers—the working Australians who are paying their tax. So, as I said, whenever you have cash in a society, you always have a form of tax cheating. That is just a fact of life. There are plenty of examples. A pensioner may have a tradie come in to fix their lights—to do some electrical work, to do some building, or to fix something. Of course, the $50 notes come out. Does that tradie declare it? Of course he or she doesn't. But when they hand the money to their wife or to whoever, or when they spend it themselves, that's when it comes back to Canberra in the form of GST, which is handed to the states, also increasing the profits of those businesses where they've spent it, whether it be a holiday resort or a motel, or down at the pub or at the bottle shop or wherever. Those businesses are then paying tax, so it does eventually come back here. But to allow people to simply get away with tax evasion is not fair. It is not right. This bill—which I know my colleague Senator Seselja will have more to say about in his summary—is about catching the tax cheats and stopping the black market and the black economy. It's about seeing that the money does come into Canberra and is distributed properly throughout Australia, providing services, and that it is distributed to the states and even to local government. Through the financial assistance grants and the Road to Recovery grants, money goes out of Canberra to our local governments—vital money, I might add, especially for fixing our roads. All sides of governments for many years now have continued these grants. I know John Anderson played a big part in getting those policies in place, and I'm glad to see they've been continued. Money is going out to regional areas to help fix roads. Many of us still drive on dirt roads. I know that, to those in the cities, dirt roads are something strange. However, this bill will help close the gap. It will bring fairness across the tax system that will see the people who make money pay their fair share of tax—as they should—and then Canberra can carry out its services and do what it has to do in respect of governing Australia. I commend the legislation. As I said, Senator Seselja will have more to say in his winding-up remarks on this bill. Let's hope this bill does pass. I see no reason why those opposite would oppose it. Senator Marshall, I'm sure you won't be opposing it. Senator Marshall 00AOP I'll have to take advice on that! Senator WILLIAMS I0V I can see that by your reaction! I commend the bill and look forward to it getting passed with support around the chamber. 13:59 Senator SESELJA HZE Australian Capital Territory Firstly, I'd like to thank those senators who have contributed to this debate. These measures are about addressing the growing economic and social problem of the black economy, as established in the Black Economy Taskforce's interim report as part of the 2017-18 budget. The black economy undermines community trust in the tax system. It gives some businesses an unfair competitive advantage, puts pressure on the margins of honest businesses and often includes the exploitation of vulnerable employees through the underpayment of wages and the loss of entitlements. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Seselja, you will be in continuation when debate resumes. It being 14:00, the debate is interrupted. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 49 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Liberal Party Leadership 49 14:00 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. I refer to former Prime Minister Turnbull, who, this morning, tweeted from New York, and I quote: 'The point I have made to Scott Morrison and other colleagues is that given the uncertainty around Peter Dutton’s eligibility, acknowledged by the Solicitor-General, he should be referred to the High Court, as Barnaby was, to clarify the matter.' Is the former Prime Minister correct? 14:00 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank Senator Farrell for that question. There is no uncertainty and, indeed, the House of Representatives was asked to vote on the matter and the former Prime Minister voted against such a referral. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Farrell, a supplementary question? 14:01 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Yes, I do have a supplementary question, Mr President. In this morning's Age newspaper, it's reported that former Prime Minister Turnbull has, and I quote: 'told his former colleagues, they should cross the floor of the House and vote with Labor to force a referral'. How many of his party room members does Prime Minister Morrison fear will follow the lead of the Prime Minister in exile? 14:01 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Firstly, I refer the honourable senator to my answer to his first question. I would also again remind Senator Farrell that the former Prime Minister voted against Labor's motion seeking to secure this sort of referral. It's, of course, up to the Labor Party in the House of Representatives to do whatever they want to do. It's up to the Labor Party. This was and would be an entirely partisan political attack. There's no legal basis on which to pursue this. There's no legal basis on which to pursue it. There's no uncertainty. The legal advice is very clear, and I refer you in particular to the Solicitor-General's advice, which states: 'Section 44(v) … applies only where there is an "agreement with the Public Service of the Commonwealth".' And in his opinion there is 'no agreement in which Mr Dutton could have an indirect pecuniary interest by virtue of his status as a beneficiary of the RHT Family Trust'. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Farrell, a final supplementary question? 14:02 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I do have a further supplementary question. This morning, former Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Julie Bishop, declared, and I quote: 'If there's a vote … I'll make my mind up at that time'. When will Prime Minister Morrison accept the advice of the Prime Minister in exile and refer Minister Dutton to the High Court to remove any doubt about his eligibility and the validity of decisions he is making? 14:03 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Again, the position of the government is very clear. What Senator Farrell is pointing to here is one of the great differences between the Liberal and National parties and the Labor Party. In the Labor Party, if somebody pulls out of line they get kicked out. But, of course, in the Liberal and National parties, we have freedom. We have a conscience. Backbenchers have got freedom— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left! Senator CORMANN HDA Of course, every member of the Liberal and National parties is, of course, free to make a judgement on every vote. The member for Curtin was just stating the obvious. Senator Kim Carr interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Carr! Senator CORMANN HDA As a conscientious member of parliament, she makes the judgement. The member for Curtin was just making a statement of the obvious, and that is that, as a member of parliament, she makes a judgement, prior to every vote, on how she votes. Employment 50 14:04 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations, Senator Payne. Senator Cameron interjecting— Senator Reynolds interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Cameron and Senator Reynolds. Order during questions so that I may hear them, as well as all of you. Senator BUSHBY HLL Can the minister update the Senate about the coalition government's progress in delivering jobs for the Australian people? 14:04 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Bushby for his question. I am very pleased to report to the Senate that more Australians are now in work than ever before, over 1.1 million jobs having been created since the government came to office in 2013. What the latest jobs figures released today by the ABS underscore is the strength and resilience of the Australian labour market. Seasonally adjusted employment surged by 44,000 in August 2018, exceeding market expectations, to stand at a record high. Importantly, full-time employment also increased strongly, by 33,700, over the month to stand at a record high of more than 8.6 million and is now an impressive 202,100, or 2.4 per cent, higher than it was a year ago. Encouragingly, female full-time employment rose by 12,500 in August and has increased by 78,600, or 2½ per cent, over the last year. As the Minister for Jobs and Industrial Relations, Minister O'Dwyer, said earlier today, the government has put in place the right policy settings, which continue to pay dividends. We welcome these strong full-time jobs figures which reflect the fact that the government's strong economic policy stance is working. There is always more work to do, but, most importantly, the government is delivering for Australians, Australian business is delivering jobs for Australians and the government's economic direction is the right direction. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Bushby, a supplementary question. 14:06 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania Can the minister also advise how the government is continuing to support further job creation by encouraging business to grow? 14:06 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales The government knows that the less a business pays in tax the more it is able to hire new staff and expand its operations. We have cut taxes for 3.3 million businesses in Australia to the lowest level in 50 years—these are businesses which employ around 6.8 million Australians—and that rate will be reduced even further by 2026-27. Those opposite will increase taxes on around one million small businesses who, in turn, employ millions of Australians, damaging their ability to hire more staff, to pay more voyages, to invest and to grow. As I mentioned yesterday, the government has also delivered an extension to the $20,000 instant asset write off for a further 12 months. It is a very popular initiative. It's been a great success. It's extension is strongly welcomed by the more than three million small businesses eligible to access it. That is all part of the government's plan for a stronger economy. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Bushby, a final supplementary question. 14:07 Senator BUSHBY HLL Tasmania Is the minister aware of any risks to continued gains in the economy and the creation of more jobs for Australians? Senator Cameron interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cameron! Senator Cameron interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cameron! You'll stop when I call you to order, Senator Cameron. 14:07 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I am actually aware of a risk; I can certainly hear it. It is those opposite, the Labor Party. The Labor Party would slug workers with higher taxes on their investments, higher taxes on their retirement savings and higher taxes on their houses. They would hike taxes on small business, medium business and family owned businesses. They are so blind to the needs of business. Why? It's because they are completely enthralled by the trade union movement, and by its most militant extremes at that. They refuse to see how those extremes cause untold damage to the Australian economy, to small business and to workers up and down the country, the sorts of workers who are in the jobs that have been announced today. They will put this country on a path to ruin. We have this country on a path to protecting workers, to protecting jobs and to protecting and growing the economy. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 51 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:08 The PRESIDENT I0Q I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of a distinguished member from the parliament of the great state of Victoria, Mr Craig Ondarchie MLC. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 51 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Prime Minister 51 14:09 Senator MARSHALL 00AOP Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. When asked in April whether he was interested in being Prime Minister, then Treasurer Morrison said, 'If an opportunity presents itself.' In an article entitled 'How Morrison played everyone' The Saturday Paper reported: The story of how he replaced Malcolm Turnbull is one of ambition, doublecrossing and outfoxing … When did Prime Minister Morrison first decide that the opportunity had finally presented itself? 14:09 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia This is just a demonstration of the arrogance of the Labor Party. This sort of question indicates that the Labor Party is not interested in the Australian people. The Labor Party is not interested in what is required to ensure that Australians, today and into the future, have the best possible opportunity to get ahead. On this side of the chamber, we, the Liberal and National Party senators, are working to ensure that Australia is as strong as possible—to keep the economy strong, to keep Australians safe and to keep Australians together. Under the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten—who was involved in two leadership coups himself, personally—we're having these people present themselves as holier than thou! As Mr Shorten turned on Mr Rudd, then Mr Shorten turned on Ms Gillard, of course, ably assisted by— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Wong on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU On a point of order: direct relevance. Perhaps the minister would like to remind us of his Turnbull-Dutton-Morrison transition? But the question is: when did the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, first decide that the opportunity had finally presented itself? The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! The minister has a minute and seven remaining. Senator CORMANN HDA On 24 August 2018. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Marshall, a supplementary question. 14:11 Senator MARSHALL 00AOP Victoria Yes, thank you. Former Minister for International Development and the Pacific, Senator Fierravanti-Wells, has said that Prime Minister Morrison and his supporters had been plotting for, and I quote, 'some time'. Is Senator Fierravanti-Wells right? 14:11 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Senator Fierravanti-Wells is a good friend and valued colleague. But let me tell you that our focus on this side of the chamber is on the Australian people. Our focus on this side of the chamber is on making sure Australia is as strong as Australia could possibly be, that we keep the economy strong, that we keep Australians safe and that we keep Australians together. We'll let Labor continue to play insider games here in Canberra; we will focus on the best interests of working families right around Australia. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Marshall, a final supplementary question. 14:12 Senator MARSHALL 00AOP Victoria Senator Fierravanti-Wells believes: … it's important for all aspects and everything that happened during that week to come to the fore. I think it's important for the Australian public to know that. When will Prime Minister Morrison stop telling Australians to 'get over it' and instead explain why Malcolm Turnbull is no longer the Prime Minister? 14:12 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I'm asked about what is important for the Australian people to know. Let me tell you what is important for the Australian people to know: that is, that the Australian government is working to make Australia stronger, to keep the economy strong, to create more jobs, to keep Australians safe, to keep Australians together and to ensure that Bill Shorten never becomes Prime Minister of Australia. International Whaling Commission 52 14:13 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania My question is to the foreign minister, Senator Payne. As I understand it, you're the senior minister overseeing the work of Senator Ruston, who represented Australia at the International Whaling Commission meeting. Minister, there's still intense lobbying and negotiations going on at the IWC meeting in Brazil at the moment. Can you explain why Assistant Minister Ruston has returned from Brazil and is not at these meetings? Is it because you're confident— Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my right! Pause the clock! On my right: I'm asking for silence during questions. Please continue, Senator Whish-Wilson. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Thank you, Mr President. Is it because Australia is confident that we have the numbers so that the overturning of the moratorium banning whaling will not go ahead? Can you please update the chamber on what the situation in Brazil is at the moment in relation to the IWC vote? 14:14 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Whish-Wilson for his question. Australia, obviously and strongly, supports the global moratorium on commercial whaling and we are consistent in opposing any efforts to overturn it. We are consistent in opposing any proposals to weaken the rules for commercial whaling, boating regimes or catch limits for commercial whaling. The assistant minister has more than very ably—in fact, very capably—represented Australia and the Australian government's position in Brazil in her leading of the Australian delegation. She has undertaken bilateral meetings, has delivered an opening statement at the International Whaling Commission and has outlined our resolute support for the global moratorium and has reinforced and emphasised our opposition to any efforts to overturn it. I am advised that, given the progress of the International Whaling Commission, we are confident that the moratorium will be maintained. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Whish-Wilson, a supplementary question? 14:15 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania In the IWC vote on Tuesday this week for the establishment of a whale sanctuary in the Atlantic Ocean, four of the Pacific Island neighbours—Nauru, Kiribati, Tuvalu and Solomon Islands—voted with Japan, and against Australia, in opposing the creation of the sanctuary. Why was the Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific unable to persuade these nations to vote with us, and will they vote to overturn a ban on commercial whaling? 14:15 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I'm tempted to engage in a discussion about questions of sovereignty that are at the base of Senator Whish-Wilson's question, because he knows quite well—or at least he should—that decisions of sovereign nations are decisions for them. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Whish-Wilson, a final supplementary question? 14:16 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Japan has threatened to pull out of the IWC if their motion fails tomorrow. What will the government do if the worst should happen and this occurs? Also, would you be prepared to consider retaliating against Japan by pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement if they should resume full commercial whaling in the Southern Ocean? 14:16 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales As I said in my earlier remarks, we are very confident that the moratorium will be maintained. I am not going to speculate on the sorts of hypotheticals that Senator Whish-Wilson has advanced to the chamber this afternoon. Most importantly, I'd like to record my enormous confidence that Senator Whish-Wilson will never be in charge of Australia's diplomatic engagements. Women in Parliament 53 14:17 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. I refer to the member for Chisholm, Julia Banks, who said yesterday: Only gender quotas will work in politics, not targets, because you cannot tie political office to salary or incentives as you can in business. Does the Prime Minister agree? 14:17 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia No, we don't agree with quotas and we do agree with targets. In the Liberal and National parties we are actually making significant progress—we're making very significant progress. Not only have we preselected Senator Linda Reynolds as No. 1 on the Senate ticket in the great state of Western Australia— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left. Senator McAllister! Senator Wong! Senator CORMANN HDA Not only have we preselected Senator Amanda Stoker, and not only have we reconfirmed Senator Jane Hume—we have preselected her and she is very secure. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong! Senator Keneally! Senator CORMANN HDA And in Tasmania we have preselected the outstanding Claire Chandler in the No. 2 position and Hobart councillor Tanya Denison in the No. 3 position. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Wong! Senator CORMANN HDA Georgina Downer was re-endorsed as the Liberal candidate for the seat of Mayo. Kate Ashmor was preselected as the Liberal candidate for the seat for Macnamara. Susan McDonald was preselected for the No. 2 position on the LNP Senate ticket in Queensland—thumbs up from Senator Canavan and Senator McKenzie. We also have Conargo businesswoman Perin Davey, who was preselected to lead the Nationals ticket in New South Wales. We are getting on with it. We are preselecting outstanding women right across Australia to represent the Liberal and National parties. That's what we're doing. We are working hard to make progress in improving our position, and, of course, we all acknowledge it needs improving. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Before I call Senator Collins, if I can't hear a voice like Senator Cormann's with ears like mine, there are a lot of people in this room who will not be able to hear anything! The noise is out of control. I remind senators of the need to let their colleagues hear both the questions and the answers. Senator Collins. 14:19 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria I ask a supplementary question. I again refer to Ms Banks, who said yesterday: Quotas are not demeaning to women and nor will women will regarded as a 'quota girl'. Senator Abetz has consistently labelled female members and senators 'quota girls', indeed since 2005— Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 You're not allowed to use that. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q I am going interrupt questions if I can't hear them. There were interjections from both sides of the chamber then. Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Does the Prime Minister agree with Ms Banks or with Senator Abetz? 14:20 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia As I have indicated, we well understand that we need to do better in preselecting more outstanding women right around Australia. That's precisely what we're doing. I haven't even been able to go through the whole list. We have also preselected Alice Springs councillor Jacinta Price and former Northern Territory deputy coroner Kathy Ganley as the Country Liberal Party candidates for the seats of Lingiari and Solomon respectively. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, on a point of order. Senator Wong 00AOU The point of order is on direct relevance. The question was: does the Prime Minister agree with Ms Banks, who doesn't believe women will be quota girls, or does he agree with Senator Abetz, who has described women as quota girls? The PRESIDENT I0Q I believe the minister is being directly relevant to the majority of the question that I managed to hear from this chair during interjections on both sides of the chamber. Senator CORMANN HDA As I have said, I have already dealt with the question of quotas in the first answer, and I think my answer was very clear. 14:21 Senator JACINTA COLLINS GB6 Victoria I'll assist the minister with a final supplementary question. With Liberal colleagues like Senator Abetz, who has consistently labelled female members and senators 'quota girls' since 2005—he is on record—is it any wonder Liberal members and senators feel unable to publicly name bullying and intimidation within the Liberal Party? The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Macdonald, on a point of order. Senator Ian Macdonald YW4 It is on language. Yesterday the Deputy President ruled that the words 'quota girls' were not appropriate for this chamber. Senator Collins has mentioned quota girls three or four times in her question, and I wonder if the term 'quota girls' is unparliamentary. The PRESIDENT I0Q I am not familiar with that. I'll review the Hansard and report on Monday. 14:22 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia As I have indicated, we don't support quotas; we do support targets and we do support efforts to do much better. Indeed, if you look at what is happening right around Australia, you can see that outstanding women are being preselected as candidates for the Liberal and National parties to represent us in House of Representatives electorates and in the Senate. I commend all of them to the Australian people, who should support them at the next election. Veterans 54 14:23 Senator ANNING 273829 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. Given the strong support in this place yesterday for my motion calling for the establishment of an Australian military covenant and the fact that this is now an election promise by the opposition, what is the government's view on the establishment of an Australian military covenant? 14:23 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Anning for his question. The Australian government has been working with the ex-service community for some time now with a view to developing an Australian veterans covenant. The proposed covenant aims to recognise the unique nature of military service as well as the role of governments, business and the Australian community in recognising, respecting and valuing the service and sacrifice of our men and women of the Australian Defence Force. This is a very important issue, and it's one which the coalition government believes we must get right not only for veterans and their families but also for the wider Australian community. Our aim is for a covenant to be an enduring legacy embraced by the wider community and by future generations of Australians. We will conclude this significant work in a deliberate, considered and consultative way. There has been a working group from the veteran community, established earlier this year within the existing national consultation structure, which will prepare and endorse the Australian veterans covenant in this final year of the centenary of Anzac. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Anning, a supplementary question. 14:24 Senator ANNING 273829 Queensland As you've indicated your strong support, when does the government intend to enshrine the Australian military covenant in legislation? 14:24 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I would refer Senator Anning to my previous answer, which indicated that this is part of a considered consultation process, and we will prepare and endorse the covenant in this final year of the centenary of Anzac. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Anning, a final supplementary question. 14:25 Senator ANNING 273829 Queensland As part of any military covenant entered into by the government, is the government prepared to recognise that the onus of proof in veterans' disability claims should be reversed? Will it show, at least, the same level of willingness to compensate veterans as Centrelink provides to those seeking welfare? 14:25 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I will take the specifics of Senator Anning's question on notice. The covenant, of course, is continuing in development, as I have advised, but I'll bring those matters to the attention of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Welfare Reform 55 14:25 Senator GICHUHI 270552 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Fifield. Will the minister update the Senate on the cashless debit card trial? How is this government supporting communities with this initiative, including in my state of South Australia? 14:26 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria The government, as colleagues would be aware, is committed to reducing the social harm caused by welfare-fuelled alcohol and drug abuse, and gambling, in areas with high levels of welfare dependency. The cashless debit card program we commenced in Ceduna in South Australia on 15 March 2016, and legislation permits the continuation of the CDC in this site until 30 June 2019. The trial was co-designed with community leaders in Ceduna to best meet local needs. The local member, I should acknowledge—the member for Grey—was vital in getting this card rolled out in Ceduna. Less money being spent on alcohol, drugs and gambling means there is more available to help families pay for the essentials—for food, for clothing and for bills. The effects of alcohol and drug misuse are long-lasting and extensive. Individuals living in families where substance misuse occurs are more likely to come into contact with the criminal justice system, be diagnosed with a mental illness and experience poverty. Since the introduction of the CDC in Ceduna, there has been a decrease in alcohol related hospital presentations, including a 37 per cent reduction in the first quarter of 2017 compared with the first quarter of 2016. Monthly apprehensions under the Public Intoxication Act of South Australia were 54 per cent lower between March 2016 and June 2016 compared with the same period in 2015. The number of people supported by specialist homelessness services in the Ceduna region decreased by 42 per cent in the quarter since implementation of the CDC, and I'm sure these are things that all colleagues would welcome. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gichuhi, a supplementary question. 14:28 Senator GICHUHI 270552 South Australia Can the minister advise the Senate of the status of the other cashless debit card trials and where they are in Australia? 14:28 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria In addition to Ceduna, the CDC has also been operating in the East Kimberley region of WA since 26 April 2016 and the Goldfields region since 26 March 2018. In the current three sites, all working-age welfare recipients are on the CDC program. As at 21 August 2018 there are approximately 5,200 active CDC participants across Australia. I'm pleased to report that earlier this week the government passed, with the support of crossbench colleagues, legislation to expand the CDC trial to Hinkler. I again want to thank crossbench colleagues for their support for this measure and their willingness to listen and respond to the Hinkler community. The Bundaberg and Hervey Bay region was selected as the fourth site for the CDC trial following calls for the card from key stakeholders in the region. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Gichuhi, a final supplementary question. 14:29 Senator GICHUHI 270552 South Australia Can the minister advise the Senate as to how this measure is being received in communities around Australia? Senator McAllister 121628 They don't want it! The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left, before I call the minister. Order! 14:29 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Across all three existing sites, and indeed in the fourth site, there is overwhelming community support. In the Ceduna region, in the senator's state of South Australia, the local mayor, Allan Suter, has said: It is the best initiative I have seen in this field and it has made our community safer, particularly for families and drinkers. With the recent expansion of the CDC, it's fair to say that those opposite have given in to inner-city Green-Left perspectives, and they have withdrawn support for further expansions. This is despite communities in the Goldfields and the Hinkler region calling for the introduction of the CDC as a circuit-breaker to the significant social issues that they're experiencing. This government will continue to listen to local communities. This government will continue to do everything it can to improve the outcomes of people who live in those regions. Live Animal Exports 56 14:30 Senator STORER 275424 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources. Responding to widespread community concern, the Senate this week passed the Animal Export Legislation Amendment (Ending Long-haul Live Sheep Exports) Bill 2018, enabling an orderly transition out of this inhumane trade through the Middle East. Noting that the figures from ABARES in the annual commodity statistics for last year show that the value of exports of processed lamb to the Middle East has risen by 102 per cent over the last five years, while the export of live sheep has fallen by 27 per cent, does the minister agree with the member for Farrer that 'Farmers and the rural workforce will ultimately be the winners from this transition away from live sheep exports'? 14:31 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I thank Senator Storer for his question. No, I don't agree with the member for Farrer. I don't agree that we make one part of the economy stronger by hurting another part. On this side of the chamber we want to support all Australian industries to become better and stronger and to provide more jobs and opportunities for Australians. That includes the processed sector, which is very important for Australia in the export of lamb, beef and other products. We can grow those sectors as well as have a sustainable and well-regulated live export trade. The government supports a sustainable live export industry that is well regulated and does make sure that those who do the wrong thing are properly penalised and that we improve standards in the sector. That is why, as soon as this most recent incident was revealed on 60 Minutes, the government immediately commissioned a review from Dr McCarthy. That review made 23 recommendations and was done with much haste. We accepted all of those recommendations. We have already implemented many of them, including putting observers on every ship leaving Australia with live exports and reducing stocking rates on those ships, which has provided sheep a 39 per cent increase in the space they have available on boats. We have also reduced the threshold for reporting incidents from a two per cent mortality level to a one per cent mortality level. The government is also seeking to implement the recommendations around the heat stress risk assessment model, which we are consulting on at the moment. All of these reports and the government responses have been made public. I give credit to the Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, David Littleproud, who has made sure that we properly respond to those who have not upheld the high standards we expect in this industry while still supporting the thousands of jobs and farmers who rely on this industry for their livelihoods and for their families to survive. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Storer, a supplementary question? 14:33 Senator STORER 275424 South Australia How does the minister reconcile that disagreement with the public statement from the director of Meat & Livestock Australia in Senate estimates on 23 May that it would be 'naive' not to accept that the record of the live sheep trade risks permanently tarnishing the clean, green reputation of Australia's high-quality red meat industry? 14:33 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I don't have the context for that quote. I would, and I know Mr Littleproud would, broadly agree with that sentiment, that this kind of conduct we see does put at risk the sustainability of this sector. That is why the government has taken a strict and immediate action response to this incident. That is exactly what we should do when we see poor behaviour in an industry or see conduct that is not meeting the standard we expect. We should respond to that and penalise that. In my view, what we should not do is overreact and take action which then penalises people who are actually doing the right thing. I know many in the live export industry who take pride in the standards that they uphold, they take pride in the opportunities that they provide to Australians and they also take pride in the food and protein that they provide to the world. I certainly take pride in how our agricultural industry in Australia not only feeds our country but also feeds millions overseas. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Storer, a final supplementary question. 14:35 Senator STORER 275424 South Australia Given the level of community concern, will the government commit to make public the Moss review into the capability, powers, practices and culture of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources in the regulation of live animal exports when the minister receives it tomorrow? 14:35 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I did get advance warning from Senator Storer about that topic. I have checked with the minister's office, and the government will be releasing the report publicly, although we'll do so with the government's response, once that is finalised. We have also, as I mentioned, already made public the McCarthy review. So we continue to be completely open and transparent in this area with our responses. We'll continue to be vigilant in making sure we improve the standards in the sector and we'll continue to consult, not just with the sector but with the broader community, about the government's responses. Liberal Party Leadership 57 14:35 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister, Senator McKenzie. This morning the Deputy Prime Minister had an outburst on Sky News, explaining why Malcolm Turnbull was deposed. I quote: … ambition and Newspolls and the like, and opportunity … people take those opportunities and we've got a new prime minister. Is Deputy Prime Minister McCormack correct? 14:36 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I haven't seen the Deputy Prime Minister's efforts on Sky News, but I know he is, like I am, incredibly glad to have Prime Minister Scott Morrison at the helm of a coalition government and to be able to stand beside the Prime Minister in places like Quilpie, to watch on the ground in places like Townsville and Cairns and out and about— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator McKENZIE 207825 And, yes, for me as sports minister, even to see him supporting the Cronulla Sharks. He is a man that everybody in this nation can actually identify with, and his strong commitment to delivering not only economic growth, as he has during his time as Treasurer— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Collins on a point of order? Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 Mr President, the point of order is on direct relevance. The question asked— Senator Cormann HDA She didn't see it. Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 I'm not asking about whether she saw it or not, Minister. The question was about— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Wong, Senator Collins is on her feet. Senator McKenzie, I'd like to hear the point of order before I rule. Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 The question was about Deputy Prime Minister McCormack explaining why Malcolm Turnbull was deposed. She couldn't be further from the question. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question had a number of parts. At the moment, I consider the minister to be directly relevant to the question as I heard it. Senator Cormann HDA Mr President, on the point of order: the minister was being directly relevant to the question. The question was about a Sky interview which the minister indicated she didn't see. She is adding further context to the essence of the question asked, which is also directly relevant to the topic that the senator has raised. Senator Wong 00AOU Mr President, on the point of order: the topic which was put to this minister is a quote from the Deputy Prime Minister, whom she represents. He said: … ambition and Newspolls and the like, and opportunity … people take those opportunities and we've got a new prime minister. Senator Kitching has asked whether or not the Deputy Prime Minister is right. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, I think the minister is being directly relevant. I'm listening very carefully. The minister has now been reminded of it twice by members of the opposition. I call the minister to continue. She has one minute and 18 seconds remaining. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I think it's a great opportunity for the Australian public to be led by Prime Minister Scott Morrison, to continue the work that the coalition government has been delivering for the Australian people for the last five years. When we look at our— Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q I've got Senator Cormann on a point of order. Senator Cormann HDA Mr President, interjecting is disorderly, and I ask you to call the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate to order. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q I call senators to order. It has been a particularly noisy week. I would like to hear Senator McKenzie's answer. Senator McKENZIE 207825 As I was saying, I think Prime Minister Scott Morrison will be continuing the strong record of focusing on economic growth across the nation. We saw some great figures last week of 3.4 per cent. We're the envy of the G7. We've seen over a million jobs created as a result of our government, the Liberal Party and the National Party, focused on— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator McKenzie! Senator Cameron, on a point of order? Senator Cameron AI6 Yes, I have a point of order on relevance. The minister has gone nowhere near the specifics of the question. The PRESIDENT I0Q I can't instruct a minister how to answer a question, as long as the minister is directly relevant to the question or part of the question asked. I do consider the minister to be directly relevant to part of the question asked. Senator McKENZIE 207825 As I said, we're all about creating opportunity—3.4 per cent economic growth and a million jobs. We're not just focused on capital cities but actually backing agriculture and mining development out in the regions. Nearly two million Australians are employed by those two industries. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Kitching on a point of order. Senator McKenzie, I've got Senator Kitching on a point of order. Senator Kitching 247512 Again, Mr President, it's on relevance. I wasn't asking about the opportunities for the Australian people but rather the opportunity that Prime Minister Morrison created for himself. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cormann, on the point of order? Senator Cormann HDA On the point of order, in raising points of order on direct relevance, it's not up to the opposition to interpret what the Deputy Prime Minister meant. That is not a matter for the opposition at all. The minister is clearly being directly relevant by talking about the great opportunity for the Australian people. The government under Scott Morrison's leadership will continue to build a stronger, more prosperous economy in the years ahead. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Carr, on the point of order? Senator Kim Carr AW5 On the point of order, this question was not about interpretation. It was a straightforward question: was the Deputy Prime Minister right? The minister has gone nowhere near that question. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senators Cameron, Wong and Collins, and Senator Cormann! If the opposition keep interjecting, they'll get fewer questions. I called to order Senator Cormann, Senator Wong and Senator Collins. I think the minister is being directly relevant to part of the question. I cannot instruct a minister how to answer a question. There have been numerous opportunities for the question to be restated, and I have granted quite a lot of flexibility in that. The minister has 16 seconds remaining, and there are supplementaries following. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I know the opposition doesn't want to hear it. It doesn't want to actually accept the fact that Prime Minister Scott Morrison is doing a fantastic job, because—guess what?—people like him better than they like Bill. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Kitching, a supplementary question. 14:42 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria Thank you, Mr President. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Stop, Senator Kitching. Please stop the clock. I'm going to insist on hearing the question in silence given the number of points of order that tend to get raised. Senator McKenzie interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McKenzie, that's not helping. I want to hear the question. I'm sure you do, too. Senator KITCHING 247512 I'm going to read it very slowly so Senator McKenzie can answer it. Is the Deputy Prime Minister the only member of Prime Minister Morrison's cabinet who is willing to tell the truth? 14:43 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria No, I'm really happy to tell the truth about our record investment in infrastructure. I'm very happy to tell the truth, as a member of cabinet, about how we're backing farmers struggling through drought with a record investment of $1.8 billion to drought affected farmers and their communities. I'm really happy to tell the truth about mobile black spots. We were out there with regional members of the Liberal and National parties not even an hour ago, talking about how we can increase the connectivity for regional communities, industries and, indeed, students and health service providers by our iconic— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator McKenzie! Senator Collins, on a point of order? Senator Jacinta Collins GB6 Yes, the point of order, again, is on direct relevance. None of the things that Senator McKenzie is referring to were raised by the Deputy Prime Minister. None of the things that she's referring to now are relevant to either the main question or the supplementary. The PRESIDENT I0Q The supplementary question was particularly open ended, and the minister is being directly relevant. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I'm very happy, as a cabinet minister, to tell the truth about our record investment in rural doctors. There was $550 million at the last budget to see 3,000 more doctors across regional Australia, 3,000 more nurses— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Kitching, a final supplementary question. 14:44 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria On 14 separate occasions since he became Prime Minister almost three weeks ago, Prime Minister Morrison has failed to explain why Malcolm Turnbull isn't the Prime Minister of Australia. Yesterday the Prime Minister told Australians to 'get over' the fact that Malcolm Turnbull is no longer the Prime Minister. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with Prime Minister Morrison? 14:45 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria On this side of the chamber, we prefer to deal in facts, not fiction and hypotheticals. The reality is that we have a new PM; he's a good PM. He's continuing our coalition government's record investment in mobile black spots, as I've already mentioned, in infrastructure and in backing the ingenuity of the Australian people. It is our record investment in backing smaller businesses that is making sure that that engine room of our national economy is able to grow and prosper; we don't back away from that at all. And I think the new Prime Minister is doing exactly that. He was the Treasurer who delivered that strong economic growth that we've been so grateful to receive—the highest and strongest growth since the middle of the mining boom back in 2005. These are great figures that mean we'll be able to get rid of the debt and deficit that you left us a year earlier than— (Time expired) Mining Industry 59 14:46 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland I'm delighted and excited to be able to ask the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia a question about an important activity in North and Central Queensland. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 I ask the minister: is he aware— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order on my left! A number of senators on my left have been particularly voluble today, and I will— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q I've just been advised by the Clerk the clock starts after the minister is identified. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q I don't think anyone can claim to be innocent on tiny preambles to questions this week. Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 I can understand why the Labor Party don't want to hear about this. The PRESIDENT I0Q Turn to the question. Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 I ask the minister: can he confirm that Adani today announced the new design for the rail line linking the Abbot Point port to the Carmichael coalmine in central Queensland? I ask the minister: can he advise the Senate just how important this 200-kilometre-long rail line that has a capacity of some 40 million tonnes of coal per annum is? How important is that to Queensland and Australia as a whole? 14:47 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I thank Senator Macdonald for his question. As he rightly outlined, it is a very important question about the future of not just North Queensland but also our nation. Adani made a very important announcement today in Rockhampton that they are proceeding with this project with a changed design for their rail line. Their original design was a 388-kilometre rail line, which was sabotaged for political reasons by the Queensland Labor Party to try to win an election, sabotaged to try to trade off jobs in Northern and Central Queensland for votes in Brisbane. That's what they were trying to do. But isn't it great news that, despite the best efforts of the Labor Party, these jobs may still be delivered for North and Central Queensland and for Australia? This announcement shows there is a commitment to open up the Galilee Basin, a commitment that would unlock not just this particular mine but other mines as well that could deliver up to 15,000 direct mining jobs across the region that are extremely important for our country. The problem is that we still have questions about the position of the Australian Labor Party on this project. Earlier this year Mr Shorten was asked for his thoughts on Adani, and Mr Shorten said, 'I make no secret that I don't like it very much.' That was Mr Shorten's view. He doesn't like the creation of jobs. There is still, however, a problem, because we still have a bit of a secret about the position of people on the other side. There's Senator Watt, who is a regular fly-in fly-out visitor to Rockhampton. We don't know what his view is on this issue. Does he not like it very much when thousands of new members are created for the CFMMEU? He might not like it very much, but we don't really know. What's Senator Ketter's position on this? Does he like it very much when thousands of North Queenslanders get opportunities to have a job and have a go in life? Does he like that very much? I'm not going to miss you, Senator Chisholm. What's Senator Chisholm's view on this project? We still don't know if they are going to have a senator in Central Queensland; we don't know their view of this imaginary Central Queensland senator. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Macdonald, a supplementary question? 14:50 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland I thank the minister for that very exciting answer for this wonderful project in Central Queensland and North Queensland. I ask the minister if he could— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Whish-Wilson, on a point of order? Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 Just yesterday, Senator Macdonald raised the issue of preambles and making value judgements and statements at the beginning of a question. He is a bloody hypocrite. He has just done it twice. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cormann, on a point of order? Senator Cormann HDA I ask Senator Whish-Wilson to withdraw. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Whish-Wilson, I ask you to withdraw that. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 I will withdraw that. Senator Cameron interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Cormann, on a point of order? Senator Cormann HDA Senator Cameron just made the same assertion. I would ask you to ask him to withdraw. The PRESIDENT I0Q I didn't hear that. If you did make it, Senator Cameron, I ask you to withdraw it. Senator Cameron AI6 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Macdonald, please continue your question. Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 I understand why the Labor Party and particularly the Greens don't want to hear about this. I ask the minister how this announcement by that wonderful company of Adani can assist the expansion of the Galilee Basin and further employment and economic growth in northern Australia? 14:51 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland As Senator Macdonald outlined, there are other opportunities here beyond just this particular proposal. There are six proposed mines at the moment in the Galilee Basin, delivering more than 15,000 jobs. This particular rail line would kickstart those opportunities. It would open up those opportunities through the basin. The important thing about today's announcement is that while Adani's proposed new line is shorter than their previous proposal—it will hook into the existing Aurizon rail network—it will still be able to take the proposed original 40 million tonnes per annum along that line. In Adani's first stage, they are proposing to use 27.5 million tonnes of that capacity. There is still capacity there for new projects. I'm advised that, with minimal upgrades, the capacity could be up to 100 million tonnes per annum. That means more revenue for our country, more royalties for the Queensland government, more tax revenue for Australia and better services for all Australians. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Macdonald, a final supplementary question? 14:52 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland Does the minister recall the lies by the Greens political party and the Labor Party about the global coal market? I further ask the minister: how does this announcement contradict those lies and misinformation by the Greens political party, in particular, and the Australian Labor Party on the global coal market? 14:52 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I don't spend too much time looking at what the Greens have to say on these issues, but it is important what the Australian Labor Party says. Just the other week, Mr Albanese was on Q&A saying that the global coal market is in structural decline. Just to clarify the facts in this place, in the 12 months to July coal not only achieved a record amount of exports for Australia but became the biggest export in our nation. In the 12 months to July it overtook iron ore as our biggest export. But according to the Labor Party, who apparently represent CFMMEU workers, it is a market in structural decline. They are talking down the job prospects and livelihoods of their own voters and their own members for political purposes. It has been a great week for coal, because not only have we had this announcement today but we also had Clean Coal Day in Japan this week. They are celebrating coal in Japan. I couldn't make it, unfortunately; but the Victorian government sent someone, so that was something. We celebrate coal on this side of politics, and we celebrate its jobs. Isn't it great to see more of them being created? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators of my demand to hear questions in silence. Liberal Party Leadership 61 14:53 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Communications and the Arts, Senator Fifield. I refer to the minister who, on Tuesday, told the Senate, in relation to the sacking of former Prime Minister Turnbull: … the Liberal party room made a collective decision in relation to the leadership of the party. Rather than explain how Prime Minister Turnbull was sacked, can the minister explain why the collective decision was made? 14:54 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria It's curious that those opposite are very interested in all of us on this side. I have to say, our focus isn't those who occupy this chamber; our focus is on the Australian people. What we are focused on is transacting the people's business. As you rose to your feet, Senator O'Neill, I thought for one fleeting moment you were going to ask me about the NBN. I thought for one fleeting moment that you were going to ask me about the undertaking that the NBN has given the ACCC that if they don't deliver for retailers they will pay a fine. I thought you were going to ask me about that. What we are focused on— Senator O'Neill 140651 A point of order on relevance: the minister may construct whatever question he wishes me to ask. The one I did ask, however, was: can the minister explain why the collective decision was made to remove the former Prime Minister? The PRESIDENT I0Q You reminded this minister of the question. Senator FIFIELD D2I Thank you, Senator O'Neill, for your point of order there—always welcome. As I was saying, we are focused remorselessly on transacting the people's business. The matter that the senator raised in her question is one that has already been canvassed and addressed. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Neill, a supplementary question. 14:55 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Can the minister explain why on Tuesday he supported former Prime Minister Turnbull, why on Thursday he publicly withdrew his support for Prime Minister Turnbull and supported Minister Dutton, why on Thursday he signed Minister Dutton's petition and why on Friday he then changed his position to support then Treasurer and now Prime Minister Morrison? 14:56 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria It's my practice in these matters to be up-front, and I was. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Neill, a final supplementary question. 14:56 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Was that the answer? Okay. I refer to reports that following the week of Liberal leadership chaos, 'Sources in both camps have concluded that the outcome was likely engineered by Morrison supporters from the beginning.' Do these reports explain the minister's swinging loyalty, that he's, in fact, a strategic genius loyal to Mr Morrison all along and that he even outfoxed Senator Cormann? 14:57 Senator FIFIELD D2I Victoria Senator O'Neill has obviously been working on this all week—the last question on the last day of the sitting week. All I can do is reiterate that the leadership of the parliamentary Liberal Party is a decision that is made collectively by members and senators. Rural and Regional Australia 61 14:58 Senator MARTIN 275266 Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Local Government and Decentralisation, Senator McKenzie. Can the minister update the Senate on how the coalition government is delivering for regional Australia, including through additional investment and services? 14:58 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Thank you, Senator Martin, for your question. You understand, like all of us on this side of the Senate, that strong regions build a strong economy, and that's what the coalition government is committed to doing each and every day. Good economic management is good for the country. When the regions are strong, so too is our nation. That is why this government is investing in small businesses and providing a stable economy that allows industries to grow and flourish. In the senator's home state of Tasmania agriculture and seafood are major contributors to the economy, worth nearly $2.5 billion combined. Nationally agriculture is now Australia's fastest growing industry, last year growing by 23 per cent of all 19 industries measured in our GDP stats, and employs 1.6 million Australians. Small business underpins our regional communities and it is this government which has backed small businesses, including Tasmanian small businesses, to create one million jobs in the five years since we came to government. We on this side are backing regional Australia with policies to boost regional industries, grow our local economies and improve infrastructure and services across regional Australia. We've invested more than $3 billion in regional programs and billions more in broader regional infrastructure, helping regions unlock their competitive advantages and access new markets. Round 2 of the Building Better Regions Fund will see more than $212 million support 245 regional projects, and there's more funding for the regions under round 3, taking our total commitment to over $640 million. Our Stronger Communities Program has funded more than 5,500 community projects right across Australia, enabling local communities to have a say in those small capital projects. Through our $220 million Regional Jobs and Investment Packages, we're helping 10 regions that have structural issues to grow and diversify their local economies. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Martin, a supplementary question. 15:00 Senator MARTIN 275266 Tasmania I thank Minister McKenzie for her recognition of the wonderful produce, agriculture, horticulture and aquaculture of Tasmania. It's outstanding and globally recognised. Can the minister outline how the government's regional development agenda will support growth in regional communities? 15:00 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Absolutely I can. The Regional Growth Fund will support long-term economic growth and drive job creation across regional Australia, supporting our regional communities to think big. Our suite of measures will create more jobs in the regions, boosting the local communities and making our communities more livable, all while easing congestion in our overpopulated capital cities. We will continue the Nationals' legacy of decentralisation, using the levers of government to create stronger, more vibrant regional communities. We on this side know the importance of strategic population policies, including increasing internal migration from overcrowded cities to regional Australia. There are jobs available out in the regions. It was my great pleasure to head to North Queensland, to the beautiful regional city of Mackay, where I was told of over 1,600 jobs that were dying to be filled. It's a beautiful place to live. Get out there. We're examining more ways to shift more Australians outside capital cities. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Martin, a final supplementary question. 15:01 Senator MARTIN 275266 Tasmania Is the minister aware of any alternative approaches and risks? 15:02 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Yes, I am, Senator Martin. The biggest risk to our regional communities would be a Bill Shorten Labor government which chops and changes its policies and support for our regional communities. Those opposite have now refused to rule out moving the APVMA back to Canberra. Now the APVMA is actually up and running in Armidale through partnership with UNE's centre of excellence, it's producing regulatory scientists not just for the APVMA but for our state governments, which have a shortage of them. Joel Fitzgibbon needs to provide a solid commitment to the local community, the university and the 150 APVMA staff in Armidale that they're there to stay. They need to guarantee the agency's future in the region. But instead they stand opposed to job creation, higher wages and business growth out in regional Australia. They refuse to back the live sheep industry. They refuse to back mining jobs. Only a coalition government can be trusted to deliver for the regions. Senator Cormann HDA I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 62 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Liberal Party Leadership 62 15:03 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance and the Public Service (Senator Cormann) to a question without notice asked by Senator Farrell today relating to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Dutton). The question that I asked Senator Cormann at the beginning of question time today was not simply a rhetorical question. In fact, it has serious consequences for the validity and the eligibility of our Minister for Home Affairs, Minister Dutton, to sit in the House of Representatives. A couple of weeks ago, the deposed former Prime Minister, Prime Minister Turnbull, sought legal advice from the Solicitor-General as to the eligibility of Mr Dutton to sit in the parliament. Unfortunately for Mr Dutton, of course, that advice was equivocal. The Solicitor-General didn't come to any finalised decision on the matter. So the matter, therefore, as to Mr Dutton's eligibility is still an open question. One can imagine, of course, that had Mr Dutton got three more votes he'd now be Prime Minister and we'd be debating an even more serious set of circumstances. But it's serious enough to have question marks over the validity of our home affairs minister. The home affairs minister makes all sorts of decisions that are extremely important to the security of this country, and there shouldn't be one iota of doubt. Now, who's raising the issue of Mr Dutton's eligibility and the question as to whether he does meet that eligibility? It's not the Labor Party. We find today that, from New York, the deposed former Prime Minister Mr Turnbull is saying to his former colleagues in the Liberal Party in the government of this country that there's a question mark over Mr Dutton's eligibility to sit in this place that needs to be clarified. As Senator Macdonald would know, before Mr Turnbull came into this place he was a very, very experienced lawyer. He did a number of major cases—the Spycatcher case comes to mind. He was a very, very good lawyer. In fact, he probably should have stuck to law rather than going into politics, as luck would have it. It's his view that there are question marks over Mr Dutton's eligibility. He's saying that. But it's not just Mr Turnbull who's raising these questions. Julie Bishop—the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party a couple of weeks ago—was a lawyer before she came into this place. I know she was a very good lawyer. She was two years behind me at the University of Adelaide Law School, so I know for a fact that she would have got a very, very good legal education. What's she saying? What is the former Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, a former lawyer and foreign minister, saying about Mr Dutton's eligibility? She's saying that when this issue gets back to the parliament at some stage—one imagines next week—she's going to make up her mind about whether or not she's going to vote for the referral of Mr Dutton. It's my view that there shouldn't be a question mark over Mr Dutton. There shouldn't be a question mark over the decisions that he might be making about important issues of national security. The issue needs to be resolved. Of course, there is a very simple way of resolving this, and it is how it was dealt with for a whole host of former MPs and senators. Mr Dutton can take the initiative and refer himself. We now know what the Solicitor-General says: his advice is inconclusive. We know what Mr Turnbull is saying; he's saying: 'Look, this issue needs to be determined. It needs to be determined quickly. It needs to be determined by the only authority that can determine the issue, and that's the High Court.' We now have the former Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, Ms Bishop, questioning whether she's going to support or not support Mr Dutton. This is a dysfunctional government at the moment. We need to have a government focused on the people; not on themselves. (Time expired) 15:08 Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Queensland Well, excuse my mirth, Madam Deputy President! Senator Farrell is one of the few people over there who I genuinely like. I think he is a good guy and makes a wonderful wine. I can only think that Senator Farrell may have been imbibing too much of his own wonderful wine with that presentation he just gave! He said the government should be concentrating on policy issues and on the people of Australia. Have a look at question time today. The government asked serious policy questions all the way through, and I'm delighted to— Senator McCarthy 122087 A point of order: unparliamentary language against a fellow senator. Senator McAllister 121628 On a point of order: Senator Macdonald reflected inappropriately on Senator Farrell in his remarks earlier and he ought to withdraw. Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 If Senator Farrell had taken the point of order, I would have apologised, but he obviously took it in the spirit it was given. He's a wonderful man. I'm not for a moment suggesting he's drinking during the day. I was really giving him a free advertisement for his wonderful Farrell Wines, and that's what he should be concentrating on. This is a ridiculous point of order and typical of the Labor Party. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Macdonald has further explained what he meant. Unfortunately, I didn't hear it and nor did the Clerk. Please continue, Senator Macdonald. Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 If you had heard it you wouldn't have thought there was anything improper about it, as Senator Farrell clearly didn't. I can't understand the Labor Party sometimes. Here we on this side are asking serious policy questions. I was delighted to be able to ask the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan, about the wonderful announcement today that Adani is building a new railway line in North Queensland and Central Queensland, joining the port of Abbot Point to the Carmichael mines. That will mean those Carmichael mines can go ahead with development, with creating real jobs for Central and North Queenslanders. It's an announcement today that has absolutely brightened my heart, and I might go and get one of my favourite wines, the Farrell red wine, to celebrate such a wonderful announcement. But what did we get from the Labor Party? This is why I doubted Senator Farrell's sanity, in a nice way. He's accusing us of talking about ourselves and not about policy issues for the people of Australia. Every question today from members of the Labor Party was about parliamentarians, about the internal workings of the Liberal Party. Can I tell people: not many people on this side of the parliament are too interested in that and, I can assure you, neither is any other Australian. They are interested in things like real jobs for Australians that the Adani mines will bring. They're interested in the NBN rollout, new black spots and, as Senator McKenzie so eloquently announced, the many initiatives happening in rural and regional Australia. But what did the Labor Party do? They talked about politicians. There was not one question about jobs; not one question about the economy; not one question about the disadvantaged in our community; not one question about infrastructure, about development, about the economy or about reducing Labor's debt; and not one question about the more than one million jobs that have been created since the Liberal-National government has been in power. These are all the issues that Australians are interested in, and the Labor Party, under their current leadership, took their whole hour to ask about internal party matters. That's why Mr Shorten is so detested by the Australian public. As was said during question time, Mr Morrison has been in the job only a couple of weeks, but already he leads Mr Shorten in the opinion polls as the better Prime Minister. And it's no wonder, when he leads the 'rarble'—to quote a Labor Party senator—that you see over on the other side of this chamber. They're not a group of senators interested in Australians, interested in policy issues, interested in economic issues, interested in the disadvantaged—interested in the things that Australians are interested in. All the Labor Party seem to be interested in here is internal politics. I don't know why they didn't ask a question about Senator Cameron and former Minister Obeid, who was in Senator Keneally's cabinet, and the former minister the bad Ian Macdonald— Senator Keneally LNW On a point of order: I'd like to point out that the minister has misled the parliament and I ask him to withdraw. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 That's a debating point. Please continue, Senator Macdonald. Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 Senator Keneally was closely associated with Mr Obeid and the bad Ian Macdonald. Senator Keneally LNW Point of order: again the senator has misled the parliament. He is invited to read the New South Wales ICAC transcripts, and I ask him to withdraw his comments. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 These are debating points. Senator IAN MACDONALD YW4 You see how sensitive members of the Labor Party are when we talk about the bad Ian Macdonald—that is, the New South Wales Labor minister who is now in jail for corruption—or the other bad Labor minister, Mr Obeid, who's also in jail. These people were in the cabinet when Senator Keneally was there. Why didn't they talk about them? We don't talk about them; we talk about policy issues, the things that really interest Australians. (Time expired) 15:15 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Every question was about parliamentarians, and there are reasons for that. These are legitimate questions that go to the heart of the capability—or incapability—of this government to govern for the people of Australia in a way that is filled with integrity. That goes to the heart of the issues that affect the people of Australia. The former deputy leader of the Liberal Party has stood up today and raised very serious questions about a minister, Peter Dutton, and his eligibility to be in the cabinet, to represent the people of Dickson and to continue to be paid as a member of the House of Representatives. That is a very serious question that is being asked not only by the former deputy leader of the Liberal Party but also by the former Prime Minister of this country, who only two weeks ago was leading this nation, but all of a sudden it's, 'Let's not have a look at this; that's old news.' It's not old news; it is very critical news. There is a doubt as to the eligibility of a minister in the Morrison government to be in this parliament, and it is our job as the opposition and as other members in the Senate to critically question and analyse all of that. As Senator Farrell has said, we didn't raise this today because we just wanted to; we raised it because a member of your government raised it and a former member of your government—Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, as he was then—raised it. Therefore, we have to look at this. When even the Solicitor-General's advice shows there is a risk with Peter Dutton's eligibility, we should be pursuing the fact that this has to go to the High Court. His eligibility to stand in the parliament is under question, it is under a cloud, and every single decision that he makes and even every single decision that he has already made are under a serious cloud. Over the last 18 months many senators and members—yes, some after lots of deliberation—have chosen to go to the High Court for clarity. It is the right thing to do for Peter Dutton to stand up now and say, 'I will go to the High Court to have this clarified.' It is the right thing to do to remove that doubt and send a clear message to all Australians that we in this parliament do take this seriously and that decisions made in cabinet are being made by people who are eligible to be there. That is what is in question. Instead we see blame-shifting, a blame game—'Nothing to see here'—and the Australian people are sick of it. They're fed up with it. You have unfinished business in that cabinet. Peter Dutton needs to refer himself to the High Court. There is no other question here other than whether he is eligible to be sitting there as the member for Dickson in the cabinet, making decisions on behalf of the Morrison government, representing the people of Australia. There is way too much doubt. When you have constitutional legal experts also raising that, the doubt is very clear. So it's not about the opposition playing games here. We are doing what we have to do—that is, keeping you accountable to make sure you are doing the right thing for the people of Australia. 15:20 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I am continually shocked by the short memories of those opposite in this chamber. As they come in here and preach to us about doing the right thing when it comes to section 44, they seem to have forgotten that for months and months Labor Party parliamentarians had not just some risk of being ineligible, not just a small doubt; they had absolutely no basis on which anyone could have misunderstood their status. They were clearly ineligible to sit in this parliament because of dual citizenship issues. Nevertheless, with almost a contempt for the rules that apply to this game, those opposite happily supported three members of their team continuing to participate in the decisions of this parliament and continuing to receive all of the benefits and privileges that come with holding these offices. It was only when they were dragged kicking and screaming and were ruled out by the High Court that they faced up to reality. Let's compare that to the way doubts about section 44 have been dealt with on this side of the chamber. I can say, with some comfort, that this has been dealt with ethically and in a way that respects the importance of Australia's Constitution every time an issue of this nature has cropped up on the coalition side of the room. When John Alexander came to find that circumstances existed that meant he had a problem, he immediately took measures to deal with it—immediately. When Barnaby Joyce had an issue and when Senator Canavan had an issue, they were up-front about dealing with it. Senator Canavan happily stood down from his ministry and happily did what had to be done because, more than anything else, his loyalty was to this country. So I am reluctant to accept the sanctimonious bleating of those opposite about the eligibility of Mr Dutton. They've pointed out just how important the decisions he has made in that role are, and can I say I wholeheartedly agree that in his role he is responsible for some enormously important work. He is part of a team who, along with Scott Morrison when he was Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, has completely brought to an end the saga of boat after boat after boat of asylum seekers arriving on our shores, risking their lives at sea. He has helped put an end to this cycle of deaths at sea in the cruellest of circumstances, and he has reconfigured our immigration policy to provide fairness to those people in desperate circumstances who seek refuge in this country but who do it by the book, who follow the proper processes, who apply in a transparent and honourable way. In doing so, he has not just vastly reduced the number of people who face detention; he has completely eliminated the situation of children being in detention. We don't have to think back very long to remember a time when Labor had thousands of children in detention because they simply could not stem the flow of boats arriving on our shores. But now we have a situation where we are getting through that backlog. All of the children are out, and we can confidently say we have a fairer and more transparent process for dealing with immigration and refugee issues in this country. I have complete confidence in his ability as a minister. I also note that he has been transparent in providing legal advice that he has received. The Solicitor-General's advice has been obtained. Does the advice 100 per cent, hand on heart, eliminate absolutely every potential option under the sun? Well, quite honestly, I haven't yet seen a lawyer's advice that does. All lawyers acknowledge the different constellations of circumstances that can change in time. But we have a conclusive answer in the legal advice. It's plain for all to see. It's time for those in the Labor Party to stop playing games and get on with the job of working for Australians. 15:25 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales I rise to participate in this take note debate sparked by Senator Farrell's question reflecting on a tweet sent from New York City from the former Prime Minister Mr Malcolm Turnbull. There he is, exiled to New York, tweeting away, helpfully providing information and advice—and not just to his colleagues who remain back here in Australia. I suppose he could have done that by WhatsApp or a text message, but by tweeting he provides advice not just to his colleagues in the coalition but indeed to all Australians. What was that advice? It was that the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, should be consistent in the rules. The rule that applied to Barnaby Joyce, referral to the High Court, should also apply to Peter Dutton, to resolve the legitimate and lingering questions about his suitability to sit in this parliament. I'm not often one to stand up and say Malcolm Turnbull is right, but in this instance, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I'm happy to do so, because the advice the former Prime Minister has tweeted from New York is very helpful advice that should be taken up by those opposite in this chamber. New York is an interesting place. It's a beautiful place. It's the city that never sleeps. We know that. I'm sure many of us in this chamber and many Australians have had the opportunity to visit New York City. It turns out there's one other Australian that might get that opportunity to go to New York City: none other than the member for Chisholm in the other place, Ms Julia Banks. Yes, it seems that the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has offered the member for Chisholm the chance to go to New York City. I don't know—maybe he thinks she could catch up with Mr Turnbull. Maybe he thinks she needs a break. Possibly he thinks that it would be so handy for the Morrison government to have the member for Chisholm off in New York City for three months, because that's what she would get if she took up this offer. She would get the chance to go to New York City on a trip to the UN. She would get to go to the UN and be seconded there, away from the prying eyes of the public, away from the cameras and away from her parliamentary privilege in the lower house. She would get the opportunity to be in New York, and he would get the opportunity not to have her in front of the Australian people talking about things like bullying, intimidation and—heaven forbid!—quotas in the Liberal Party to get more women elected. The member for Banks—excuse me, the member for Chisholm. I'll get that one right yet! The member for Chisholm, Julia Banks, has spoken quite clearly, quite forcefully and quite strongly about the need for there to be more women in the Liberal Party ranks in this parliament. She made clear in her speech last night that we're talking about quotas for women, who represent more than half our population. These are the words of the member for Chisholm: The meritocracy argument is completely and utterly flawed. There are an equal number of meritorious Liberal women out there in the real world as there are men, but they won't come if the barriers to entry and mountains to climb are too high. Ms Banks goes on to point out a culture of what she describes as appalling behaviour in the Liberal Party: Appalling behaviour is an umbrella descriptor for bullying, intimidation, harassment—sexual or otherwise—or a lack of integrity. In my political journey, a culture of appalling behaviour has been widespread, pervasive and undermining, like white ants. No wonder Scott Morrison tried to persuade her—buy her off, perhaps, and get her silence—by sending her to New York for three months! Is this how the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, proposes to 'deal with' the problems? Is this his solution—offer a few women a few positions, a few minor promotions, and offer Julia Banks, the member for Chisholm, the opportunity to go to New York for three months so he gets her out of sight, out of mind and away from the Australian public and talking about the appalling culture, the appalling behaviour, the bullying and the intimidation going on inside the Liberal Party? I'm going to end on the words of the member for Chisholm. She says there is no 'ready fix' for this issue and she believes increasing representation of women through quotas will go some way to doing this. Question agreed to. International Whaling Commission 66 15:30 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Payne) to a question without notice asked by Senator Whish-Wilson today relating to a meeting of the International Whaling Commission. This was the second question the Greens have asked this week around the International Whaling Commission. It's no secret that the Japanese government for many years have been trying to overturn a moratorium on commercial whaling. It's no secret that they have been conducting so-called scientific research on whales as a disguise for commercial whaling. Everyone has seen this coming. In Brazil right now, a number of meetings are occurring. Negotiations are occurring between many parties who have a choice to vote tomorrow on overturning a moratorium on commercial whaling. I'm pleased Senator Ruston has made a statement that Australians wouldn't tolerate a decision by our government to have any part at all in overturning the ban on commercial whaling—a ban, may I say, that was led by this country more than 30 years ago, by a previous Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser. The movement to conserve whales, to protect whales and to bring many of them—such as the humpback whale—back from the brink of extinction is part of our national identity. We used to hunt whales like other countries, like Japan, do. We have a history of hundreds of years of killing whales. But we turned our back on that. We showed global leadership through the International Whaling Commission, as did many other countries with a history of whaling. We are proud of that achievement, and it is part of our national identity. That achievement—the emotional attachment we have to, the value judgements we put on, conserving cetaceans in this country—is part of who we are as a country. Japan know that. Yet they insist on thumbing their nose at Australia and pushing ahead with this very aggressive, very bold stance, no longer even hiding behind the fig leaf of so-called scientific whaling. They want to see full commercial whaling resume. That's because they feel that stocks have recovered to a point where they can actually sustainably harvest whales. We know we don't need to sustainably harvest whales. We should actually leave them alone. They are a very important part of a healthy ecosystem. The questions I asked today were very specific. Why did Senator Ruston not stay the whole week? I'll of course see her afterwards. Senator Ruston 243273 Sit down and I'll answer it. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Well, I wasn't happy with the answer. I would have thought that the negotiations going on right now were extremely important, given that the vote is going to be tomorrow. I would have thought it was extremely important to have at least one government representative from parliament sitting in those meetings, especially with our neighbours and our friends. I would have thought it was extremely important, considering Japan, as you know, Senator Ruston, had a delegation of nearly 70 people, including nine parliamentarians and two senior ministers. It's not your fault that you were sent over there, Senator Ruston. I'm glad you went over there. But I do believe this government sent a signal of weakness—that we would only send an assistant minister in the place of a foreign minister, an environment minister or a Prime Minister, which is what we've sent previously. Senator Ruston 243273 So you don't think I'm capable. It's so insulting. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 You shouldn't take this personally, Senator Ruston. It's not your fault. It is the government's fault that they have sent a message to Japan that we are not ridgy-didge about protecting our whales. I hope that it doesn't backfire. My question was also very specific about why some countries in our region, such as Kiribati, Nauru, Tuvalu and Solomon Islands, have voted against the protection of whales in the Northern Hemisphere. They may well do so tomorrow. Is this a sign of our waning influence in the region, Senator Ruston? I certainly hope it isn't. I hope also it's not a sign of a lack of respect based on our lack of action on climate at the Pacific Islands Forum recently, which they made very, very clear they were very angry about. My third question was also very important. If Japan, as they have threatened to do this week—and you're aware of this, too, Senator Ruston, through you, Chair—walk away from the International Whaling Commission if they don't get their way or they can't get a majority vote system in place, that means they walk away from the jurisdiction of an international rules based order around the protection of cetaceans. They have threatened to do this in the past. If they do that, if they go down that road, how will we respond? How will we respond as a country? What are our options? I put to the Senate that the most important thing we can do is let them know that if they do that we will not be buddying up to them on the Tran-Pacific Partnership Agreement, an agreement that Shinzo Abe, their Prime Minister, has led. We will walk away from the agreement: 'If you're prepared to do this by overturning a ban on commercial whaling, Australia will send the strongest possible message and walk away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.' It is easy to do. I will wait and see how we progress tomorrow. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 67 COMMITTEES Senate Procedure Committee 67 Report 67 15:36 Senator LINES 112096 Western Australia Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President Kitching, for taking the chair to allow me to present this report. I present the Senate Procedure Committee's second report of 2018 Proposal to replace the parliamentary prayer. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. On 27 June 2018, the Senate referred to the committee a proposal to amend standing order 50 to replace the traditional parliamentary prayer with an invitation to prayer or reflection. The committee received approximately 820 submissions, the vast majority of which did not support replacing the prayer. The tenor of those submissions is recorded in the report, and the committee thanks all of those who contributed their views. Essentially the same matter was referred to the committee in 1997. On that occasion the committee reported: It is clear that many senators who join in the prayer regard its retention as important, but among those who do not join in the prayer there does not appear to be a strong view that its proposed abolition is a significant question which should occupy the time of the Senate. The submissions made on this occasion and the views of the committee members and their colleagues suggest the opinions are not significantly different in 2018 than they were during the 1997 inquiry. Those in favour of the prayer strongly favour its retention, whilst those opposed are less vocal and less concerned to see it changed. The committee does not consider on the evidence before it and after its own deliberations that there is momentum for change. The committee therefore does not recommend that the amendments proposed in the reference should be adopted. The committee considered, without making any recommendation, whether an invitation to a personal prayer or reflection could be inserted alongside the current prayer. The committee also noted the practice in other jurisdictions of the chair inviting other members to read the prayer. The committee draws those options to the attention of senators. I commend the report to the Senate. 15:38 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I rise to speak with regard to the dissenting report from the Australian Greens on this matter. The Australian Greens firmly believe that the current practice of reciting the Lord's Prayer, something that's occurred in this place since 1901, is outdated and no longer reflective of Australia's religiously diverse and secular society. It's understandable that, back in 1901, when 97 per cent of Australians identified as Christian, this parliament would open proceedings with the Lord's Prayer. However, modern Australia is a far more diverse society. As of the last census in 2016 only half of the population identified as Christian. We have a significantly more varied and less religious population today. It no longer relies exclusively on a Christian concept of morality for guidance. Many people in this place consider themselves to be atheists, some are agnostic and some of them are followers of non-Christian faiths, and yet we start each day in this parliament with an entreaty to a Christian God. We don't think that's appropriate. We think the time has long come to recognise that this is a secular society and that we should give people, everyone in this place, the opportunity of beginning proceedings in a way that they choose fit. In fact, the Catholic Women's League of Australia supported this general view by stating: However, we also recognise that in an increasingly secular society not all Australian citizens choose to pray. Such an amendment recognizes the diversity in spiritual and religious beliefs and is a positive development. Therefore a space for them to reflect is important too, and provides an opportunity of mindfulness for every person engaged in parliamentary work. It's clear that the Lord's Prayer is no longer appropriate for the representative body. This is, after all, a representative body. We are here to represent the breadth of views across the Australian community, and when half of the Australian population do not identify as Christian it's important that those views are represented in the way we conduct our business. It's also not appropriate in a secular society. It's the Greens' strong view that the Australian parliament should uphold secular values and not have those important values undermined at the beginning of each day with something that sends precisely the opposite message. We make it very clear that this is a country where there is separation between church and state. It's a country of many faiths. In fact, it's a country where many people have no faith, and therefore our parliament should reflect that. Our proposal is a very straightforward one. It's one where we invite people to prayer or reflection, but in silence. Basically, we put forward a proposal where we could use the opening statement that's read at the start of each day in the Legislative Assembly of the ACT. That procedure was adopted back in 1995, and not a moment too soon. To summarise: our recommendation is that as a parliament we no longer begin each day with the Lord's Prayer—something that is inconsistent with a modern multicultural, multifaith democracy—and instead we recommend that the requirement for prayer under standing order 50 be replaced with an invitation to prayer or reflection. That could be done in silence, it would be a much more inclusive gesture and it would reflect the breadth of views right across the Australian community. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. DELEGATION REPORTS 68 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the Republic of Indonesia 68 15:43 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I table and present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the Republic of Indonesia which took place from 29 July to 4 August 2018. REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 68 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Social Security (Parenting payment participation requirements - classes of persons) Instrument 2018 (No.1) 68 Disallowance 68 15:44 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia As I was saying in speaking to this before we went into non-controversial legislation, this is about disallowing the instrument that puts into effect the eligibility and the parameters around the ParentsNext program. It's a program that hasn't received the level of scrutiny by this place and by others outside this place that I think it deserves. What I had been talking about before we were went to non-controversial business was the impact of some of the compliance frameworks. As of 31 August this year, 84 participants had a demerit point. One participant had triggered a capability interview, having reached three demerit points in two months. This is the new process that came into effect in July. But their demerits were reset to zero, as the requirements were not suitable to their circumstances. Additionally 2,683 participants had received a payment suspension. This equates to 9.8 per cent of all participants at the time. While I acknowledge that if you're suspended then you will get back pay eventually, at the time that suspension can have a significant impact, depending on when that suspension occurs. As the trial occurred prior to 1 July this year, trial participants were not subject to the targeted compliance framework. However, the evaluation of the trial provided to us by the government—and I will say here that I thank the minister for providing that evaluation—was not prior to the decision to extend this and this instrument being tabled being made publicly available. That was prior to the minister taking on this particular role; I will also acknowledge that. I do thank the minister for providing that evaluation sooner than they would have publicly released it otherwise. I'll speak about that in a bit more detail very shortly. That evaluation also indicates that 9.1 per cent of participants experienced a suspension of their payment during the first 15 months of the trial and that three commenced participants had their payment cancelled after failing to engage in the program for 13 continuous weeks. Suspending or cancelling the payments of income support recipients with already low incomes would cause the parents enormous stress. To cancel the parenting payment of a parent with young children is an extremely harsh measure. While a small number were affected, this is nevertheless very concerning as young children would have been impacted as a consequence and would have been placed at increased risk. As this instrument also repeals the Social Security (Parenting payment participation requirements—classes of persons) Specification 2016 (No. 1), the instrument that specified the class of persons for the trial, if this instrument is disallowed then the trial instrument will be revived. The Australian Greens cannot support the national expansion of this program. Assisting women into meaningful, productive employment, with a clear pathway, is welcome in principle. Our main concerns with the program are that it is discriminatory towards women, devalues the role of parenting, is top-down and provides people with no choice. The program fails to address the multiple barriers to employment that women face and does not assist in breaking down cycles of disadvantage for women. It is compulsory in nature and incorporates punitive measures. It also does not take account of significant unpaid work that women undertake while caring for their children. We think it undervalues the importance of parents having the choice to provide full-time parental care for the early development of their children, bearing in mind that for some this program comes in when their children are six months old. The program should not be compulsory—the role of choice is very important when people are making life choices—and neither should it be punitive. While some parents may benefit from the activities, the program should be voluntary and should be focused on addressing the barriers to work that women face. It should also commence later. Parents have other focuses when their children are six months old. It should allow for more consideration to be given to children and family. Focusing on having mothers of young children re-enter the workforce at the earliest possible time fails to take into consideration the impact on the children and issues like, for example, the cost of child care for the parents. The evaluation of the trial was provided to us by the government, as I just articulated. The evaluation covers the operational period from 4 April 2016 to 30 June 2017, but it doesn't cover the period of the final year of the trial. The evaluation itself acknowledges the program was difficult to evaluate. The evaluation used a mixed-method approach, using qualitative and quantitative analysis. In regard to the qualitative analysis, the Social Research Centre conducted qualitative research on the experiences of child participants and providers in eight of the 10 locations. They held 11 focus groups with participants, 13 in-depth interviews with providers and five interviews with DHS operational staff. We don't know how many participants were included in each focus group and therefore how representative the sample was in the context of the full number of participants at that time, bearing in mind that there were over 24,000. We also do not know what questions were asked or the statements that were put to them and how they selected the participants in the groups. We do not know how the 13 providers were chosen or what the questions and statements were. Lastly, we do not know what, if any, data was excluded from the analysis and the report. I make the specific point that we know from the ANAO report on the cashless welfare card that significant data was left out of the evaluation. With regard to the quantitative analysis, administrative and survey data was used. We do not know what the survey questions were, whether they were in fact leading questions, or how they were framed or conducted. The main methodology for the measurement of program efficiency was cost per participant and the number of education or employment activities undertaken. The evaluation also explicitly states, 'quantifying the program effect of ParentsNext was difficult', and it acknowledges that this was more or less estimated. The evaluation indicates that only 53 per cent of surveyed participants thought the program had improved their chances of getting a job, and just over 25 per cent of participants did not indicate any specific assistance as being helpful. The evaluation says that many participants felt they did not have sufficient information about the program or what was required of them. This could cause some apprehension about the program when they were required to attend their first provider appointment, the report says. Some participants were concerned about the compulsory participation requirements of the program, in principle, and for various reasons, including a lack of transport, some found it difficult to attend. The evaluation mentions that some providers and participants were of the view that parents should not be required to commence the program when their youngest child is six months of age, as this is too young. The evaluation says that some participants indicated that they were not actively considering or planning for future work at this stage of their child's life. A participant was quoted in the evaluation as saying, 'I think that 12 months would at least be the minimum, because it can take you that time to just get normal sleep patterns again. Depending on who your provider is, you can feel overwhelmed by what they're expecting you to do.' The evaluation highlights that the willingness to engage in the program was affected by the compulsory nature of it and the threat of payment suspensions and penalties, particularly given that the lowest commencement rates were attributable to voluntary participants, at 74.3 per cent. The evaluation acknowledges that in some areas fewer jobs were available and that people in these areas may have to travel farther in order to find work. The evaluation makes a number of points that do not give me confidence in the way this program is being further rolled out and the nature of it—and I articulated when people were eligible. We've reached out to a number of organisations to get their opinions on this particular program. We have also looked at other comments on this program. I'd just like to quote to you some of the feedback that some of the organisations paying attention to this have had from their members. One participant said, 'I told the ParentsNext provider I wanted to study nursing. She was pushing me to study a certificate in business.' Another said, 'I have gone to two appointments. A huge waste of time, after also studying at university full time. However, I am now exempt, after asking her if this was possible. But I didn't get exempt because of uni. I was exempted as I have four kids under 18 and at least one under six.' In other words, she was being asked to participate when she was actually doing something: she was studying. This is the problem with this. We've had other examples where people are working and/or studying, yet they still have to go through this program. People feel that they're compelled to do it and that they are being picked on because the government wants to control their lives. One said: 'I find the whole ParentsNext concept kind of insulting. Do they seriously feel that we can't manage our own lives, futures and careers without their mismanagement?' Another said, 'Not to mention the courses are EXPENSIVE.' That was in capitals. 'I am paying, not Centrelink, and I sure as hell'—excuse me; I'm quoting—'would like to do well and not have to repeat any classes.' I'd like to table a letter that I've received from the minister, because we have been talking to the minister's office about this disallowance. Again, I acknowledge that I have received a letter from the Minister for Jobs, Industrial Relations and Women, the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer, and I've told her I will be tabling the letter, and I have checked with the whips. I seek leave to table that, because it explains some of the issues. Leave granted. Senator SIEWERT e5z The minister has given some acknowledgment of some of the issues that we have raised. I table the letter. I will go into more detail when I'm summing up, but I thank the minister for engaging in a very good discussion around the program. There are some clarifications that the minister has made of the operation of the program. (Time expired) 15:56 Senator CAMERON AI6 New South Wales Labor opposes this motion to disallow the Social Security (Parenting payment participation requirements—classes of persons) Instrument 2018 (No. 1). This instrument underpins the expansion of the ParentsNext program, a pre-employment initiative which aims to help parents with children under the age of six to plan and prepare for future study or employment as their children approach school age. From the outset, it's important to state that Labor understands and acknowledges the Greens' concerns and their motivation for bringing forward this disallowance motion. We also hold concerns about the expansion, but these concerns are outweighed by what we see as the potential benefits of the program for parents, predominantly young women, seeking to enter or re-enter the work force. If the regulation is disallowed and the preceding regulation is re-enlivened, many of the potential benefits of this program for participating families will be lost. These benefits include targeted and practical assistance to complete or add qualifications to become employment ready. Importantly, the program also includes early intervention assistance, such as identifying education and employment goals, developing pathways to achieve those goals and linking participants to activities and services in their local communities. For those parents in the intensive stream being delivered in 30 locations, including areas with a high proportion of Indigenous parents, there are additional supports through a participation fund, wage subsidies for potential employers and relocation assistance. The program is expected to cover around 68,000 people, of whom around 10,000 are Indigenous. More than 95 per cent of those helped are expected to be women. The ParentsNext program has only been running in an expanded form since the beginning of July, and the rollout is happening over time. Labor are of the view that, while we cannot yet fully appraise the benefits that this program may be delivering, we are wary of taking away the support of pre-employment programs that seek to invest $263 million in parents, including Indigenous parents. The positive aspects of this program would be lost to the majority of those people if the expansion were to be shut down, with only the 10 original trial sites remaining. It would also be frustrating for those parents who have taken the step of getting involved to find that their time has been wasted and to have this program's supports taken away from them. We oppose this motion today because it cannot, as a matter of practicality, completely resolve the concerns that are held in relation to compliance obligations. If the motion passes, there will still be many people, predominantly women, subject to the compliance obligations, and disallowing the regulation is likely to cause significant disruption, waste and job losses. The rollout has commenced on this $263 million program expansion. Fifty-eight providers have already been contracted, with contracts running from 2018 to 2021. Forty-seven of those providers are not-for-profits and five are Indigenous organisations. If the contracts are now torn up, it will likely involve payment of notice periods, payment of other costs and redundancies for providers' staff. Of course, the government should not have awarded contracts and started the rollout before this regulation had passed the disallowance period, but this failure of basic governance on behalf of the coalition should not be visited upon providers, their staff and, most importantly, the vulnerable people who are looking to enter or return to the workforce which this program is seeking to help. As I have previously stated, we have some concerns about the expansion as designed by the Liberal government. Labor have taken this opportunity to negotiate with the government to improve some of the early difficulties observed in relation to the program. Through our advocacy and discussions with crossbenchers and the government, we have identified key concerns and secured commitments for modifications. We acknowledge the government's willingness to negotiate on these matters. Some of the improvements that have been obtained through our negotiations include the government giving Labor an undertaking that they will update the ParentsNext program guidelines to ensure that parents who are engaging in study or appropriate training will be considered compliant with activity requirements. This improvement, secured by Labor, will make it clear that parents who engage in these activities will only need to participate in a quarterly catch-up with their provider to confirm their educational status and discuss whether they require any additional support. This assessment will also have added flexibility, including that it may be conducted by phone to minimise the impact on the participant. Likewise, the government have committed to investigate what can be done to assist parents who are at risk of having their payments suspended, including making sure that appointments aren't scheduled in close proximity to payment dates. The government have also given assurances that they will investigate the steps that the providers are taking to enter into cooperative partnerships with Indigenous organisations and to improve written communication in letters, emails and text messages. Communications will now reinforce to participants that they are able to bring their children to the appointments and that these environments are family-friendly. We believe these immediate improvements will make the program more focused on supporting parents and defray some of the problems which some parents have faced in relation to compliance. We are not saying that these changes will make the program or its expansion perfect or without difficulty. Labor acknowledge the concern of stakeholders in relation to the compliance aspects of this expansion. Generally, stakeholders support the existence of a pre-employment program for parents seeking to enter or return to the workforce, but they hold concerns about the compliance aspects of this program as presently designed. We hear those concerns and we will continue to consult stakeholders, such as the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children, ACOSS and others, about this program. We look forward to receiving further feedback as to how this program might be improved, with a view to considering what further action we could take if we form government. 16:04 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Firstly, I'd like to thank those members and senators who've contributed to the constructive discussion on this instrument. ParentsNext is a pre-employment program that assists parents of young children to plan and prepare for employment by the time their children start school. The program supports parents of children aged under six who are in receipt of parenting payment, particularly those at risk of long-term welfare dependency. By expanding ParentsNext, the government is seeking to support more eligible parents with young children to plan and prepare for employment, to break the cycle of intergenerational welfare dependency, to increase female labour force participation and to help close the gap in Indigenous employment. As one of the participants said about the program: 'It's having someone in your corner. If you have 10 friends who are all stay-at-home mums who don't want to work, then it won't create a culture of desire for change.' If we do not provide strong outcomes for disadvantaged parents, the cycle of welfare dependency will continue. Eighty per cent of young mothers on parenting payment had a parent or a guardian who was also on welfare during their upbringing. Providing tailored and flexible support to help parents increase confidence and wellbeing and achieve educational employment goals is a vital step in breaking that cycle. It's disappointing that the Greens would seek to disallow such an important instrument. 16:06 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I thank people for participating in the discussion. I've got a little bit more information as final encouragement and to put on the record. The National Foundation for Australian Women report Gender lens on the budget2018-19 says: It is unhelpful to view mothers of young children as 'unemployed workers' when they are in fact working longer hours than men in full-time positions, though largely without remuneration. While the evaluation report that I was talking about earlier acknowledges that early intervention with parents of young children through the provision of outreach services could be an important strategy in engaging individuals in workplace participation—and it identifies ParentsNext as an example of this—we would argue that a more useful intervention would be one that was voluntary, was not punitive and had a broader scope of support to be offered to adequately address the multiple barriers to employment that jobseekers more broadly face, including safe and stable accommodation and access to transport. Many of the people who will be on the much-expanded ParentsNext program face many levels of disadvantage. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that people who are forced to undertake activities don't have as good outcomes as those who are provided with choice. There's also a lot of evidence to show that early intervention and prevention and continued support for young families produces extremely good outcomes. Across the forward estimates, this program is going to cost $351 million. That is a lot of money that we think could be better invested. We have no argument with the government, or with Labor, that we need to be supporting young families, young mothers—people who have multiple layers of disadvantage. But we think we need to be investing it in a different way, a way that is not compliance focused. When you look at who's now eligible under this program, basically where we end up is that, under the targeted program and through the intensive program, anybody who supposedly has not worked in the last six months, who has a child over the age of five and who is on parenting payment is now subjected to ParentsNext. That's what it effectively means. I have a number of examples where people have been caught up in this. It is just so frustrating that the government isn't acknowledging that those who are undertaking full-time study or significant study can be exempt from this program. I got rather a long email from a mother who is caught up in this process. We received correspondence from this constituent, who was sent a letter by the Department of Human Services stating she must participate in the program in August. She has a three-year-old child. She's a full-time university student and a single parent. She said: I was assessed by the Department of Social Services last week and attended the first appointment. This took some three hours out of my day. She then explained that she has been assessed to receive very little child support from her son's father. She said: Often I do not receive any child support, and what I do receive does not even cover the cost of nappies. Any cut to parenting payment will have a catastrophic impact on my ability to support our family. She went on to say: During the assessment process I have already missed a number of phone calls from the Department of Human Services due to study and parenting responsibilities. If this was the ParentsNext contractor calling then I would likely have had my parenting payment cut. It is often difficult with small children to answer the phone or be places at a particular time. The compliance requirements of this program are unrealistic for parents of small children. Further, the reference to parents of small children as 'jobseekers' by the Department of Jobs and Small Business and the ParentsNext contractors is insulting. I note that I am not a jobseeker. I am a full-time mother and student. Further, she said: After the Department of Human Services assessed my eligibility for the program, they gave me two business days to attend a meeting with a ParentsNext contractor. She had two options. She was very concerned about one particular provider, so she chose one that was farther away, but she said: All up, I spent three hours attending the mandatory interview, or I was threatened by the department with my payment being cut. This is time I could have been devoting to my university studies and was also time I was paying for child care so I could study. She raised issues around privacy and she argued that the program is discriminatory, saying: The fact that I am a woman and have certain family responsibilities is being used to discriminate against me. I've already articulated that the vast majority of participants are women. She concluded by saying: The implementation of this program feels like a further blow, as I have less time to devote to my studies, which I ultimately hope will result in a stable, well-paid job to facilitate my son's future education. I have other examples: It used to be okay before when I started. I think baby before one year old. This is obviously from an email that was done very quickly. It goes on: You only go there every six months face to face and phone calls every two months or three. Now for a single mum on low income it's an activity that you need to attend, otherwise provide valid reason if you can't or pay is suspended. If you use all of your demerit points by not abiding with the plan then there's a pay cut and it will take three weeks to have it back. Another person wrote: Agreed, I am working and still have to attend simply because I am not doing 15 hours consistently per week, even though I'm not required to work yet. Multiple texts saying 'payment's been cut for not attending', even though I'm in— expletive— work and have told them so. This is the issue for people who are working. They are clearly engaged; they are clearly trying to find work. The department claims they're not stable, so they're caught up in this. You have to ask why. Why do people who are studying have to participate in this program that, it's been clearly demonstrated, people feel is not appropriate? I note that Labor claim it is all their work, although it's the Greens who were paying attention to this program, but I do thank both sides of the parliament for engaging very meaningfully in this debate. As Senator Cameron articulated, there's been a commitment that there will be more attempts to enable people who are studying to be contacted by phone to provide further guidance to the providers—or it will be in the guidelines to the provider. But a lot of these decisions are provider dependent. It's not just the fact that people have to report; it's also the fact that they feel demeaned by being on this program because they are actually already actively engaged and participating. I'd say anybody who's undertaking full-time university is actually making a very big effort to make sure that they are able to find work and engage. So I think the program is misguided. As I said, we very strongly support this level of investment. We disagree with the way the government is doing it. I am also very concerned about the impact this will have on First Nations peoples, particularly young women who have to engage when their child turns six months old. Many people have multiple areas of disadvantage. I'm deeply concerned that this funding should be invested much more up-front in different ways to enable people to address barriers not just to employment but to other areas of their lives. We support this investment. We disagree that this is the way to go. We think some of the issues about the way that this money is being invested and the approach that the program is taking are more about controlling, in a compulsory manner, people who are accessing parenting payment. That, combined with the new compliance framework, could very well have a significantly detrimental impact on women—this is largely focused on women, particularly single parents. It will have a detrimental impact on them as this program rolls out. This new program started in July, just as the new compliance framework started, so we haven't yet seen the significant impact this program could have in terms of people ending up not just having their payments suspended but with demerit points and significant penalties. We do acknowledge the commitments the government has made in providing clarification, in education and training, around approved activities, the pensioner education supplement and childcare provider choice. I am deeply concerned about the lack of significant numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander providers. I appreciate the commitment the government has made to pursue that. The minister says she's asked the department to provide her with further details regarding partner arrangements with ParentsNext providers who have entered into arrangements with Indigenous organisations and will forward this information separately as it becomes available. I appreciate the commitment to follow that up. We appreciate the commitment to expand the communication with participants. I think that is all significant progress, and I am glad that this process of disallowance has enabled those discussions. But we are still deeply concerned that this program is misdirected and that we could spend this $350 million in a way that better supports families and women, because this is really about women. We need to make sure that we're investing that money in the most meaningful way. We don't think this is the way to go. We will continue to review and monitor this program. I'm heartened to hear the opposition say that they are going to engage with the program more and continue to review it too, because I think it needs very close scrutiny. And just to address the issue around the providers that have already been contracted, my concern is about the way the contracts were put in place before the disallowance period on this expired, which undermines our ability to disallow it. My response would be that these contractors could be providing very valuable services to community members and to the people who are identified as needing that level of support—doing outreach support programs. So it's not so much that I'm worried about that. I think we could still spend the money the government's allocated in a very meaningful way. But I think there's a problem with going into contracting on matters that are subject to disallowance—they're using that as an excuse to not change a program—particularly if the will of the Senate was to in fact disallow this or change a particular program. I commend the disallowance to the chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247512 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Siewert be agreed to. Question negatived. 16:21 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Could I just have it noted that a division wasn't called. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 247512 Thank you very much, Senator Siewert, for clarifying that. DOCUMENTS 74 DOCUMENTS Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority 74 Order for the Production of Documents 74 MOTIONS 74 MOTIONS Energy and Climate Change Policies 74 16:21 Senator SINGH M0R Tasmania At the request of Senator Collins I move: That the Senate— (a) notes: (i) the Morrison Government's complete capitulation to the hard right of the Liberal and National Parties by abandoning emission reduction as a goal of energy policy, and its refusal to legislate the Paris Climate Change Agreement Targets, (ii) comments by former Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, who stated at his final press conference "in terms of energy policy and climate policy, I think the truth is that the Coalition finds it very hard to get agreement on anything to do with emissions. That's the truth", and (iii) that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Government policy inaction is driving up electricity prices, and that solutions, including an Emissions Intensity Scheme, a Clean Energy Target and a National Energy Guarantee, have given way to crippling policy paralysis; (b) observes that the Abbott -Turnbull-Morrison Government refuses to act, citing any and all excuses to delay, when everyone knows it is internal Coalition division and weakness of leadership that are really to blame; (c) agrees Australia must cut carbon pollution by 45 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030, and reach net zero emissions by 2050, consistent with Climate Change Authority recommendations regarding our obligations under the Paris Accords of keeping global warming to well below 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels; and (d) recognises, that in order to drive down prices and pollution, Australians need and deserve real leadership on energy and it is clearer every day that they will not get it from the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Government. (general business notice of motion no. 1051) This motion very clearly outlines and recognises that this coalition government has given up and that this new Prime Minister doesn't care when we talk about energy policy and climate policy. Over the last fortnight a number of Morrison government ministers have repeated the lie that Australia is supposedly 'on track' to meet its international climate commitments. The truth is that the Liberals have no climate policy and no way to contain let alone reduce Australia's rising carbon pollution levels. They have a target of a five per cent cut in emissions by 2020. They have committed to the Paris climate agreement, with a 26 to 28 per cent reduction by 2030 on 2005 levels. But the coalition government's own data—snuck out just days before Christmas—showed that there would be a zero per cent cut in pollution by 2020. The same government data showed that there would be only a slim four per cent cut in pollution by 2030, missing our international obligations by a whopping 24 per cent. And of course this was all before the Liberals completely junked the emissions reduction component of their National Energy Guarantee—the thing that now is dead—walking away from any plan to cut pollution in the electricity sector, which is responsible for one-third of all of Australia's emissions and has the lowest cost of cutting pollution. I really can't put it any better, though, than the way it has been set out in this motion: that the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government's policy in action is driving up electricity prices and that its failed solutions, including an emissions intensity scheme, a clean energy target and the National Energy Guarantee, never came to fruition but have all given way to this crippling policy paralysis. At every step of the way, throughout all of the different versions of an energy policy that the government has put forward, Labor have been willing to work with the government for a genuine solution to the energy crisis. We were willing to negotiate on an emissions intensity scheme, but Tony Abbott vetoed that one. We were willing to work with the Chief Scientist's, Dr Alan Finkel's, clean energy target, but Tony Abbott vetoed that one. We were willing to work with Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull on the National Energy Guarantee, but, under pressure from anti-renewable members of the coalition party room and without even talking to Labor, he decided to abandon that policy—the one that he had recently said was 'essential' to solving the energy crisis. Businesses, industry and all the experts have been clear that renewable energy is the only way forward for Australia's energy system. Renewable energy is the cheapest way forward—the cheapest form of new energy. It will create thousands of jobs. It will drive down pollution. But it has been year upon year upon year of a different version, of a different policy, being put forward by this government, all of which have failed, and it has led us to this point of complete policy paralysis, where we don't have any energy or climate policy at all. If we look at the NEG, the National Energy Guarantee, and its 26 per cent emissions target, it was already inadequate to fix this energy crises. But now, with the government having nothing—no policy, no ideas, no leadership and no hope—what can the Australian people and what can Australian businesses and industry really have to guide them forward? The international community is becoming increasingly alarmed at Australia's complete lack of responsibility and, indeed, of credibility, particularly when the European Union and our neighbours in the Pacific, as we recently heard at the Pacific Islands Forum, are demanding that this government take action to reduce pollution and not just repeat the empty promises that we have heard. What has been clear over the last fortnight is that this new Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, has the same position as Peter Dutton when it comes to action on climate change. Prime Minister Morrison saying that Australia is committed to our Paris target is worthless. He is merely paying lip-service, given that he has no policy to actually back that up. Australia and the world's need for comprehensive mitigation of the effects of climate change has never been greater. On current trends, the UN estimates that climate change will displace up to 200 million people by 2050, creating an unprecedented refuge crisis. The government have committed Australia to some of the weakest emissions reduction targets in the developed world. They have tried to de-list part of Tasmania's World Heritage area. Carbon emissions have been increasing the whole time they have been in power, and they are still putting those who have an ideological bent against the climate science into federal parliament. I remember way back when Senator Duniam was about to start his term in this place and he told The Examiner newspaper that he was yet to be convinced that climate change is man-made. He is not alone in his thinking within the Liberal Party. So many of them still deny the science. It is something that former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was only too well aware of—so well aware that, even after all the compromises the former Prime Minister made, they still rolled him. They still couldn't bring themselves to agree to a policy on energy that included emissions reduction. And the NEG died. I share with you the former Prime Minister's own words on that—indeed, words that have been written into this motion—where he said: In terms of energy policy and climate policy, I think the truth is that the Coalition finds it very hard to get agreement on anything to do with emissions. That's the truth. That is what the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said at his final press conference as Prime Minister. Yes, that is the truth, Malcolm Turnbull, and that is why I think between now and the next election we will see the absolute continuation of policy paralysis when it comes to emissions reduction, strong investment in renewable energy and Australia's commitment to our Paris climate agreement targets. All of us in this parliament must realise that we have to step up and take serious action to deal with this deep energy crisis gripping this nation. Labor is ready to do that. We have been ready to do that for a very long time. We want to do that. Our households and our businesses know only too well that wholesale power prices have doubled in the four years of this government, primarily because of the policy paralysis and uncertainty that has gripped this nation. Labor has tried again and again to work with this government, but it's now clear that it will not provide the leadership needed to solve this energy crisis. Fortunately for Australia, the choice is clear going forward: Labor is for renewables and for lower prices; the Liberals are for more coal and for higher prices. During the last Labor government carbon pollution decreased by 11 per cent, but carbon pollution has indeed increased by six per cent under this changing Liberal coalition government. That gives you the stark difference between Labor's commitment on energy policy and emissions reductions, and this shambles of a government. We have real policies with real outcomes for Australians. We are committed to cutting our carbon pollution by 45 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030 and to reaching net zero emissions by 2050 as is consistent with our obligations, under the Paris accord, of keeping global warming well below two degrees above pre-industrial levels. Our position is to transition Australia's energy system, with 50 per cent renewable energy by 2050 at its core. We know what that will do; it will drive investment in renewable energy. Coming from Tasmania I know that very clearly, because of Tasmania's expanding wind farms. In fact 30 sites in Tasmania could potentially have more wind farms if we had an energy policy with the right parameters in place to allow that investment in renewables. Labor has that policy. We want to drive that investment in renewable energy. That isn't only good for our carbon emissions and a reduction in energy prices; it is good for jobs and investment. I don't think anyone in this place can say they do not support that. Whatever the other side's ideological bent against renewable energy is, how can they deny the jobs and investment that will come with the creation of more renewable energy and the various technologies that keep coming forward? Labor will also implement sector-specific policies for energy, transport and agriculture to ensure we deliver on our pollution reduction obligations in a way that maximises our economic and job opportunities. We remain convinced that if we can cut our pollution, as we were doing when in government, and transition to a clean energy economy, then it can only be good for our country and what we have signed up to. We have only to look at our neighbouring countries in the Pacific, which are crying out for us to make this happen, and also other countries further afield. I saw just the other day that California is going to use 100 per cent clean energy by 2045. I was recently in Europe, and I passed so many wind farms. In such a small land mass—that is, when Europe is compared to Australia—they are maximising that opportunity for renewables in every part of Europe as it stands. Yet here we are still having those same old, tired debates on whether the Liberals can believe the science and whether or not they have to continue to roll another Prime Minister because he is just a little bit too pro-renewables and just that little bit too pro the Paris agreement. We then have the dumping of the Paris agreement. How far did the former Prime Minister go only a few weeks ago—with the killing off of the NEG, the National Energy Guarantee, and the dumping of the Paris climate targets—for those ideological right-wingers within the Liberal Party to be happy? Well, they still weren't happy, and the former Prime Minister is now gone. We are now all the worse for it because we now don't have anything. We don't have a NEG. Even though it wasn't good enough, it gave us something to start with and to build from after the policy paralysis of so many years. Even though the government's own projections have shown pollution will keep rising all the way to 2030, they have no policy to even meet the weak 26 to 28 per cent target that they held. What this means is we will have pollution going up in every sector. We need to take stock here of where we find ourselves as a country and how far backwards we've gone. I remember my time in this place when Labor was in government and the day we introduced the carbon pollution architecture, those clean energy bills that gave us that road map forward and that road map to be part of transitioning our economy into a clean energy economy. It was a momentous day. I remember it was a momentous day for then Minister Greg Combet as well and for all of those Labor colleagues. Yet look how far backwards we've gone. With the change of government in 2013 and all of the various leaders that they've had since, we have gone so far backwards not just on our rising pollution and not just on the rising energy prices but on the fact that we as a country stand for nothing now when it comes to energy, when it comes to our commitment to emissions reduction and when it comes to the future for our children and playing our part in reducing our emissions on this planet. That is shameful; it is incredibly shameful. It is shameful because we will have long been gone from this place. We know from the science that if we do not reduce our emissions and if temperatures continue to rise, we are going to be in real trouble as a planet. How can we deny that? How can we just turn our backs and do nothing? Look at the way Australia, even domestically at the moment, is suffering. Look not just at those households that obviously have rising energy prices, which is bad enough, but at our farmers who are suffering the drought. Listen to our farmers. Listen to those Pacific islanders who are trying to mitigate rising sea levels. The climate is changing. There is global warming happening. At this present time, as we speak, I think there is a typhoon that's about to be experienced over the Philippines. We've also got hurricanes and weather in the southern states of America. All of this is continuing to happen and all of it is a contribution of the changing climate that we live in. We need to act and ensure we are doing as much as we can to contribute to the reduction in warming—that is, the reduction of two per cent. We are not on track to do that in this country, and we have every single means to do it. We've got more sun here, I think, than nearly any country in the world. We've got such a huge land mass. We have such an opportunity and there are such opportunities to create future jobs from it. Yet, here we are in this place, and in the other place, stuck in a policy paralysis because of a few hard-right-wingers within the government who just want to put their heads in the sand and hope it all goes away. Every time we bring a policy idea forward—our opportunity to contribute in a sensible, negotiable way with the government—they don't want a bar of it, because they simply do not believe in it. This complete capitulation by the Morrison government to the hard Right of the Liberals and the Nationals by abandoning emissions reduction as a goal of energy policy and its refusal to legislate the Paris climate change agreement targets means only one thing. It means that the sooner we have an election the better. The sooner that this lot are voted out of office the better so that we can move forward and ensure that we do have the right energy policy for this country and that we do indeed start to get back on track in reducing our emissions. The sooner that day comes the better for all Australians. 16:41 Senator WILLIAMS I0V New South Wales I can see the fight now between the Labor Party and the hard Left of the Greens, especially the one coming up in Tasmania. Who is going to go the furthest to the left to see what they can do to win a vote or two? It is about time some facts, some realistic points of view, were put forward in this chamber on this whole energy and carbon emissions reduction scheme. Let's go back and look at 2010. Remember the promise by the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard: 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead'? Of course, in that election the coalition won 73 seats and Labor won 72 seats. But along came Independents Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor. What did they demand—especially Tony Windsor? He demanded the cross-party, multiparty climate change committee, or whatever you want to call it, and out of it, driven by Tony Windsor, came the carbon tax we were never going to have. What did it do? It did absolutely nothing except put costs up for the Australian people to the tune of $9 billion in a year—and growing. It was going to go up every year. Here we have a situation where we put the price of electricity up—and that's going to save the planet? That is absolute rot. Dr Finkel told us at Senate estimates what would happen if Australia reduced all of its emissions—the whole lot. What effect would it have on the planet? Basically nothing at all. Months ago, I brought to the attention of Senate, and so did my colleague Senator Macdonald, details of the new coal-fired power generation being constructed around the world—I know them off by heart. A unit is one generator and plants like Bayswater and Liddell in the Hunter Valley in New South Wales are four-unit generating plants. They have four generators, four cooling towers and so on. Eight months ago, China was constructing an extra 299 units of coal-fired generation to add to their 2,107 units already in production. Those 299 units will produce 670 million tonnes of CO2 a year—that's just the extra 299 that are under construction. Australia produces 550 million tonnes of CO2, so the extra coal-fired generators being built in China will produce more CO2 than the whole of Australia, through everything. There were 621 units under construction at the time: 299 in China, about 132 in India, 34 in Vietnam, 32 in Indonesia, some in South Africa, 10 in Japan and even some in Germany. In Australia we have a total of 73 units of coal-fired generation—just 73. Around the world, 621 units are being constructed, and somehow we're going to change the planet! It is ludicrous. All we do is shut ours down and put the cost up. I will give you an example, Madam Acting Deputy President Kitching. When Hazelwood's coal-fired generator closed in Victoria, the electricity prices in Victoria went up 176 per cent, and they went up 102 per cent in New South Wales and 86 per cent in South Australia. We talk about renewable energy, and I have no problem with renewable energy. Renewable energy is a very good thing. However, it's got to stand on its own feet. Let me give you the examples. Senator Singh was talking about all these wind towers that we can build in Tasmania. Say that you construct one wind tower, just one—a three-megawatt-per-hour generator—and that that wind tower spins for eight hours a day, 365 days a year. Surprise, surprise—the owners of that wind tower get a $700,000 subsidy in renewable energy certificates before they sell one watt of electricity. They get $700,000 just because it's standing there and spinning for eight hours a day—not selling electricity. What did they do in South Australia? They constructed these wind towers everywhere. I grew up down in Jamestown and I know that they're all around the hills there. Because of those huge subsidies, they can sell electricity cheaply into the grid. And what happened? The coal-fired power station at Port Augusta went broke and, along with that, the coalmine at Leigh Creek was shut down. I was at Leigh Creek in early June, and that town is on the slide, big time. Senator Brockman 30484 Jobs for workers gone! Senator WILLIAMS I0V Yes, jobs for workers. I can't believe how the CFMMEU can ever support the Greens party or the Labor Party. They're the people who are against everything the CFMMEU believes in when it comes to mining, coalmining and coal-fired generation. So let's shut it all down! Then we know what happened next in South Australia: the lights went out. Senator Brockman 30484 The lights went out! Senator WILLIAMS I0V But it gets worse, Senator Brockman. Who pays for these renewable energy certificates of $700,000 paid for each wind tower every year? Of course, under the Renewable Energy Target of 20 per cent by 2020, or 33,000 gigs—we reduced it to that, thank goodness; it should have been reduced more—the law is that everyone who is hooked into an electricity grid pays for it, from a food-processing abattoir at Inverell, Bindaree Beef, to the poor old widowed pensioner who can't afford to turn the heater on in the middle of winter because she can't afford to pay the electricity bill, and every business and every household in between. That's who pays for it. For what? It's for the owners of those wind towers, mainly foreign companies, to take the money back overseas to increase their living standards and to reduce ours. And what do they do in the face of emissions reductions? Virtually nothing! I was amazed when I visited a wind farm a few months ago—just one wind tower standing there. There are many, of course, but I'm just referring to one now. The tonnes and tonnes of cement that go into cementing that tower into the ground are unbelievable. And, of course, cement is a big emitter. Then there is the steel, the copper and all the metals in it. Some say the life of a wind tower is 25 years. Some say it takes 15 years of generating electricity before it even becomes carbon neutral—15 years! That wouldn't surprise me at all, given the steel and the cement that goes into it. I remember when the carbon tax came in that, even though the cement industry received a 95 per cent discount, we were going to bill the cement industry an enormous amount of cost because they produced cement in Australia. We produce about 10 million tonnes of cement in Australia. When we do, we produce 0.8 of a tonne of CO2 per tonne of cement. In China, they produce one billion-plus tonnes of cement a year. When they produce one tonne of cement they produce 1.1 tonnes of CO2. So let's shut down the cement industry in Australia, have it all processed and produced in China, where they produce more tonnes of CO2 per tonne of cement than in Australia, and somehow that's going to save the planet. No, that simply puts workers out of the jobs and shuts businesses down. This is the whole crazy thing. I will ask a simple question here about new coal-fired generation. What do you think they are going to burn in those new coal-fired generators around the world? You've got it, Madam Acting Deputy President—they're going to burn coal! You guessed it! Spot on! Go to the top of the class! They can burn coal from Indonesia or from China—brown coal, high-ash, poor-quality coal—and put out a lot more CO2 emissions. Or they can actually buy coal from Australia—the older black coal that's far more efficient. But no, the green religion, the green movement, linked with the Greens and the Labor Party, doesn't want to see any coalmines expand in Australia. They want to see the coal-fired generators around the world use poor-quality coal from China, Indonesia and other countries that will put more emissions into the planet's atmosphere than using Australian coal. How stupid is that? It annoys me immensely that here we are in a country—I will give an analogy, Mr Acting Deputy President Leyonhjelm. Welcome aboard. Mr Acting Deputy President, go and check out the price of diesel around the world. If you go to Iran, diesel is 7c a litre. It's about $1.55 in Australia today, with the low dollar and higher world price of oil. Go to Saudi Arabia and the price of diesel is 13c a litre. Ask why. I will tell you why: because those countries are wallowing in oil. Wherever you dig—well, not quite—you strike oil. They've got big supplies of oil; hence, their fuel is so cheap. Compare that to Australia. What are we wallowing in? We're wallowing in energy: gas, coal, uranium—you name it. We'd have more energy per capita than any other country in the world. But what are our electricity prices? They are exorbitant. This is brought on by the renewable energy target, forcing coal-fired generation out of production, reducing supply, forcing prices up and many other things, like some of the things the state government have done. Back in 2011, the crazy Labor government in New South Wales brought in the gross feed-in tariff, paying 60 cents per kilowatt hour to generate, while the bill was only about 22 cents per kilowatt hour. What a way to cream the system and make money. Wealthy people could put photovoltaic solar panels on their homes and get paid a fortune while the poor people paid for it. This is the Labor Party policy. You've got the gold plating of poles and wires, and the return is ridiculous on that. You can blame every state and every federal government of all political persuasions of the last 10 to 15 years for the price of electricity in Australia. Here we are now making an absolute effort to bring the prices down. One thing has to happen for sure: the supply of electricity has to increase. We need baseload reliable supply. But, no, the green religion, as I call it—the Greens extreme-left socialists, fighting for that green space with the Labor Party—has a simple theme: 'Come follow me and I'll lead you to the land of poverty.' It's all about shutting down our businesses and reducing our living standards. As far as emissions around the world go, it makes no difference at all. If you were concerned about emissions, we'd be selling good-quality coal out of Australia to these new coal-fired generators being built, many of them in Asia, which would put less emissions into the atmosphere. But, no: talk about a coalmine being opened, and the green movement and the environmentalists will be going through the courts and so on. GetUp!, the lefty socialists, are pouring their money in and promoting the green religion so that we can't help the planet when it comes to emissions by giving them good quality coal. It's amazing how living standards are under threat because of the price of electricity in this country. I know an abattoir very close to us where we live at Inverell that is now paying $70,000 a week on its electricity bill. It was $80,000, but they got a better deal. Luckily, the prices have been coming down a little bit. What are their competitors in Brazil and America paying? Nothing near that. But they have to compete on the world stage, with the costs going up all the time. I won't even get into the payroll tax. As for those over there—the fight for the green religion between the Labor Party and the Greens—they are going to go to a 50 per cent renewable energy target by 2030 and reduce our emissions by 45 per cent on 2005 levels by 2030. It's not going to do a thing except help send the country broke, make us less competitive on the world stage, put people out of work and shut businesses down. There are some amazing quotes on this proposal by those opposite—the green army, we can call them, over there fighting the Labor Party—especially by the extreme left and the Greens. In May 2015, CFMEU president, Tony Maher, said: … an increased Renewable Energy Target of 50 percent by 2030 will increase the cost of electricity for manufacturing and ordinary households while being a poor tool to reduce Australia's overall warming emissions. How true. In January 2017, Ben Davis, secretary of Bill Shorten's branch of the AWU, said: … the rush away from coal and gas-fired electricity power stations … is a little unseemly in its haste because we are potentially crucifying hundreds of thousands of manufacturing workers. How true that is. Putting the price of energy up in a country that's wallowing in energy, sending businesses broke and having people lose their jobs—that's a great way to go! While coal-fired generation is being built all around the world in most countries, we have stuck to our 73 units, and of course the green religious movement is trying to shut them down. On 25 June 2018, the Business Council of Australia said: The emissions target of 26% is appropriate and achievable. 45% is an economy-wrecking target. How true it is. On 27 November 2015, the National Farmers' Federation said the ALP's proposed target of 45 per cent emissions reduction by 2030 would hinder agricultural competitiveness and economic growth. The Minerals Council of Australia said: The minerals sector is concerned at the Federal Opposition's proposal for a 45 per cent reduction in Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. The target is not based on detailed economic analysis of its impact on growth, living standards and energy costs. The proposed target has the look and feel of an ambit claim. That is the point. Over there in the Labor Party and the Greens, you don't care about growth, you don't care about jobs, and you don't care about the cost of living and living standards. You've done it before. In 2010, then Prime Minister Julia Gillard said, ' There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead,' and what came about? On 27 November 2015, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said: 'Labor's newly announced proposal to double cuts to emissions to 45 per cent by 2030 with a long-term target of net zero emissions by 2050 was not backed by a credible plan that protects economic growth.' This is the thing: you are going down a path of saying: 'Let's all go back to the Stone Age and live in the caves. We'll give you three sticks a week to cook your food and keep yourself warm.' Then you'll wonder what's going on with living standards. That's what you're doing—you're taking living standards and reducing them in Australia. If it were going to achieve something, you'd understand it. But, as Chief Scientist Dr Finkel said, it's going to achieve nothing. It is amazing: three human beings, simply breathing for a year, produce one tonne of CO2. China, with about 1.4 or 1.5 billion people, produce almost as much CO2 as the whole country of Australia, including our industry, just through the population breathing—not doing anything else. It will get worse. The green religion will attack agriculture and they'll attack transport, nothing surer. It will be interesting to see what senators Gallacher and Sterle have to say when they say, 'Let's go after the transport industry.' A big country like ours has to transport so much agricultural produce and everything else, and they say, 'Let's hit that up big time with taxes and costs and shut it down. There is talk about winding back our sheep numbers and cattle numbers to save the planet. This is outrageous. People have to eat, you know. The first rule is: if you don't eat, you die, with other things in between. Dr Finkel said that, at 1.3 to 1.4 per cent of the world's emissions, we're not going to change the planet. This is simply a political game being played by the left-wing green movement. There is a fight for the green vote between the Greens and the Labor Party—the Greens so-called partners in crime when it comes to this. As I've said before, the CFMEU have donated money to the Greens. The CFMEU stands for the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. What do the Greens say? They hate construction—we all know that. We can go and live in the caves. Forestry—they hate forestry. They don't want timber jobs. They want to see every tree stand. They want to shut them up in national parks and let the bushfires burn them, killing the animals as well. Mining: well, as I always say, the only people the Greens hate more than the farmers are the miners. They hate mining. And then there is energy. The CFMEU has donated money to the Greens party of New South Wales. That is unbelievable. That a union would donate money to a political party that opposes everything that union believes in is just incredible. When it comes to the CFMEU—or the WMEU, with the maritimes now tied up with them as well—where do you stand on coal-fired generation? Where do you stand on coalmining over there? No, you are silent; you are mute. In Victorian by-elections, 'No, there'll be no coalmines there.' When we get to Queensland, the opposition leader and others will say, 'Yes, we're big supporters of coal.' It depends where they're speaking. Who do you believe? What is the truth? What are the facts? This whole energy argument has been an absolute farce. As I said—and I agree with what Dr Finkel said at Senate estimates—if we think that we are going to change the planet we are very, very wrong. While others are producing more CO2, building more coal-fired power generation and putting more vehicles—what is it, five million extra vehicles go on the road in China a year, as they raise living standards?—we're going to change everything. No, we are not. What we are going to do is reduce our living standards here, make us less competitive around the world, wind up businesses and cause unemployment and the effect on the climate will be absolutely zilch— (Time expired) Debate adjourned. MOTIONS 80 MOTIONS Trade 80 17:01 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I move: That the Senate notes the importance of protecting Australian jobs, skills, industries and sovereignty when negotiating, and agreeing to, free trade agreements. The discovery of hypocrisy in politics is rarely a revelation, especially in this place. But today's policy shift by the Labor Party concerning so-called free trade agreements, specifically the TPP-11, is particularly noteworthy. It's certainly a good illustration of what happens when a political party gets a whiff of government and starts trimming their sails in anticipation of power and all of its entitlements. Before I go to the details of how the Labor Party has folded and signed off on a policy that is against its own national platform, I think it is important to give credit where credit is due. In the face of constant claims from the government that the Labor Party is beholden to their union mates, the shadow minister for trade, the member for Blaxland, Jason Clare, has managed to get the Labor caucus to sign off to consenting to the TPP even when it's against their own party policy. Perhaps the government will need to update its talking points when it comes to just how much influence the unions have over the decisions made by the Labor Party. As I noted in the chamber yesterday, Labor has announced new proposals relating to labour protections, national sovereignty, future trade deals and proposed measures relating to the transparency of future negotiations involving parliament, industry and unions. All is well and good. Labor also moved a second reading amendment to the TPP enabling legislation in the House of Representatives today. It is quite remarkable. Paragraph 1 of that amendment notes the following: … the Coalition Government has waived labour market testing for contractual service suppliers for six new countries in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership as well as including investor state dispute settlement mechanisms which Labor does not support; But Labor isn't going to stand in the way of the enabling legislation; they are going to wave it through. If you don't support the waiver of labour market testing, and if you don't support the inclusion of ISDS clauses, then why are you supporting the very legislation that gives effect to them? It's all well and good to say that a future Labor government would address these deficiencies, but what use is that when the TPP-11 is one of the largest trade agreements after the North American Free Trade Agreement? In order to address these deficiencies, a future Labor government would need to negotiate side agreements, with each government agreeing not to apply the labour market testing or ISDS provisions. It's apparent that the TPP-11 contains many harmful provisions which will act to the detriment of the Australian economy, including ISDS and labour market testing exemptions. This is not just my view; it's a view shared by the Electrical Trades Union and many other unions. It's no wonder many in the Labor Party and the trade union movement are concerned. The Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Sally McManus, said the ACTU and the union movement are 'disappointed by the ALP's decision to vote for the TPP enabling legislation'. Just how disappointed has been made clear by other union leaders. The ETU National Secretary, Allen Hicks, is reported in The Sydney Morning Herald today as saying: Labor has announced a policy to improve how current trade deals are negotiated, in particular the fact that agreements like the TPP are negotiated in secret without community input, yet they are failing to put that commitment into action by demanding improvements to this trade deal. He went on to say: The Opposition not only has an unprecedented ability to demand a better deal, failing to do so will see them forced to accept responsibility for the significant failings of this agreement. So, in my view, we've got this Westminster system of government where the opposition keeps an eye on the government, but now a new element's been added, and that is where the crossbench has to keep an eye on the opposition. The AMWU's National Secretary, Paul Bastian, was reported in The Australianyesterday as saying: It beggars belief that the Labor caucus would sign off on ratifying the TTP given it's against the party's own policy. The TPP-11 is a disaster for Australian workers. The labour mobility provisions would give open access to six signatory countries without labour market testing. This has the potential to see huge pressures on our labour market, further downward pressure on wages and conditions, and foreign workers exploited. He went on to say that provisions giving multinational corporations the ability to sue a government were a grave risk to sovereignty. He said: It is clear that Labor knows these are issues—they admit as such, and note that any future trade deals would require labour market testing and a rejection of investor state dispute settlement provisions. If these issues are crucial for any future trade deals—why not for the TPP? The TPP must be amended before it is ratified by Parliament. These are salient points but they appear to have fallen on deaf ears. I want to make it very, very clear: the numbers in the Senate, with Senator Hanson's One Nation and Centre Alliance voting against the TPP enabling legislation—and those policies, of voting against it, have been announced—allow the Labor Party to stop this going through. Our policy is clear: while we support open and fair trade, we don't support the TPP enabling legislation. The deal that has been negotiated by the government is, on balance, bad for Australia. Recently released modelling commissioned by Australian industry heavyweights shows that the deal would amount to, at best, a 0.5 per cent increase in GDP by 2030. This figure is tempered by the fact that the Productivity Commission has found that predictions for growth and jobs from free trade agreements have rarely been delivered, because the economic models employed exaggerate the benefits, ignore many of the costs and assume away unemployment benefits. The modelling shows Australia's grain exports would not change at all under the deal and all other agriculture could decline. It shows that durable manufacturing, a key sector of interest to Centre Alliance, would actually shrink under the TPP-11. Labor's going to let that happen! The very questionable gains discussed in the modelling report in no way balance the negative aspects of the abolition of labour market testing for temporary workers and the inclusion of ISDS provisions that are an affront to our national sovereignty. I would point out that when you have a former High Court justice, Justice French, calling ISDS a Trojan Horse, you should take note. In this regard I'll add that it was only down to the work of Centre Alliance, especially former Senator Nick Xenophon, that the cost of one of Australia's existing ISDS mechanisms was exposed with the Philip Morris tobacco case, with the ISDS costs costing the taxpayer an eye-watering $39 million. To be very clear, Centre Alliance supported the government in responding to the action initiated by Philip Morris. But the point is that, when this parliament passed legislation to enable plain tobacco packaging, it was challenged and went all the way to our High Court. The High Court affirmed our parliament's right to make the changes. So Philip Morris then set up a tribunal in Hong Kong, made up not of esteemed judicial officers but of lawyers, that could then usurp the ruling of our High Court. That's treasonous, in my view. In opposing the enabling legislation, Centre Alliance is presenting Labor with an opportunity to give effect to their own national policy position. One would think that Labor would join us in sending a very strong message that we do not enter into trade deals unless there is a clear benefit and strong labour market testing and all ISDS provisions have been removed. Centre Alliance isn't trying to kill this deal in its entirety, like the union movement. We just want to cut the cancer out. But Labor's support will mean that the enabling legislation will sail through the Senate and become law. Labor says they will fix things when they get into government. They are certainly feeling confident, but it's still a pretty big assumption. In any case, I'm prepared to make the observation that, if they are elected to government, Labor won't be changing course on trade policy. Sure, there'll be a lot of talk about greater openness and transparency in the negotiations. There will be policy reviews. Numerous experts will be called in to look at things. But I doubt it will amount to much. I doubt very much that there's much stomach on the part of Labor's frontbench to challenge the trade orthodoxies within the Foreign Affairs and Trade bureaucracy. If today's policy backflip is anything to go by, there will be much talk about the difficulties of revisiting existing agreements and about the challenges of trade policy in the context of the US presidency of Donald Trump. They will eventually say that it's all too hard and will seek to move the policy conversation elsewhere. Perhaps the most interesting question today, however, is just why the parliamentary Labor Party turned its back on Australian workers. The truth is that they don't have the courage of their own conviction, their own policy. Again I stress: with Centre Alliance's numbers and Pauline Hanson's One Nation not backing the enabling legislation—I make it very clear—this enabling legislation will not get through this parliament unless Labor supports it. For years they've been criticising the coalition's approach to trade policy, but in the lead-up to an election campaign they don't want to have an argument about trade. They don't want to have a fight—not only with the government, perhaps, but, more importantly, with some parts of the business community and the Murdoch press. Instead, they want to trim their sails and quietly glide into office, free from any commitments to substantial policy change, bereft of any real ambition. Instead, they are content to be in a trade policy cartel with the coalition. This is the politics of expediency, the politics of hypocrisy. But I guess that's what we expect from this so-called opposition. There is good news, however. I foreshadow that I will be moving amendments to the three pieces of legislation that must pass through this chamber to give force to this agreement. These amendments will seek to adjust the commencement date of the legislation until after the ISDS provisions have been removed and after labour market testing has been restored. That'll give us an opportunity to see which of the Labor senators have the courage of their own convictions and will join us. This is bad legislation that grounds a poorly negotiated TPP. I'm very interested to see what happens from here. 17:15 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise to speak on notice of motion No. 1052 relating to free trade agreements. In doing so, I'll start by pointing out that I feel I should probably just move for an extension of time for Senator Patrick while he whacks Labor around the ears a bit more. Even though I was enjoying that aspect of Senator Patrick's presentation, I think there is a very important point to make here in that there is a move internationally to a more populist view of trade. I think that is something that needs to be countered. It is something that needs to be argued against very strongly because I think one of the things that has been very clear over the last 400 years of economic history is that trade is of undoubted benefit. Trade is of undoubted benefit to nations, to individuals and to the globe in enabling nations to speak more freely to one another and to avoid conflict. Trade is a universal good. Trade is what makes us who we are as humanity. It drives our economy in a very fundamental way as Australians who are at the end of the line. We are a very remote country. We are a long way from major markets. Trade is absolutely our lifeblood, and the move towards a more protectionist, more antitrade world will only do one thing and that is hurt Australia. It will hurt the Australian economy, hurt individual Australians, destroy jobs and potentially destroy whole industries that are fundamental to our economy. The move to protectionism internationally is reflected in some elements in Australia and it is something that we do have to challenge and fight against. I just want to address a few of the things that Senator Patrick raised about the TPP-11, in particular this idea that the FTA in some way opens up opportunity for unskilled foreign workers to take the jobs of skilled Australians. The foreign worker fear campaign has been used in the past. We've all seen it before and it's something that hasn't eventuated. Agreements such as the TPP-11 do not remove the skills and experience requirements that need to be met by foreign workers applying for temporary skilled visas to work in Australia. This means that workers from TPP-11 signatory countries remain subject to and must satisfy any skills assessment required for the visa process. Workers from TPP-11 signatory countries also remain subject to and must satisfy licensing and registration processes as required by state and territory governments. One of the other issues I'd like to deal with is labour market testing. We've got a long history of free trade agreements. In fact, the previous Labor government did actually manage to sign a few, and, of course, this government has concluded a large number of free trade agreements: with Korea, Japan and China, obviously; more recently, with Peru; an agreement with Indonesia; the PACER agreement, which was talked about a fair bit today; of course, the TPP-11; and, before that, the US free trade agreement and a few other things. We have a fair bit of experience in this area, so we've got some history. We can actually look at what happened on the ground, and this issue of labour market testing is purely a furphy. It's an unjustified concern. There hasn't been an influx of workers from the countries we've concluded trade agreements with. We haven't seen an influx of workers into Australia following entry into force of free trade agreements with the major North Asian economies—economies, particularly those of China, Korea and Japan, which you would have thought would have been potential sources of workers. It is also important to remember that we made temporary commitments in order to get better access for our service suppliers in return. There is a quid pro quo involved. It was part of the deal which would result in $15 billion in additional annual income by 2030. That was actually verified information provided by the Minerals Council. Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Island signatories to PACER Plus have signed a separate non-binding arrangement on labour mobility. So this is not about taking Australian jobs. In fact, I would contend that, when you look at the benefits of trade, this is actually about creating Australian jobs. The latest jobs figures were released today by Minister O'Dwyer: 44,000 jobs were created last month. Under this government, 1,144,500 jobs were created, and the vast majority of those jobs were created by a vibrant private sector, by companies employing people, selling services, selling things overseas. We are a trading economy. Those jobs are in very significant part based around industries that rely for their future on their ability to sell goods and services into foreign markets, into overseas markets. Our entire economy, our entire capitalist system, is predicated on the fact that individuals and businesses can engage in mutually beneficial trade. This system has generated vast wealth—something that seems to be forgotten when we talk about trade in this context. We are very lucky to live in a country and an economy that is based on our ability to trade into the international markets in a relatively free fashion. I wish it were freer, but we can trade into international markets in a relatively free fashion. Free trade carries with it many benefits. Notably, it allows countries and individuals to exploit their comparative advantages while making the most—and this is the quid pro quo of trade—of cheaper imports where other countries can produce those goods and services more cost-effectively. That is clearly the case. For Australia, our export economy is geared towards the primary industries: agriculture—we do it very, very well; advanced manufacturing—we do it very, very well. What we don't do well these days is produce low-value goods. We simply don't have that as one of our skill sets and, personally, I don't see that as being a negative. We just understand that the economy evolves in such a way as to take us towards those things which we are best able to do—obviously, minerals. We have an abundance of natural resources, which we have been able to exploit. Free trade is particularly important to my home state of Western Australia. We are an export based economy. We want access to those world markets. We want trade barriers to be as low as possible so that our iron ore, so that our other mineral resources and so that our oil, our gas, our agricultural produce can get into as many markets as possible, because we know that our Western Australian businesses produce those resources, those assets, in the most cost-effective way they can and are highly competitive with the rest of the world. That is our competitive advantage. Not only does international trade generate wealth for those directly involved in the production of exported goods but strong export industries, like the mining industry and like the agricultural industry in Western Australia, stimulate domestic economic activity. Every welder at Austal ships in Henderson, every grain grower in Three Springs in WA, every miner in Paraburdoo and every sheep farmer in Wagin who is exporting their wool relies on those export markets to make a quid, to feed their family, to employ services from the businesses down the road, to buy their stockfeed, to buy the steel and the aluminium they need to make those ships and to buy the mining equipment they need to dig the dirt. These people go on to spend their hard-earned cash on goods and services right here in Australia. They employ people. They create those one million-plus jobs that we have seen over the past five years that, again, allow families to support themselves. We can't expect to have free access to foreign markets without reciprocating. If we believe in trade then we have to believe in two-way trade. It has to be an exchange. It can't ever be a one-way street. We can't delude ourselves into thinking—as some in the world seem to be thinking; this view seems to becoming more prominent, sadly—that if we put up trade barriers, if we try to restrict our markets and if we try to act in any way to stop trade then that won't trigger a response from our trading partners. The last thing Australia wants is a return to a more protectionist world. That is something that is a risk. It is something that I certainly fear very much. I just want to talk briefly about the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. This will see more than 99 per cent of Australian goods exported by value to Indonesia to enter duty free or under significantly improved or preferential arrangements by 2020. This will have direct benefits to producers and businesses in my home state of Western Australia. For example, with live cattle from the north of WA, we get duty-free access for almost 600,000 cattle in the first year, growing to 700,000 head of cattle by year 6. This is a significant improvement on the current situation for cattle producers, who suffered a very big shock not that many years ago. I won't remind the chamber what that shock was or who originated it, as I am sure we all know. The cattle industry, particularly in the north of WA, is very happy about that part of the arrangement. With frozen beef and sheepmeat, there is a tariff cut of 2.5 per cent immediately and that will be zero per cent in five years time. Again, people in this chamber, particularly those opposite, have talked a lot about the need to improve the sale of chilled and frozen product into overseas markets. Well, here we go. There are tariff cuts of 2.5 per cent immediately and that will be zero per cent in five years. That is going to improve that trade and improve the opportunities for local processors. That is great news. We don't have to ban any other parts of the industry to achieve it. On feed grains, there is duty-free access for 500,000 tonnes in year 1, with volumes growing at five per cent per annum. Again, that is another great opportunity for Western Australian grain growers. We already have a very strong presence in that market, but it is an opportunity for that market to grow. For the returns of that lower duty, they are to be passed on either to growers or, through the supply chain, to consumers. There are potential benefits all around. Sugar is not so much an issue for Western Australia, I do admit. But, again, it is locked in as an early outcome to reduce the tariff to five per cent. In dairy, there is immediate and progressive elimination of the remaining tariffs on dairy product lines. In citrus, there is the progressive tariff elimination on mandarins and duty-free access for oranges and lemons. For vegetables, there is the progressive elimination of tariffs on carrots and reduced tariffs on potatoes, which the growers in my hometown and surrounding areas—like Pemberton and Manjimup in the south-west of WA—will be very happy to hear about as they seek to take their very high-quality produce into more foreign markets. For hot and cold rolled steel coil, there is the elimination of tariffs for 250,000 tonnes in year 1, with volume growing at five per cent per annum. Again, this is an industry where Australia has had it ups and downs. But we see, with the elimination of those tariffs, more opportunities to continue with production in Australia and continue building export markets overseas. These are major wins for Australia, there is no doubt about that. And it's a fantastic outcome for Australian exporters. But it's not only Australia that stands to benefit from this agreement. The Indonesian people themselves will be big winners from the removal of barriers under this agreement. They will have cheaper access to high-quality Australian produce. The reduction of tariff barriers is a win. Obviously, it's not only true for those who import Australian goods that when Australia imposes tariffs on imported goods it does not protect Australians. In fact, it punishes them. This is the perverse reality of protectionist trade policies. They take choice away from consumers and force them either to pay higher prices or to make do with lower-quality goods. Who does that protect in reality? Certainly not Australians—certainly not average Australians. This government does have a very strong track record on bilateral free trade agreements. In fact, I think it's fair to say that this government has delivered the most ambitious trade agenda in Australia's history. We've negotiated a number of free trade agreements to support Australian exports and Australian jobs, and that is why we've seen those outstanding job figures. That's why we've created those million-plus jobs over the last five years, because we've given businesses opportunities. There is the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement: 98½ per cent of all our goods are eligible to enter our largest trading partner duty free or at preferential rates. As a result, imports to China were 34 per cent higher in 2017 than in 2015. That creates jobs. Then there is the Peru-Australia Free Trade Agreement: Peru will eliminate tariffs on 93½ per cent of Australian goods on entry into force of the agreement, and on 99.4 per cent of Australian goods within five years. That's going to be of particular benefit to our agricultural industries, and will give unprecedented access to Australian sugar and beef. Obviously, Queensland will be a big winner there, but, hopefully, the beef producers in the north of WA will also get a win out of that. I've already touched on Indonesia, so I won't go back there. Under the Japanese-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement, Japan remains Australia's second-largest trading and export partner, with two-way trade valued at just under $72 billion, and Australian exports were valued at $47 billion in 2017. Now, 97 per cent of Australian goods exported to Japan enter duty free or under preferential rates. And there is the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Korea is Australia's fourth-largest trading partner and third-largest export market. Korea provides duty-free access on 83 per cent of Australian exports by value, and this will increase to 99.7 per cent on full implementation of the agreement from 2033. Of course, we wish that were sooner; we wish that were 2020 or 2025, but these are negotiations. These are agreements that have to be struck with another nation, based on their desires. But the move towards a generally freer market benefits us all. We remain committed to future free trade agreements and, obviously, there are still ongoing discussions with Europe and the United Kingdom, post Brexit. This does offer us a unique opportunity to re-establish strong bilateral relations with our oldest international trading partner. I certainly hope that we can see that deal concluded. And I've already run over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to some degree. It's a very important agreement to the future of Australian businesses and to the future of the Australian economy. These are all agreements worth supporting, and I certainly do think that we need to be very careful about moving down a more protectionist route at any time in the near future. I certainly hope that we don't see Australia ever following some other parts of the world in starting to move back to an era where tariffs and trade barriers are things that are seen as a legitimate tool of the political classes. They are only destructive: they are destructive to jobs, they are destructive to the economy, they are destructive to wages and they will lead to a poorer world which is less able to provide the goods and services that all Australians want. Thank you. 17:34 Senator KETTER 244247 Queensland I rise today to indicate my support for this motion on free trade agreements. When it comes to trade and jobs, it's only the Labor Party that can be trusted to harness the benefits of global trade for the good of Australian workers. We will not be lectured by the Centre Alliance in relation to ethical standards. We have a very principled approach when it comes to the benefits of global trade, yes, but we also have to ensure that the interests of workers are taken into account. When it comes to this government, one thing is for certain: they don't have the interests of workers at heart, so we can't trust them to frame a system of trade that benefits workers. The Liberal-Nationals have already proven that they don't have the interests of Australian jobs at heart when it comes to trade. There are a number of areas where they have fallen down. They have allowed companies to bring in foreign workers without first checking whether there's an Australian who can do the job, by waiving labour market testing requirements. They've also included clauses that allow foreign companies to sue the Australian government through the ISDS provisions. So it's no wonder that Australians have lost some degree of trust when it comes to these trade agreements. It's quite clear that we need to fundamentally change the way Australia negotiates these agreements, and Labor has a way forward in that regard if we have the honour of being entrusted with government at the next election. Let's not forget that this is a government that was responsible for the trade union royal commission, which was an ideological assault on organisations that seek to improve the lives of workers. We're talking about the interests of Australian workers. This is a government that has not the slightest interest in the interests of workers. How quickly did the former Abbott government rush to institute a royal commission into the trade union movement? They were elected on 7 September. Barely six months later we had the Letters Patent signed for the royal commission. But, at the same time, we have a government that turned its back on the rorts and rip-offs in the banking and financial services sector, voting against the banking royal commission again and again—26 times, I think—until the banks told them, 'Let's get it started.' I think it was current Prime Minister, during the course of that, who at one point made the comment that these calls for a royal commission were merely a populist whinge. This is a government that's also tried to undermine industry superannuation funds, a world-class system with which we've entrusted the retirement savings of Australian workers. It's important that that system looks after the interests of Australian workers, and the industry super system does that. But this government has sought to undermine the industry superannuation fund sector through attacking the governance arrangements by seeking to impose the one-third independent director requirement on industry funds when it's been quite clear that industry funds, with their employer and employee equal representation model of governance, have delivered high returns for workers and outperformed the funds operated by the major banks. When it comes to the interests of workers, again, I just want to highlight the fact that this is a government that's refused to restore penalty rates to those 700,000 or so Australians who rely on them and who have had those penalty rates cut. These Australians rely on penalty rates to make ends meet. This is a government that espouses the headline economic growth numbers but fails to address stagnant wage growth and declining national savings rates. I recall that it was Prime Minister Morrison, when Treasurer, who indicated that stagnant wage growth was the single greatest threat to our economy. And this is a government who, up until they knifed the Prime Minister—again—wanted to give billions of dollars in tax breaks to big business and the banks, relying on trickle-down economics to create hypothetical jobs. I could go on and on about the dismal track record of this government when it comes to Australian workers and their jobs, but let's be clear: this government has form, so we are entitled to be worried that those opposite will be looking out for the big end of town when it comes to trade, paying little regard to the interests of ordinary workers in the process. Labor, on the other hand, has a strong track record when it comes to trade. We remember the legacies of the Whitlam, Hawke and Keating governments when it came to opening up Australia's engagement with the world. Time after time Australia has proved that we are more than up to the challenge of competing on the global stage, particularly when it comes to ensuring the creation and preservation of Australian jobs through trade policy. The tariff reforms of the Hawke and Keating era, difficult as they were at the time, helped deliver Australia a record 27 years of uninterrupted economic growth. An analysis by the Centre for International Economics last year suggests that the average Australian household's real income is now $8,448 higher because of these historic reforms. And Labor's strong commitment to trade will continue under a Shorten government if we are fortunate enough to be elected at the next election. I want to outline now, for the benefit of the Senate, some of the features of federal Labor's trade policy, features which will boost the transparency and analysis of trade agreements. I note that Senator Patrick touched on some of these things, but I do think it's important to reiterate the fact that if we want more people to support free trade and open markets we've got to be more open and honest with people. At the moment, trade deals are negotiated in secret with not enough input from parliament, industry, unions, civil society groups or the community. Labor will change that. A Shorten Labor government would, if elected, build on measures that we've already announced to boost the transparency and analysis of trade agreements by strengthening the role of the parliament and by briefing the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties at the end of each round of negotiations and providing it with the government's statement of objectives for negotiation for consideration and feedback. We'd also improve the system by legislating to establish a system of accredited trade advisers from industry, unions and civil society groups who would provide real-time feedback on draft trade agreement texts during negotiations. We'd also improve the system by providing public updates on each round of negotiations and releasing draft text during negotiations where this is feasible and by legislating to require an independent national interest assessment to be conducted on every new trade agreement before it is signed to examine the economic, strategic and social impact of any new trade agreement. We do have opportunities right on our doorstep. As the Asian region continues to grow and develop, Australia is poised to capitalise on providing the goods and services that the emerging Asian middle class desire. Such trade improves the lives of those in our region and makes Australian workers wealthier at the same time. It's one thing to negotiate a free trade agreement, sign a piece of paper and, as this government all too often does, have a party—pat themselves on the back—but it's quite another thing to deliver for Australian producers the access that is promised by the agreement. And I want to mention the fact that, when visiting a number of farms last year, I was impressed by the degree of frustration that exists out there, particularly amongst blueberry growers, about the fact that we have somewhat stalled access to the China markets. A lot has been promised. A lot was in the portfolio of Mr Joyce at the time to address that, but unfortunately Mr Joyce was sitting on his hands and not getting the access for farmers in Australia. I point out here that Labor is on the ground listening to what our producers want and need. A future Shorten Labor government would, if elected, continue to open up trade opportunities while also opening up transparency. This sunlight will help to ensure that any future deals do not undermine our labour market or compromise our sovereignty and that the economic impacts and benefits are well understood. We will commit to economic modelling of all free trade agreements before they're signed and 10 years after ratification so that the full impacts of a trade agreement can be assessed. This is very sensible, in contrast to those opposite. It will help reassure the Australian public about the benefits of trade but also help them be realistic as to the transitions that might occur because of these agreements. At the moment there is a stark contrast between what Labor is offering and what those opposite are currently failing to deliver. You have a coalition that's divided, chaotic, unstable and prepared to politicise key economic institutions for their own advantage, and you have a future Shorten Labor government prepared to improve transparency and model the impacts of future trade agreements. 17:46 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland It has been quite interesting to listen to the debate about these free trade agreements. Let me make it quite clear. One Nation is not against trade by any means. Trade has been going on for many years across the world and has helped countries to get produce, appliances—whatever it may be—from other countries. But Australia was once a thriving country of industry and manufacturing. We produced so much here, yet much of this has closed down due to free trade agreements. Let me name some. There were the cars. We don't have a car industry here anymore. That has closed down. Even the canneries we used to have are gone. Where are we making refrigerators, washing machines or other whitegoods now? Electrical appliances, footwear, clothing and machinery are no more. They have basically closed up as well. When those industries and manufacturing go, jobs go with them. Let me turn your mind back to the free trade agreement with the USA in 2004 under the coalition. It was supported by the Labor Party and came into force in January 2005. Under that free trade agreement Australia got rid of all our tariffs from day one—great negotiation skills!—but America kept their tariffs for between 11 to 18 years for wool, horticulture, steel, wine and beef. They protected their country's industries and put in place quota systems so that, even though we were exporting over to that country and those imports were still having an impact, they could say, 'No, we can stop this.' What did we do? Labor supported it from day one, with no tariffs. Now we go to the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Senator Patrick from the Centre Alliance was saying that his concern is about jobs. We seem to be the only ones that are concerned about the Australian workers and jobs. I'm sick of the same old rhetoric and hypocrisy in this place. I'm especially sick of hearing that the Labor Party are the ones out there fighting for the workers in this country when even the unions don't like the fact that you are going to now support the TPP and all these other free trade agreements. According to DFAT: ChAFTA supports increased trade and investment between Australia and China by reducing barriers to labour mobility and improving temporary entry access within the context of each country's existing immigration— but makes it easier to come into our country. It goes on to say: Alongside ChAFTA, Australia and China have also implemented a Work and Holiday Arrangement (WHA)— we don't need a holiday arrangement, because we want tourists to come to the country; they're not taking jobs, so let's just throw the word 'holiday' in there to offset it— under which Australia will grant visas for up to 5,000 Chinese work and holiday makers annually. Then we go to the latest Indonesian agreement. Indonesia will also receive an increase in the number of Australian work and holiday visas—I love this again, 'holiday visas', which is just thrown in there to confuse everyone—from 1,000 today to 4,100 in year one, growing to 5,000 over six years. I had the maritime engineers union come to me and say: 'Pauline, we are training engineers on the boats and they've got no jobs. It's all foreign workers.' No-one is listening to them. Where is the Labor Party? What are you doing about this? Are you standing up for the workers and the unions? They rely on you to make the right decisions for them, but you're not doing anything. I was listening to Senator Brockman before. He said that we need this in order to expand our country—that we need free trade in order to create better living conditions for everyone. But that's not the case. It's not true, because under the Lima declaration of the 1970s we were told to forgo our industries and manufacturing in favour of Third World countries. The whole idea sounded wonderful: we forgo our industries and manufacturing and sell our raw materials to the Third World countries to help them. Yes, it's given them a hand up, but we've actually pulled ourselves down. I am sick and tired of seeing people in this country thrown on the scrap heap, with no jobs to go to. Industries and manufacturing—you cannot keep pushing people onto higher education to get degrees when they don't wish to do so. People need to have the tasks and the work in this country, but too often now we are seeing this work going to foreign nationals—jobs that belong to Australians. I think that what you're doing is disgusting. Listen to the Labor Party bleat on, especially just before about the royal commission, which is quite interesting. You throw the blame onto the coalition, because they didn't do anything about it. There have been, what, 18 Senate inquiries into it, or maybe even more—it was before my time. The fact is that you have been in government yourself. What did you do about it? Absolutely nothing. You never went on to do these things at all. Getting back to free trade—I can't speak for Senator Patrick on this—our main concern is jobs for Australians. We want to see manufacturing industry back here to give Australian workers the opportunity to have jobs. We've got it all here. We have the resources, we have the materials and we have the skills, yet you do everything you possibly can to allow in cheap products from overseas. Your free trade agreements have taken the tariffs off, which means that you have allowed these cheap products to come in here—the throwaways—which will cost Australians more in the long run, and at the detriment of lost jobs. And you say it's better for the economy! That is why our welfare system now costs approximately 42 per cent of our revenue. That's how much we pay out through Centrelink—42 per cent of our revenue. It absolutely disgusts me that it's as high as that. Like Senator Patrick from the Centre Alliance, One Nation will not support the TPP-11 if it has the proviso in it—the coalition government, especially, has waived labour market testing. I've had a lot of complaints from people who are very concerned about it. The labour market testing exemption is another thing Labor has agreed to. Labor can actually put a stop to this if they want to, because they have the numbers now, with One Nation and the Centre Alliance, to stop this deal and fight for the workers of this country. You know that your union mates don't want you to pass this. You're supposed to stand up for the blue-collar workers. You haven't done it and you never will do it. You're in this place and you don't give a damn about those people because you actually have your jobs and you're not worrying about the people out there you're supposed to be representing. I'm sick of hearing the rhetoric and the hypocritical comments that I hear in this place. Stand up for the workers in this country because, if you don't, you're going to get more crossbenchers in here that will fight for the Australian people. 17:55 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I rise to make a few brief remarks in the five minutes or just under that I have remaining. Australia is a trading nation. Our economy relies on us being able to trade. We simply don't have the population size only in our domestic market to create sustainable and viable industries for all the sectors that add value to our economy. So, if we're going to trade, by definition, trade is a two-way exchange of goods and services. If we want people to provide access for our goods and services into their markets, we need to enter into agreements with them to allow their goods and services to come to Australia, and the Australian people then get to make up their own minds about which goods and services they choose to purchase. We have seen that work in various sectors, sometimes to the detriment of a particular line in Australia, but often to our advantage. Trade has been of net benefit for Australia—and certainly for my home state of South Australia. The South Australian economy is still heavily reliant on our primary industries in the agricultural sector. What a lot of people don't realise is that it's not just the raw products, in terms of crops and things, that are exported. Processed foods account for around 47 per cent of the food exports from South Australia. That means that there are many jobs created. In fact, according to PIRSA in South Australia, one in five people who work in South Australia work in the food and wine industry. So the ability to gain preferential access to international markets is employing one in five South Australian workers. We have various mechanisms within the parliament to examine things like free trade agreements and TPP-11, and in past years I have been a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties when we have looked at these in detail. One of the frequent criticisms people make is that there's modelling done to various extents—some people say it's not enough; some people say it's overly optimistic. So, as we look at people who are supportive of things like TPP-11 through the JSCOT process, we get an indication of what might come. But I think one of the things that is really useful to do is to then look back and ask: 'Okay, we've now got a free trade agreement with China, a free trade agreement with Japan, a free trade agreement with South Korea. What has happened?' Coming back to my own state of South Australia, I think it's really important to look at things like wine exports. Wine exports to Korea increased by nearly 25 per cent from July 2017 to June 2018, indicating that there is a growing demand there for our premium product. That premium product is making entry because, without the tariffs, its price point is more affordable to a market that is growing in terms of its discerning and quality palate. There are a whole range of food products that are exported from Australia into markets such as Korea. In fact, they've very recently had a trade expo there highlighting the fact that things like beef, sheep, poultry, milk, wheat and horticulture—a whole range of areas—are going into those markets from South Australia. Lamb is another area that has been exported significantly. TPP-11 provides us access into a multilateral deal, rather than just the bilaterals that I've been speaking about to date, and it gives us access to a wide range of markets. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 It being 6 pm, we now need to move on to government documents. Senator Fawcett, you will be in continuation. DELEGATION REPORTS 88 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the Republic of Indonesia 88 17:59 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Earlier today, the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the Republic of Indonesia was tabled. I would like to seek the indulgence of the chamber to take note of that report and seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted. Senator URQUHART 231199 by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the document. Debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 88 DOCUMENTS Consideration 88 COMMITTEES 89 COMMITTEES Consideration 89 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 89 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Consideration 89 DOCUMENTS 89 DOCUMENTS Tabling 89