2019-09-17 46 1 1 Senate 0 1

Tuesday, 17 September 2019

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 BILLS 1 BILLS Social Services Legislation Amendment (Overseas Welfare Recipients Integrity Program) Bill 2019 1

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Overseas Welfare Recipients Integrity Program) Bill 2019

Second Reading 1 12:01 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Life certificates or proof-of-life requests are commonly used for pension eligibility confirmation by European countries—for example, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy—and in some countries they have been in use for more than a decade. Some countries request these certificates annually or biannually. These countries do not restrict their processes to a particular age group. This government is committed to maintaining a welfare system that is fair and sustainable, and the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Overseas Welfare Recipients Integrity Program) Bill 2019 strengthens the integrity of the welfare system in Australia. 12:02 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia As Australia is a multicultural country, the government recognises that many Australian pensioners wish to retire overseas to their country of birth, to be with family and friends. As a result, Australia pays approximately 96,000 Australian pensioners residing overseas. It is proposed, from 1 October 2019, that the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Overseas Welfare Recipients Integrity Program) Bill 2019 will require pensioners who are over the age of 80 years and who are residing permanently overseas to complete and return what is called a proof-of-life certificate for them to continue to be able to receive their benefits. This will confirm that Australian pensions are only being paid to pensioners who are still alive. The introduction of the proof-of-life process brings Australian into line with other countries and with international best practice. As Senator Hughes just mentioned, there are a number of other countries around the world where they have processes in place to verify that pensioners are still alive, including a requirement to fill out such a thing as a proof-of-life certificate. This measure will require approximately 25,000 pensioners living overseas who are aged over 80 to provide this certificate. The process has been targeted at pensioners over the age of 80 to minimise the administrative burden on pensioners while still protecting the integrity of Australia's welfare system. The government is not suggesting for a moment that there has been widespread fraud committed by people living overseas who continue to receive pensions; rather, it is more likely that most family members who continue to receive payments for a deceased relative may not realise that they are required to notify Australian authorities of the passing of a loved one or may not realise that they are no longer eligible, in fact, to receive that pension on behalf of their partner. The certificates will have to be verified to ensure accuracy. Pensioners overseas will have multiple options for verifying their proof-of-life certificates and a reasonable time frame in which to provide their completed and verified certificates. If a pensioner does not return their completed proof-of-life certificate within the 13-week period, their pension will be suspended. If they do not return their completed proof-of-life certificate within a further 13 weeks after suspension, making a total of 26 weeks, their payment will be cancelled. The measure includes safeguards to reinstate a living pensioner's payments if they are suspended or cancelled. They will have their payments reinstated if they have provided a completed proof-of-life certificate and will be paid any arrears to which they are entitled. Full arrears will be paid if they provide a proof-of-life certificate within 39 weeks of the initial request being sent. The new proof-of-life arrangements will strengthen the integrity of the welfare system by providing a regular and robust mechanism for ensuring Australian pensions are only being paid to pensioners who are actually alive. It is estimated this measure will identify around 6,000 cases over four years where payments are still being made to people who have deceased. This will save Australian taxpayers around $219 million over the forward estimates. The measure introduced in this bill reflects the government's ongoing commitment to maintaining a fair and sustainable welfare system for recipients and taxpayers. I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 2 12:06 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 2

Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019

Second Reading 2 12:06 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Labor senators support this legislation. Child sexual exploitation is abhorrent. Children are the most precious and vulnerable members of our community, and we must protect and support them. To that end we strongly support the objectives of the Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, which seeks to implement several recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. We're proud of the royal commission that was established by the Gillard government in 2013. It has served as a very important step towards reform, redress and healing. We note that particular stakeholders had concerns with elements of this bill. We have, however, accepted the responses from the Department of Home Affairs and the Attorney-General's Department in relation to these issues, and they've taken us through those issues with their assurances. Therefore we're not supporting the amendments that will be moved by Senator McKim today, but we are very closely watching the government's next steps in the implementation of the bill so that it is implemented as intended and those assurances that the government has made are upheld. We are committed to protecting Australian children and we have no tolerance for these crimes. As such we fundamentally support the measures in this bill, and we'll vote in favour of it today. 12:08 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The Greens will also be supporting the Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019, on the basis that we need to do everything that we reasonably can to ensure that we protect children in our community, who are obviously one of the most at-risk sections of our society. It's very important that, as we do everything we can to reasonably protect children, we ensure to the greatest degree possible that we maintain the independence of the judiciary. That's why the Greens are very pleased that the government, despite initially flagging that mandatory sentencing would be a part of the government's response, have decided not to include mandatory sentencing in this legislation. The Greens do not support mandatory sentencing, in principle, because we believe that our judiciary is best placed to determine adequate sentences based on the merits of each individual case. So it's important that we do maintain the independence of the judiciary, and, on that basis, we are very pleased that the government is not proceeding with mandatory sentencing in this context. Of course sexual offences committed against anyone—but particularly children—are extremely serious matters. We certainly believe that sex offenders should receive appropriate sentences but, as I said, along with the Law Council of Australia and most legal experts and legal associations we support the Sentencing Advisory Council's position that the introduction of mandatory minimum sentences would create unjustified unfairness without achieving the stated aims of deterring offenders and increasing transparency. I place on the record that we'll be watching government closely in this context. It appears that mandatory minimum sentences are still a part of the government's agenda; they are contained within another bill currently under inquiry by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measures) Bill 2019. So I ask the government to reconsider and to remove mandatory minimum sentencing from its agenda and, for that matter, from statutes that have passed through the parliament. Instead of politicking around this issue, the government should simply seek to maintain the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary in this country and allow courts to apply sentences as they see fit, based on the merits of each individual case. I want to make the point that this is the second time in as many weeks that we've debated a bill in this place where the government is reversing the evidential burden of proof. We have concerns around this element of the legislation. I can indicate to the Senate that, although we have circulated amendments, I will not be moving those amendments in the context of this debate, but we'll be watching very closely how these matters roll out in real life once this legislation is passed. We will be, as I said, supporting this bill as a legislative response to some of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, because that royal commission and this legislation do seek to protect some of the most vulnerable members in our community. 12:13 Senator STOKER 237920 Queensland I rise to speak in support of the Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. The final report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse released in 2017 was nothing short of sickening, disturbing and horrifying. The safety of children should always be put first; however, for much too long, those with the power to stop child sexual abuse turned a blind eye and allowed an unthinkable theft of innocence to occur. A survivor named Faye told the royal commission: 'Nothing takes the memories away. It happened 53 years ago and it's still affecting me'. The royal commission resulted in 17,000 survivors coming forward and nearly 8,000 of them recounting their abuse in private sessions of the commission. Finally, voices were heard and silence was broken. We are grateful to the survivors who gave evidence to the commission, as they allow us now as a parliament and as a nation to confront a hidden trauma, an abomination hiding in plain sight for too long. A survivor named Rodney asked the question so common to many survivors. He wonders about 'the person I may have become or the person I could have become if I didn't have all of this in my life'. Another survivor, Aiden, spoke of not getting justice because his abuser had died. He said, 'I was bereft because I was robbed. I was robbed of my day in court. I wanted to tell the world what he did, and that was stolen. That was him again taking control.' Last year, during the national apology address, the Prime Minister posed the eerie questions: why weren't the children of our nation loved, nurtured and protected; why was our system of justice blind to injustice; and why has it taken so long to act? It is an unfortunate reality that sexual predators target the most vulnerable in our society. The sexual exploitation of children is among the vilest reality in our society. During the time I served as a Commonwealth prosecutor, I saw firsthand how abhorrent these actions are and the difficulties so many prosecutors face in their efforts to deliver justice. The crimes of ritual sexual abuse happen in far too many places: schools, churches, youth groups, scout troops, orphanages, foster homes, sporting clubs, charities, and in the family home as well. It can happen anywhere a predator thinks they can get away with it and where the systems within these organisations allow it to happen by turning a blind eye. Last year the Australian Federal Police received almost 18,000 reports of child exploitation involving Australian children or Australian child sex offenders—18,000!—and that's a statistic that had almost doubled from the previous year. Where failings in legislation are identified, they must be immediately rectified, especially when it touches something as important as the safety of children. As a government, we must always be vigilant and continue to review our laws to ensure that they capture new and emerging forms of child sexual abuse and set a standard of bringing justice to all wrongs against children. This is exactly what the government has sought to do by introducing the Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. The changes and improvements made by the bill implement key recommendations given by the royal commission into child sexual abuse and respond to concerns expressed by the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Border Force and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. As the Minister for Home Affairs has said, if Australia is to be a civilised society, then it must be committed to ensuring children can grow up free from the evil of sexual abuse and exploitation. The government's position when it comes to the protection of children is absolutely clear: we have zero tolerance for this kind of abuse—indeed, for any child sexual abuse in whatever form it takes. The bill acts on this position by introducing two new offences into the Criminal Code to criminalise the actions of Commonwealth officers where they exercise care, supervision or authority over children and fail to report child sexual abuse or negligently fail to reduce or remove the risk of child sexual abuse to children. The Commonwealth has a responsibility to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all children who are under its care. The royal commission, shockingly, found many instances where those entrusted with the protection of children did the least to protect them. When a child spoke up they weren't believed, and that allowed crimes to continue with impunity. One survivor named Anne said, 'My mother believed them rather than me.' Another survivor told the Prime Minister that, when he told a teacher of his abuse, that teacher joined in as an abuser. Too often those who knew about abuse had the power to act and yet failed to do so. Rather than reporting abuse, they turned a blind eye or, even worse, took actions to cover it up. This can only be described as detestable. There should be no tolerance for child sexual abuse, and Commonwealth officers must fulfil their obligations to protect children. Following the recommendations of the royal commission, the offences introduced in this bill will incentivise the reporting and prevention of child sexual abuse by criminalising these failings. Moreover, the government's stance on child sexual abuse doesn't waiver, whether it occurs on our shores or whether it occurs overseas. Australians love to travel, and that's a great thing, but there are some amongst us who travel overseas with the intention of engaging in the most sickening of practices—and that is child sex tourism. The concept is a disgusting thing. The disgraceful practice is remarkably common worldwide, and it's no coincidence that this government strongly believes that our work protecting children doesn't stop at our borders. The bill extends Australia's zero tolerance stance on child sexual abuse to make it easier to hold accountable Australians who abuse children when they are overseas. Conditions of poverty, discrimination, violence, low levels of education and lack of law enforcement in a number of foreign jurisdictions facilitate these horrible acts. So this bill will further protect children overseas from the actions of Australians who seek to travel to a foreign jurisdiction to abuse children in a way that amounts to persistent child sexual abuse. It will remove difficulties associated with prosecuting repeated instances of abuse. At the moment, you need to show three instances of abuse in order for it to be proven as persistent. It will now be two, once this bill is passed. Shockingly, it is a common practice for sexual deviants to travel to foreign jurisdictions to exploit children. We need to give our law enforcement officers the tools they need to bring these people to justice. The bill ensures children across the world are protected, by stopping child sex offenders from travelling overseas without permission, and that will disrupt and ensure that we prevent and investigate the abuse of children globally. The royal commission also highlighted the saddening reality that it is often the worst offences that are among the most difficult to prove—a bit of a cruel irony. But when sexual abuse of children has been repeated, or is ongoing, the child victim commonly has difficulty in identifying, isolating or distinguishing between particular occasions of abuse. This bill will address the problem by reducing the number of occasions that need to be isolated in order to prove the offence of persistent child sexual abuse overseas. The bill also strengthens existing forced marriage offences and closes the loophole which allows offenders to escape culpability by claiming they have been legally married to a child. It is a shocking statistic that more than 700 million women alive today were married before their 18th birthday in circumstances where they weren't able to give the appropriate consent, with more than one in three of those women being married before the age of 15. It doesn't need to be explained how the practice of child marriage is morally reprehensible and seriously harms the wellbeing of its child victims, particularly the wellbeing of girls and young women, because that's who child marriage disproportionately affects. Although child marriage should be illegal in almost every country, many struggle to enforce it. This government, though, believes it is its responsibility to curtail the harm done to children by ensuring that Australian citizens who involve themselves in this practice will be held accountable. Children trapped in marriage are subject to physical and mental abuse by its very nature. They are often exposed to sexually transmitted diseases, rape and forced pregnancy, things they couldn't possibly have had the capacity to consent to at those ages. This legal loophole, which currently permits girls as young as 10 to potentially be married, must be closed. While technology brings incredible gains to society, it also poses a significant threat to the safety of our children online. Carly Ryan thought she had met her dream boyfriend online; instead, in reality, it was Garry Newman, a 50-year-old predator masquerading as an 18-year-old musician. He lied, seduced and lured her to a secluded beach where he bashed her, suffocated her and threw her into the water to drown. The Carly Ryan Foundation was established in her honour by Carly's mum, Sonya, to create awareness and to educate children and parents using the internet. She works to expose the thousands of multiple identities paedophiles use to lure young children to harm, and I honour her and her work arising from such horrendous hardship. This bill will ensure that Commonwealth legislation is comprehensive and technology neutral, by giving a future-focused response to all forms of child pornography material and child abuse material. This means that Commonwealth legislation will be better able to remain in step with technological advancements. Every time child abuse material is viewed, the child portrayed in the material is revictimised. As such, new offences relating to the possession or control of child abuse material in the form of data stored on a computer or data storage device are introduced in this bill. And, of course, we should never forget that in these digital forms of material we have real children depicted who are suffering real harm. It has been especially sickening to hear of the new trend on the internet of child sex dolls, which are being used to simulate sexual intercourse with children. These are horrible things to have to talk about. They are made to be lifelike and may even have built-in functions like voice and movement capabilities. This abhorrent trend and the way that it attempts to normalise this kind of proclivity must be robustly stamped out in Australia. The bill explicitly criminalises and introduces mandatory sentences for the possession, importation, posting and ordering of these dolls in a childlike form. While some have raised concerns over the sentencing arrangements in this bill, the bill ensures that the courts will retain a considerable amount of discretion. Let's not forget: it's the protection of children from vile abuse that we're talking about. The community, and especially the survivors of abuse, expect this parliament to take meaningful action and ensure that there are real consequences for those who engage in offending of this kind. Survivors have said that an apology without action in this place is not much more than a piece of paper; it is just words if not backed up. Acting on the recommendations of the royal commission with concrete action gives practical meaning to the apology delivered by the Prime Minister last year. That's why the government has implemented every single recommendation of the royal commission. It has not rejected a single one. We are actively working to make every recommendation law. The National Redress Scheme has commenced. The National Office for Child Safety has been established. Just last week, the government tabled a bill in the House that introduces mandatory minimum jail terms for serious child sex offenders and a presumption against bail to help keep offenders in custody as they prepare to face trial. As Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I look forward to hearing from but, importantly, listening to more survivors as the bill goes through those committee stages. The Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 is just another example of the steps this government is taking to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation. Each year, to ensure that we are held accountable by the Australian people for action, the government is now required to report to the Australian people through the parliament on the progress we are making on the recommendations. Protecting the innocent and vulnerable is one of the most important priorities of any government, and sentences for heinous acts of child sexual abuse must reflect community expectations. Legislation dealing with this must keep up to date with transformations in technology. This bill will go a long way to ensuring the safety of children by giving Commonwealth prosecutors the tools they need to bring perpetrators to justice. While it can't change the past, our action in this chamber should demonstrate that there is a sincere desire to ensure that survivors are heard and that, as far as possible, they are healed. The challenge for all of us is to act in the present, learning those lessons that prevent abuse from being repeated, and work together for the long term to keep children safe, trusting them when they ask for help and doing all we can to respect their innocence. I commend the bill to the chamber. 12:29 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak on the Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. Child sexual exploitation is repulsive, and Labor is committed to doing everything possible to eradicate it and protect our children and young people. All children and young people need to be cared for and protected, and to feel safe so that they can reach their full potential. Children are the most precious and vulnerable members of our community, and, as such, it is our key responsibility to make sure children and young people are kept safe and protected. Children depend on adults as they grow up. They deserve our protection and support. Children should be fully protected so that they can survive, grow, learn and develop. Unfortunately, millions of children are not fully protected. Many of these children deal with violence, abuse, neglect, exploitation, exclusion and/or discrimination. In 2014-15 there were 320,000 reports made to the child protection authorities in Australia, which equates to a report on one child every two minutes. In that same 12 months 42,457 children suffered abuse or neglect—that is one child every 13 minutes. All children have the right to be heard, to be safe, to belong and to receive adequate care in a protected environment. Labor will be supporting the intent of this bill, which implements several of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and builds on the reforms and policies implemented under the Labor government. During this royal commission there were thousands of people who experienced sexual abuse as children in institutions and settings, from schools to sporting groups, across Australia. We know the devastating effect the stories that we heard had not only on the victims but on all of us. We need to acknowledge these survivors for their courage to speak out and to help shape our future to ensure that we can protect children from abuse in all institutions now and into the future. The bill before the Senate is an omnibus criminal justice bill targeted at child sexual exploitation. We know that any child can be vulnerable to violation. The exact number of children experiencing violation is not easy to determine. However, it's estimated that around 150 million girls and 73 million boys under the age of 18 experienced forced sexual intercourse and other forms of sexual violence and exploitation during 2002. Worldwide, around 15 million adolescent girls aged between 15 and 19 have experienced forced sex in their lifetimes. There are 150 million children aged five to 14 engaged in child labour. Millions of children, mostly girls, work as domestic labourers or maids in private homes. Around 1.2 million children are trafficked annually. These are staggering figures. Between 22 per cent and 84 per cent of children two to 14 years of age had experienced physical punishment in their home in 37 countries surveyed between 2005 and 2007. Governments need to work with communities, local authorities and non-government organisations to ensure that children grow up in safe and protected environments. Together, we can make sure that schools and communities protect all children. We must work together to protect children from violations such as abuse, sexual exploitation, trafficking and working in horrendous conditions as well as from harmful practices, including child marriage. This bill implements several recommendations, as I said, from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse by: creating an offence of failure to protect a child at risk of a sexual abuse offence; creating an offence of failure to report a child sexual abuse offence; and strengthening overseas persistent child sexual abuse laws. Recommendation 33 of the royal commission stated that jurisdictions should introduce a criminal offence for failing to report child sexual abuse. It is vitally important that everyone works together. If a person knows that a child or a young adult is at risk, that person needs to take the necessary steps to report the abuse to the relevant authorities. By not doing so, they are knowingly putting that child or young person at unnecessary risk. A child that is impacted by abuse or neglect can then be put at risk of consequences to their growth and development that can include retarded quantitative development, poor self-development, poor self-esteem, poor language developments, diminished verbal skills, possible psychiatric disorders, an inability to form meaningful relationships and diminished life-coping skills. These are serious effects which can be avoided. It is understood that these sexually violent events have a significant impact on an individual's ability to function within our society, especially when it comes to employment, educational attainment, relationship development and parenting. Recommendation 36 in the royal commission's Criminal justice report stated that state and territory governments should introduce legislation to create a criminal offence of failure to protect a child within an institution from a substantial risk of sexual abuse by an adult associated with the institution. The bill proposes a new offence in the Criminal Code for a Commonwealth officer who negligently fails to reduce or remove the risk to a child under their care, supervision or authority of being sexually abused if it is part of their actual or effective responsibilities as a Commonwealth officer to reduce or remove that risk. A child who is at risk or has suffered abuse relies on those people who have supervision and authority over them to protect them from greater harm or risk. When this does not happen, the child is let down and is at even greater risk of experiencing long-term effects in their personal lives as a result. Those who are responsible to protect children should be held responsible when they fail to do so. Other measures in this bill form a suite of child protection measures which would: criminalise the possession or control of child pornography material or child abuse material in the form of data that has been obtained or accessed using a carriage service; prevent certain dealings with childlike sexual dolls and criminalise the possession of childlike sex dolls—it is hard to talk about these things but they are things we have to be aware of to ensure that people who are importing these dolls are held accountable; improve the definition of 'forced marriage'; and restrict the defence based on a valid genuine marriage to overseas child sex offences. In the digital age, it is of utmost importance that children are protected from online predators who sit behind their computers. These predators knowingly access and obtain material that leads to the harm of children. The amendment to the bill would make a childlike sex doll a child abuse material that would be a criminal act to possess or bring into the country. 'Forced marriage' under federal law is defined as forced if a person doesn't freely and fully consent or if they are incapable of understanding the nature and effect of a marriage ceremony. This may be due to a person's age or mental capacity. Australian law notes that children under the age of 16 are presumed incapable of understanding the nature and effect of a marriage ceremony. Forced marriage is significantly different to an arranged marriage. In an arranged marriage, the parties marry freely who they choose and are not faced with negative consequences if they choose not to go ahead with the marriage. There is not always a clear line between a forced marriage and an arranged marriage, especially when there is pressure put on a young person to do what their family wants. Forced marriages can have long-term consequences on a person's options for their own future. Choosing what a young person wants is often reduced and limited. Pregnancy can follow a forced marriage, and the consequences are considerable. When a child is forced into a marriage they often do not finish school, are at a higher risk of mental health issues and, if they become pregnant, can be neither psychologically nor physically ready. During the process of the royal commission, it was noted that some stakeholders had concerns about aspects of the bill. The Law Council expressed their concern with regard to the application of absolute liability to the offences of failing to protect children at risk of sexual abuse and failing to report child sex abuse. They also had concerns in relation to the absolute liability of the offence relating to a Commonwealth officer committing an offence if: (1) there is a child in his or her care in his or her capacity as a Commonwealth officer; (2) he or she knows there is a substantial risk that a potential offender will engage in conduct in relation to the child or knows of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the potential offender has already or will engage in conduct in relation to the child; (3) such conduct, if engaged in, would constitute a child sexual abuse offence; and (4) he or she negligently fails to reduce or remove that risk or fails to report the risk. Under the bill, the prosecution would not have to prove that the defendant knew the fact in relation to the child abuse; they would only have to prove as a matter of fact that the defendant might have thought they knew of the sexual abuse offence. The Law Council have also raised concerns with the maximum penalty being applied to those offences of possessing a childlike sex doll and the fault element that is applied in relation to that offence. There have also been concerns raised around the reporting requirements and the Law Council, around a lawyer failing to disclose information subject of legal professional privilege. In reply it has been argued that the bill does not require a person to breach legal professional privilege or any other legal obligation of confidentiality. In addition to Labor's comments to the Senate inquiry, Labor accepts the response of the Department of Home Affairs and the Attorney-General's Department that the application of absolute liability in these very limited circumstances is appropriate to ensure compliance with the reporting regime established by the bill. However, it was made clear by Labor senators that the operation of these provisions should be closely monitored following the enactment of the bill. Labor senators also accepted that, in these very limited circumstances, it was necessary to do so to ensure that the reporting requirements introduced by the bill are effective. Labor will be closely monitoring the government and the steps that it takes to implement this bill to see that it implements the bill how it has been intended: to protect Australia's most precious and vulnerable members of our community who need to be protected and supported so that they can be safe and so that they can reach their full potential. Let's not forget it's our responsibility to protect the most vulnerable—to protect our children—all Australian children and young people. Let's not forget the responsibility that have we towards Australians who go offshore and towards sexually abused children who are vulnerable because of economic circumstances and other issues. We as a country should be well aware of them so that we can protect them and play our role as a member of the international community to honour and protect the children of our future and the leaders of the future. 12:44 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I rise to make a contribution to the Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. Centre Alliance supports the Commonwealth government on its determination to protect children from all forms of sexual abuse. I'm grateful to Senator Stoker for raising and reminding the chamber of the terrible situation in relation to Carly Ryan in South Australia—an awful situation. I would like to give some credit to the government, who introduced the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Minors Online) Bill back in June 2017. I give credit to my former colleagues, former senators Skye Kakoschke-Moore and Nick Xenophon, who worked with the government in relation to that bill. That bill is a great example of how laws can protect children. The law is colloquially known as 'Carly's Law', and it has, indeed, prevented online predators from accessing children. Within two or three months of that bill passing the Senate, there was an arrest in relation to online predator conduct. I'm informed reliably that there are about five charges on foot in respect of that law, as I stand here today. So it's a great example of how laws can result in protection not just through dealing with perpetrators but also through creating a deterrent. The bill we are debating today implements a number of recommendations from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. All of the proposed measures are intended to protect children and sanction Commonwealth officers who fail to protect a child at risk of sexual abuse. Any abuse of children, irrespective of whether the offending occurs in an institution—or anywhere for that matter—is abhorrent. It is sickening. The royal commission uncovered disturbing behaviour of those in a position of trust and those turning a blind eye to children who needed help and protection. This bill will ensure that Commonwealth officers who exercise care, supervision or authority over children and fail to report child sexual abuse, or negligently fail to reduce or remove the risk of sexual abuse to those children, will be subject to criminal penalty. New offences for the possession and control of child abuse material in the form of data stored on a computer or data storage device are also in the bill. Also banned under the bill is the ability of perpetrators of child abuse to claim they were legally married to the child. This protects the child from forced marriages. It is well documented that children trapped in early marriages are often physically, sexually and mentally abused and are subjected to rape and forced pregnancy. This amendment bill reflects Australia's abhorrence and intolerance of these types of abuses against children. A recent development in child abuse material is childlike sex dolls. These are grotesque. Unfortunately, we know these have been imported into Australia. These disgusting dolls are a form of child exploitation material, and their possession will be criminalised under this bill. These dolls are three-dimensional, they are lifelike, they resemble children and they are intended to be used for the simulation of sexual intercourse. The banning of possession of these dolls will prevent the normalisation of abusive behaviour towards children. Research conducted by the Australian Institute of Criminology this year found, firstly, that the use of childlike sex dolls may lead to escalation in child sex offending. It also found that it desensitises users from the potential harm that actual child sexual abuse causes, that the sale of childlike sex dolls potentially results in the risk of children being objectified as sexual beings and that childlike sex dolls could be used to groom children for sex. It is obvious that the dolls encourage the sexualisation of children and are highly likely to increase the likelihood that a paedophile will engage in sexual activity with or towards children. It is deeply disturbing that there is even a market for such an object, and equally disturbing that there are overseas manufacturers that create these dolls. My SA-BEST colleagues in South Australia introduced a bill, the Criminal Law Consolidation (Child-Like Sex Dolls Prohibition) Amendment Bill 2019, into the South Australian Legislative Council. I must confess that, when my South Australian colleagues consulted Centre Alliance on this, I couldn't believe that these things existed—and I'm a big, tough boy; I've been on submarines, I've travelled extensively and I know lots of things. These things shocked me; I couldn't contemplate that these things were available. The bill in South Australia proposes amendments to the South Australian Criminal Law Consolidation Act to include childlike sex dolls within the definition of 'child exploitation material'. The SA-BEST bill makes it an offence to produce or disseminate childlike sex dolls, with a penalty of 10 years imprisonment applying to the offence. The bill also makes it an offence to possess a childlike sex doll. A person guilty of such an offence will face 10 years imprisonment. I am happy to inform the Senate that the bill passed the South Australian Legislative Council on Thursday 12 September this year. I would like to thank my South Australian colleague the Hon. Connie Bonaros MLC and her team for their efforts in strengthening the protections in South Australia. It is great news. There appears to be a situation where the Commonwealth and the states are working together to just rid our country of these awful things. Centre Alliance stands alongside SA-BEST, resolute in its commitment to prevent the exploitation of children. This bill and the bill before the South Australian parliament fall within that commitment. I commend the bill to the Senate. 12:52 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I rise today in support of the Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. This is a very important bill—part of the Morrison government's commitment to keep Australians safe. There is no greater duty for any nation than to keep their children safe, and there is no more abhorrent threat to the safety of children than sexual predators. The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse showed to all Australians the depth and extent of this threat. The government has responded by bringing forward legislation to implement its recommendations, including the legislation that we are debating today. This bill implements a number of recommendations of the royal commission as well as additional measures to target child exploitation in Australia and overseas. It also addresses operational difficulties faced by the Australian Federal Police, Border Force and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions in investigating and prosecuting new trends in child abuse. The bill consists of seven schedules, each of which addresses an important area of tackling child abuse: failure to protect children from or to report child sexual abuse offences; preventing the possession of childlike dolls; possession or control of child abuse material that has been sourced using a carriage service; strengthening laws for overseas persistent child sexual abuse; expanding the definition of 'forced marriage'; restricting the defence for overseas child sex offences based on a valid and genuine marriage; and expanding the meaning of 'child abuse material'. It was pleasing to hear during consultation and public hearings on this bill by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, of which I am a member, that there was widespread support for the intent of each of these sections. Indeed, the committee has recommended that the bill be passed. But, while there was widespread agreement on the intent of each part of the legislation, there were a number of changes suggested by various legal groups during committee consideration which I would like to address today. I certainly respect the expertise of the Law Council of Australia and other legal groups who submitted to the inquiry. However, I strongly disagree—and, indeed, the committee disagreed—that there should be any watering-down of penalties or the ability to prosecute these offences. The people of Australia expect this parliament to make it abundantly clear to courts that child abuse offences are incredibly serious crimes and should be dealt with accordingly. As honourable senators know, this government has a policy position to introduce mandatory minimum sentences for child sex offenders who commit federal offences. This is in response to the shocking statistic that almost one-third of all child sex offenders who were sentenced last year were not required to spend a single day behind bars. Labor voted against similar legislation in 2017 at a federal level, and I'm very glad that Senator Patrick has referenced here today the work that is happening in his own state of South Australia, because I think it's very important for us to take a Commonwealth-state approach to dealing with this issue. Regrettably, at the same time, at a state level in my own state of Tasmania, the Labor opposition has repeatedly blocked legislation to implement mandatory jail time for paedophiles—a position which has been the subject of huge public outcry in Tasmania. Over the last week we've been led to believe by various comments by Labor that, this time, they may see sense and not oppose mandatory jail time for paedophiles at the federal level. Indeed, it's promising to hear comments from Labor senators today indicating that they understand the severity of the issue of child exploitation and paedophilia that we're dealing with here. Yet, in the comments from Labor senators on this combating child exploitation bill, they've gone out of their way to make clear that they oppose mandatory sentences for child sex offenders. It's incredibly disappointing that Labor members at the state and federal level have seemingly not listened to the voices of victims and survivors on this very important matter. After Labor voted down the last mandatory sentencing bill in the Tasmanian parliament, Mr Steve Fisher of the organisation Beyond Abuse said survivors were in shock over this action. He told The Examiner newspaper: We are shocked, saddened and downright angry that after speaking to the Labor Party and being promised a meeting to discuss Labor's position on mandatory sentencing that, in a matter of hours they garnered enough support to vote this crucial bill down. This is one of the more untrustworthy things we have seen from a political party in the last 20 years and the question remains as to whether they have any regard for the wishes of survivors and the general public in Tasmania. Mr Fisher pointed out that we need mandatory sentencing because people will not come forward if they know the perpetrator will not have to pay for what they have done. It is not only beyond time that Labor backed tougher sentencing laws for these vile crimes here in the Commonwealth parliament; they must do the same in the Tasmanian parliament. The Labor opposition leader in Tasmania, Rebecca White, has repeatedly forced her party to block mandatory sentencing for child sex offender legislation in the Tasmanian parliament. However, more recently, she has admitted that her own party has had a somewhat unhealthy obsession with voting for the Greens and against our Liberal state government. I suggest that, if Ms White is serious about listening to the community and representing the voters of Tasmania, she should back that rhetoric with action by picking up the phone to the Premier of Tasmania, Will Hodgman, and offering Labor's support to pass legislation which will ensure that paedophiles are put behind bars. Today, we welcome the support of those in the chamber, including the opposition, who will vote for this particular bill that we are debating today. But everyone should be aware that what survivors and victims really want is justice in the form of significant prison time for their abusers. They want to know that the pain and trauma they go through when they have the courage to come forward and report their abuse will result in more than just a slap on the wrist and a suspended sentence. I look forward to this bill being supported by the Senate, but I also put on record that this parliament must do more to ensure that these abhorrent crimes lead to offenders being put in jail where they can't harm children. The Morrison coalition government is leading the way by ensuring that child sex offenders are hit with the full force of the law. I only hope that my colleagues on all sides of this chamber can find it within themselves to agree with us, in the interests of the children of Australia. I commend the bill to the chamber. 12:59 Senator Marielle SMITH 281603 South Australia I rise to speak in support of the Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. I do so because it is our job to stand up for children in this place. As the most vulnerable members of our community, children rely on us to do all that we can to use the power of this place to protect them. Against the most horrific and sickening crime of child sexual abuse, we must leave no stone unturned. We must do all we can together to ensure our children are safe and protected from such evil. That's why Labor is supporting this legislation. I acknowledge what is and always should be the bipartisan approach taken to the principle of protecting children from abuse and the heartfelt concern of senators from all sides of the chamber in fighting against this horrendous crime. Labor absolutely supports the intent and principles of this legislation, which implements several recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and builds on child protection reforms and policies that we implemented. The royal commission was long overdue and hard fought for. In my previous career, I had the great honour of meeting one of the Australians who fought so hard for this justice, Chrissie Foster. Ms Foster, along with her husband, Anthony, were fierce advocates for survivors of child sexual abuse. Their tireless fight for justice began after they learned of the indescribable suffering two of their daughters had been through. The Fosters became the voice and face of so many sexual abuse survivors who could not speak for themselves, and they were not alone. They were joined by survivors and family members across Australia whose sheer will and unmatched determination brought the royal commission and the national apology into reality. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the work, sacrifices and immense pain of survivors of institutional child sexual abuse and all of those who have advocated on their behalf. We must not forget their pain or their work. This legislation seeks to implement several of the recommendations from the royal commission by amending the Criminal Code Act, the Customs Act, the Crimes Act, the Surveillance Devices Act and the Telecommunications Act. In response to recommendation 33 of the royal commission, the legislation specifically seeks to create an offence of failure to protect a child at risk of child sexual abuse. The report states that jurisdictions should introduce a criminal offence for failing to report child sexual abuse. Recommendation 36 in the royal commission report states that state and territory governments should introduce legislation to create a criminal offence of failure to protect a child within an institution from substantial risk of sexual abuse by an adult associated with the institution. In response, this bill seeks to create an offence of failure to report a child that constitutes a child sexual abuse offence. This includes a criminal code for a Commonwealth officer who negligently fails to reduce or remove the risk of a child under their care, supervision or authority being sexually abused. Currently, the criminalised persistent sexual abuse of a child overseas requires proof of at least three underlying occasions. This bill seeks to lower that minimum to two underlying occasions and to strengthen overseas persistent child sexual abuse laws. It particularly aims to reduce the difficulties associated with distinguishing particular occasions of offending from repeated and regular child sexual abuse. Other measures in the bill seek to implement a suite of child protection amendments. The bill amends the Criminal Code to criminalise the possession of childlike sex dolls and would make a childlike sex doll child abuse material for the purposes of the Criminal Code and the Customs Act. The bill inserts a new offence for the possession or control of child abuse material in the form of data held in a computer or contained in a data storage device that was obtained or accessed via a carriage service. The definition of forced marriage will be expanded to strengthen the forced marriage offences in the Criminal Code. Currently a marriage is considered to be forced if it is entered into without consent, which must be full and free and given without coercion, deception or threat. The explanatory memorandum states that in practice this has meant that prosecuting forced marriage offences involving children is difficult. The bill further seeks to expand the definition of forced marriage to specifically include all marriages involving children under the age of 16. Travelling overseas to abuse and exploit children is tragically a known practice of Australian offenders. This is most prevalent in overseas jurisdictions which have weak child protection frameworks and where the offending behaviour is less likely to attract attention and investigation from local authorities. The vile individuals who exploit children in this way know and target children in these countries specifically. In an attempt to combat this, the bill seeks to restrict the defence for overseas child sex offences based on a valid and genuine marriage. In addition, the bill amends the Criminal Code to narrow the defence so that the existence of a marriage between a defendant and a child no longer constitutes a valid defence for otherwise criminal conduct if the child is under the age of 16. Finally, the bill also expands the meaning of 'child abuse material', updating the terminology used for child sexual abuse offences in Commonwealth legislation. It does this to reflect the gravity of these crimes, the harm that is inflicted on the children involved, and shifts in national and international best practice. I note, as some of my other colleagues have, that some stakeholders raised legitimate concerns about certain aspects of the bill currently before the Senate. It is important to note that these concerns were raised by people who unambiguously support the underlying objectives of the bill. The Law Council of Australia raised particular concerns about the application of absolute liability to the offences of failing to protect children at risk of child sexual abuse and failing to report child sexual abuse. However, Labor noted in its additional comments to the Senate inquiry's report that it accepts the submission from the Department of Home Affairs and the Attorney-General's Department that absolute liability is appropriate to ensure compliance with the reporting regime. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and the Law Council of Australia also raised concerns regarding the bill's provision that an individual is not excused from failing to disclose information relating to child sexual abuse on grounds of possible self-incrimination. Labor made further additional comments to indicate it also accepts the responses of the two departments in relation to these concerns. As noted by Labor members in the additional comments to the committee's report, it is vital that this legislation be as effective as possible. Labor will watch the government's next steps closely to ensure the bill is implemented as intended. But, fundamentally, Labor supports the measures in the bill, and we support the bill. The royal commission handed down its final report in December 2017, in which the commissioners made a total of 409 recommendations. It is imperative to note that this legislation before the Senate seeks to implement only a few of those recommendations. The royal commission received 25,964 written submissions in the form of letters and emails. It received 42,041 phone calls and held 8,013 private sessions. From all those submissions received, the commission made 2,575 referrals to authorities, including the police. The total of 76,018 submissions received, in addition to the 2,575 referrals made, makes bipartisan support of this bill and its measures all the more crucial. It is absolutely essential that as a chamber we stand together, unified against child abuse and exploitation in all of its forms. I am incredibly proud that it was Labor who initiated the royal commission and that the implementation by this government of further strengthening legislation, which seeks to combat child sexual exploitation, builds on reforms and policies implemented under a Labor government. Children are the most precious and vulnerable members of our community. They do not have their own voice in this place, so it is our job to speak for them. Here we hold the power to implement legislation to protect them from the world's most sickening crimes and people. It is our job to do all we can to keep them safe from sexual exploitation and from all harm, because they deserve our protection and our support. Labor are committed to protecting Australian children. We have no tolerance for these crimes. That's why we're supporting the bill, and I commend it to the Senate. 13:08 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I speak in support of the Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. When we see a toddler—the joy in that child's eyes, the free spirit, the sparkling eyes, the bounce in the step, the running, the curiosity, the fun-loving nature—isn't it a marvel? Tom Peters is a renowned management consultant and leadership expert. I heard him personally state once, in Brisbane, 'The four-year-old is the pinnacle of human society,' and I happen to agree with him. Something happens after that in our society that dulls that bounce, dulls the eye and dulls the spirit, but a toddler, a four-year-old—what a joy to see! How can anyone possibly abuse such a beautiful thing? The child creates the adult. The child creates Australia's future, and that's why One Nation is the advocate for the child, because this is the future of the country. This bill goes to the core of what One Nation is about: children, families, our nation, today and the future. I want to take some words from Maria Montessori. For those who don't know of her, she was an amazing Italian doctor. She actually entered engineering back in the 1880s, I'm guessing—somewhere around there. She became Italy's first female engineering student. Imagine that in a patriarchal society like Italy back then. She fought and became a student. She didn't like it, so she changed. She became Italy's first female medical student, and she loved it. She then spent her life working with children around the world. I'm not an expert in this, but, having talked to many people who are experts, I would argue that, after many decades of meticulous observations, she delivered by far the most comprehensive set of observations of the child and the development of humans. Her writing was prolific, and she was not only objective in her observations but in her measurements and documentation. She said, 'The critical years for the formation of both character and intellect are between birth and the age of six.' I'll say it again: 'The critical years for the formation of both character and intellect are the years from birth to six.' All children who are abused suffer. Abuse of any sort, especially sexual abuse, changes the brain's architecture; it affects that beautiful person's development in the future and it changes their ability to learn—it compromises their ability to learn. After all, we all learn best when we're calm and at ease, not when we're feeling intimidated, fearful or threatened. It's very important to understand that we need to give the future of Australia, the future of the planet, a very strong start without abuse. Sexual abuse in particular hurts the human spirit. Just think about it: we don't allow 16-year-olds to drive and we know that 16-year-old brains are not fully developed. An abuse of a 16-year-old—the abuse of a child at any age—will potentially lead to a future dysfunctional adult, because, as I said earlier, it is the child that creates the adult. Paedophilia, exploitation and abuse are sickening and horrific, and lead to perpetuating cycles of abuse. We all know that, and I commend the government for acknowledging that. However, I understand the bill refers to Commonwealth officers and not every person. I may be wrong, but if I'm correct then that would indicate this bill is just a good start. There are a couple of prominent provisions that we commend. It is now an offence to fail to protect a child at risk of a sexual abuse offence—wonderful. It is now an offence to fail to report child sexual abuse—wonderful. It reduces the standard for the offence of persistent sexual abuse of a child outside Australia from three offences to two. After two offences a person is deemed persistent, and we think that is wonderful. We must stamp out child abuse of any kind, especially sexual abuse. In line with the recommendation of the royal commission, this bill will introduce two new offences into the Criminal Code to criminalise public officers who exercise care, supervision or authority over children but who fail to report child sexual abuse or negligently fail to reduce or remove the risk of child sexual abuse to those children. With the internet being so prolific and easily available, we need to understand the impact of those who groom children through the internet. This bill will also strengthen the existing forced marriage defences to ensure they explicitly capture all marriages involving children 16 or under. Child marriage is a pernicious practice. It doesn't matter what the religion or ideology is; child marriage is a pernicious practice that seriously harms the development and wellbeing of victims. Indeed, it hurts our whole society, with disproportionate impacts on girls and young women. Children—children!—trapped in early marriages are often subject to physical and mental abuse, rape and forced pregnancy, and this bill sends a clear message that this morally reprehensible practice will not be tolerated. People who officiate or allow these marriages—the officiator and the parents—will now be guilty of an offence, with no exception. We stand up for the child. Whether that be through our immigration policies—we are careful about who we allow into this country—or the way we conduct ourselves in our society, One Nation is always going to protect the child. Those in this chamber who heard Senator Hanson talking yesterday about her experiences under the family law system will understand why the child is so important to One Nation. One Nation is an advocate for the child and we will continue to support all aspects of the protection and safety of children. As a former mine manager and mining executive, safety was always very important to me, so I came up with a definition of safety. This is what I guided my management experience on: safety is the state in which people are conscious of, successfully manage and feel accountable for the potential of injury or risk. We must be always conscious of the potential for injury or risk to our children. That's why we are an advocate for the child. We will be supporting this. We will also be supporting the Law Council's submission on restoring the presumption of innocence. So we will be supporting the amendment when it's put forward by the Greens that they have taken from the Law Council's submission on the presumption of innocence. That is very important for the protection of our society. Finally, One Nation is pleased to support this bill and commends the government for making a good start. We will always be an advocate for the child. 13:16 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to sum up the debate in relation to the Combatting Child Sexual Exploitation Legislation Amendment Bill 2019. I've listened carefully to the debate in this chamber and I would like to thank my fellow colleagues for their contribution to what is, I believe, an incredibly important debate. As we have made very clear as a government, the protection of children is a key priority for this government. The sexual abuse of children must not be tolerated in any way, shape or form. The safety of our community, including its most vulnerable members, must be our first priority. In the interests of seeing this bill become law sooner rather than later, I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT F49 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. 13:18 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Partner Service Pension and Other Measures) Bill 2019 12

Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Partner Service Pension and Other Measures) Bill 2019

Second Reading 12 13:18 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I rise to speak on Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Partner Service Pension and Other Measures) Bill 2019. I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak on this bill which, importantly, has bipartisan support. The bill is designed to improve the outcomes for former partners of veterans, as well as extending the benefits available to ADF members who served on submarine special operations. Labor recognises that it is within community expectation for veterans and their families to be looked after. This includes the high-quality care and support that this bill will ensure. This has, of course, bipartisan recognition in this place. To summarise, schedule 1 of this bill will improve financial outcomes for the former partners of veterans. Schedule 2 of this bill extends benefits available to ADF members who served on submarine special operations, as I said earlier. Schedule 3 is a technical amendment to align marriage related definitions in veterans legislation with the definition of marriage made by the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017, or the marriage amendment act. Allow me to go through each schedule in slightly more detail. Schedule 1 proposes amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to align the eligibility for the partner service pension by removing inequalities that currently exist between married and unmarried former partners of veterans. The service pension is the payment made to eligible partners, former partners and widows or widowers of veterans. It provides for a regular income for people with modest means. It is subject to an income and asset test. Under this, a former partner would include former de facto partners of a veteran, persons who were formally in a registered relationship with a veteran, and persons divorced from or separated but still married to a veteran. There is also a current inequity that is remedied by this amendment. It gives effect to a 2019-20 budget measure related to married and de facto partners by extending the service pension for 12 months post separation. In doing this, we recognise the difference in contemporary relationship types by removing any discrimination. Furthermore, in relation to special circumstances, which may include domestic and family violence or abuse, the amendment allows for former partners to remain eligible to receive a partner service pension after the 12-month period. The amendments ensure that all former partners can continue to receive the service pension for 12 months after separating from the veteran or until they enter into a new relationship and beyond this period indefinitely—again, until they enter into a new relationship where special domestic circumstances exist or where the veteran dies within 12 months of separation. This is an important measure that brings the system in line with the contemporary reality of relationships. It comes out of the Fourth Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and their Children and will assist partners to leave a violent relationship by providing them with financial support. This is an important step as, time and time again, we are told by the experts of the financial and logistical barriers to women leaving violent relationships. So having a measure like this developed in response to a range of evidence, stakeholder consultation and feedback is, of course, pleasing. Allow me to go through some of the background here. This is based on findings from Flinders University research into families of veterans in 2017, which highlighted the potential link between post-traumatic stress disorder and domestic violence and the government's family assistance package. This package was part of the response of the 2016 Senate inquiry into suicide by veterans and ex-service personnel, which Labor helped push to establish. The research related to this was consulted on by the Female Veterans and Veterans' Families Policy Forum as well as the Ex-Service Organisation Round Table, which is also known as ESORT, one of the key forums for the veteran community. In February 2018 a Senate estimates hearing canvassed the issue of former partners, with particular reference to those who have experienced domestic violence and cease to be eligible for the partner service pension on divorce. It was in response to this that the government decided to include divorced couples in this measure, which is fair and sensible. Groups such as Partners of Veterans Association of Australia have also raised concerns about non-married partners ceasing to be eligible for the partner service pension upon separating from a veteran. This association, including the ex-service community more generally, has signalled its approval of the measure since its announcement. At this point I should note that Labor has always been the champion of policies that support women. This, of course, extends to partners and families of current and ex-service personnel as well as measures that address domestic violence. Labor supports policy and legislation of this nature, especially when veterans and the ex-service community have often said that they feel as if military and veterans' families are ignored when it comes to discussions of support and assistance. We know the critical role families and partners play in supporting and caring for ex-service members and veterans, and it is important to note that military life is unique, and families are also deeply affected by military service. This is why at the last election we prosecuted a policy for a national family engagement and support strategy that would better engage and support families who experience suicide or suicidal ideation, PTSD and other issues pre and post military service. As this measure is broadly consistent with Labor's approach to supporting veterans and their families, we support it. I note that this measure will begin on 20 September 2019, pending passage of the legislation. In schedule 2, the proposed amendments amend the Veterans' Entitlements Act to reclassify service by ADF members on submarine special operations during the period 1 January 1993 to 12 May 1997 as operational and qualifying service. Doing this will provide access to the disability pension as well as provide eligibility for the service pension at age 60 and the gold card at age 70, covering medical treatment for all conditions. Furthermore, the period between 13 May 1997 and 30 June 2006 will not require legislative change and will be subject to future determinations of non-warlike service, providing further support to eligible ADF members involved in submarine special operations. This all comes following a review by the Department of Defence on the nature of service on submarine special operations. This is also an extension of the current eligibility period under the act which only covers service on special operations between 1 January 1978 and 31 December 1992. This will give a new generation of submariners better access to treatment benefits, compensation and income support. Any claims arising from this service will be assessed under the more generous 'reasonable hypothesis standard' of proof and will be eligible for treatment of and compensation for injuries and disease that can be attributed to their service. If passed, these amendments will commence the day after royal assent, and eligibility will be backdated to 1 July 2019. Labor is in agreement on the need to recognise the unique nature of submarine special operations service. This reflects our country's debt to the service and sacrifice of all our veterans. Schedule 3 involves technical amendments that arose in relation to changes to the definition of marriage made by the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017. By amending the definitions of 'widow' and 'widower' in the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act, we ensure consistency. The marriage amendment act amended the Marriage Act 1961—Commonwealth legislation—to remove gendered language within these definitions and restrictions that limit marriage in Australia to the union of a man and a woman. This meant that, in Australia, two people now have the freedom to marry each other, regardless of their sex or gender. This amendment expands eligibility for subsidised housing loans and subsidies under the Defence Service Homes Act, as well as for pensions under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. This creates a tangible way in which we can improve support for same-sex partners of veterans. Finally, a technical amendment under schedule 3 replaces a reference to a direction under subsection 5R(5) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act and replaces this with the term 'determination'. In doing so, we make both acts align with current Australian marriage law. Labor supports modern relationships and the need to remove discrimination surrounding them. These amendments will commence the day after royal assent. In closing, it is important to stress that Labor wants to work in a constructive and bipartisan way with the government in relation to how we treat our veterans and their families. Labor believes that this bill is in line with that aspiration. On that note, I commend the bill. 13:29 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I rise to make a short contribution on this bill, the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Partner Service Pension and Other Measures) Bill 2019. I will not cover much of the territory covered by Senator Sterle—he explained the provisions of this bill very well—but I do want to make a few brief remarks. I think it's vital that we always mention, with respect and a recognition, the service that our veterans, our service men and women, have given to this country over a very long period of time, and making sure that that service is recognised appropriately is something that this government is, of course, very committed to. This bill builds on an ongoing commitment to veterans that equates to over $11 billion annually in contributions. There was $11.5 billion in the 2019-20 budget year alone for supporting veterans and their families. This is important for a reason—not only because it gives us the opportunity to say we recognise their service but also because it actually makes a very real difference in the lives of real people who have served and their loved ones. And you only need to go to one degree of separation to find someone close to you who is a veteran or a family member of a veteran who is helped by these kinds of supports. I'll give you an example. One of my young staff members had a grandfather who served in the Royal Navy for six years. As a result of his time in service, he developed a melanoma which unfortunately metastasised and spread rapidly. Thanks to the support that governments of all persuasions have provided, the gold card covered the chemotherapy, the surgical treatments and, eventually, the palliative care for her grandfather. He did pass away, and then the grandmother was eligible, with the assistance of an application supported by the RSL, for a war widow's pension. Obviously, this was a very, very difficult time for my staff member's grandmother—a very tough time which included some serious health issues of her own. However, again with the support provided through a war widow's pension, she managed to get the treatment she needed and is now happy, healthy and living a full life. So these kinds of changes do make a very real difference in the lives of real people and the lives of our veterans. As Senator Sterle outlined, there are a couple of key changes here, which I will also mention. One is to make sure that the PSP, the partner service pension, is available to eligible partners, former partners, widows and widowers of veterans by changing the definition of 'partner' under the legislation to include de facto partners and ex-partners, subject to certain criteria—a postseparation buffer period of 12 months, or until a new relationship is commenced, where ex-partners may still receive the partner service pension. Also there are provisions that cover the situation where, if a service man or woman dies within 12 months of separation, the partner is still able to receive the pension. Obviously, it is very important to change rules to take into account the changing circumstances in our society. I will also mention, just briefly, the coverage in schedule 2 of the extended service on submarine special operations. These changes came out of a review by the Department of Defence into the nature of service on submarine special operations, and they give effect to the government's decision for service between 1 January 1993 and 12 May 1997 to be classified as operational and qualifying service under the Veterans' Entitlements Act. This is an extension to the eligibility period under the VEA, which currently only covers between 1 January 1978 and 31 December 1992. Submarine special operations are, obviously, highly classified and sensitive, and the nature of these operations is not publicly disclosed. However, this change provides a new cohort of submariners with greater access to treatment, benefits, compensation and income supports. Any claims arising from this service will be assessed under the more generous reasonable hypothesis standard of proof. These submariners will be eligible for the gold card when they turn 70 and may be eligible for the service pension at age 60. This measure recognises the unique nature of the submarine special operations service and reflects the government's admiration of the service and the sacrifice of all veterans. 13:35 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia The Centre Alliance will support the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Partner Service Pension and Other Measures) Bill 2019. This bill has three schedules. Schedule 1 will align the entitlements to the partner service pension for separating spouses and de facto partners. This is a sensible amendment, and reflects the modern construction of families. Where couples separate, the non-veteran partner will be entitled to receive the partner service pension for a period of 12 months but, importantly, in cases where separations are a result of domestic violence, the 12-month period will be extended. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Darren Chester, indicated that he will make a legislative instrument under subsection 38(2AD) to extend the period to post-separation entitlement in circumstances of domestic violence until they re-partner. This recognises that victims of domestic violence often take some time before they re-partner and that until they do they will not be financially penalised. Schedule 2 extends the deeming provision for submariners who participated in special operations between 1 January 1978 and 12 May 1997. These operations will be deemed to have been operational service and this will make it easier for these veterans to establish eligibility for any claims related to service, and they'll be able to receive medical treatment. Being a former submariner, I know the difficulties associated with some of the security measures around submarine operations. Submariners in the past have gone on operational missions that the Navy would consider as close to warlike service as you can possibly imagine in terms of danger and so forth. They are highly important, and I won't go into the details in the chamber of course, but these operations have over many years kept Australia well informed and safe. The difficulty is when a veteran turns up to seek entitlements: it's very hard to establish those entitlements because some of these operations are classified top secret with code words and, simply, very few people have access to the details. These veterans, due to the nature of their service—serving their country in almost warlike conditions—have great difficulty establishing their service, and this amendment addresses and removes that difficulty. So it's a good thing. Schedule 3 aligns the Defence Service Homes Act 1918 and the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 to modernise the definition of spouse in light of the changes to the Marriage Act. This amendment will remove any references to gender to couples who are married. Centre Alliance will continue to support amendments that make the claims process easier for veterans and their family members. I commend the bill to the Senate. 13:38 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales In rising to speak on the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Partner Service Pension and Other Measures) Bill 2019, I note that this is not my first speech. Having previously served in the Royal Australian Army Ordnance Corps as a reservist, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill and, in doing so, reaffirm my appreciation and admiration for all the men and women who serve Australia in uniform, both at home and abroad. It is incumbent on all Australians to respect and recognise our returned servicemen and women, and those who have been prepared to put their lives on the line, literally, for our nation, our values and our way of life. Our veterans have made great sacrifices for our country, and the onus is on us now to support them. Regrettably, our veterans have not always received the support they deserve. This bill takes a significant step towards fixing that. On that note, I want to take this opportunity to commend my Nationals colleague the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Darren Chester MP, as well as the staff of the Department of Veterans' Affairs for the work they have done in bringing forward these practical amendments. This bill contains three sets of amendments. It will improve the outcomes for former partners of veterans receiving the partner service pension, it will extend the benefits available to Australian Defence Force members who served on certain submarine special operations and it will make the technical amendments necessary arising from the changes to the definition of marriage by the Marriage Amendment Act. Together, these amendments will ensure that our veterans pension framework is modern, accessible and equitable and that it recognises the differences in relationship types and removes any form of discrimination from our legislative framework. The sacrifice made by any partner of a veteran cannot be understated. Once legislated, these amendments will ensure that all partners, be they former, current or widowed, will receive up to 12 months of continued partner pension after the end of a relationship with a veteran or until the partner begins a new relationship. In special circumstances, including where domestic violence occurs, these payments could continue beyond the 12-month deadline. The government has already provided $6.2 million for this measure over the forward estimates, and it will commence on 20 September if passed by parliament. I am proud of the Nationals track record for delivering services and support for veterans and their families. In government, alongside the Liberal Party, we provide more than $11 billion a year to support around 280,000 veterans and their families, widows and children. But there is still so much work that needs to be done. Many in our veteran community face ongoing difficulties upon returning to their civilian life and they struggle to make the transition. Their families are, of course, impacted by the unique pressures that come with military life and afterwards. Two recent reports, the first prepared by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, commissioned by the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and the other prepared by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, highlight the challenges our veterans face. It is not good enough that our veterans, who serve our nation selflessly and honourably, then have to face battles of a different kind. They have higher rates of unemployment, homelessness, relationship breakdown and mental health issues. And it is a national tragedy that our veterans are overrepresented in suicide rates. The government are taking practical steps to address the challenges facing our veterans communities. We continue to work hard with stakeholders and people representing veterans communities to ensure that veterans receive the ongoing support they need from both the government and the community at large. This bill is just one part of the government's broader strategy to achieve that. The amendments in this bill, once legislated, will mean better outcomes for veterans and their families. I commend this bill to the Senate. 13:43 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The content of the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Partner Service Pension and Other Measures) Bill 2019 reflects a wonderful process of realisation in this space that relationships look different today than they might once have done, that Australia has moved forward and that there are certain realities of human relationships that exist that we recognise now and no longer ask to be hidden in the shadows as something shameful. Its measures are the result of a good deal of consultation with the veterans community as well as a much-needed review by the Department of Defence into these relevant matters. I commend its sections to the chamber as well as noting that, as we pass pieces of legislation in this area, we must always remember and recommit ourselves to that process of deep listening alongside our returned service personnel. We should not simply take the low-hanging fruit and do what we can to generate for ourselves a quick and easy media release that we can fire off to our email lists, but do the hard work—sit down with veterans who have experienced deep trauma, sit down with their families, and grapple, fearlessly, with the very many complex and intertwined emotional and social ramifications of someone's service in the armed forces. It can be a difficult thing to do. It can be a harrowing thing to do. As a senator, having recently taken on this particular area of responsibility, it has been a journey towards the realisation that the actions of this parliament, or indeed the inaction of this parliament, have a very profound effect upon folks who rightly feel themselves to have begun participating in a process which would always place them at the centre of our national debates and at the centre of the deep-thinking processes of this place only to return from their service and confront bureaucracies and systems which they often experience to be more difficult to confront and more traumatic to experience that those which they may have confronted in combat zones. There has been much work done in the last years on attempting to improve these processes or at least to be seen to attempt to improve these processes. However, I have, in my short time in this role, received enough correspondence and feedback from people working in this space that speaks to me very clearly the reality that there is a lot more work to do so that our systems and processes properly support returned service personnel, their families and the people who have been impacted by their service to our nation in those particular roles. I can't help but, on moments like this, when we consider such legislation that calls upon us to reflect on the responsibilities that we have to those who serve in our armed forces, to observe the strange absence that is at the heart of this chamber's responsibility in this space when it comes to the issue of the absence of a war powers act in Australia. I have never been able to square it, and can no more square it now, that neither we in this chamber nor those in the chamber opposite are asked to take full responsibility for the implications of entering into that armed service space in times of war. And I would reiterate at this moment that my party, the Greens, advocates for the chambers to take on that clear-eyed responsibility and to decide that we should never again place our armed service personnel in harm's way, telling them to go elsewhere and defend this nation, without being prepared to vote for that action and take on the responsibility for the impacts of that action. That being said, I commend this bill to the chamber. 13:49 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I'm absolutely delighted to speak to the Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Partner Service Pension and Other Measures) Bill. I was listening very closely to the previous speaker, Senator Steele-John. I thank him for his compassion, care and concern, but I would say that this government has reflected very deeply on the issues that he mentions, as have many members of this and the other place. This is a very complex area of policy, and this bill is a very welcome next step in the journey of improvement for our veterans and their families. The bill is designed to improve the assistance and support that we provide former partners of veterans and also, separately, to extend the benefits available to ADF members who served on submarine special operations. As the Minister for Defence, I recognise that service in the Australian Defence Force often brings with it particular sacrifices due to that service. I also recognise that these sacrifices can impact not just upon the serving member but also very deeply on their families. Without the support of family members in particular our men and women cannot undertake effectively their service. In effect, families serve alongside those men and women in uniform. The Australian community has made clear its expectations of us when it comes to the way that we treat serving members, veterans and their loved ones. This government is absolutely committed to providing the highest levels of support we possibly can. Schedule 1 of the bill will improve financial outcomes for the former partners of veterans. Schedule 2 of the bill will extend benefits available to ADF members who served on submarine special operations. Schedule 3 of the bill is a technical amendment to bring marriage related definitions in veterans legislation within the definition of marriage made by the Marriage Amendment (Definitions and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017. The amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act under schedule 1 of the bill will bring consistency to the partner service pension for all former married and non-married partners. This will ensure that the partner service pension provisions are free from discrimination and recognise the differences in relationship types. Once this bill is passed, all eligible former partners of veterans will remain on the partner service pension for a period up of to 12 months after separation from their veteran partners. Additionally, where special domestic circumstances apply, including domestic abuse, amendments to the relevant legislative instrument will allow all former partners to remain eligible to receive the partner service pension until they enter into a new relationship. This preventive measure is a part of the government's Fourth Action Plan of the National Plan to Reduce Violence Against Women and Children. By providing financial support at a critical time, this measure will assist partners to leave a violent relationship. The amendments to the VEA under schedule 2 will extend eligibility for benefits to ADF members who served on submarine special operations between 31 December 1992 and 12 May 1997. This period of service will be recognised as operational and qualifying, which will provide access to the disability pension. This change will also allow for eligible veterans to have improved access to assessment claims for treatment and also for compensation, as well as providing eligibility for the service pension at age 60 and the gold card at age 70. Additionally, the period between 13 May 1997 and 30 June 2006 will not require legislative change but be subject to future determinations of non-warlike service, which will provide further support to eligible ADF members involved in submarine special operations. The amendment to the Marriage Act 1961 removed the restrictions that limited marriage in Australia to the union of a man and a woman. It allowed two people the freedom to marry in Australia, regardless of their sex or gender. Schedule 3 is a technical amendment arising from the changes to this definition of marriage. These amendments will mean better outcomes for veterans and for their families who have served alongside those men and women in uniform for many, many years. For all of these reasons, I heartily commend this bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 18 13:54 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT F49 No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading. 13:54 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Aged Care Amendment (Movement of Provisionally Allocated Places) Bill 2019 18

Aged Care Amendment (Movement of Provisionally Allocated Places) Bill 2019

Second Reading 18 13:55 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I appreciate the opportunity to outline Labor's position on the Aged Care Amendment (Movement of Provisionally Allocated Places) Bill 2019. The Aged Care Act 1997 is to be amended as in its current form it does not permit a variation of the region to which residential aged-care places are provisionally allocated. This bill will allow the Secretary of the Department of Health or her delegates to allow approved providers of residential aged care to move provisionally allocated residential aged-care places from one region to another within a state or territory. The Department of Health is not seeking the power to move provisionally allocated places from one state or territory to another. The bill will not allow for any provisionally allocated place to be moved outside of the state or territory to which it was originally allocated. Under this amendment, providers must demonstrate the movement of the provisionally allocated places is in the interests of aged-care consumers and there is a clear need for places in the new region. This amendment will seek to ensure residential aged care is available to those older Australians who require it as quickly as possible and is appropriately allocated to address local needs. There is no financial impact for the Australian government by the proposed amendments. Obviously, there is a review being undertaken by the Department of Health in relation to how residential aged-care places will be allocated. We may see that in the future the legislation may be redundant over time, dependent on whether there are any alternative proposals emanating from the aged-care approval rounds review. Much of this review, of course, is based upon three recommendations from the Tune review, which was tabled in the parliament back in September 2017. We will watch the outcomes of this review with a keen interest given the emphasis on establishing an alternative model that encourages greater consumer choice. The government's record in relation to aged care is not good. It's now been six years since the Liberals obtained government. Looking back over this, it's easy to question whether the Liberals have done anything of significance to help older Australians access aged-care services and get the care they need. Actually, it's difficult to think of anything the Liberals have done well when it comes to aged-care reform. As mentioned in the other place by the shadow minister, the member for Franklin, the problem is that the Liberals have not had a genuine reform agenda. They have lurched from crisis to crisis and their approach has been policy on the run. Not only is there a lack of reform happening; those opposite don't even rate aged care as a priority. How do we know this? The Liberals are on their fourth aged-care minister in six years, and still the aged-care minister is not considered important enough to be in the cabinet, even though there is a royal commission into aged care happening now. Since the Liberals have obtained government, the policy and reform void has been startling. Let's start with home care, shall we? There are 129,000 older Australians waiting for their approved home care package. Around 75,000 are waiting without any care at all. The waiting list has grown from 88,000 to 129,000 in the past 18 months. This is simply not good enough. It is totally unacceptable. Sadly, more than 16,000 people have died waiting for their approved package and 14,000 have had to enter residential aged care because they could no longer stay at home waiting for care that wasn't there. Others enter emergency departments or the hospital system due to their increasing care needs. Not only is there a distinct lack of packages available; there is also the increasing length of time older Australians have to wait for their approved home care package. Many approved for the highest level of home care are now waiting more than 24 months to receive their approved packages. The wait time is a national crisis. Figures included in the most recent government report clearly show there are more people on the home care package waiting list than there are packages currently in the system. For years Labor has been calling on successive Liberal governments to fix the home care package waiting list crisis. We know Australia has a growing ageing population. We also know Australians— The PRESIDENT 10000 Order! The debate is interrupted. Senator Sterle, you will be in continuation. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 19 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia by leave—I advise the Senate that Senator Canavan will be absent from question time today due to ministerial duties. In Senator Canavan's absence, Senator Birmingham will represent the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia. Senator McKenzie will represent the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development, the Minister for Regional Services, Decentralisation and Local Government, and the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 19 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Pensions and Benefits 19 14:00 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston. Since 2014, how many of the government's budgets have included cuts to the pension? 14:00 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I thank the senator for her question in relation to pensions. This government has a very proud record of looking after older Australians. In fact, I'm pleased to let the senator know that we actually are a government that can be trusted to look after older Australians. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator RUSTON 243273 I have to say that it seems a little strange to come in here and listen to those on the other side of this chamber lecturing us about what we're doing for older Australians— Senator Keneally interjecting— Senator RUSTON 243273 when they are the ones who were seeking to tax older Australians with a $57 billion retiree tax. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator RUSTON 243273 I would also like to say that on 20 September, which I imagine is only a few days away—I'm not quite sure of the date today, but 20 September is not too far away—pensions— Senator Cormann HDA On a point of order: as is well understood by all in this chamber, or should be, interjections are disorderly, and there are a lot of interjections coming from the other side. I know they don't want to hear about pensioners having been targeted by Labor with their retiree tax, but that shouldn't be an opportunity to interject. The PRESIDENT 10000 Thank you, Senator Cormann. You correctly draw the chamber's attention to the standing orders regarding interjections, so I ask senators to respect those standing orders. I call Senator Ruston to continue. Senator RUSTON 243273 Thank you very much. I was just going to mention that from 20 September 2019 pensions will have increased by $125 a fortnight for singles and by $188 per fortnight for couples combined since the coalition came into government in 2013. Also, just so the Senate is aware, 20 September is going to be a great day for our pensioners— The PRESIDENT 10000 Order, Senator Ruston. Senator Keneally, on a point of order? Senator Keneally LNW My point of order is on direct relevance. I've been incredibly generous in allowing the minister to have more than half the allocated time. She has not answered the question or gone near it. Since 2014, how many of the government's budgets have included cuts to the pension? It is just an answer—one, two, three, four, five or six? Senator Cormann HDA On the point of order: the senator was indeed asked about cuts to pensions, and what Senator Ruston is clearly pointing out is that there have been increases to pensions. Pensions increase twice every year, as Senator Keneally would know if she knew anything. Senator Wong 00AOU Can he withdraw that, please? The PRESIDENT 10000 Which particular comment? Senator Wong 00AOU The reflection on Senator Keneally. The PRESIDENT 10000 I didn't hear a personal reflection in Senator Cormann's observation there, Senator Wong. On a point of order, Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU I know that you're trying to protect a weak minister, but, really, you don't need to get like that. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 10000 Order! On the point of order, Senator Cormann? Senator Cormann HDA I would just say that Labor is getting very thin-skinned. Senator Wong should reflect on what she just said. The PRESIDENT 10000 On the point of order, I have been liberal in letting people point out part of a question when there's a legitimate point of order on direct relevance. Points of order are not an opportunity to restate the question nor grab the attention of the camera by trying to restate it in a pointed fashion. The minister was asked a question about pensions. It would not be relevant to talk about other policies or to talk about a more general observation on senior Australians, but the minister was directly talking about pensions. I cannot instruct the minister how to answer a question. The minister was directly relevant, and I ask those who are seeking points of order to treat the chamber with some respect. I will start interrupting them if they are not making a point on direct relevance but are merely undertaking a stunt. The minister was being directly relevant by talking about pensions. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT 10000 The point of order about direct relevance was not raised by you, Senator Wong, so I'm not making an observation about you at all. I'm making a general observation that points of order on direct relevance at least need to make a claim about direct relevance, not merely restate the question. On the other points of order raised by Senators Wong and Cormann, I did not hear any personal reflections. As leaders they get some extra discretion, but they should not be using points of order to have a go at one another across the table. Senator Ruston to continue. Senator RUSTON 243273 Thank you very much, Mr President. I will continue to advise the chamber, as I said, that pensions have increased under the watch of this government. Pension rates are indexed twice yearly every single year. On 20 September, again we will be increasing the budget. In fact, pension rates will increase to $933.40 per fortnight for singles and $1,407 combined for couples. These rates are indexed twice a year every year and have been indexed twice a year every year since we have been in government. But that's not all we've done for older Australians. We make sure that we assist them in other ways. For instance, the energy supplement is also provided to older— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 10000 Senator Keneally, a supplementary question. 14:06 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales I do have a supplementary question. Since 2014, how many of the government's budgets have contained an increase in the pension age to 70? 14:07 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I will take the exact details of your question on notice to make sure that I provide you with the most accurate information. What I can say is: this is a government that supports older Australians. To come in here and to lecture us when this is the opposition that took to the election an intention to tax older Australians by $57 billion by attacking their retirement savings is, I think, really the height of absolute hypocrisy. I will not stand here and be lectured to by the likes of those opposite, to be insulted by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate when I'm actually advising the chamber that, on every occasion, this government has brought forward increases to the age pension. It's been indexed twice a year every year since we have been in government. So don't come in here lecturing us when you're talking about retiree tax. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 10000 Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question. 14:08 Senator KENEALLY LNW New South Wales Can the minister explain why Prime Minister Morrison has been so determined to cut the pension and increase the pension age and force farmers, bricklayers and nurses to work until they are 70? The PRESIDENT 10000 Senator Ruston. Senator Cormann interjecting — Senator Wong interjecting — The PRESIDENT 10000 Order at the front of the table. Please lead by example. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator Keneally LNW Mr President— The PRESIDENT 10000 I hope you're not asking me to call someone to order for interjecting, Senator Keneally! It has been put to me on many occasions that question time is a forum for non-government parties. I would encourage them not to provoke or interject. We would then have more time for questions. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT 10000 Senator Cormann, on a point of order. Senator Cormann HDA I object to the description of 'berating'. I was just pointing out that it was Labor who increased the age pension age to 67 years of age. The PRESIDENT 10000 Senator Cormann, that's not a point of order. 14:09 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I would just like to say that we are the government that backs older Australians, not taxes older Australians. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator RUSTON 243273 I'm not going to stand here and be insulted and lectured by the Leader of the Opposition just because I happen to be telling this chamber the truth about what this government does for older Australians. We back them. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has been on the record time and time again since he's been the Prime Minister—when he was the Treasurer, when he was the Minister for Social Services—saying that he believes that older Australians are an absolute priority of this government. Look at the funding that's been put into aged care and the support he gives through the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians. This is a government that backs older Australians. It doesn't matter how much you yell and scream and insult me—the Leader of the Opposition insults me—the fact is we back older Australians. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 21 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:10 The PRESIDENT I0Q I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the chamber of a parliamentary delegation from Samoa, led by the Deputy Speaker of Samoa, the Hon. Nafoitoa Keti. On behalf of all senators I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and in particular to the Senate today. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 21 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Saudi Arabia 21 14:11 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne. Could the minister advise the Senate what the government's response has been to the recent attacks on oil facilities in Saudi Arabia? 14:11 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Fawcett for his question. As most Australians will be aware, a deliberate attack was made against civilian oil production infrastructure in Saudi Arabia. The deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure is against international humanitarian law and against the law of armed conflict. The Australian government calls on all parties to cease targeting civilian property, including ports, airports, civilian shipping and other non-military locations. We condemn the deliberate targeting of civilian assets and commercial infrastructure. We are still assessing information and working with our international partners and our posts overseas to fully understand the extent of the damage that has been caused by the attacks on oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia, including the implications for Australia for regional security and for global trade. Further analyses of the attacks are being done by experts. Australia will make our own assessments, taking into account all the information available as it comes to us. We are deeply concerned by this deliberate attack, which is clearly designed to destabilise the global economy and to affect people's livelihoods. We will continue to work with our allies and partners to ensure regional and global stability in every way that we can. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Fawcett, a supplementary question? 14:12 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Could the minister advise the Senate what the implications of this attack are for global fuel supplies? 14:12 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales As I said in my previous response, the government is of course working with our international partners to fully understand the extent of the attacks and the damage caused in relation to oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia. I do note, however, as the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction has said today, that there is no immediate threat to Australia's fuel supplies. The International Energy Agency has advised that global markets are well supplied with ample commercial stocks, and it is monitoring the situation, as we would expect. Australia is ready to work with the International Energy Agency and its member countries as the situation becomes clearer and as those damage assessments that I have referred to are made. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Fawcett, a final supplementary question? 14:13 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Could the minister update the Senate on whether the government has any updated or revised advice for Australians planning to travel to Saudi Arabia or the Middle East more broadly? 14:13 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales That's a very important question from Senator Fawcett. This government places the safety of Australians and their interests at home and overseas as its highest priority. Aside from safety against terrorism, cyberattack, foreign interference and other threats, the government is determined to provide travelling Australians with up-to-date advice on safety and security through my department's Smartraveller website. I urge all Australians and dual nationals travelling overseas to monitor the Smartraveller website; to check for updates regularly, even after the journey has begun; and to heed the advice for all countries they are travelling to or through. The travel advice level for Saudi Arabia and other nations in the Middle East is at the second-highest level: 'reconsider your need to travel'. There are parts of Saudi Arabia and other nations in the Middle East that are at the highest level of warning: 'do not travel.' In some countries there is risk that Australians and Australian dual nationals could be caught up in attacks made against airports and other civilian infrastructure or other terrorist attacks. (Time expired) Pensions and Benefits 22 14:14 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston. The government recently promised pensioners a boost of up to $800. How many pensioner couples out of Australia's 2.5 million pensioners will actually get anything like $800? 14:15 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I thank Senator Brown for her question in relation to deeming rates. The government was pleased to make an announcement on 14 July about reducing deeming rates so that they were brought more in line with the kinds of returns that retirees and self-funded and partial pensioners were receiving on the suite of investments and financial assets that they had available to them. As I said at the announcement, it would range for people—up to $1,053 for couples and $804 for singles each year. That would be the amount for somebody who was on the maximum amount of deeming before they were no longer eligible for the aged pension. So right the way through the whole spectrum, from getting just $1 right the way through to singles getting $804 and couples getting $1,053, there are nearly a million Australians who benefit by the reduction in the deeming rates. That reduction actually is about to take effect now and is backdated to 1 July. Our pensioners who are affected by deeming will actually feel the benefit of that when they get their— Senator Carol Brown F49 A point of order on relevance: my question was very clear. I appreciate the information that the minister has told the Senate, but the question is: how many, out of Australia's 2.5 million pensioners, will actually get anything like $800? The PRESIDENT I0Q I cannot instruct the minister how to answer a question. The minister is talking directly about the subject matter of the question. I believe she's being directly relevant. There was in the minister's answer, only shortly before your point of order, an observation about numbers of people, but I can't instruct the minister how to answer a question. I believe the minister in this case is being directly relevant. Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU On the point of order: whilst that is the case, you can remind the minister of the question in appropriate circumstances, and I note that you have done so previously. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Brown has reminded the minister of the nature of her question. In this case I believe the minister is being directly relevant. I've given the senator an opportunity to restate the question. Senator RUSTON 243273 Of the over 2.5 million Australians who are pensioners, about 900,000 of that 2.5-plus million pensioners will actually be impacted on deeming within the spectrum of the rates that I've said. What I would also say, for those opposite as an explanation about how deeming rates actually work, is that they actually work at a point in time. People's financial assets often will change from time to time, so from one fortnight to the next fortnight there could be a different number of people who would be impacted to the maximum amount or a different amount. So there is no one particular answer that you're able to give. What I will say is that there is a spectrum from $1 to $804 and people will fall within that. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Brown, a supplementary question? 14:18 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania Can the minister confirm that of the 2.5 million pensioner couples less than one per cent will receive $800? How can the minister expect any pensioner to trust this government? 14:18 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I can assure you that the pensioners of Australia obviously did trust this government, because they voted us back in. What they did was look at what we were offering pensioners and what our policies were in regard to older Australians, and they made a decision that they wanted us to look after their interests for the next three years. We're delighted to be able to do that because we believe our older Australians deserve the kind of support that the Morrison government is prepared to give them. We did not go to the election with a suite of taxation measures that included taxing their retirement savings. What we went to the election with was a suite of measures that said to older Australians that we would look after them. I would just like to draw to the attention of those opposite that if they don't understand the difference between 'up to' and actually stating a number, then obviously they don't read my press releases very closely. At no time— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Brown, a final supplementary question. 14:19 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania Despite the minister's office telling media that no such data existed, documents released under FOI have revealed that less than one per cent of pensioner couples will receive the full $800. Why did the minister's office mislead the media? What was the government so ashamed of that the minister's office was trying to hide the facts? 14:20 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Thank you, Senator Brown, for your follow-up question. At no time was the information that you're referring to ever provided to my office. Subsequent to a request from the media, we sought from the department the collated information to which you are referring. That information was collated and subsequently provided to the journalist that asked for it. So I don't think there's anything to see here, apart from a group of older Australians who chose to vote in this government to look after their interests. If you'd like me to talk about deeming rates I can talk for hours about deeming rates, because I understand clearly that 900,000 Australians are benefiting from the reduction in the deeming rate—they will actually benefit in the forthcoming week—not only because their deeming rate will reduce the amount they are deemed to have earned in this particular period but because they will also get three months of the reduced deeming rate as a back payment in their next payment. So for the 900,000— (Time expired) Great Barrier Reef 23 14:21 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority just downgraded the outlook of the future of the Great Barrier Reef from poor to very poor, saying that the biggest threat to the reef is climate change, followed by water quality. This downgrade comes right as the World Heritage Committee is reconsidering whether to list the reef as World Heritage in Danger after 50 per cent of the coral cover of the reef died since 2016. As well as its intrinsic value, 64,000 people rely on the reef to remain healthy for their livelihoods. When will this government do what independent scientists, tourism operators, its own agencies and even other nations, like Samoa—from whom we have a delegation today—are calling for, and adopt a climate policy that will save what's left of the reef? 14:22 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia As I believe I might have said in response to a similar question yesterday, the government is committed to effective action on climate change. Indeed, we are on track to meet and exceed our emissions reduction targets signed onto in Kyoto, and we have a plan to meet our emissions reduction target to 2030, agreed to in Paris. Furthermore, the Morrison government is making an unprecedented investment in the Great Barrier Reef, with more than one $1.2 billion committed. In fact, the Labor Party and the Greens, at various times, conspired to criticise us for the level of investment that we were making into the future health of the Great Barrier Reef. This is a government which is absolutely committed to the Great Barrier Reef and its future health. And, of course, we very much understand the importance of the Great Barrier Reef as one of our amazing, world-class tourism assets. Of course we understand this, which is why we are making that significant investment. All we're getting from the Labor Party and the Greens is noise. We are getting on with it. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Waters, a supplementary question. 14:23 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland The Australian government is reported to have lobbied for the World Heritage Committee not to consider climate change when deciding whether sites, including the Great Barrier Reef, should be listed as World Heritage in Danger. The Prime Minister is also reportedly skipping the international climate summit next week and, instead, meeting with a large donor in Washington. When is this government going to stop its war on climate science? And would you care more about the reef if it donated to you? The PRESIDENT I0Q I encourage senators to be very careful about imputations directed at individual senators. The words I heard then could be interpreted as an imputation upon an individual senator, which we apply much more strictly—as I reminded the Senate yesterday. So I ask senators to keep that in mind. I would not like to get into an extensive debate about that. 14:24 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I completely reject the premise of the question. I refer Senator Waters to my answer to her previous question. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Waters, a final supplementary question. 14:24 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland After years of climate science denial and saying that the real threat to the reef was water quality and not climate, two of your backbenchers are proposing an inquiry about whether water quality really is a threat to the reef. What do you say to the former Chief Scientist, now head of your reef expert panel, Professor Ian Chubb, who has said the reef science is 'robust', 'peer reviewed' and of the 'highest quality' and has compared the campaign against reef science with strategies employed by big tobacco? 14:25 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I thank Senator Waters for asking a question about an outstanding motion on the Notice Paper by Senator McDonald and Senator McGrath. On our side we are absolutely committed to the health of the Great Barrier Reef and we understand that farmers across Queensland—in particular, farmers in North Queensland—deeply care about the health of the Great Barrier Reef. We believe it's very important for there to be sensible coexistence between economic activity and environmental protection, and I congratulate Senator McDonald and Senator McGrath for taking this initiative. If the Greens actually cared about practical environmental protection, they would support that initiative, they would get right behind it, because it's a great opportunity to do even better in protecting our Great Barrier Reef into the future. Trade with China 24 14:26 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, representing the Treasurer. Is it not the case that Australian organic infant milk formula, IMF, producer Bellamy's Australia has been waiting on the Chinese government's approvals to sell its product in Chinese retail stores for more than 20 months? Is it not the case that the Chinese government announced in June new rules to further tighten the sale of overseas IMF while encouraging Chinese companies to buy out foreign IMF producers? Is it not the case that the Chinese government's strategic regulatory delays have severely impacted Australia's IMF producers, including Bellamy's, putting significant downward pressure on their share prices? Is it not the case that the Chinese company Mengniu, the company seeking to acquire Bellamy's, is partly owned and closely linked to China's state owned COFCO group? Will the Foreign Investment Review Board and the Treasurer investigate the role of the Chinese government in manipulating market access to support Chinese company buyouts? 14:27 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The first point I would make in relation to the broader issue is that the government is aware of the announcement by Bellamy's to the ASX. The government does not comment on matters that are before the Foreign Investment Review Board. Let me make the general point that foreign investment is a key driver of Australia's economic growth. It creates skilled jobs, improves access to overseas markets and enhances productivity in Australia, which benefits Australian businesses and Australian consumers. Without foreign investment, production, employment and income would all be lower. The government recognises community concerns about foreign ownership of certain Australian assets, which is why the foreign investment review framework allows the government to consider these concerns when assessing Australia's national interest, while ensuring Australia remains an attractive place to invest. Where the government finds that a proposal is contrary— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Patrick on a point of order. Senator Patrick 144292 My question goes to the point of market manipulation by the Chinese government to suppress the share price. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Patrick, that was the last part of a long question that contained a lot of information. The minister is entitled to answer part of the question. He is being directly relevant. Senator CORMANN HDA Maybe I can assist the senator by describing the role of the Foreign Investment Review Board. The board's function is advisory only. The responsibility for making decisions on policy and proposals rests with the Treasurer. The role of the board, including through its secretariat, is to examine proposed investments in Australia that are subject to the policy, the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act and supporting legislation; make recommendations to the Treasurer; advise the Treasurer on the operation of the policy and the act; foster an awareness and an understanding, both in Australia and abroad, of the policy and the act; provide guidance to foreign persons and their representatives or agents on the policy and the act; monitor and ensure compliance with the policy and the act; and provide advice to the Treasurer on the policy and related matters. Where the government finds that a proposal is contrary to the national interest, it will not receive approval. Significant reforms to the foreign investment framework came into effect on 1 December 2015, which improved the monitoring of foreign investment and which means we're now better able to measure the benefits of foreign investment for all Australians. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Patrick, a supplementary question. 14:29 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Will the Australian government, through ASIC or FIRB, investigate the allegation that the Chinese government has manipulated the Australian stock market in respect of this takeover? 14:29 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Senator Patrick mentions ASIC. ASIC is an independent non-statutory agency. It is not up to the government to determine which areas or which action ASIC may or may not take. In the end, ASIC has got responsibilities that are well understood and well known. Consistently under the Corporations Act, they've got responsibilities in relation to market integrity and related matters, but it's entirely a matter for ASIC as an independent statutory agency to make these sorts of judgements based on the facts. That is not a matter for political decision-making, and I don't think that businesses around Australia ever would want this to be the subject of political decision-making. In relation to the Foreign Investment Review Board, I think I've answered that in my previous answer. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Patrick, a final supplementary question? 14:30 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Is it not the case that China Mengniu Dairy is actually incorporated in the notorious tax haven of the Cayman Islands? Will the FIRB and Treasurer investigate China Mengniu Dairy corporation's structure and obvious international tax minimisation strategies in determining whether their acquisition of Bellamy's is in our national interest? How can this Chinese takeover of a successful Australian export business be in Australia's national interest? 14:31 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The government will ensure that any foreign investment proposal in relation to any asset that falls under the foreign investment review framework is assessed consistently with our laws to ensure it is not contrary to our national interests. We will not have that consideration play out in public. We will have that consideration appropriately, professionally in private and, when a decision has been made, the government will explain that decision that's been made and the reasons why. Aged Care 25 14:31 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck. I refer to the government's own home care package waiting list. Can the minister confirm that there are more than 129,000 older Australians waiting for their approved package—an increase of around 21,000 older Australians since August 2018? 14:32 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I thank Senator Polley for the question. Can I say I confirm that the figures that Senator Polley has just quoted are actually not correct. In fact, I can confirm that as at 30 June this year there are over 125,000 home care packages in the market, which is an increase of 25 per cent over the last 12 months, a significant improvement. It is a 25 per cent increase in the number of aged-care packages in the market over the last 12 months. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Watt on a point of order. Senator Watt 245759 Yet again we have ministers refusing to answer the direct questions they are asked. The PRESIDENT I0Q The point of order is on? Senator Watt 245759 Relevance. Are you ruling that a minister, as long as they talk about a word that's in a question, is relevant? Every time we ask a question, we don't get an answer to the question. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Watt, I would appreciate a point of order being raised without a reflection upon me before I even have a chance to rule. Senator Watt 245759 It is happening again and again and again. The PRESIDENT I0Q Is it? Senator Watt 245759 Yes. The PRESIDENT I0Q I think no-one has challenged the rulings I've offered so far. If you are challenging a ruling I offered earlier today then I'm happy to review the Hansardif you'd like me to come back to you. On this point of order—you're making a point of order on direct relevance. Senator Watt 245759 I am. The PRESIDENT I0Q You've reminded—sorry; Senator Wong on the point of order? Senator Wong 00AOU On the point of order: we do assert that the minister is not being directly relevant. The question is very clearly about those— A government senator interjecting— Senator Wong 00AOU Directly relevant. He is not being directly relevant. We asked about the number of people waiting for an approved package. What I would submit to you is consistent with past rulings around what 'direct relevance' means. It is not directly relevant to simply pick up a word—'package'—and talk about something entirely different. The PRESIDENT I0Q My observations then, Senator Wong, were on a reflection being made upon me, in a point of order taken before I'd had an opportunity to rule, on previous rulings. Now, if I could rule on this point of order, on this occasion I happen to agree. Under the previous standing orders, where the word 'relevance' was interpreted more liberally, talking about the topic more generally in my view was the precedent and considered appropriate by the Senate. The insertion of the word 'directly' narrowed the scope of what an answer is. In this case, I remind the minister of the question because talking about a broad policy area, in my view, is not being directly relevant. That said, I cannot instruct a minister on how to answer a question. So I remind the minister of the question. And I would ask that, when points of order are being taken, I be given an opportunity to rule before reflections are made on the rulings. Senator COLBECK 00AOL The opposition might not like the news that we are providing to the Australian people a 25 per cent increase in the number of home care packages available— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Polley, on a point of order? Senator Colbeck 00AOL Mr President— The PRESIDENT I0Q I'm going to take Senator Polley's point of order, Senator Colbeck, and, if you want to contribute to that or take that up, I'll hear from you then. Senator Polley. Senator Polley e5x My point of order is on relevance. You've just ruled on the previous point of order, and the minister has not heeded your direction to him. The PRESIDENT I0Q On the point of order, Senator Colbeck? Senator Colbeck 00AOL The first thing I said when I started answering this question was that the numbers that Senator Polley quoted in her question were incorrect. I then proceeded to talk about the number of packages that had come into the market in the last 12 months. I was being directly relevant, in my view, to the question— Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Can I hear from Senator Colbeck, then I'll come to you, Senator Wong. Senator Colbeck 00AOL So I am cognisant of your ruling previously, Mr President, but I'm just making the point that the first thing I said was that the numbers quoted by Senator Polley were incorrect. And I still have 43 seconds to answer the question. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, did you wish to address the point of order before I rule? Senator Wong 00AOU I think he walked away from it, but I was pointing out that he was reflecting on your ruling, Mr President. The PRESIDENT I0Q I don't consider a respectful disagreement with my ruling to be a negative reflection. I'm more than robust enough to be able to handle that. On the point of order, though, the issue of direct relevance narrowed the scope of what is appropriate in an answer. I have ruled previously that all aspects of an answer— Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, if I could rule, please—must be directly relevant to the question. One cannot simply be directly relevant in part of an answer and then add extraneous material. That is my interpretation of what the standing orders require. So, Senator Colbeck, I will ask you to turn to the question and be directly relevant to the question asked, which was, if I recall correctly—and I'll look for confirmation—with respect to waiting lists. Senator Colbeck. Senator COLBECK 00AOL Again, as I said, I know the Labor Party don't like hearing good news about the number of home care packages that have come into the market in the last 12 months, and it's a significant achievement of this government by improving numbers— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Wong, on a point of order? Senator Colbeck, please resume your seat. Senator Wong 00AOU It's on direct relevance. He is directly flouting your ruling. It's a very dangerous thing to do to your own President. Can the minister please answer the question, which is: can he confirm the number of Australians who are waiting for aged-care packages? I think older Australians would like to know. Senator Colbeck 00AOL Sit down, shut up and let me answer the question. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Could we maintain the dignity of the chamber. Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU On a point of order: Senator Macdonald used to tell me to sit down and shut up, but this is new from you, Senator Colbeck. The PRESIDENT I0Q That's not a point of order. That's not a point of order, Senator Wong. Senator Bernardi, on the point of order or— Senator Bernardi G0D On the point of order, Mr President: this is becoming a farce. It's a broadcast day, and people are just making points of order to get on TV. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Well, at least in that sense, Senator Bernardi, you have shown more wit than, on average, has been shown today! To be directly relevant to the question, Senator Colbeck, you've had three-quarters of the time to answer. I don't believe it is being directly relevant for the full period of two minutes to only talk about the issue of what the government has done in this regard. I think the question was quite specific in its nature, and in that sense I am asking that you turn to the question. Senator Colbeck. Senator COLBECK 00AOL And the number of new home care packages in the market is directly relevant to the question, because it goes to the waiting list— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I'm going to take Senator Cormann and then I'll take Senator Polley. I'll take Senator Cormann on a point of order. Senator Cormann HDA We've had this habit in recent weeks where Labor frontbenchers don't even let the minister finish a sentence before jumping to their feet and seeking to make a point of order. I think they should at least let Senator Colbeck finish a sentence. Senator Wong 00AOU On the point of order, the minister has had a minute 45. Your President has repeatedly and courteously drawn him to the question— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator Wong 00AOU Sorry, I haven't got my glasses on. I might be wrong. He is a President who's nominated by the government. He has repeatedly and courteously drawn this minister to the question, and the minister is flagrantly ignoring his ruling. I think everyone watching can see what is occurring. The PRESIDENT I0Q It is somewhat odd to be sitting here and be spoken of in the third person as if one isn't present, I will grant that. It's a first for me. Senator Colbeck— Senator Watt 245759 Answer the question. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Watt. It is appropriate in my view, and being directly relevant, for a minister to provide information that is in the policy area. However, on a number of occasions I have asked you to come to the specific nature of the question, which was actually about waiting lists, my notes reflect, and after three-quarters of the period have elapsed I think it is appropriate for me to call your attention to the specific nature of the question. That said, he hadn't finished the sentence he'd commenced before a point of order was raised. Senator COLBECK 00AOL Actually, Mr President, I am trying to say that the 25,000 extra places have contributed to a seven per cent decrease in the number of people on the waiting list over the last 12 months, according to the latest figures. Senator Wong interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I cannot instruct the minister how to answer a question, and it is not appropriate for points of order to seek direction from the chair to instruct a minister as to how to answer a question or the content of an answer. I am going to start cracking down on those, because today has been somewhat ridiculous. Senator Polley, a supplementary question. 14:41 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I ask the minister again—I'm referring to the government's own home care package waiting list—can the minister confirm that more than 129,000 older Australians are waiting for their approved package, which is an increase of around 21,000 since August 2018? 14:42 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania As I have just said, in the last three months there has been a seven per cent decrease in the number of people waiting for availability of a home care package. A seven per cent— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator Colbeck 00AOL A seven per cent decrease— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, on my left! Senator Colbeck 00AOL in the number of people waiting for a home care package— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Please resume your seat, Senator Colbeck. Numerous points of order were raised asking the minister to be directly relevant. The minister is indeed being directly relevant but half the Senate won't be able to hear him, so I do ask that the constant interjections cease so that we may hear the senator's response. Senator COLBECK 00AOL There has been a seven per cent decrease in the home care waiting list in the last three months, directly relevant to the additional 25,000 packages that the government has put into the market in the last 12 months. The total waiting list now sits at 119,000. As I said at the outset, the number that Senator Polley is talking about is not correct. Senator Wong 00AOU Well, give us the number then. Senator COLBECK 00AOL I did, if you'd listen. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Polley, a final supplementary question. 14:43 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Can the minister confirm that more than 75,000 older Australians aren't receiving any home care package at all and that during the last financial year 16,000 older Australians died while they were waiting for their home care package for which they had already been approved? Does the minister agree that this is totally unacceptable? 14:44 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania It is true that there are people still waiting for their home care package at the assessed level. However, 97 per cent of senior Australians waiting for a home care package are receiving some level of care through either a package at the lower level— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Colbeck. Senator Polley, the point of order is with respect to? I'm going to ask senators to draw the point of order at the commencement of standing on their feet. Senator Polley e5x Relevance, Mr President. I asked whether the minister confirmed that 75,000 older Australians aren't receiving any home care package. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Polley, I'm going to start cracking down on simple restatements of questions, which are not appropriate as points of order. The minister was being directly relevant to the question asked. Senator COLBECK 00AOL As I said, 97 per cent of people waiting for a home care package have received an offer of some form of care while they're waiting for the package at the appropriate level that they've been offered. Senator Polley e5x It's a priority, is it? Senator COLBECK 00AOL It is a priority, which is why we've put 25,000 new home care packages into the market in the last 12 months, which has actually reduced the waiting list. The number of home care packages in the market now, compared to 60,000 when Labor was last in government, has gone to 125,000— (Time expired) Pensions and Benefits 28 14:45 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Ruston. Can the minister please advise the Senate how a strong budget is helping to deliver stability and certainty for jobseekers through a number of initiatives aimed at removing barriers to employment? 14:46 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I thank Senator Bragg for his question and his ongoing interest in assisting Australians in being able to get back into the workforce. We know that there are many different barriers that Australians face when it comes to getting a job, but one of the most prevalent of those barriers is drug addiction, and that is why the Morrison government is seeking to pass legislation so that we can trial, with 5,000 new recipients of Newstart and youth allowance, to demonstrate that we absolutely have a commitment to breaking down the barriers that people find when it comes to getting a job. With over one-third of the Commonwealth budget being spent on social services and welfare, we believe we have an absolute obligation—it is absolutely incumbent on us as government—to make sure that our social safety nets are totally targeted, sustainable and efficient. People using their income support for drugs are actually disrespecting their fellow Australians, because we know that the taxpayers don't have a problem with supporting people in their times of need. They don't have a problem with helping out other fellow Australians. But we need to make sure that our welfare system is not just fair to the people who receive welfare but also fair to the people who pay for it. As I said, the taxpayer has every right to expect that the money that they make available to a taxpayer funded welfare system is being used to assist people in their time of need on things like food, shelter, accommodation and going about their everyday lives. It is not about funding drug addiction; it is not about providing assistance to them so that they can take drugs. What it is about is making sure that we are putting them on a trajectory to enable them to get on with their lives free of drugs, because without drug addiction resolution, they won't be able to get a job. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Ruston. Senator Bragg, a supplementary question? 14:48 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Can the minister update the Senate on the prevalence of the issue of drug use, which imposes barriers to employment? 14:48 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia One of the things that I think we do need to be very clear about is that illicit drug use is a barrier to employment. It's a very significant barrier to employment and it's a barrier to employment not just in being able to get a job but also in being able to retain a job. Anybody who believes otherwise should take a very clear reality check on what the implication of drugs is on a person and their ability to participate in society. Evidence from the 2016 National Drug Strategy Household Survey, undertaken by the AIHW, shows that when somebody is unemployed they are more than three times more likely to use methamphetamine, more commonly known as ice, than somebody who is employed. They are 1½ times more likely to use cannabis than somebody who is employed. Further evidence released recently by Monash University shows that Newstart recipients are four times more likely to use drugs. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Bragg, a final supplementary question. 14:49 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Can the minister advise the Senate on comparable practices in the business community? 14:49 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Thank you very much, Senator Bragg. Drug testing is absolutely a common and consistent feature in Australian businesses all around this country. If you have an issue with drugs, it impacts on your function at work, it impedes your ability to take up a job and it will prevent you from being able to take a job that requires drug testing. Hundreds and hundreds of Australian companies currently require drug testing and alcohol testing of their employees, most particularly because of safety in the work environment—obviously, you can't use machinery; you can't drive a vehicle. Companies like Linfox and Qantas constantly require their employees to undertake drug testing. Many Commonwealth agencies also require drug testing and, at the risk of channelling somebody that I don't particularly want to channel, even the CFMMEU called in 2015 for a blanket drug and alcohol test for worksites right the way across Victoria, and this is commonplace. Pensions and Benefits 29 14:50 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Social Services, Minister Ruston. The government is keen to introduce a trial of drug testing 5,000 Newstart recipients. As part of this initiative, your government has announced $10 million in additional funding for drug and alcohol rehabilitation and support services to go along with that trial. What is that money earmarked to go towards specifically, and over how long will it be spent? 14:51 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Thank you, Senator Lambie, for your ongoing interest in this particular area. As part of the drug trial program, a $10 million treatment fund will be set aside to sit alongside the two-year trial program. The treatment fund is divided into three separate areas. The first is allocated against specific case management services. We can apply these services to individuals who test the second time positive in their drug test so that we can wrap around them in an identified and individually specific way to actually deal with their specific issues. The second component is actually being able to boost drug treatment capacity in the area. So we will be working within the three trial sites in Mandurah, in Logan and in Canterbury-Bankstown to make sure the service providers within that particular region have the capacity to boost their capacity to meet any increase in demand that may be generated by these particular trials. Obviously, as a government, we would be delighted if we didn't see any increase in the number of people who are going to be requiring treatment in those areas but we are absolutely prepared—and have put the money aside to make sure we are prepared—should we see an increase in the number of people presenting for support. And we've also got an additional amount of money so that we can actually support those individuals once they are undertaking the treatment as part of the trial, because we believe that this is a journey. It is a journey that will be different for each and every person on this trial. Hopefully, we'll be able to intervene early enough with some of them to be able to get them out of their treatment and into a job-ready state quickly, but others, we recognise, are going to take longer and will require additional resources. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Lambie, a supplementary question. 14:53 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania It has been reported that trial participants who test positive for drugs will be able to access up to $65,000 in rehabilitation services in Canterbury, Logan and Mandurah. Is that amount consistent with what the government believes is a necessary and appropriate support for getting a Newstart recipient off drugs and into work? 14:53 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Thank you very much, Senator Lambie. The number that you are quoting is not a cap and it is not a set amount. What we've said is that we believe we need to set aside, for the 5,000 people we will be testing—the number of people who, we believe, possibly will go through both of their tests, come out positive and who will require our additional help—$10 million. If we don't need to use all of that $10 million we will be absolutely delighted but, equally, we need to make sure there are adequate resources on an individual, case-by-case basis to be able to sort people. There will be some that will not require very much at all, and we hope there will be some immediately deterred from having drugs so that they do not test positive in the first place. But if they do, and they end up testing positive for the second time, we want to make sure there are adequate resources. The $65,000 figure that was put out into the marketplace was just an extrapolation of the number of people that possibly could test positive and the amount of money that has been made available. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Lambie, a final supplementary question? 14:54 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania If you're going to spend $65,000 per positive drug test, on my figures you would be spending around $1.6 billion a year on rehab if this were rolled out nationally, whether you're prepared to spend it or you're already fudging it. What on earth do we get out of a trial that isn't true to how this would operate nationally? 14:55 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Obviously, because it is a trial, we are seeking to build up and develop a body of evidence so we can understand the magnitude of the problem and also understand where people may well sit on the spectrum of the seriousness of their drug addiction or their substance abuse problem. We understand that the cost to society of people who have long-term drug addiction is very, very significant. The $65,000 amount you referred to, as I mentioned in my previous answer, is not a cap. It's not an amount we are applying per person. It is just an extrapolated number that came from the $10 million and the estimated number of people who may test positive twice during this particular trial. What we would say is that the cost to society of people who are on drugs and the cost to themselves, their families and their communities are immense. We believe that getting people off drugs and deterring them in the first place from even trying drugs is one of the most important things the government can do for all Australians. Member for Chisholm 30 14:56 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. When asked yesterday why the Prime Minister was allowing the member for Chisholm to dodge accountability to the parliament, the minister said— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I couldn't hear the question. Call me predictive, but I might predict that a point of order may come up subsequently. Can I ask Senator Kitching to restart it, because I couldn't hear the start of the question. Senator KITCHING 247512 My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. When asked yesterday why the Prime Minister was allowing the member for Chisholm to dodge accountability to the parliament, the minister said that the statement: … was tabled in the parliament. It has got the force of being tabled in the parliament in her name. But the very same day the Speaker of the House ruled that: … if a member is tabling a statement that's made outside the House, that really is just a record of a statement. Who is right: this minister or the Speaker? Why is the Prime Minister assisting the member for Chisholm to dodge parliamentary accountability? The PRESIDENT I0Q Before I call Senator Cormann: the term used there was specific about a member of another place and actually used the words 'dodge accountability'. I'm going to reflect on precedent, but I think that that dances particularly close to standing order 193(3) concerning an imputation of improper motive and all personal reflections on members of another place. I said yesterday, and I made it clear again earlier today, that reflections upon groups of people or reflections upon actions are very different to reflections upon persons and specific persons in another place. I will take that Hansard away and consult with the clerks about precedent, but I urge senators to be very, very careful about imputations and reflections specifically about individuals, as opposed to actions or groups of individuals. Senator Wong, on what I just said? Senator Wong 00AOU On the point of order, we understand your indication that you are taking this matter away to consider it. I also respect your ruling from yesterday and, I think, the day before in relation to plurals versus individuals—collective insults as opposed to individual ones. I would make a point here for your consideration when you subsequently are considering the Hansard, Mr President. There is a point about accountability to the parliament that the opposition is seeking to press. We all know that a statement to the parliament is very different to one outside the parliament. That is the point we wish to press. If the problem is the word 'dodge', we're happy to insert the word 'avoid'. The PRESIDENT I0Q That's what I'll come back with. It is actually the terminology that to me crosses into potential personal reflection upon an individual member of this parliament, which may be inappropriate. I'm not ruling the question out of order. I am asking senators to be very cognisant of that issue. I think the point can easily be made without getting into the territory of breaching the standing order. 14:59 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia Firstly, I reject the premise of the question, and that goes to the point that you've also made under the standing orders, Mr President. Secondly, I don't see any inconsistency between my statement and the statement of the Speaker. Of course, it's a record of statement which was tabled in the parliament. I would make just three more points. No. 1, Gladys Liu was elected as the member for Chisholm because a majority of Australians in Chisholm voted for her and for the Liberal Party. No. 2, the Prime Minister and the government have full confidence in the member for Chisholm. And, No. 3, if the Labor Party has anything other than smear and innuendo then put it up! Put it up! Otherwise, let's get on to dealing with matters that are actually genuinely in the public interest rather than this smear, innuendo and dog-whistling. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Kitching, a supplementary question. 15:00 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria Will the Prime Minister allow the member for Chisholm to make a statement to the parliament? 15:00 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia The member for Chisholm is an elected member of parliament who fulfils her responsibilities as she sees fit. It's an offensive question and, again—I say it again!—if the Labor Party has anything other than grubby smear and innuendo then put it up. Otherwise, shut up! The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Kitching, a final supplementary question. 15:01 Senator KITCHING 247512 Victoria On at least six occasions now, the Prime Minister and Ministers Cormann and Payne have refused to assure the parliament that Ms Liu is a fit and proper person to sit in the Australian parliament. Will the minister now, finally, give that assurance? 15:01 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia I completely reject the premise of the question. The only thing the government has refused to do is play Labor Party word games. I say again what I said in response to the primary question: Gladys Liu is the member for Chisholm because a majority of voters— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator CORMANN HDA Gladys Liu is the member for Chisholm because a majority of people in Chisholm gave Ms Liu their confidence. That is something that seriously upset the Labor Party, which is why they're pursuing this grubby, grubby smear without any evidence of anything whatsoever. We have full confidence in the member for Chisholm. She does an outstanding job, and the people of Chisholm knew why they were supporting her rather than the alternative: because they wanted a continuation of good Liberal-National government. Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 32 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Aged Care, Pensions and Benefits 32 15:02 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Families and Social Services (Senator Ruston) and the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians (Senator Colbeck) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the administration of the Social Services portfolio. This afternoon's question time shows very much that Australians who rely on the government cannot rely on them. We have here, in all the answers in this question time, an absolute demonstration of the abject failure of this government to stand up for the needs of pensioners, people on Newstart and people who rely on aged care, including home care. The government cannot own up to the fact that it has attacked pensioners in every budget since 2014. In all budgets since 2014, the government has included cuts to the pension. We have a Prime Minister who is determined to cut the pension and to increase the pension age, forcing farmers, bricklayers and nurses to work until they are 70. Equally, this government doesn't want to be seen to let the truth stand in the way of a good front page. They had the gall to promise needy and vulnerable Australians a boost of up to $800 in their pension and put that on the front page of the paper, then found—surprise, surprise!—the money is not there at all. How many pensioner couples of Australia's 2½ million pensioners got anything like $800? Well, you had to get called out on that, didn't you, to own up to the fact that, actually, documents released under FOI show that, on average, seniors secure just $5 a week for singles. With the change of deeming rates, the average windfall for age pensioners is just $249 for singles, a fraction of the $800 pensioner bonus heralded across the front pages of Australia's papers in July. Now, the gall of this kind of false spruiking by the government is pretty incredible, given that the nature of the front pages really didn't make it clear to Australian pensioners that unless they actually had investments they weren't going to see a cent of that increase in funding, because it is just a change in the deeming rate, let alone that if the government had wanted to correct deeming rates so that it could put $800 back into the pockets of Australian pensioners who have investments it could have changed the deeming rate more substantially in order to create an adjustment that was a true reflection of that. But, no, that is not what the government did. The government made measly changes to the deeming rate that aren't a true reflection of the rates of return that pensioners are likely to be receiving currently. If you've got an investment of up to $51,000 then the government is currently deeming that you will get a return of more than one per cent on that investment even though many, many pensioners will not be seeing returns of anything like that, let alone getting a return of more than three per cent on investments of over $50,000. The government knew that all along when it made these announcements. In order for pensioners to get $800 back, the government would have had to make far more substantial changes to the deeming rates, so it is incredibly galling that all this government can do, for all of its rhetoric about standing by Australians who need its support, is spew out measly weasel words and false promises. It does nothing but cut all of its delivery. 15:07 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I, too, rise to take note of the answers given by Senators Ruston and Colbeck. I think what is really galling here today, Senator Pratt—through you, Madam Deputy President—is that the Labor Party has forgotten so quickly the decision of the Australian people just a few short weeks ago. One of the key issues that addressed the minds of the voters of Australia, particularly the older voters of Australia, was: between those opposite and those on this side, who could be trusted to look after older Australians? I think that the people of Australia answered pretty decisively on that particular issue. They answered quietly but decisively. Senator McGrath interjecting— Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Senator McGrath, I will accept that interjection. We on this side will not be lectured by those whose policies sought to take to the Australian people an additional tax burden of $387 billion, including taxes directly targeting retirees. That was an absolute disgrace. Senator Pratt I0T We're talking about pensioners here! Senator BROCKMAN 30484 I will take that interjection, Senator Pratt, and I will get to pensions. Just hold your horses; I will get to pensions. Let's talk about pensions for a little bit, and I'll get to deeming rates as well if I've got time. From 20 September 2019, pensions increased by $125 a fortnight for singles and $188 a fortnight for couples. Since the coalition was elected in 2013, pensions have been indexed twice yearly—something those opposite seem to have forgotten, though it has been going on for a little while now—and they continue to grow in line with that indexation. But that is not all this government is doing to assist older Australians with the cost-of-living pressures that we know are very real. In fact, $46.8 billion has been provided in financial assistance to older Australians, and this will increase to over $53 billion by 2021-22. What else is this government doing to assist older Australians? There is $365 million allocated over two years, from 2018-19, for an energy assistance payment to five million income support recipients—$75 for singles and $62 each for eligible members of a couple. And, of course, there's the deeming rates issue. The minister, on 14 July, announced a reduction in the deeming rates. This reduction ensures that those rates are responsive to changing economic conditions and the current economic environment. A million Australians will benefit from a $600 million boost to pensions. They will receive up to, and I repeat 'up to'—and this was always very clear—$1,053 for couples and $804 for singles each year. 'Up to' are two very simple words, but two very simple words that those opposite don't seem to understand. We are about ensuring our welfare system, our support for all Australians in need of assistance, including our pensioners, is sustainable into the future. Social security and welfare were a cost to the taxpayer of $172 billion in the 2018-19 financial year. This is not an amount that can be ignored. It is a very significant part of the budget and a very significant amount of money. This government takes its responsibilities to all those who receive government assistance, but particularly to pensioners, very seriously. We will continue to do the right thing by older Australians, because this is a government that knows how to manage money, knows how to balance its budgets and knows how to provide the assistance that older Australians need. 15:12 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania After six long years of a Liberal government, what have we got with the aged-care sector? It is broken. Why is the aged-care sector broken? It's because the Prime Minister, as Treasurer, cut, cut, cut the aged-care sector. After three failed ministers, we have seen a royal commission being called to look into the aged-care sector. This is a government that had to call a royal commission into its own failing. What did we see on display here in question time today? We had the fourth minister for aged care fail to even comprehend, let alone answer, the very simple question about whether or not there are 129,000 older Australians waiting for their aged-care packages. We've also had the figure of some 16,000 older Australians who have died while they've been waiting for their approved aged-care package. This is such an indictment on this government. We had a Prime Minister, after he was elected, telling the Australian people that aged care was a priority for his government. When are we going to see some action? It is not good enough to call a royal commission into the aged-care sector and wait till 2020 for their report to start doing something. We've had some 16 reports into the aged-care sector, and each and every one of those is sitting, now on Senator Colbeck's desk, gathering dust, because they have failed to act. We don't need a royal commission to understand what the challenges are in this sector. We all know them. Senator Duniam is looking at me very blankly, but he was on a committee where he heard the evidence. He heard the evidence of the crisis that's facing the aged-care sector. We have a workforce shortage. We don't have enough people wanting to work in this sector, because they are not paid enough and they are not getting respect. What does this government do? They throw their hands in the air and say, 'It's not our problem; it's the sector's problem.' It's about time the Liberal government, under Mr Morrison, started to show some leadership in this sector. Older Australians deserve it. They deserve our respect. Those that work in this sector deserve our respect. These are some of the most vulnerable people in our country, and what has this government done? Absolutely nothing. Senator Colbeck comes from my home state of Tasmania. We have the oldest and most rapidly ageing population in the country, with some of the worst health conditions, and what did we have demonstrated in this place today in question time? Disinterest. How could he not know how many people are waiting for their home care package? It's just beyond belief that a new minister wouldn't have the brief from his own department to understand what the major issues are with his responsibility. We on this side have had as a priority for more than a dozen years that we needed to work together. We have offered countless times to work with the government, because all they've been able to do is produce three failed ministers. They can't even have the Minister for Aged Care and Older Australians in their cabinet. In the last Labor government, we had a cabinet minister with that responsibility. That's how seriously we took this policy area. Older Australians deserve a lot more than a Prime Minister who tells the Australian people: 'I'm going to be a Prime Minister of love. What Australians need is more love.' Well, that love should start here with older Australians. Those opposite should be hanging their heads in shame, because it is clearly not good enough. And not one senator on that side can stand up and defend their record: three failed ministers. One new minister that comes from Tasmania and who should know intimately the issues facing older Tasmanians failed to answer the simplest of questions. Imagine if we started asking him some difficult questions. I mean, believe you me, I hope I get the opportunity to ask more questions, because the Australian people need to know that they have been absolutely conned by those people on that side. If the Prime Minister's actions and his new minister go anywhere to demonstrate the priority that they give to older Australians, they should hang their heads in shame. (Time expired) 15:17 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland It is Senator Polley and the Labor opposition who fail to comprehend. The minister himself answered: over 97 per cent of senior Australians waiting for a package at their assessed level have been offered support from the Commonwealth government. That's not difficult to understand. The list of people waiting has gone down by seven per cent in just three months. That's a great effort by the minister. What a great effort. New home care packages have increased from just 60,308 places under Labor in 2012-13. They are now up to 124,000 and by 2022-23 they'll be up to 157,000—an increase of 161 per cent. And why are we not surprised that Labor can't add up here? Because they can't. It's very simple. Since the coalition government was elected, aged-care spending has increased by an average of more than eight per cent each year. That is on average a billion dollars of extra support for older Australians each year that the coalition government has been in power. Further, there is our record on home care. Since 2017-18, the government has announced a release of over 40,000 new home care packages across all levels. This year's budget will deliver an extra 10,000 home care packages to be released across all levels at an investment of $282 million. That is thanks to the strong economic management of the coalition government. This commitment is part of the government's broader record investment in aged care that will deliver an additional $7 billion in funding over the next five years. The release of these packages in recognition of the increasing demand for home care will be in line with the available budget. The government has also announced reductions to the maximum basic daily fee to apply from 1 July 2019. Maximum basic daily fees will reduce by $400 for level 1, $200 for level 2 and $100 for level 3. There has been no change for level 4. Home care packages are key to supporting senior Australians to remain living in their home, yet they do not replace primary care as part of the broader health system, including services accessed via general practices and hospitals. The coalition government has increased health funding to my home state of Queensland by $1.8 billion over the last five years—an average of 12 per cent. The aged-care system has mechanisms to provide support to those in urgent need of home care packages, ensuring that people with high priority can get access to a home care package or other supports when required. As at September this year, based on March data, there were 99,110 people in home care packages. This represents an annual increase of 14,000, or about 17 per cent, since 31 March 2018. The number of people in a high-level—levels 3 and 4—home care package as at March 2019 was around 45,000, which is 22,000 more people, almost 100 per cent more, than there were in March 2017. In 2017-18, 116,843 people accessed a home care package, which means approximately 1.3 people accessed each available package. This reflects those entering and exiting care over time. By 2021-22, over 74,000 high-level home care packages will be available—an increase of 86 per cent on 2017-18 figures. Of the 119,000 people who were waiting for a home care package at their approved level as at 30 June, 2019, 97 per cent had been approved with the opportunity to connect to Commonwealth subsidised aged-care support. Labor must be once bitten, twice shy. They have come into this chamber today pretending to be the friend of senior Australians. They have apparently learnt the very harsh lesson handed to them at the recent unlosable election under the former Leader of the Opposition. 15:22 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I rise to take note of answers to questions asked by Senators Keneally, Brown and Polley regarding the government's record on the age pension and older Australians. What a terrible record it is. In answer to the question, 'Since 2014, how many budgets have included cuts to the pension?' Minister Ruston said the government has, and I quote, 'a very proud record of looking after older Australians'. She said that this government could be 'trusted to look after older Australians'. But in fact this is a government that has consistently planned to increase the age for receipt of the age pension to 70. This is a government that wants older Australians to work till the age of 70 before they can access the age pension. When asked about this, Minister Ruston said this is a government that is 'looking after older Australians' and that this is a government that 'backs older Australians.' Let's take a look at how the government has backed older Australians, how it's looked after older Australians. Let's look at its proud record for older Australians. We got no answer to Senator Brown's question about how many pensioners will get the promised boost to pensions of $800 due to deeming rate changes. Of the 2.5 million pensioners, less than one per cent will get that promised amount; 99 per cent won't get that promised $800. Minister Ruston cannot explain how that fact backs older Australians. This government has tried to cut the pension in every one of its budgets. And of course we have a minister who earlier this year famously called the pension 'generous'. What about Minister Colbeck's comments on the more than 129,000 older Australians who are waiting for a home care package? These people who are in desperate and genuine need right now, today. The minister had no answer for them whatsoever. He had no answer for those 129,000 Australians who are in desperate need right now, today. They, and all Australians, deserve answers to these questions. Those Australians deserve answers on all those questions. Let's have a look at this government's 'proud record' in backing older Australians. In fact, this third-term coalition government has not backed older Australians. It has attacked older Australians. Their record really says it all. Since being elected in 2013 they have tried to cut pension indexation, which would force pensioners to live on just $80 a week within 10 years. That is if they had been successful. They did cut $1 billion from pension concessions—concessions that had helped pensioners with the cost of living. They did cut the $900 senior supplements card for self-funded retirees. They've tried to cut the pension for those going overseas, which would have left 190,000 pensioners worse off. And they did cut the pension for 370,000 pensioners by changing the assets test. Those pensioners lost up to $12,000 a year. They've also tried to cut the energy supplement for new pensioners, a supplement meant to help older Australians keep themselves warm in winter and cool in summer. Again, this is a government with a 'proud record'; this is a government that 'backs older Australians'; this is a government that older Australians 'can count on'. On top of all of this, they've spent five years trying to increase the pension age to 70. The record is pretty clear: this government does not respect older Australians. On its own record, this is not a government that backs older Australians. This is not a government that has a proud record for older Australians, as it claimed today. Question agreed to. Trade with China 35 15:27 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Families and Social Services (Senator Ruston) and the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians (Senator Colbeck) to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today relating to the administration of the Social Services portfolio. Foreign investment in Australia is a very sensitive, very thorny, very confronting issue for a lot of Australians, especially in my home state of Tasmania. It's one of the key questions I get asked about when I get around the state. I've always supported foreign investment as long as the laws and the regulations around foreign investment are robust and deliver in the national interest. I think it's incumbent on every senator to make sure we have laws and processes in this country that are robust and have community confidence. The questions asked by Senator Patrick demand answers. Yesterday I found out that one of the last Tasmanian companies left, Bellamy's Organic, a company listed on the stock market that's been an international success, has had a takeover offer from a foreign company, a Chinese company called Mengniu. When I found out about this, my first response was one of surprise, because this company, Bellamy's, had a virtual share price crash just over 18 months ago when they found out that the Chinese government hadn't granted them certification to sell their high-value milk based products into China. The share price went from nearly $24 down to $7 or $8. I want to paint a picture for the senators in the chamber here today. I'll let you guys join the dots if you choose to do this. Let's say I'm an investor in this very promising Tasmanian Australian company—I may be a retiree, with a superannuation fund—and I see my share price and the value of my investment fall by two-thirds. Over the next 18 months the company, very patiently, say they're waiting for approval from the Chinese government to sell their products into China. Then you find out that the management of your company has accepted a takeover offer to sell the shares at half the price you paid for them to—and this is the interesting part—a Chinese company that has as its biggest shareholder the Chinese government. This is the same government that won't give your company the accreditation and certification process it needs to sell its products. What would you do and what would you think? Throw into this the fact that this Chinese government owned competitor is its biggest competitor in the market. Your company, Bellamy's, has taken away market share because of what was a very valid scare—the melamine scare in China, where melamine, a poisonous product, was mixed into milk powder. You find out that your company has been in discussions with its biggest competitor, a Chinese government owned competitor, for nearly six months. You'd be forgiven for thinking that the share price of your stock had been suppressed by not getting approval to sell into China and because the same company that is buying your company, which is partly owned by the Chinese government—reports today vary from 18 per cent to 28 per cent—has deliberately manipulated the share price of your company. It has exhibited predatory behaviour towards the stock price then come in and bought your asset at a steal. The questions I would like to ask the CEO of Bellamy's are: Why sell the company now? If you've been waiting patiently to get your accreditation in China, why sell the company when the historic share price tells you that you'd very likely have had a significant revaluation of your share price evaluation had you got that accreditation? Were the CEO and the company not confident that they were ever going to get approved in China? This raises a number of really important questions for our Treasurer to look at. The Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 requires that foreign investment is not contrary to the national interest. Our government's foreign investment policy states: The national interest test also recognises the importance of Australia’s market-based system, where companies are responsive to shareholders and where investment and sales decisions are driven by market forces. There are a whole range of questions here that need to be asked in the FIRB process. I have written to the Treasurer today, and I know that other senators in this place, such as Senator Patrick and Senator Lambie, feel very deeply about this issue. I have written to both the Treasurer and our Minister for Foreign Affairs and asked some hard questions about what they did or didn't know about the certification process and what exactly they'll be looking at in terms of the FIRB process. It sets a very bad precedent if we let foreign companies do this to Australian businesses. (Time expired) Question agreed to. NOTICES 36 NOTICES Postponement 36 15:33 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I seek leave to postpone general business notice of motion No. 133 until tomorrow. Leave granted. BUSINESS 36 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 36 15:33 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Canavan for today on account of ministerial business. Question agreed to. NOTICES 36 NOTICES Presentation 36 15:33 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Pursuant to standing order 78(1), I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 standing in my name for two sitting days after today, proposing that the Civil Aviation (Community Service Flights—Conditions on Flight Crew Licences) Amendment Instrument 2019, made under the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, be disallowed. NOTICES 36 NOTICES Presentation 36 BUSINESS 40 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 40 15:35 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5 to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the ANL Legislation Repeal Bill 2019, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings. Document: Senator Duniam tabled the following document: Consideration of legislation—Statement of reasons for introduction and passage of the ANL Legislation Repeal Bill 2019 in the 2019 spring sittings. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 40 MOTIONS New South Wales Youth Council Conference 2019 40 15:36 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the New South Wales (NSW) Youth Council held their 'Unleash the Future' Conference from 13 to 15 September 2019 in Rooty Hill, and (ii) young people from across NSW came together to workshop issues, including the need for emergency action on the climate crisis, the role of advocacy, gender and cultural diversity, mental health, youth and family violence, and the importance of having young voices at all levels of Australian government; (b) congratulates the Blacktown Youth Advisory Committee on organising a successful conference; and (c) recognises the role of youth councils in providing forums for young people to discuss issues, advise local councils and hold events organised for and by young people. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 41 DOCUMENTS jobactive 41 Order for the Production of Documents 41 15:37 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, by 10 am on 18 September 2019, the latest job seeker compliance data including all payment suspensions, cancellations, demerits and penalties for the jobactive program for the financial year 2018-19 and year to date 2019-20. Question agreed to. jobactive 41 Order for the Production of Documents 41 15:37 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, by 10 am on 18 September 2019, the briefing note provided to news outlets recently, including Newscorp, the West and 9News, that outlined the current number of payment suspensions and demerit points issued under the jobactive program. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 41 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 41 Reference 41 15:38 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I, and also on behalf of Senator McGrath, move: That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 October 2020: The identification of leading practices in ensuring evidence-based regulation of farm practices that impact water quality outcomes in the Great Barrier Reef, with particular reference to: (a) the existing evidence-base on the impact of farm water runoff on the health of the Great Barrier Reef and catchment areas; (b) the connectivity of farm practices throughout the Great Barrier Reef catchment areas to water quality outcomes in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park; (c) relevant legislation and regulation, including in relation to impacts of water quality, farm management and soil runoff; (d) proposed changes to regulations that would impact on farm productivity and the potential benefits and costs of such proposed regulation; (e) the wider economic and social impact of proposed regulations to restrict farm practices; and (f) any related matters. 15:38 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to move an amendment to business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, moved by Senator McDonald and Senator McGrath, which has been circulated in the chamber. Leave granted. Senator GALLAGHER ING At the request of Senator Farrell, I move the amendment: 1. Omit "1 October" substitute "the second sitting day in May" 2. After paragraph (e), insert: (ea) the impact of current Federal Government initiatives to protect the reef, including the $444 million grant to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation; and The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the motion be amended in the terms circulated in the chamber. The question is that the amendment be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung— Senator Ruston 243273 I apologise for my late entry into the chamber on this particular matter. I was wondering if it would be possible for us to vote on the two parts of the proposed amendment separately. The PRESIDENT I0Q With the consent of the Senate, I will cancel the division and I will put the two parts of the amendment separately. Am I granted leave to do that? Leave granted. The PRESIDENT I0Q I'm going to first put the first part of the amendment, if this is okay with you, Senator Gallagher, which is the amendment to the date—'for inquiry and report by the second sitting day in May 2020', as opposed to 1 October. The question is that the first part of the amendment to the motion, moved by Senator Gallagher—the change to the reporting date—be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:45]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 30 AYES Ayres, T Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Di Natale, R Dodson, P Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Kitching, K Lambie, J Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Polley, H Pratt, LC Sheldon, A Siewert, R Smith, M Steele-John, J Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 34 NOES Antic, A Askew, W Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Bragg, A J Brockman, S Cash, MC Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McMahon, S O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Patrick, RL Rennick, G Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Sinodinos, A Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 6 PAIRS Farrell, D Fierravanti-Wells, C Hanson-Young, SC Griff, S Keneally, KK Canavan, MJ Rice, J Abetz, E Walsh, J Payne, MA Wong, P Cormann,

Question negatived.

 15:49 The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the amendment to insert paragraph (ea) into the proposed terms of reference be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:49]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 31 AYES Ayres, T Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Di Natale, R Dodson, P Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Kitching, K Lambie, J Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Sheldon, A Siewert, R Smith, M Steele-John, J Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 31 NOES Antic, A Askew, W Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Bragg, A J Brockman, S Cash, MC Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McMahon, S O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Rennick, G Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Sinodinos, A Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 7 PAIRS Farrell, D Fierravanti-Wells, C Griff, S Hume, J Hanson-Young, SC Ruston, A Keneally, KK Canavan, MJ Rice, J Abetz, E Walsh, J Payne, MA Wong, P Cormann,

Question negatived.

 15:52 The PRESIDENT I0Q We'll move back to the notice of motion as it was originally circulated. 15:52 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q I'll just clarify we're dealing with the original motion as printed in the Notice Paper. Senator Waters, leave is granted for one minute. Senator WATERS 192970 This inquiry would be another blow in the government's war against science. The government's been at war with climate science for many years and now it's at war with water science. The government's own scientific adviser, both the head of the reef body and the former Chief Scientist, Ian Chubb, recently wrote to the minister and said: … we have more than enough to know that without action to address climate change and to improve water quality the risk to the GBR is substantial. … The evidence is strong, the science robust, the conclusions drawn from the science are sound. This government is at war with science, and the reef is going to suffer for it, as will the 64,000 people whose jobs rely on the reef. This inquiry is like considering whether smoking causes lung cancer or whether the earth is round. This inquiry would be a complete waste of the parliament's time, because the science is crystal clear and scientifically illiterate politicians should not adjudicate on peer-reviewed science. 15:53 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING I'm only doing this because the failure of our amendments to get up has changed the voting intention of the Labor Party. We would have supported the motion with our amendments, but, as they've been unsuccessful, we will not be supporting this motion. The government voted against our amendments because they want a political inquiry, not an inquiry into the scientific facts or their performance in managing the reef. Is it any wonder that under this government the health of the reef has been downgraded from poor to very poor. Deloitte Access Economics estimated that the Great Barrier Reef has an economic social and icon asset value of $56 billion, supporting 64,000 jobs and contributing $6.4 billion to the Australian economy, but this government wants to put that economic and natural asset in danger. This follows the outrageous decision to hand $444 million of public money without a tender to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, and now, unfortunately, we won't be able to examine that any closer. 15:54 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator ROBERTS 266524 First of all, I want to make the point that Professor Peter Ridd has got enormous courage and integrity. He has stood up and put himself on public trial, and he has been vindicated in a court of law with evidence under oath. The second point I want to make is that the Labor Party in Queensland is now embarking on pushing through bills that will smash the agricultural sector along the east coast of our home state, and it is based on a consensus statement—no science; a consensus statement. The third point I want to make is that there is nothing to fear from an open inquiry, because the objective decider in science is always empirical data—hard, measured data and observable observations. This is the key, and this inquiry is absolutely essential. The PRESIDENT: The question is that business of the Senate motion No. 1 be agreed to.

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

 33 AYES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Bragg, A J Brockman, S Cash, MC Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McMahon, S O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Patrick, RL Rennick, G Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Sinodinos, A Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 30 NOES Ayres, T Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Di Natale, R Dodson, P Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Kitching, K Lambie, J Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Polley, H Pratt, LC Sheldon, A Siewert, R Smith, M Steele-John, J Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 6 PAIRS Canavan, MJ Keneally, KK Cormann, M Wong, P Fierravanti-Wells, C Farrell, D Griff, S Rice, J Payne, MA Walsh, J Ruston, A Hanson-Young, S

Question agreed to.

 Reference 45 16:02 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 30 September 2020: The management of the Inland Rail project by the Australian Rail Track Corporation and the Commonwealth Government, with particular reference to: (a) financial arrangements of the project; (b) route planning and selection processes; (c) connections with other freight infrastructure, including ports and intermodal hubs; (d) engagement on route alignment, procurement and employment; (e) urban and regional economic development opportunities; (f) collaboration between governments; (g) interaction with National Freight and Supply Chain Strategy; and (h) any other related matters. 16:02 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 After over 100 years of discussion, construction is underway on the Inland Rail project by the Liberal-National government. The Australian government are confident that we have the right route, informed by multiple studies, including in 2006, 2010 and 2015, and multicriteria assessments on a number of sections. The Australian government and the ARTC have undertaken extensive consultation with the community, including with impacted landowners. The project will generate an economic and broader return to the Australian people. It is a transformative project, connecting regional Australia to new markets and transforming the way freight is moved around the country. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that business of the Senate motion No. 2 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:07]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 32 AYES Ayres, T Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Di Natale, R Dodson, P Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson, P Kitching, K Lambie, J Lines, S McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Roberts, M Sheldon, A Siewert, R Smith, M Steele-John, J Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 28 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Bernardi, C Bragg, A J Brockman, S Cash, MC Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Henderson, SM Hughes, H McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McMahon, S Paterson, J Rennick, G Reynolds, L Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Sinodinos, A Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 8 PAIRS Farrell, D Fierravanti-Wells, C Griff, S Hume, J Hanson-Young, SC Birmingham, SJ Keneally, KK Canavan, MJ McAllister, J Ruston, A Rice, J O'Sullivan, MA Walsh, J Payne, MA Wong, P Cormann,

Question agreed to.

 MOTIONS 46 MOTIONS Climate Change 46 16:09 Senator DI NATALE 53369 Victoria I move: That the Senate supports the right of people to engage in non-violent civil disobedience to demand action on the unfolding climate and environment crisis. 16:09 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The government supports the right to lawful peaceful protest. However, non-violent civil disobedience goes far beyond mere protest. It may include refusing to pay income tax or child support, rejecting road rules, failing to adhere to planning regulations or the obstructing of industry transport and business activities in a way that creates health and safety risks. The government cannot endorse the deliberate refusal to follow rules put in place for the wellbeing and protection of the Australian community at large. 16:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING The opposition proposed an amendment to Senator Di Natale's motion, to omit the words 'non-violent civil disobedience' and substitute in the words 'peaceful assembly'. The phrase 'peaceful assembly' is identical to that used in article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 21 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Unfortunately, we were not able to reach agreement with Senator Di Natale on the opposition's proposal. But I would say that we've been on the record for more than 14 years arguing for effective action on climate change. We're up for that debate any time, and we would look forward to supporting motions that are delivered in a collaborative way that draw the attention and the support of the Senate to demand action on the unfolding climate and environmental crisis. 16:11 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator ROBERTS 266524 This is nine days and counting. One Nation opposes this motion for the simple reason that there is no evidence to back up the claim of the Greens. Monday week ago, yesterday a week ago, I challenged the Greens to provide their evidence that we are affecting the climate and they have not responded yet. I challenge them to debate me anywhere, any time on the science and the corruption of science. Three times I've challenged Senator Waters and she has failed every time. I challenged Senator Di Natale last week. They won't front up. The only thing they could come up with was the stunt yesterday in which they smeared people who disagreed with them. That is why we oppose this. There is no substance to their claims, none whatsoever. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is the motion moved by Senator Di Natale be agreed to.

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

 7 AYES Di Natale, R Faruqi, M McKim, NJ Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 53 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Ayres, T Bernardi, C Bilyk, CL Bragg, A J Brockman, S Brown, CL Carr, KJ Cash, MC Chandler, C Ciccone, R Colbeck, R Davey, P Dodson, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Hume, J Kitching, K Lambie, J Lines, S McCarthy, M McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McMahon, S O'Neill, D Paterson, J Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Rennick, G Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Sheldon, A Sinodinos, A Smith, DA Smith, M Sterle, G Stoker, AJ Urquhart, AE (teller) Van, D Watt, M 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 DOCUMENTS 47 DOCUMENTS Drought Interagency Taskforce and Special Envoy for Drought Assistance and Recovery 47 Order for the Production of Documents 47 16:16 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of Senator Sterle, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Prime Minister, by no later than 3 pm on 18 September 2019, copies of the final reports by the Coordinator-General for Drought, Major General Stephen Day, the Drought Interagency Taskforce and Special Envoy for Drought Assistance and Recovery. 16:16 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT I0Q Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Major General Day has finished his mission to provide strategic coordination to the Commonwealth's efforts to tackle the drought. The Major General's final report suggests a number of approaches that government could take in future drought policy across portfolios and jurisdictions. Drawing on the Major General's final report, Minister Littleproud, as the minister responsible for drought, is now developing the government's long-term drought strategy. Given that the work being undertaken by Minister Littleproud is subject to cabinet consideration, it is not usual to release documents subject to cabinet. The government does not support this motion. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that general business notice of motion No. 135 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:21]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

 32 AYES Ayres, T Bilyk, CL Brown, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R Di Natale, R Dodson, P Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson, P Kitching, K Lambie, J Lines, S McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Roberts, M Sheldon, A Siewert, R Smith, M Steele-John, J Sterle, G Urquhart, AE (teller) Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 28 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Bragg, A J Brockman, S Cash, MC Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Fawcett, DJ Henderson, SM Hughes, H McDonald, S McKenzie, B McMahon, S Paterson, J Rennick, G Reynolds, L Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Sinodinos, A Smith, DA (teller) Stoker, AJ Van, D 8 PAIRS Farrell, D Fierravanti-Wells, C Griff, S McGrath, J Hanson-Young, SC O'Sullivan, MA Keneally, KK Canavan, MJ McAllister, J Payne, MA Rice, J Hume, J Walsh, J Ruston, A Wong, P Cormann,

Question agreed to.

MOTIONS 49 MOTIONS Member for Chisholm 49 16:24 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of Senator Wong, I move: That the Senate— (a) notes widespread reports in the media about the Member for Chisholm over the last week, which raise questions concerning her fitness to be a member of the Australian Parliament; and (b) at 9.30 am on 18 September 2019, before government business is called on: (i) requires the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Cormann) to provide, for no more than 20 minutes: (A) an explanation of the Government's response to the allegations raised against the Member for Chisholm, and (B) an assurance to the Senate that the Member for Chisholm is a fit and proper person to remain a member of the Australian Parliament, and (ii) a senator may, at the conclusion of the Minister's explanation, move without notice, that the Senate take note of the explanation. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 49 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Economy 49 16:25 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT F49 The President has received the following letter from Senator Gallagher: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: 'The failure of the Morrison Government to get the economy moving by bringing forward infrastructure spending as called for by the Reserve Bank, economists and state governments.' Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT F49 I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the Clerks to set the clock accordingly. 16:25 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia The Morrison government are absolutely failing to get the economy moving by bringing forward infrastructure spending. We know that they are failing to hear the concerns of the Reserve Bank, state governments and many Australians, who are calling out for investment in infrastructure not just for the sake of these worthy projects but because we urgently need the stimulus to our economy. We know how effective infrastructure investment can be in the creation of jobs. It's all very well for this government to talk about being all about growth and jobs when, actually, in these economic times, when we are calling out for increased investment in infrastructure to deliver just that, they are completely missing in action. They should be bringing forward funding for infrastructure to boost the economy, to drive down unemployment and to boost wages. All economic critiques and narratives show that, with wages down and with unemployment high in states like WA, what we really need to see is an increase in infrastructure investment to change that cycle inside our economy right now. This government want to leave all the heavy lifting to the Reserve Bank and a reliance on monetary policy. Sadly, even the Reserve Bank themselves have had to say that this is not enough. The government are missing in action. Monetary policy cannot be relied on solely to boost the economy. We are getting to the end of where monetary policy can go in terms of having the stimulatory effect that we need. We have an all-time low official interest rate of just one per cent. The RBA governor, Philip Lowe, technically has just 0.25 percentage points of reductions left before we enter the territory of negative interest rates. We have an unemployment rate that is now at 5.2 per cent. Previously, that might have been considered close to full employment, but it's very clear that the Reserve Bank thinking has changed—4.5 per cent is more likely, and at this level, wages and prices are more likely to increase, pushing back inflation. To reach those kinds of outcomes we would need an extra 200,000 jobs created within Australia. This is why the Reserve Bank governor has called on the government to boost the economy. In fact, he has said: One option is fiscal support, including through spending on infrastructure. We all know that the Reserve Bank are incredibly cautious in the way they express these things. So when they come out and say that one option is fiscal support, including through spending on infrastructure, they can't direct the government about what to do. But it's very clear: that is what they are asking the government to do. They can't politicise your actions but we here can and should, because you are failing to listen to the Reserve Bank of Australia, who are crying out for more action from this government! But you're not investing in infrastructure; you're pushing major job-creating infrastructure projects back into the never-never. Only 30 per cent of new infrastructure funding announced in the budget will be available in the next four years, and given the current economic position the government can and should be bringing forward more infrastructure spending. Why won't you prioritise projects like those in the state of WA—projects like METRONET, which would slash congestion and boost jobs? Why won't you prioritise the ring roads in regional Queensland—in Townsville and Mackay? Why won't you prioritise the western rail in Sydney and the Bridgewater Bridge in Tasmania? These are projects that will create jobs where they are needed most. We have seen, sadly, unemployment steadily rising from 4.9 per cent earlier this year to 5.2 per cent now, while GDP growth has fallen to just two per cent. This is the weakest it's been since the immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis some 10 years ago. We cannot leave the Reserve Bank to do all of the heavy lifting on their own. They are crying out for help in the only way that they can appropriately express this call. We need to back them in, and we are backing them in by supporting the calls for more infrastructure spending. On that note, I couldn't see a clearer reason for bringing forward stage 2 of the government's tax plan. That would also have the required effect on the economy. Labor wanted to boost the economy. We wanted to get the tax cuts into the hands of more workers sooner and to get it flowing through the economy, but you would not work with Labor. So while Australia has enjoyed 29 years of continued GDP growth, we now find that Australia is in the situation where we have had the second-lowest growth since the 1991 recession. The only time it has been lower was in the 2002-03 financial year. It is time for the Prime Minister to push ahead with infrastructure spending, but instead, and I'm quoting Richard Denniss from the Australia Institute here, 'The Prime Minister remains more concerned with the symbolism of a surplus than cyclical fiscal policy.' That is of great concern to our nation because, without proper cyclical fiscal policy, you will further undermine the economy, and what we will see is further rises in unemployment and further deterioration of our economic position when you are failing to take the fiscal actions that you should. It's your job to keep people employed. We need wages to grow and we need money flowing through our economy now. You've pinned all your hopes on tax cuts and said to wait for the results in September, but the Financial Review today reported that $1.7 billion in credit card repayments were made in a month, and there has been an increase in mortgage repayments. Now, that's all well and good, and it's great and absolutely terrific that tax cuts help people make savings, but that is not the problem in our economy right now. You can't rely on tax cuts to inject more money into the economy when, clearly, people are saving that money. If you start spending money on infrastructure, it's guaranteed that money will start going straight into the economy where it's needed—straight into the economy to boost jobs and straight into the economy to lift wages and drive down unemployment. An exclusive analysis of credit card repayments showed that people are paying down debt, not spending, with repayments increasing by 17.5 per cent in July. So, frankly, your strategy is not working. The Chief Economist at Ernst and Young Oceania, Jo Masters, said the economy has lost significant momentum in the past year. Given the climate globally, with the US-China trade war and the unpredictable situation with Brexit in the UK and Europe, we must be real about things that can and must be done domestically to boost the economy. We have got the Masters Builders Association saying that engineering and construction activity has not been this weak since the global financial crisis. In closing, we need a government that is prepared to invest in infrastructure. We need a government that doesn't put on the table anti-union bills that undermine wage growth in this country. We need a government that is prepared to boost our economy by increasing the rate of Newstart. 16:35 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. I thank Senator Gallagher for raising this issue, as it gives those of us on this side of the chamber another opportunity to highlight the coalition government's positive plan for infrastructure. The federal government has delivered a record $100 billion national infrastructure pipeline, which includes $10 billion committed per year over the forward estimates. In the last budget the coalition government also increased support for transport infrastructure by about a third. Our infrastructure investment is part of a broader economic plan that ensures that our economy continues to grow. This is creating jobs, which in turn support the livelihood of Australians, and is developing our cities and regions. Our plan will bust congestion, save lives on the roads and ensure that Australians get home sooner and safer, no matter where they live. According to the Australian Industry Skills Committee, the construction industry generates over $350 billion in revenue and produces around eight per cent of Australia's GDP. Our infrastructure plan is creating more than 50,000 direct and indirect jobs across Australia. As I said in my maiden speech, I believe that the simplest way the government can improve people's lives is by creating the opportunity to work. That is why it is essential to acknowledge the role of small business as creators of Australian jobs. The contribution of small and medium businesses is not limited to the construction industry. As the Australian Bureau of Statistics points out, the construction industry is strongly linked to other parts of the Australian economy, including manufacturing, wholesale, trade, and finance and insurance. The government has implemented many initiatives designed to help small business invest and grow. One such initiative is the instant asset write-off, which the coalition government has expanded and increased. This initiative now covers assets up to $30,000 in businesses with a turnover of up to $50 million. We are lowering taxes so small business will have more money to reinvest in their business. We are lowering the tax rate to 25 per cent by financial year 2021-22. We're making sure that small businesses get paid on time, reducing payment times to 20 days and ensuring that small businesses are not being used as a bank by large businesses. At the end of the day, the ability of governments to invest in infrastructure is reliant on economic management. Fiscal responsibility runs in the blood of the coalition government. I am pleased that the government has massively increased its infrastructure expenditure since coming to office. I'm also pleased that Victorians, in my home state, are benefiting from the federal government's investment in this space. From financial year 2013-14 to 2028-29, the Australian government has committed $29 billion to fund land transport infrastructure projects in Victoria. Of this, more than $7 billion has been committed for land transport in Victoria from this financial year to financial year 2022-23. In the last budget, and also at the 2019 federal election, the Australian government committed over $6 billion towards infrastructure projects in Victoria. This includes over $5 billion towards eight new major projects in Victoria, including $2 billion to help deliver fast rail between Geelong and Melbourne. I would especially like to acknowledge the hard work of my Victorian colleague Senator the Hon. Sarah Henderson, who is a strong advocate for this initiative, and take this opportunity to congratulate her on her appointment to the Senate. We have also announced $875 million for 26 Victorian congestion-busting infrastructure projects to be funded from the Urban Congestion Fund as well as $395 million to upgrade 30 commuter car parks across Melbourne. Our plan includes $35 million that will go towards the development of major transport project infrastructure business cases in Victoria. A total of $520 million will go to the Roads of Strategic Importance program for Victoria, including $490 million to upgrade six key commuter and freight corridors. The government has also committed $162 million towards targeted road upgrades under the $140 million Victorian Congestion Package. These projects will help make the Victorian transport network safer, more efficient and more reliable and will support thousands of jobs. Infrastructure projects are often designed to ease congestion. My home town of Melbourne is our fastest-growing city, and this is creating immense challenges for our roads and our public transport system. Whilst the federal government is playing its part to fund infrastructure projects, state governments are primarily the ones responsible for its delivery. Perhaps those opposite may be able to assist down in my home state of Victoria by tapping Labor Premier Daniel Andrews on the shoulder and asking him to build the East West Link. This is an important infrastructure project for many Victorians, and the coalition government has offered $4 billion to help build it. The only thing obstructing that $4 billion from flowing is Labor. The sad reality is, had we commenced building the East West Link after the 2014 Victorian election, that road would be opening to cars later this year. Instead, we have a Labor premier who would rather cancel a major infrastructure build and spend more than $1 billion in doing so. It is disheartening to think of the construction jobs that would have been created had this project gone ahead. Perhaps those opposite may also be able to assist us in Victoria by asking Mr Andrews to agree to the electrification of the Frankston rail line towards Mornington Peninsula. This infrastructure project would see the duplication of the rail line, new stations being built at Monash University and Langwarrin, and an upgrade of the Baxter railway station. Extending the rail service to Baxter would mean residents across that region would have greater access to health facilities as well as education and employment opportunities. It is a project that the federal government has committed $225 million towards. Again, the only thing obstructing this project is Victorian Labor. The business case, funded by the federal government, was due to report at the start of this year, and to date there is still no sign of that business case. Labor, especially in my home state of Victoria, have demonstrated time and time again that they do not believe in funding infrastructure projects. In contrast, the coalition have already completed hundreds of projects since coming to government, with hundreds more underway in the planning phase. We have committed to over 900 major land transport infrastructure projects nationally, of which more than 300 have been completed, 130 are under construction and 140 are in planning. We have also completed 24,400 smaller transport projects, and another 1,900 are underway. We have rolled out three rounds of the Building Better Regions Fund and have delivered over 830 projects in regional and remote communities. The coalition government are focused on ensuring that our strong economy is working. We are investing in national infrastructure projects and delivering the jobs that drive our economy. 16:45 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Because Senator Van is new here I will forgive him for not knowing the details of the government's infrastructure spending. He said that the government has delivered $100 billion—$10 billion per annum. We've gone through painstaking questioning at estimates to determine whether that includes defence spending and infrastructure spending, and it actually does include defence spending. If you strip out defence spending, the government's infrastructure spending is actually declining in real terms. I chaired a very long and in-depth Senate select committee into infrastructure spending and financing in this country, and let me tell you we need more than $10 billion a year anyway. We need a significant boost to fiscal policy in this country. The Greens went to the 2016 and 2018 elections with a policy to spend $100 billion. We also suggested a way that that could be properly financed and independently assessed. Indeed, on the infrastructure gap in this country the feedback we got from stakeholders, mostly business stakeholders, was that over $1 trillion right around this nation is needed. That is very similar to the evidence we heard in the regional capitals inquiry, which the Greens initiated also. The context of this debate, without any exaggeration, is that today's economic conditions are unheralded within the life of the Federation. Inflation is at the lowest rate it has been under the current measure, wages growth is very close to if not at the lowest level since World War II, economic growth and productivity growth are likewise languishing and, most tellingly, interest rates are at record lows. The RBA has cut the cash rate to one per cent and has raised the prospect of funny money, which is the nickname for quantitative easing. That is now being talked about seriously in both academic and government circles. We've seen negative interest rates in countries of Europe. The yield on long-term bonds is hovering around the same rate. What is this government's response to this most exceptional of circumstances? Besides tax cuts targeted at high-income earners and corporations—who, the evidence tells us, will end up just buying back shares and paying their CEOs higher bonuses—it would seem to be not much. What is its response to the lowest interest rates on record? It has rejected any increase in infrastructure spending. In fact, according to the latest budget, the government is 'strengthening its focus on paying down debt'. I'm not letting the opposition off the hook. Although it put up this MPI, Labor, too, went to the last election promising to pay down government debt as a priority. While the MPI is welcome, I'm not aware of the Labor Party having officially disowned this most neoliberal of policies. So I say to the government and to Labor: are there really no public infrastructure projects that couldn't deliver a return to the economy of greater than one per cent by whatever measurement you want to make? Is there really nothing the government can do with the cheapest money in history to boost productivity and wages? RBA Governor Philip Lowe recently was very clear on this. He said: If the government can build productive capacity by borrowing at low interest rates, it seems like that is a good thing to do. That, by the way, echoes very similar sentiments we're hearing from the head of the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund and a number of other commentators. Let's be clear for the benefit of the government and the Labor senators here today: the RBA is asking the government to borrow more money to build infrastructure, not to pay down debt. Yet, despite this, the government sticks to its ideology and is setting this country on what I consider to be a dangerous path by refusing to heed the advice of our central bankers. But it is not just about infrastructure; this is also about the role of government. In the absence of government action, record low interest rates will likely flow through to more of the same speculative investment that we have seen in housing and shares that boxed the RBA into a corner in the first place. Philip Lowe said at Jackson Hole: … relying on monetary policy risks further increases in asset prices in a slowing economy, which is an uncomfortable combination. We also know that in potentially deflationary cycles using monetary policy is like pushing a piece of string—it is very difficult to get policy outcomes. The bipartisan approach of the last 30 years has been to talk about paying down government borrowing. But the government vacating the debt market has contributed to ballooning levels of household debt and to Australia's world-leading, over-priced housing market. A study released just last week has suggested that class be defined in this country based by property ownership—and by class, I mean class. Neoliberalism is being replaced by neofeudalism in Australia. Scott Morrison had a moment of clarity in his early days as Treasurer when he talked about the difference between good debt and bad debt. What he was saying was that government borrowing to fund productive infrastructure is not something to get upset about. It was as true then as it is now, and Mr Morrison in his new role should listen to his own advice. In my last minutes, I want to make it clear: the Greens have been talking about the importance of ramping up fiscal policy officially now for five years. We have been talking about government spending not just on long-term government infrastructure projects but, importantly, on short-term projects such as environmental remediation. We have been talking about government spending on services and investment in the Australian people through education and through better healthcare services. We have been talking about infrastructure spending on renewable energy, driving the transition to clean energy, reducing emissions and tackling what is arguably the greatest crisis of our time—fighting climate change and an extinction crisis. All these things can be done at the same time. We can get an outcome for the environment, we can get on outcome for communities and we can get an outcome for the economy, but that takes bipartisan—or should I say tripartisan—political support. It takes all of us to come together and look at the unprecedented times that we currently live in. Let's make brave political decisions in this place, not just in the interests of our political ideology because we think it will win us some marginal seats when One Nation are taking votes off us in Queensland or northern New South Wales. It means taking long-term decisions, showing leadership on the issues that the Australian people expected when they elected us to this place. I heard Senator Van's contribution about instant asset write-offs for the small business portfolio. The Greens were the first people, in 2013, to talk about tax cuts for small business and to have an instant asset write-off. I was very proud to come in here and vote for that when it happened. But we did oppose tax cuts for big business. We strenuously opposed tax cuts for big business because we saw the data about what was happening in the US—a total flop. And, of course, we were the only ones in this place who voted against tax cuts for high-income earners in Australia. We have advocated for over a decade to raise Newstart for Australia's most vulnerable. I'm an economist and I know there are other economists in this place. We know low-income people have a higher marginal propensity to consume. They spend their money because they don't have much of it. It is really important to them. But we also know high-income earners tend to save that money. What have we seen from the tax cuts so far? I'm going to wait and see what the data says, but my guess it is going to go straight to paying off mortgages. That is not stimulating the economy. It is the time in history for fiscal policy. 16:54 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I rise to speak on the urgent need for Commonwealth infrastructure investment, particularly in regional Queensland. The economy is slowing and it desperately needs infrastructure investment. The government are refusing to bring forward projects already budgeted for and have created a skills crisis which they want to fix by bringing overseas workers into regional Queensland instead of training local people. They have no plan to fix the economy, just a long list of broken promises. We are currently experiencing the slowest economic growth since the global financial crisis. Wages are growing at just one-sixth of profits, and there are global economic challenges heading our way. Last month, Reserve Bank Governor Dr Philip Lowe urged this Liberal-National government to stimulate our weakening economy by bringing forward major infrastructure projects. It is not the first time he has done this. You don't need to be a senior economist or the head of a business peak body to know that the Australian economy is weakening and needs to be stimulated. The telltale signs are there for all to see, yet the Liberal-National MPs in Queensland have their heads in the sand. Consumer confidence is low and consumption growth is weak under this government. Wages are stagnant and underemployment is rife. Business investment is down 20 per cent and at its lowest since the 1990s. Gross debt has risen to over half a trillion dollars under this government. Minutes released by the Reserve Bank of Australia board today confirmed wages remain stagnant and consumption is weak. In its September decision, the Reserve Bank noted that 'wages growth appeared to have stalled' and 'there were few indications that wage pressures were building'. The economic alarm bells are ringing because this is a government without an economic plan and one that refuses to invest in infrastructure, against the wishes of the country's business leaders and senior economists. Given the current economic climate, there could not be a better time to invest in regional Queensland. And it is not just the Labor party calling for regional investment; this is exactly what Governor Lowe recently suggested to the House economics committee. He urged the Morrison government to look beyond the major capital cities and invest in smaller projects in regional Australia and in some of the lesser populated states. He said: I encourage governments to look at the possibility of a series of smaller projects—they're not as big as building a metro in Sydney—but they can be more widely dispersed across the country and that can help us all. There may not be for the big megaprojects in Sydney and Melbourne but right across the country there is the capacity to do more infrastructure spending that would make people's lives better. It is against this growing chorus of central bankers, state governments, economists and business leaders calling for infrastructure investment that Prime Minister Morrison refuses to back infrastructure in regional Queensland. Nowhere is the government's infrastructure investment paralysis more apparent than in my home state of Queensland, and there's not a single project that shines a light on this government's failure more than the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility. Since its inception four years ago, the $5 billion Northern Australia infrastructure fund has spent only $15 million on projects. At the same time, it has cost taxpayers more than $15 million to administer. Adding insult to injury, the NAIF is actually based where I live, in Cairns, but has not funded a single project in Far North Queensland. In Cairns there are a number of projects that could easily be actioned which would provide a much-needed boost to the local economy, and the Prime Minister knows what these vital projects are because, when he came to Cairns for COAG, we put them on a billboard for him. These desperately needed projects include the Captain Cook Highway, stage 3 of the Cairns Southern Access Corridor upgrade and stage 5 of the Townsville Ring Road. You could be forgiven for thinking that, by the way that these projects were spoken about by the member for Leichhardt and the member for Dawson during the election, these projects had already been funded and they were ready to be built. But the reality is that this funding is more than four years away. Stage 3 of the Cairns Southern Access Corridor and stage 5 of the Townsville Ring Road will not be made available until the 2021-22 and 2022-23 budgets. We need shovels in the ground now, not after the next election. These projects have already been budgeted, but, when you get down to the details, when you open up the budget papers and look at that paper, you realise that that funding is so very far away. These are exactly the types of regional projects that Dr Lowe was talking about, yet they are sitting idle when this government is floundering. This Liberal-National government doesn't care about regional Queenslanders. They continue to break promises, and this is leaving regional Queensland behind on infrastructure investment. The government must start investing or regional Queenslanders will pay the price. This government appears to be in denial, and it is hurting jobs growth, it is hurting the economy and, most importantly, it is hurting regional Queensland households. FIRST SPEECH 54 FIRST SPEECH 16:59 The PRESIDENT I0Q Pursuant to order, I call Senator Antic to make his first speech. I ask honourable senators to extend the usual courtesies to him on this occasion. 17:00 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia Mr President, I'd like to start by letting you in on a little secret. This is strictly between you and me. Although I may very understandably give the impression of being cool, calm and collected standing here before you today, I can assure you that that's not the case. Standing in front of a group of family, friends, many of the coalition government's leadership group and one's political opponents, your words being indelibly transcribed into Hansard, is a fairly daunting process. But let me tell you: I've carried a similar burden once before. In 1982, at the age of seven, I stood before a crowd of a hundred or so family and friends during Burnside Primary School's talent night and performed what could only be described as a rousing rendition of the song 'Rockin' Robin'. I nailed it. With the benefit of that experience behind me, I feel that I am ready to go. With that said, it would be remiss of me to start without first extending my congratulations to those senators elected in May this year, particularly those elected from my home state of South Australia. To serve in this place is a genuinely humbling experience and a tremendous honour. It is my hope that, even though I may not always agree with those of you across the chamber, our efforts will always be constructive and will always be made in the interests of a stronger Australia. I stand before you today as the 608th senator elected to this place and the 106th from South Australia. As I understand it, I'm the first Australian senator of Serbian descent. I was born in Adelaide in 1974, the second child of Dr Ratomir Antic and Vicki Anderson. My mother was the only child of Sylvia Anderson, who we knew as Tup—a widow who raised my mother on her own following the death of my paternal grandfather in 1951. In addition to experiencing the trauma of losing her husband, Tup was left in a perilous financial position following his death. She was not the beneficiary of a life insurance payment or a significant bank balance, but, like so many of her generation, she drew upon the uniquely Australian postwar can-do mindset: enter the workforce, make sacrifices and raise my mother on her own terms. Her generation lived through hardship and war. They had stared down genuine annihilation a decade earlier and knew how to react to life's challenges with a stoic resolve. Today I'm the humble beneficiary of her fighting spirit, and for those homegrown heroics I'm tremendously grateful. The homegrown heroics of my paternal grandmother have also been critical in the role they played in shaping me as a person and now as a politician. Grandma Seca, as we knew her, came to this country from the former Yugoslavia in 1957 with her husband, her sons and very little else. It's a tale of postwar immigration familiar to many Australian families. Theirs was a family of small-business people on a postwar collision course with the rise of communism in the Balkans. My grandmother's distrust of the communist regime, which had already stripped her family of its modest assets, led her to lecture my father about the importance of private ownership, entrepreneurship and basic freedoms. Inconveniently, my father was prone to repeating her views to his government-appointed schoolteachers, and before long that indiscreet young man had given away his mother's political leanings and raised the ire of party officials in the process. The Antic family's tenure under the red star of Yugoslavian communism was coming to a sharp end. My father is a man who always tells it like it is. He is a man of immeasurable integrity. He is a man who served his community in his role as the director of thoracic medicine at the Royal Adelaide Hospital for more than 40 years with dignity and respect. He is a man who taught me the importance of treating those around you with the same dignity and respect. My mother is a woman who has put her own interests, her own pursuits and her own life behind those of her family. She is a woman who captures a crowd of people with her intellect and wit and who never shies away from a joke. The person who stands here before you today is as much a product of that backstory as of the love shown to me by my family throughout the course of my life. These experiences highlight that which drew me to the Liberal Party, a party which serves to uphold the principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion; a party which is the friend of small enterprise and which is opposed to authoritarian regimes and tyranny. I'm fortunate enough to have both my mother and my father in the gallery today, but it is with deep regret my older brother and only sibling, Professor Nick Antic, couldn't be here with us today, after losing a three-year battle with a brain tumour in November 2016. During my formative years at Burnside Primary and Pembroke schools in Adelaide, living in Nick's extraordinary academic shadow elicited in me as much pride as it did trepidation. In his adult years, Nick graduated from medical school, obtained his postgraduate specialist qualifications and developed a formidable reputation as an emerging world leader in sleep medicine, the very field in which our father had blazed a path of his own. He never lost his sense of humour, but ultimately he lost his battle with cancer, and I am extremely sad that he couldn't be here with us today. But he leaves behind my sister-in-law, Corinne; my niece, Holly; and my nephews, Lachlan and Charles Antic. And my niece, Holly, is also here in the gallery today. I'm as proud of them as their dad was and would have been could he be here today. And, in addition to a beautiful family, his legacy proves that much can be achieved in a short amount of time through leadership, collaboration and respect. That statement adorns his memorial in Centennial Park Cemetery and it lives with me every day. It lives with me because my own path through life has been arguably less expeditious than his. In the 1990s, I studied a Bachelor of Arts, majoring in history and politics, and a Bachelor of Laws at the University of Adelaide. I enjoyed the opportunity to think and challenge the ideas around me, but I realised that my time in the university system was drawing to a close after a visit to my grandmother's house in the year 2000. While sitting in her living room, weighing up how I was to best use those university years and while passively smoking a portion of her eighth cigarette, which was incidentally lit from the tail end of her seventh cigarette, she looked at me, paused and said in a matter-of-fact manner, 'You know, even if you haven't still decided what you want to do with your life, I'm not worried about you.' The clear inference to be drawn from that statement was that other family members were less confident but that she was generous enough to buck the trend to so conclude it was time to hit the work force! That Freudian slip, however, did highlight in me something about my personality which I knew to be a virtue rather than a vice, being that I preferred a considered approach to life—a conservative approach to life. In many respects, this moment was something of an epiphany regarding my political views. It might be best summed up by the great urban poet Ice Cube, who said, 'Life ain't a track meet; it's a marathon', which is really a modern incarnation of an old Serbian phrase: 'Triput meri, jednom seci', or, in English, 'Three times measure; one time cut'. A conservative approach must always inform our decision making and take precedence over the utopian propositions injected into the policy cycle by those who seek to impose rather than to improve. And it's regrettable that too many politicians seek to treat that which purports to be progressive as universally meritorious regardless of the consequences. Too often our history and institutions are unnecessarily devalued. In life, actions should only be taken following a proper assessment of the ramifications, not simply to play to a crowd. This is not to say we should endorse stagnation but rather that we should practice consideration when making decisions which affect Australians. We must always embrace stability and structure and recognise that only cautious change honours our institutions and that only cautious change allows us to both preserve and improve. In my time in this place I hope to play a part in preserving and improving that which makes South Australia great, which is why, despite having been fortunate enough to have had an opportunity to travel the world, I, to paraphrase the late Peter Allen, still call South Australia home. And there may be no simpler way to light the fuse of debate in this place than to claim one's own state as the premier state in the federation. However, in this instance, I'm hopeful those in the chamber will forgive my parochialism. My home state of South Australia was based on free settlement rather than on convict labour, a fact anyone who visits South Australia will be reminded of by a local several seconds after stepping off their flight! But nonetheless it's a fact of which South Australians are rightfully proud. Our great state, from the electorate of Grey in the state's north to the lush green surrounds of the electorate of Barker in the state's south-east, has natural resources and beauty which the are envy of the world. I have spent much time in regional South Australia, and my fondness for the country runs deeper than my admiration of its stunning scenery and fresh air alone. It goes to the heart of what it means to be Australian. The commonsense pragmatism and respectful interaction that one receives from regional Australians is something from which our city folk could learn a great deal. People from the regions have an unwavering grasp of the things which really matter. The basic tenets of family, faith, freedom and the flag are all alive and well in the country. In many respects there are elements of the regions which remind me of some of the best parts of the Australia of my childhood—an Australia in which we retained our sense of humour; an Australia unaffected by the tyranny of political correctness, a phenomenon favoured by those who have become so duplicitous that they seek to construct matters of concern as a method of attracting attention to serve their own political hubris; an Australia without corporations seeking to impart a confected political ethos upon their customers; an Australia in which sporting codes did not prioritise social justice causes over the core business of playing the sports which breathe life into the pay packets of their executives while, in the process, riding roughshod over the interests of grassroots supporters; an Australia without revisionist vandals who seek to rewrite history by defacing public monuments, such as statues of Captain Cook and Queen Victoria and, most appallingly, our Anzac memorials. Happily, that Australia, the commonsense Australia, is alive and well in the overwhelming majority of Australians. But we cannot allow it to be further hijacked by the destructive forces of fabricated outrage, lest it shall wither and die. We have much to celebrate and much to protect and much to preserve. With the benefit of Liberal state and federal governments, I'm certain my state, South Australia, is on track to join Tasmania as the federation's next turnaround state. If it isn't already, South Australia is on its way to becoming the defence industry capital of the country, and, with the defence and space sectors taking the place of manufacturing, South Australia can look to a bright future. But, in order to ensure our economic recovery continues, it is critical that South Australia retains all of those projects. To relocate them would come at a significant financial cost for this country. It would result in the loss of jobs in my home state and, importantly, it would erode the skill base and knowledge capabilities which ensure the country's defence sector remains world class. In addition to retaining those industries in which South Australia already excels, we need to encourage new industries and new investment, and, in one sense, everything old could be new again. In 1906, South Australia's first uranium mine was opened in Radium Hill and, along with sites such as Olympic Dam, the world's fourth-largest uranium producer, South Australia has a sizeable share of this country's uranium reserves. Australia is now the third-largest uranium producer in the world, after Kazakhstan and Canada. The reckless rush into the unproven, uncosted world of renewable energy in my home state represents both the deceased canary down a renewable energy coalmine—to coin a phrase—and a masterclass of failed policy from a failed former Labor government. The curiosity of exporting uranium to the world—and, in so doing, supplying our neighbours with cheap energy proven to be virtually emissions free—while at home we are restricted from accessing the same benefits must be addressed. In May 2016, the South Australian Nuclear Fuel Cycle Royal Commission determined that there was enough evidence of safety and technological improvements that, consequently, South Australia could safely increase its participation in nuclear activities, and that nuclear power should not be discounted. I welcome the news that the Morrison government has commissioned an inquiry to investigate the viability of nuclear power generation. New technology in the form of generation IV and small modular reactors will increase the safety and reduce the cost of nuclear power generation. Comparing the old tech generators to the future of nuclear power is like comparing a Motorola DynaTAC mobile phone from 1983 to a brand new iPhone 11. The commission also determined that South Australia has the necessary attributes to develop a safe, world-class waste disposal facility, which could generate up to $100 billion of income in excess of expenditure over the 120-year life of the said facility alone. The French, who, by the way, have power prices approximately 17 per cent below the EU average, seem to have struck a balance, and I doubt that there are many in this chamber who would register concerns about knocking back a bottle of French champagne for fear of developing radiation sickness. At the very least, there is enough evidence before us to now have a proper debate, one which uses an evidence based approach devoid of emotion, devoid of obvious hyperbole and devoid of political pointscoring. I come to this place determined to play a part in ensuring that the legacy of brain drain, industry closures and economic malaise imposed upon my state draws to a close. I would not be standing here today, however, without the love and support of my family. My family is the foundation upon which everything around me rests. Families allow us to learn from our mistakes, to grow and to balance our needs against the needs of those around us. To have been raised in a loving family has been critical to my life. The lessons taught regarding respect for authority and cooperation with those around us are lessons which we must continue to teach our children. I thank the membership of the Liberal Party of South Australia, its state councillors and the people of South Australia for the honour they've bestowed upon me, and I ask for their trust to use my judgement and work ethic to serve their interests. I thank my parents for their tireless support and love, two people who have consistently put their own interests third and fourth behind those of my late brother and my own. I thank my late brother, Nick, for the love and support he showed me and the standard of excellence which he demonstrated to us all in his 45 years. His children, my niece and nephews, have so many of his admirable characteristics, including his sense of humour, his wit, his compassion and, most notably, his love of sport. It's a privilege to see them grow into outstanding young people. But I'd especially like to thank my fiancee, Edwina Storer, without whose love, support and friendship I wouldn't be standing here today. Edwina is also in the gallery today, I note. Her intelligence and her emotional maturity have been a critical plank in my journey to this place. She is a person who has been there through thick and thin and who provides reassurance, laughter, companionship and a sounding board for life's tricky issues. It takes a special kind of selflessness to indulge a partner's pursuit of his or her passion, and the manner in which she has invested herself in this role is nothing short of spectacular. Thank you also to Edwina's parents, Nick and Trish Storer, for welcoming my family and me so warmly and graciously. And I thank Tony Pasin, the member for Barker, for his years of friendship and guidance. He is one of the most loyal, hardworking, trustworthy and honest people I know, and I thank him for that which he has done for me leading up to this day. I also thank Nicolle Flint, the member for Boothby, and my state parliamentary colleagues who have travelled here today from South Australia: Sam Duluk MP, the member for Waite; Steve Murray MP, the member for Davenport; and Fraser Ellis MP, the member for Narungga. I don't think I've missed anyone! I also thank state Liberal vice presidents Nicholas Centofanti and Morrie Bales, who are here today, as well as the partnership of Tindall Gask Bentley Lawyers for their support and those friends who have travelled here today as well. Thank you also to the South Australian Young Liberal Movement for their tireless support. I note the presence today of South Australian Young Liberal presidents Alexander Hyde, Sam Duluk MP and Jocelyn Sutcliffe and current Young Liberals president, James Porter. Thank you to our unsuccessful lower house candidates, alongside whom I campaigned in the May election, namely Laura Curran, Jake Hall-Evans, Sean Osborn, Kathleen Vaughan, Georgina Downer and Hemet Dave. Your outstanding efforts greatly assisted the party in securing the sixth Senate position in South Australia. In conclusion, during my time in this place I undertake to discharge my duties in good faith, to work hard and to dutifully serve the people of South Australia to the best of my ability. As a person whose sense of irony has been known to get him into trouble from time to time, I hope to show that a sense of humour can still be the comfortable bedfellow of a strong policy agenda. Thank you. The PRESIDENT I0Q Before I call you, Senator Davey, I would like to acknowledge in the gallery your predecessor, former senator John Williams, who has joined us this evening. Welcome back. Pursuant to order, I will now call Senator Davey to make her first speech. I ask honourable senators to extend the usual courtesies to her on this occasion. Senator Davey. 17:20 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales After taking up this position on 1 July, and in this, my fifth week of parliamentary business, it is a pleasure to finally be able to say that this is my first speech. What a pleasure it is to stand here to speak as a senator for New South Wales and for the Nationals. I am proud to be a National and proud of who we are and what we represent—proud of our values of equality of opportunity, regardless of geography, gender, race or religion. The Nationals are first and foremost pragmatists, committed to delivering for our communities, united one and all in our shared belief that, when regional Australia is strong, so too is our nation. It is all the more important for me to be standing here today when the New South Wales Nationals are on the verge of celebrating their 100th year and as we head into 2020, when the federal National Party celebrates its centenary, making ours the second oldest party in the parliament. This, despite many soothsayers predicting our demise as a party and declaring the end is nigh for the Nationals, particularly at the last election, when many took great pleasure in questioning the relevance of the Nationals and our capacity to adapt. I contend that there has never been a time when our relevance has been so important. Now, at a time when, despite technology giving us instant connection, the physical connections and understanding between the city and the bush seem to be diminishing; now, when nearly 40 per cent of children think cotton grows on cows and yoghurt grows on trees and when people don't realise that resource industries are about future technologies, that is when you need the Nationals. The Nationals are relevant at a time when our regional industries—agriculture, irrigation, mining and resources—are increasingly under attack. The Nationals achievements over time, including establishing entities we currently take for granted, such as Austrade and the CSIRO, and all of our achievements into the future, such as constructing the inland rail and future water infrastructure, show that, as a party, we have stood the test of time and we do adapt. Originally stereotyped as a party of pastoralists, we also became the first party to ever have a female federal president, in the dynamic Shirley McKerrow OAM. We also had the first female director, in Cecile Ferguson, who I welcome here today. And where once for the Nationals these benches were full of stock agents and farmers, we are now a party represented by teachers, social workers, economists, vets, butchers, country editors and myself, a former student of the first high school in Canberra to declare itself a nuclear-free zone, saying, 'Yes, we need to talk about nuclear power.' My colleagues and I represent the wealth of opportunity and experience that the regions can offer, and that is our binding force. Our values are inherently tied to the regions, and our reason for being is to give those regions a voice. We are bound today by the same values that our party held a hundred years ago, but we have different faces and we proudly represent regions that now have new industries and new opportunities. The Nationals have had many successes over the years. We have delivered billions of dollars to improve regional telecommunications, services, roads, drought aid, education and health services. Some call this funding pork-barrelling. I call it doing our job—doing what we are elected to do, and that is to stand up for regional Australia and make sure regional Australia has equitable access. Some call it pandering to vested interests, and I say yes, we are, because a vested interest is defined as a personal reason for involvement, especially in expectation of a gain. So I say we all have vested interests, and I'm prepared to declare mine. I am a mother, and therefore I have a vested interest in making sure my children, and all of our children, have access to quality education regardless of where they live. I want them to have education pathways, be it through vocational training or tertiary education, and I want them to have the best opportunities at their fingertips so that they have career pathways and job prospects—in the regions, if they so wish, so they don't feel obliged to move to the cities. I've been an employee and an employer, so I have a vested interest in ensuring that businesses have access to adequate telecommunications and can operate without excessive red tape, and I have a vested interest in making sure our tax regime is fair. As a future retiree, I have a vested interest in protecting our superannuation. As a driver, I've got a vested interest in making sure regional roads are safe. As the wife of an irrigator and as someone who worked in the irrigation industry—although never as an irrigator myself, because I kill any plant I look at!—I have a vested interest in making sure we get stability back in our water policy so that irrigators and other water users, including industries, towns and the environment, understand the parameters under which they're operating and we get the balance right. As the wife of a farmer, I have a vested interest in making sure both corporate and private agriculture have a strong future so anyone who wants to work in the business, not just those lucky enough to inherit or lucky enough to own shares, has a career pathway. And as someone living on the land, I have a vested interest in our environment, because I love looking out my kitchen window and seeing my pelican return every year to Billabong Creek. I love taking my children camping on the river amongst the red gums, and I love the fact that we, as farmers, want to leave the land and the soil in a better condition so Australia can continue to be sustainably productive. I have a vested interest in making sure we get the economic, environmental and social balance right when we make public policy. As John 'Black Jack' McEwen said of the Nationals in the sixties: … we conceive our role as a dual one of being at all times the specialist party with a sharp fighting edge, the specialists for rural industries and rural communities. At the same time we are the party which has the total co-ordinated concept of what is necessary for the growth and safety of the whole Australian nation. It is important to me that our regional industries are supported by infrastructure, services and good government policy that encourages investment, because without investment we can't grow and we would fail to live up to the potential of our regions. Importantly, our regional industries must not be demonised or vilified. Take agriculture—this $60 billion industry that employs over 300,000 people directly and more than 1.6 million people along the value chain, which has the potential to grow to a $100 billion industry by 2030 and supports hundreds of country towns and communities. It is increasingly having to defend itself against activism. We have livestock producers living in fear of having their properties stormed by activists, with sheds broken into and animals harassed and, in some cases, even stolen, all supposedly in the name of stopping animal cruelty. But we know the real agenda is actually to shut down these industries without concern or consideration about the impact on the farmers, on their families, on their communities and, most importantly, on our grocery bills. Not all of the protesters are mischievous; some of them are just misinformed. But if you live in the regions and if you talk to these farmers you understand that mistreatment of animals is not good business sense, and Australia has strong animal welfare laws for that reason. In fact, Australia has a raft of rules that ensure our agricultural industries lead the world in best practice management. In Australia, production of crops like cotton and rice is leading the world in terms of crop yield per megalitre of water used. Yet there are those in Australia, and indeed in this place, calling for us to stop producing these crops—these crops that are actually perfectly suited to the Australian variable environment, these crops that can be turned off and on, depending on water availability. Both of these commodity groups have long-term research and development programs in Australia, and now as a nation we are exporting our smarts as well as our products. These commodity groups and others in our agricultural chain have farmgate value as well as value-add across the whole industry. In my area, for example, we have the largest rice mill in the Southern Hemisphere and a company, SunRice, started by a cooperative of farmers that is now an international food conglomerate, still owned by Australian farmers. But, instead of championing these industries and the successes we as a nation have shown in developing high-quality, high-yielding crops using less water and less chemicals and leaving healthier soils than any other nation, we are demonising them to a point where our farmers are too scared to tell people what they grow. I am here to be a champion for them and for all of our agricultural industries, be it dairy, egg production, citrus—I support them all, and I support the businesses that rely on them. We can't stop growing these crops or producing these commodities because, if we do, who will feed the 40 million-plus people around the world every day who eat Australian rice, who will produce the fresh milk that we enjoy on our cereals and who will produce the natural fibres that we like to wear? A ban on production does not equal a fall in demand. Markets just turn to another supplier to source similar produce without the same standards. So to export the problem of producing food and fibre will abrogate our responsibility as a nation to ensure they are produced in an ethical and sustainable way. Regardless of the commodity, when you buy Australian produce you know that you are buying a product that has been produced to the highest standards, without child labour, without using banned chemicals and at the same time as our farmers are endeavouring to improve their land and be good environmental stewards. So those calling for us to export our industries don't understand that doing so would just export a problem that Australia is well placed to be a solution for. And the same goes for our resource industries. The debate about mining has people thinking only about coal, noting that Australia produces the cleanest-burning coal in the world and is supplying the continued international demand, but we as a nation can't just focus on coal when we talk about resources. Mining in Australia is so much more than that—a $285 billion industry employing almost a quarter of a million people nationally. From the traditional metals and minerals found at my favourite place in New South Wales, where once a jackeroo stood on a hilltop and noticed a weird-looking rock in Broken Hill, to the gas fields of Camden and the mineral sands mines of the west, increasingly we are progressing rare-earth mineral extraction to feed the demand for technological components. Without mining, we wouldn't have the lithium to power batteries for electric cars and we would not be able to make components for solar panels, iPhones or wind turbines. And, increasingly, rare-earth minerals are being used for new tech defence industries. The opportunities are endless, and we as a nation need to grasp them. And, of course, there's my favourite mining of all: gold and silver and opals and gemstones of Inverell, where Wacka used to come from. All of this mining in New South Wales alone contributes $11 billion a year. But, just as the Nationals have adapted over time, so too has mining, and today it is far more environmentally sustainable, and rightly so. Today we must ensure that mining does not compromise other commodities, particularly agriculture. We cannot risk our prime agricultural land and we cannot risk our vulnerable aquifers or our fragile ecological assets. But there is a balance that can be found, and we should strive to do so, to provide a strong and diverse economy. So I will support policies that promote our regions and encourage growth because, by doing so, I hope to increase regional populations and therefore increase regional representation in this place. But, to do this, we need to focus on ensuring infrastructure and services are in place to make the regions an attractive place to live. By providing the basic infrastructure and then implementing policies that encourage regional migration that supports regional industries, we can start to reverse the trend of population drift to the coast. And perhaps the best way to do that is to lead by example, to show people how good it is to live in the regions and to show them that living in the regions is not an impediment to success—because, as I mentioned before, I have not always lived in the regions. I did most of my schooling here in Canberra, but I was attracted to the regions long before I met my farming husband. My pathway here has been long and varied. It has provided me with life experiences that have given me an understanding of our differences in society but also our commonalities. My pathway has not been planned or designed with this end goal in mind; rather, it has been a path of opportunities: 15-odd years in the Army Reserve; three years working on safaris in Botswana; a stint as a regional reporter for a country newspaper; and time in Queensland driving a school bus, cooking for station hands and running the Comet River trivia championship. I also spent some time back here in Canberra, working for an international PR firm—and some of my colleagues are here today. Through all of that, I had no idea that this is where I would end up. Rather, I have done all of that because I look for opportunities and I accept the risks and rewards that they present, and I have arrived here because I took advantage of an opportunity that now I have a massive responsibility to ensure I don't waste. I need to make the most of it so I don't let down the people who believed in me and those who supported me, and now those regions that need me to be their representative. So there are many I have to thank. Firstly, to the National Party and the New South Wales Nationals Central Council: I thank you for giving me the opportunity and for selecting me to represent you in this place. I also thank the hundreds of Nationals members and supporters across the state who came out and supported me, supported our party and ultimately supported this government at the May election. Thank you to former Nationals senators Ron Boswell, Fiona Nash and John 'Wacka' Williams, who have all been so forthcoming with their support and their advice, especially to Wacka, who did reach out to me and who made sure my transition into this role was a smooth one. His name here in this building is synonymous with decency, diligence and bipartisanship. Wacka forged a reputation as an honest broker, ready and willing to reach across, and work across, the aisle to deliver positive outcomes for rural and regional Australia, and I aim to do the same. I say to my Nationals colleagues here in the Senate—Susan, Sam, Bridget and Matt: I hope we have many good times ahead. To my staff: thank you for your support to date. I'm confident we'll be a strong, successful and collegiate team, working together to deliver for New South Wales. To the staff in this place, the Clerk and the office of the Black Rod: I thank you in advance for the assistance I know you will provide to me, because I know I'll be asking! To the security and cleaning staff: I thank you for all you do to make sure this place is safe and clean. And to my new colleagues on all benches: I look forward to working with you. While we may not sit on the same side, I believe that each and every one of us has put our hand up to be here because we believe in our democracy and we believe in representing the people who put us here, and that is to be respected. And then there are my personal thanks. To all my friends who helped me during the campaign, who answered my pleas for help to get children ferried around when I was in Cobar, Broken Hill, Moree or Narrabri trying to win votes, including those who are taking my daughter home tomorrow so she can be in her sixth-grade production: they say it takes a village to raise children, and that is especially true when you take on a role such as this. To the mad, bad, crazy McGregor clan: you couldn't have been a more vibrant rainbow of political views to grow up with. Our enthusiastic conversations around the Christmas dinner table have enabled me to debate the point, not the person, and to find respect and common ground across disparate views, and I'm sure that will stand me in good stead in this place. To my in-laws, Helen and Malcolm: Helen is a formidable role model who has shown me you don't need to be tall or male to get ahead in politics; you just need to be right. And Malcolm, you are a picture of patience and calm, with a magical charm. To my parents: you have both instilled in me a sound work ethic and practicality. I know I wasn't easy, but your no-nonsense approach to parenting kept me in check. Mum, your independence and sense of adventure that saw you jumping on a plane to war-torn Vietnam just to see what it was like has defined me. You set a very high bar and you always encouraged me to have a go. You got me into everything, from school band and choir—and you even got me trying to play sport even when you knew full well I couldn't catch! Maybe in hindsight it was probably just an attempt to distract me from going off track—and it worked. I thank you, for you never doubted me. And Dad, you came to our shores as an 18-year-old with nothing but an open mind. Determined to give it a go, you worked your way through the media to the staff of the primary industries minister, Peter Nixon, and then into the engine room of our party, and now, as the party's resident historian as well as entertainer with your original songs and brilliant covers of Johnny Cash—at the time you put me right off both politics and country music! But now I thank you for the many lessons I've learnt from you just by being around. And finally to my family: John, Kira and Matilda. John, when we met at Tamworth Country Music Festival—that's after I got over my youthful distaste of the genre!—when I was living in Canberra and you were in Berrigan, I had no idea that one day I would again be doing the commute backwards and forwards to you. The journey in between has been fantastic. We've shared so much, and the pathway ahead is going to be just as fun. I know I've always had your support, even though you were hoping that you'd see more of me after May. Sorry about that! I know the sacrifices you are now making so that I can be here, and I thank you every day. To Kira and Matilda: I want you both to know that you make me so proud. Watching the two of you in your endeavours, to see you have a go, be it your debating, your netball, your singing or your dancing, you remind me about the importance of being humble and gracious, of supporting your friends and of being a kind spirit. I hope I in turn make you proud. So 100 years ago the Nationals as we now know them were formed with the understanding that the future of rural and regional Australia was critical to the future of our nation. So now, as a modern National, I stand before you committed to being a strong voice for regional New South Wales and regional Australia, to represent their interests, which are also my interests: to build stronger, more secure and sustainable regional communities through which our nation will prosper. Thank you. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 61 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Economy 61 17:46 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Let me say at the outset what a pleasure it is to have the opportunity to speak on this MPI proposed by Senator Gallagher. I say that because the Morrison government has an incredibly strong record on infrastructure investment, on growing the economy and on creating jobs, and the best example of this investment is in my home state of Western Australia. But before I detail the specific projects being funded in WA, I just want to place on record the contrast between those on this side of the chamber and those opposite. We on this side believe that, to truly grow the economy in a way that touches all sectors and brings along all Australians, we need to create an environment where business and industrial investment and growth can, and should, flourish. Infrastructure investment is a critical part of this, but it's just one piece of our broad economic plan. It's a plan that we took to the Australian people on 18 May and one which they decisively endorsed. The voters backed our plan for tax relief for small businesses and hardworking Australians. Like us, they believe that people should be able to keep more of the money that they earn and reinvest it back into the economy. They backed our plan to fix the budget and, with the delivery of the first surplus in 12 years ahead of schedule, they backed a plan, our plan, to get more people off welfare and into work, seeing the percentage of welfare recipients that are of working age fall to 14.3 per cent, the lowest rate of welfare dependency in 30 years. And, of course, they backed our 10-year $100 billion plan for infrastructure investment, knowing that our track record of delivery trumps the empty promises of those opposite, who floundered when they were last in government. Our economic plan means that the Australian economy is growing at 2.3 per cent, a stronger rate than the OECD average and of all G7 economies, except the United States. This strong economy is creating more jobs, and better paying jobs. It is the key to keeping Australians safe and it means we are able to pay for the essential services that all Australians rely on. Our record is there and it's there for all to see, particularly in my home state where we are delivering on major record investment and major projects. We are delivering major highway and local road upgrades to bust congestion and improve safety for all road users. We're removing traffic pinch points through a $4 billion urban congestion fund. We've established a dedicated commuter car park fund to improve access to public transport, and are investing in public transport to improve access and liveability in our cities. It is those opposite who are genuinely concerned—I beg your pardon, if— Senator Bilyk HZB No, you were right the first time! Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 No, I'll restate it! If those opposite were genuinely concerned about growing the economy and investing in game-changing infrastructure then they would speak to their colleagues in the WA state Labor government and get them to build the Roe 8 and 9 project. I'm happy to agree that this is the sort of infrastructure that needs to be brought forward. The Morrison government will deliver $1.2 billion for this project to any WA state government which decides on the Roe 8 and 9. The money is there on the table, as it has been for each and every year since the McGowan WA Labor government came to power. They cancelled the project and they're squandering this funding. The first act of the Labor government was to cancel a multibillion dollar infrastructure project that was supporting jobs right there in Perth. It wasn't just shovel-ready; it was already underway. The Labor Party told those working on this project to go home! Where was the protection of jobs? So we on this side of the chamber will not be lectured to on this topic by those opposite, who cancel projects and destroy jobs. It was a leaf from the Daniel Andrews book of big infrastructure projects that they didn't need to take. In direct contrast, the Commonwealth government is delivering record investment of over $13.5 billion to fund infrastructure projects in WA. This includes $1.6 billion in the most recent budget and $2.8 billion in last year's budget for major new projects. On roads, we are providing significant contributions to upgrade highways and to address local pinch points across the suburbs of Perth, as well as better connecting regional WA through projects such as NorthLink WA, the Tonkin Highway upgrades, Armadale Road, the Bunbury Outer Ring Road, the Albany Ring Road and the Great Northern Highway. We've also supported key components which make up one of the largest rail transport projects underway in Australia. That includes the Forrestfield Airport Link, the Thornlie-Cockburn link, the Yanchep Rail Extension, the Morley-Ellenbrook Line, the extension of the Armadale Line to Byford, the Midland train station and the Lakelands train station. We're also making an investment of $207.5 million in the Oak Street-Welshpool Road and Mint Street level-crossing removals. There is $190 million for the Armadale Road bridge and $115 million for the renewal of the Fremantle traffic bridge. There is $51.8 million for the Wanneroo Road and Ocean Reef Road grade separation and $28 million for the Manning Road freeway on-ramp. There is $25 million for a business case to investigate the future road and rail connections for Perth and $10 million for the planning and development of EastLink WA—the orange route. Under our $4.5 billion Roads of Strategic Importance initiative, an investment of $535 million is being made in WA, including $248 million for the Karratha to Tom Price corridor; $75 million for the Alice Springs to Halls Creek corridor; $70 million for the Newman to Katherine corridor; $70 million to the Wheatbelt Secondary Freight Route network; $50 million for the Port Augusta to Perth corridor; and $22 million for the Pinjarra Heavy Haulage Deviation. Western Australia also shares in the $330 million that has been allocated to the Outback Way, which I know is something that Senator Smith has been advocating for a long time. Six hundred million dollars is going to the Northern Australia Roads Program and $100 million is going to the Northern Australia Beef Roads Program. WA industry, business and communities are benefiting from this substantial investment, projects which are helping to make our transport better, safer, more efficient and more reliable. These projects are also supporting thousands of full-time jobs and apprenticeships. In closing, I'd like to thank those opposite, particularly Senator Gallagher, for the opportunity to highlight their hypocrisy on this issue. 17:54 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to discuss this issue of infrastructure spending because it leads to the topic of productive capacity, and that's something I talk about repeatedly because that is the future of our country. Before doing so, though, I'll quote an executive member of a prominent Liberal metropolitan branch in Australia, a member of the Liberal Party. He called my office today to congratulate me on the questions I asked of Senator McKenzie yesterday. His words were 'fantastic' and then, as he said, 'It's wicked what's happening to New South Wales.' Before the Labor Party jumps with glee and says, 'Well, there's a prominent Liberal actually condemning the Liberal Party on infrastructure,' in fact he would not applaud the Labor Party. He was really complimenting the need to discuss infrastructure and dams. The Labor Party doesn't learn. It repeatedly raises this issue to bag the Liberal Party, but, while we agree with many of the criticisms, we actually end up proving that the Labor Party is aligned with the Liberal Party. So let me do that again. The original Labor Party chalked up many, many accomplishments. Labor politician Bill McKell pushed the Snowy River scheme and even threatened to invoke a state of emergency if the Liberals did not get on board. But nowadays, the Labor Party follows the Greens. There's no evidence on what's going on with the climate, but the Labor Party follows the Greens. The Greens go on ideological opposition. They refuse to build dams; the Labor party agrees. They try to shut down the use of coal; the Labor Party agrees. What we see is the destruction of energy, hospital beds, traffic, tax and immigration, the same things as the Liberal Party— (Time expired) 17:57 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I also rise to speak on this matter of public importance about infrastructure. We all know that the Morrison government is in denial. The economy is weakening, but those opposite have just buried their heads in the sand. They repeat the mantra 'the fundamentals are strong' without understanding that, with lower wage growth and increased fear about security of employment, people are looking to spend less and pay down their debt. It is clear the Morrison government doesn't have a plan to rescue this failing economy. Today's matter of public importance calls on the government to make a positive economic decision, one which will create employment and improve productivity into the future by bringing forward infrastructure spending. The experts agree that this is the right course of action. The Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Dr Philip Lowe, urged Treasurer Josh Frydenberg to spend on infrastructure, and he has made this call because he understands that we must not rely on monetary policy alone but utilise other mechanisms to get the economy back on track. But he's not alone. Just last week, the Masters Builders Australia supported this idea. Master Builders CEO Denita Wawn, speaking at Parliament House, called on the government to bring forward construction of infrastructure. It's clear the government has pushed future infrastructure further down the line with purely political motivations. Most of the money that the government has in its infrastructure budget is outside not just this election cycle but the election cycle after the next one. It's not credible to say you have a plan to build infrastructure when that plan is just to delay it for years and years to create an artificial surplus. On this side of the chamber, we understand the importance of modern, productive infrastructure to the Australian economy. Not only are jobs created during the construction of infrastructure; by having access to better roads, rail and port facilities, it makes it easier and cheaper for businesses to transport resources and manufactured goods both within Australia and to our export markets. Newer and safer roads will also help reduce our road toll currently—a tragedy that not enough action is being taken on to reduce. Opportunities in our economy arise from better infrastructure. Of course, in my home state of Tasmania, we've seen a failure in infrastructure planning and delivery by both the state and the federal governments, who have been in power since 2014 and 2013 respectively. In Tasmania, there are a number of major infrastructure projects that could be brought forward if the government could get their act together. I know they're good at taking the credit for opening buildings that the Labor Party funded anyway but they really need to get their act together. The Hobart-Sorell corridor is in need of upgrading. Traffic is often gridlocked along this corridor in the mornings and evenings, and it is causing unacceptable delays and frustration for the people of Sorell and for those further out on the Tasman Peninsula. It is in absolutely desperate need of an upgrade. Sections of the Bass Highway are also in need of improvement. The Bass Highway is critical to Tasmania's economy, carrying more than one million tonnes of freight each year worth about $1 billion. This includes trucks with farm produce, livestock and bulk milk that need to negotiate sections of the road which drastically need improvement. The federal and state governments have also failed with the planned replacement of the Bridgewater Bridge. In fact, that's just become embarrassing for both governments. Unfortunately, since Mr Turnbull and Mr Hodgman announced the replacement bridge project in 2018 it has dropped off Infrastructure Australia's priority projects list after the state government botched the business case for it. It was shoehorned into the Hobart City Deal and it's unclear when the new bridge will be delivered, if ever. These projects and many others across Tasmania would provide an immediate and enduring economic benefit to the local economy. Australia is experiencing the slowest economic growth since the global financial crisis. Wages are stagnant, underemployment is at record highs and the world economy is teetering. Good government investment in infrastructure to improve the lives of all Australians and to boost the economy, as Labor did in government, is drastically needed. During the global financial crisis, Labor invested in infrastructure, in saving jobs and in preventing the economy from going into recession. It's the responsible thing for this government to do but this government has failed. The Liberal-National government is in its third term and has failed dismally, especially for the people of Tasmania. The government needs to start taking infrastructure investment seriously, as I said, in Tasmania in the three key areas that I've outlined tonight. (Time expired) 18:02 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Those opposite have raised this MPI because of concerns about the economy, but have once again lapsed straight away into speaking about spending on infrastructure, including Senator Bilyk, who has just spoken. Tax more, spend more, spend more quickly is the rhetoric. It's fascinating that she has actually been prepared to harp back to the global financial crisis, where there were headlines for articles around the Building the Education Revolution program that said 'Millions handed to axed schools in stimulus debacle'. Those articles talked about the fact that if you just pour money into infrastructure without suitable planning and making sure of its productive infrastructure, it's not actually money well spent. In contrast, we are a government that understands what actually makes a productive economy. It's worthwhile looking at some of the facts. Let's start with the test that the former shadow Treasurer, Chris Bowen, set in 2013 for the coalition government. He said that if we're going to manage the economy well, there are a few things we have to achieve: keep unemployment below 6.25 per cent, keep Australia in the top 10 wealthiest countries, maintain our AAA credit rating with at least three stable outlooks and keep taxation as a percentage of GDP below 23.7 per cent. Well, tick, tick, tick and tick. The government has done each of those things. One of the things that Australians recognise is that the reason we can afford to pay for the $10 billion infrastructure program—sorry, the $100 billion infrastructure program—we have over the next decade is because there are more Australians now in work than ever before. The participation rate is higher than ever before. Since the coalition have come to government, we've created more than 1.4 million jobs, the majority of which are full-time. Just in case you think the employment figures can be fiddled, it's important to understand that, despite the high participation rate, we also see that the number of Australians of working age who are dependent on welfare is at a 30-year low. With less spending on welfare, because people are not reliant on it, and more people in work, what we see is that more taxation is available to the government because more people are working and paying tax and, therefore, we can invest in the infrastructure. So we are investing in infrastructure without raising taxes in the way that the Labor Party had planned, which was comprehensively rejected by the Australian people in May this year. That's despite the fact that, if you look globally, there are headwinds: Germany, the UK and Singapore are amongst a number of countries in the OECD that are recording negative growth in the June quarter. Yet Australia continues to grow. Our global trade volumes globally are lower compared to a year ago, and the IMF and the OECD have downgraded the outlook for world growth. Yet, despite that, Australia's nominal GDP has grown by 1.2 per cent, and 5.3 per cent for the 2018-19 year. So we can afford to invest in infrastructure. In my home state of South Australia we have seen a range of infrastructure programs funded. In fact, between 2013-14 and 2028-29 some $8 billion will be spent in South Australia. Senator Farrell I0N All South Australian money—South Australian and federal Labor money! Senator FAWCETT DYU As Senator Farrell knows, that is actually already underway, with things like the North-South Corridor going ahead. There is another important thing that Senator Farrell should be hanging his head in shame about. Some of the best infrastructure being built in South Australia right now is in the Osborne naval shipyard, with an investment of is $535 million. Those opposite did not commission a single naval vessel to be built in Australia during their six years in government. The discussion would not be around: 'Is there room for all of the projects that are underway? Will they be built here in time? Will we get the yards? Will we get the workers in time?' They would be more concerned about the tumbleweeds at Osborne because of the ramp down, the valley of death that came from the inaction of those opposite. Not only has this government managed the economy such that we have record employment and therefore the ability to invest in infrastructure; we're investing in productive infrastructure and we're investing in our defence capability, which means more sustainable jobs for generations of South Australians. It's already resulting in infrastructure such as the Future Frigate facilities as well as the Future Submarine facilities being built at Osborne. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 10000 The time for the discussion has expired. DOCUMENTS 64 DOCUMENTS Consideration 64 COMMITTEES 64 COMMITTEES Public Works Committee 64 Report 64 18:07 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I present the third report of 2019 of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, Referrals made July 2019. DOCUMENTS 64 DOCUMENTS Department of Home Affairs: Paladin Contracts 64 Order for the Production of Documents 64 18:08 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I table documents relating to an order for the documents concerning the Paladin contract relating to Manus Island and the Independent Health Advice Panel. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 64 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Member for Chisholm, Dastyari, Mr Sam 64 18:08 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I table responses to questions taken on notice during question time on 12 and 16 September 2019 asked by Senator Wong relating to the member for Chisholm and to former Senator Dastyari. I seek leave to have the documents incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows— MEMBER FOR CHISHOLM Dear Mr President I write with regard to a question I took on notice from Senator Wong during Question Time on Thursday, 12 September 2019 on the matter of the Member for Chisholm. I can confirm again that the Government does not comment on operational matters involving the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, or any other intelligence agency. I have copied this letter to Senator Wong. Kind regards Mathias Cormann Minister for Finance 17 September 2019 DASTYARI, MR SAM Dear Mr President I write with regard to a question I took on notice from Senator Wong during Question Time on Monday, 16 September 2019 on the matter of former Senator Sam Dastyari. The question assumes that the Prime Minister denied using that term. There was a question that was put at the end of a press conference. The phrase 'racist' was used twice in the question. This is what was referred to in the response. Former Senator Sam Dastyari is one of the reasons the Australian Government moved to implement foreign interference legislation in Australia. I have copied this letter to Senator Wong. Kind regards Mathias Cormann Minister for Finance 17 September 2019 COMMITTEES 65 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 65 Membership 65 18:08 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The President has received a letter requesting changes in the membership of committees. 18:09 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I move: That Senator Waters replace Senator Rice on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for the committee's inquiry into water quality outcomes in the Great Barrier Reef, and Senator Rice be appointed as a participating member. Question agreed to. BILLS 65 BILLS Aged Care Amendment (Movement of Provisionally Allocated Places) Bill 2019 65

Aged Care Amendment (Movement of Provisionally Allocated Places) Bill 2019

Second Reading 65 18:09 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia We know Australia has a growing ageing population. We also know more Australians are choosing to age in their own home. The former minister admitted last year that he needed to intervene, but he did nothing. The next quarterly report on the number of older Australians waiting for care is due to be published soon. Given the seriousness of this issue, I hope the government does not delay the next quarter of data, as it has with past reports. The government's track record and inaction continues when it comes to addressing the recommendations included in the dozens of reports, reviews and inquiries that have been sitting on the desks of multiple ministers. For example, more than two years ago the Australian Law Reform Commission's final elder abuse report was tabled in the parliament. Forty-three recommendations were put to government by the Law Reform Commission, the majority of which still have yet to be actioned or fully implemented. Last week it was two years since the Tune review was tabled in the parliament, an important review that gave the government a pathway forward about how to address a number of critical issues impacting on the now broken aged-care system. Thirty-eight recommendations were put to government, many of which still have yet to be fully implemented. Last week also marked a year since the then minister for aged care, Minister Ken Wyatt, announced the release of the A Matter of Care workforce strategy. It includes 14 actions to address current and future workforce challenges. How many of those 14 actions have been addressed? To date, none have been fully implemented. What a complete disgrace this is. We know there aren't enough aged-care workers now to care for older Australians let alone those that will be needed over the next decade. In less than a month it will be two years since the Carnell Paterson report into regulatory processes was handed to the government. This report has 10 recommendations, many of which have yet to be fully implemented. The government has spent the last six years sitting idly by, asleep at the wheel, while older Australians suffer without the care they need. Reform has been ad hoc, and some issues have been poorly addressed, with many areas of concern only partially addressed. Aged care is an area of government that requires constant attention and reform, given the number of older Australians accessing services. It's clear that the Liberals continue to fail older Australians. The government failed so badly that it had to call a royal commission into aged care. At the end of October the interim report of this royal commission into aged care is set to be handed down. There's no denying that the evidence put before the commission has been confronting. It's impossible not to feel deeply concerned about the accounts made, and our thoughts go to those who have conveyed their own or their loved ones' experiences with dignity and respect. From the evidence given, there's no walking away from the fact that our current aged-care system is not working as it should. Why is this the case? Well, not only has there been inaction by those opposite over six years; there have been funding cuts. The funding cuts have been significant—a $110 million cut to the dementia supplement in residential aged care, almost $500 million cut in the 2015 MYEFO, a $1.2 billion cut to the Aged Care Funding Instrument in the 2016-17 budget. That's almost $2 billion cut from residential aged care alone. And these failures start at the top. The Prime Minister Scott Morrison was the architect of the cuts to aged care that have contributed to this broken system. How can Mr Morrison be trusted to care for and support older Australians? The question the Liberals must ask themselves is: if the aged-care system isn't coping now, how will it be fit for purpose to cater for an Australian population that is ageing? For a long time, unions, the aged-care sector, consumers, families, the media and Labor have been persistent in calling for successful—that was a Freudian slip!—I mean successive Liberal governments to fix and reform the system. Vulnerable older Australians should not be waiting two years for their approved home care package. Funding for residents should not be going backwards. Why hasn't there been a focus on delivering and growing a skilled workforce to care for older Australians? In the wake of years of inaction, the royal commission is the government's last chance saloon for real action to fix Australia's aged-care system. As I've stated, the interim report is due on 31 October. Making this interim report public is in the best interests of all Australians. The new Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck, cannot and should not add this report to the dozens of other inquiries and reviews that sat idly on the former minister's desk, with hundreds of recommendations unanswered. There will be many Australians waiting in anticipation for the royal commission's interim report, and Labor looks forward to the government making it public immediately. For a government in search of a purpose, the challenge of how we care for Australia's ageing population is an opportunity to deliver real change on a critical issue of reform. Older Australians deserve much better. The blame for the state of the aged-care system falls fairly and squarely at the feet of consecutive Liberal governments. The government's record over the past six years in relation to aged care can only be described as a bungling mess. The Liberals have never had aged care in the cabinet, and this omission is now showing. The Prime Minister didn't have the foresight to put aged care in the cabinet after the last election, even after he called a royal commission. There has been a distinct period of funding cuts, a distressing blowout in the home care package waiting list and an admission of policy failure with the establishment of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. Essentially, it's an inquiry into the government's own ineptness. The waiting list for an approved package is now at 129,000 older Australians. These are not just statistics; these are real people, vulnerable people, many of whom are frail, unwell and desperate for care. The My Aged Care portal is failing older Australians, their families and their carers. We've also seen the government delay the transition of the Commonwealth Home Support Program transition—again, the new transition date is now, goodness me, 2022. All up, successive Liberal governments have failed to deliver reform. These are serious issues. The government has abrogated its responsibility to care for and support our most vulnerable Australians. The government's track record when it comes to aged care can only be described as a complete and utter failure. We should judge ourselves as a nation by how we treat our elderly. Older Australians deserve better, and they won't be fooled by the Prime Minister and the Liberals, who have done nothing but cut aged-care funding for years, and they've left more than 100,000 older Australians languishing, waiting for the care they need now. 18:17 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I rise today to speak on the Aged Care Amendment (Movement of Provisionally Allocated Places) Bill 2019. This bill grants the Department of Health the ability to allow approved residential aged-care providers to move provisionally allocated residential care places from one region to another within the state or territory. Provisionally allocated residential aged-care places are residential aged-care places that have been allocated but are not yet operational. Under current practice, the Department of Health has considered applications from providers for the movement of places between regions; however, the Aged Care Act does not permit a variation of the region to which places are provisionally allocated. This bill seeks to rectify this gap in the legislation and align it with the current practice in relation to the movement of places. The changes are required because it's reflecting more current practices about the way residential places are allocated and the way they're taken up. We have seen a lot of other reforms in the aged-care space, and there will be more to come in the future. The Australian Greens support this particular bill; however, we continue to have concerns about aged care in this country, and I think that these issues are not being adequately addressed and need to be adequately addressed. I'd just like to take this opportunity to focus on some of these issues. The aged-care workforce is, unfortunately, still crying out for significant reform and investment. Although the Community Affairs References Committee held an inquiry into the future of the aged-care workforce in this country and a strategy has been developed, we still don't see, a Senator Sterle just pointed out, this strategy being properly implemented. We still don't see the very important issues being addressed. We know that we're going to need around one million direct care workers by 2050 in this country. We are not doing enough to implement those recommendations and we need more urgent action to address these particular issues. Personal care attendants now make up 70 per cent of the direct care employees in residential aged care. In contrast, the proportion of registered nurses has declined from 21 per cent in 2003 to around 15 per cent in 2016. Now, I know many people argue that aged care is not a clinical care setting. In fact, an inquiry reported just very recently about clinical care and aged care. Some aged-care providers seemed to argue that they do not provide clinical care, which is patently not true. So, at this time, there are even issues as to whether and to what degree aged-care facilities provide a level of clinical care. There are a number of issues that still need to be addressed, as was highlighted in the Senate inquiry. Residential aged care is going to continue to evolve, given that people are living longer and they're going into aged care with much more complex care needs. We need to make sure that we have a workforce prepared for that. We're also not adequately addressing, in my opinion, dementia care. We are not providing enough—what's the right word?—encouragement for residential aged-care providers to make the changes that are needed to properly address dementia care in residential aged care. I'll come back to that in a minute, because it also relates to the continued use of physical and chemical restraints, an issue that I have some very serious concerns about. Going back to staffing and the skills mix, the National aged care staffing and skills mix project report recommended that the amount of time for care required to prevent premature deaths and provide a safe environment for residents is four hours and 18 minutes per day, yet the national average time for care provided to aged-care residents is around two hours and 50 minutes per day. Clearly, there is a gap between the level of care that is considered optimal and what is actually provided. The research shows there is a relationship between the quality and quantity of staff and clinical outcomes for aged-care residents. Staffing ratios can improve the quality of care, reduce unsafe work practices and lead to better outcomes for residents. There's currently no requirement for minimum staff-to-resident ratios in aged care. It is time that we looked at the research supporting staff ratios in aged-care facilities, especially around having one registered nurse rostered on 24/7. This issue needs to be addressed for the reasons that I articulated earlier. It's not just about having adequate staff numbers but also about ensuring the staff and the workforce are adequately trained, paid and qualified and that the staff actually meet the needs of the residents at the time. I appreciate that ratios can be difficult to deal with, but we need to make sure that we have the staff ratios on board to meet the particular needs of residents. Some of the major issues facing the sector include high turnover of staff, difficulty attracting staff, undervalued jobs, casualisation of the workforce, skill gaps and lack of career progression. Aged-care workers often work in facilities experiencing chronic understaffing. In some cases this is leading to people not receiving the most basic care, thereby leading to preventable deaths. We are hearing, unfortunately, tragic outcomes of this in the current Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. We need to do a lot better and to build and maintain our aged-care workforce, particularly with an eye to the future. I touched briefly earlier on the issue of chemical and physical restraints. A key area for reform that the sector is currently grappling with is this particular issue in aged-care facilities. It is widely acknowledged that psychotropic medications which are used to chemically restrain people are overprescribed in aged-care facilities. The data shows that 20 to 28 per cent of aged-care residents are prescribed a regular antipsychotic every day and one-quarter of residents are prescribed benzodiazepines daily. Both physical and chemical restraints are being used to manage behavioural issues. This is incredibly risky, as all sedating psychotropic drugs increase the risk of falls and pneumonia. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights is currently investigating the new government regulations on the use of physical and chemical restraints. We have great concerns that these regulations do not go far enough, and I echo the concerns of Human Rights Watch that restraints should never be used for control, punishment, retaliation or as a measure of convenience. These restraints should only ever be used as a very last resort. There is an emerging, growing body of evidence of behavioural strategies and interventions that can be used to manage the underlying causes of challenging behaviour. These include environmental measures such as improved lighting and signage, psychosocial measures such as the provision of sensory aids and appropriate sensory stimulation, a care approach such as individualised routines and increased supervision, and physiological measures such as nutrition and hydration management. As I articulated, there's a growing body of evidence on the sorts of measures that can be taken, including cognitive behaviour management and design of facilities. I have seen a number of these. I've seen very good care which has overwhelmingly reduced the number of physical and chemical restraints that are used, so this is possible, and I think we need to be doing a lot more encouraging of aged-care facilities to make sure they're implementing these processes instead of relying on chemical restraints. We must ensure that all facilities are implementing best-practice standards that allow older people to live in a safe, secure and home-like environment and move freely without undue restriction. We shouldn't be using these sorts of restraints as a measure of convenience. I'd like to briefly touch on aged care for First Nations people. Our First Nations people are ageing at a much faster rate than the non-Indigenous population, yet we know they face significant barriers to accessing aged-care services. The government should be addressing these. These are both in the remote communities and also in urban communities, and people's cultural needs are not getting met. The cultural inappropriateness of many of the aged-care services is a key barrier to accessing appropriate services. Community engagement and cultural support are key to supporting our older First Nations people in aged care, and the aged-care royal commission has, unfortunately, heard a lot of accounts of First Nations people struggling to receive culturally appropriate, adequate aged care. At one hearing we heard how Torres Strait Islands nursing home residents are being denied access to traditional food while in care. In Darwin, the royal commission heard of an Aboriginal lady being forced to move 800 kilometres from her home to a centre in Darwin. She gave evidence to the commission and said: 'Can I ask for aged care in remote communities? We don't have aged care.' Given what we know about the importance of community for First Nations people regarding aged care, all-too-common situations like these, where people have to move hundreds of kilometres from home for aged care, are particularly harmful. We need to reset the relationship with First Nations people across this country and across many issues, including aged care. We need to make sure that First Nations aged care is community controlled and is designed and delivered by First Nations people and that First Nations organisations are delivering culturally appropriate aged-care services. Another barrier felt acutely by First Nations people is the poor provision of dementia care, which I've just touched on. We need a particular focus for First Nations people, who experience dementia at rates three to four times higher than non-Indigenous people do. That puts a whole other focus on how we deliver aged care. There are many, many issues that we are facing in the field of aged care in this country. We have an ageing population with growing expectations and needs. People are sicker as they go into residential aged care. We support this legislation but consider that we need urgent action on so many issues, including mental health. The government has moved to allocate additional funding for mental health in residential aged care, and I acknowledge that. I'm extremely concerned about the way that is being delivered, in a patchwork of measures across the country, because it's being delivered through the PHNs. I'm not having a go at the PHNs, but we don't have a consistent approach across the country. From what I have heard, through talking to many, some of the services being delivered are better than others, but at the moment we are not guaranteeing adequate mental health care for those in residential aged care. We need to lift our game on residential aged care. We've heard through the royal commission the now depressingly familiar accounts of people's lived experience. We need to do things differently. We need to lift our game. We need to make sure that we have a system that is fit for the future. Issues that have recently been aired in the media about the services delivered by Bupa, for example, should send a very strong signal both about the way our services have been delivered and that we can't continue going down that path. We support this legislation. We'll monitor its implementation and continue to help and critique the delivery of aged care in this country. We'll then push for more reform in light of the recommendations that come from the royal commission. But the royal commission cannot be used as an excuse not to take action when and where it's needed before that process. 18:32 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I'd like to make a short contribution on this bill, the Aged Care Amendment (Movement of Provisionally Allocated Places) Bill. As has already been outlined, Labor will be supporting the bill. It is fairly non-controversial legislation. It goes essentially to making procedural changes to allow the Secretary of the Department of Health to allow approved providers of residential aged care to move provisionally allocated residential aged-care places from one region to another within a state or territory. I want to take the opportunity to talk about matters involving aged care, because they have been a matter of great concern across the country generally and have given rise to a royal commission, which is underway as we speak. The issues concerning aged care have been of particular concern on the Gold Coast, in my home state of Queensland, in recent times because of the dreadful incidents we saw at the Earle Haven nursing home only a few weeks ago. For those who don't recall, what happened was that over 70 frail residents of the Earle Haven nursing home needed to be moved because of the sudden closure of that nursing home over what appears to have been a contractual dispute, although those matters are still under investigation. What was very concerning was that that sudden closure occurred after a very long history of sanctions being issued against the operators of the Earle Haven nursing home by federal government regulatory authorities. I recognise that there are a number of investigations underway, which I hope will get to the bottom of these matters, but I know that all of us in Queensland were very concerned that an operator could continue running for so long when it had such a question mark over its capacity to deliver services and to treat residents and their families properly, not to mention the staff, who were underpaid as well. There were a number of incidents where the Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union, on behalf of staff, took legal proceedings over underpayment and the failure to pay superannuation, and a number of sanctions were issued by federal authorities over very serious matters like failure to provide adequate nutrition for residents and failure to ensure hydration of residents—really basic matters that go to the health of residents in these facilities. I know that in my mind, and probably in the minds of many other people, it raised questions about how many care facilities there may be in Queensland or across the country which similarly have been the subject of many sanctions by federal authorities yet continue to go on. Those matters are under investigation. I again commend the Queensland state member for Gaven, Meaghan Scanlon, for her great leadership in managing this dispute. She was there from the first moment the problems arose and continued to be there well into the night on the day that people were moved. The problems around aged care on the Gold Coast were something she had been raising well before this incident and she has continued to do so. Also concerning in recent days has been the continuing failure of the owner of the Earle Haven facility to appear at a state government inquiry which is looking at these matters now. On two occasions now, the owner of the Earle Haven facility has failed to appear when called at this inquiry. To be fair, on both occasions he has pleaded illness, and we can only presume that he is telling the truth and there is a genuine reason for his absence. But it is important that he does come forward and participate in this inquiry so our members of parliament in Queensland can ask legitimate questions about how these events occurred. The other thing I want to point to regarding aged care generally is the worrying responses we had from the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians today during question time about very serious matters involving aged care. Now, I know that for a long period of time the Prime Minister has continued to deny that he, as Treasurer and then as Prime Minister, cut funding from aged care in Australia. Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, the facts are very clear. All you have to do is look at the budget papers and they will tell you that funding for aged care was cut by over $1 billion by the Prime Minister when he was the Treasurer of this country. It is another example, a little bit like what we saw with 'Shanghai Sam', where the Prime Minister tries to get away with saying one thing when the actual facts demonstrate he is not telling the truth. He is earning a reputation as someone whose statements can't be trusted, whether they be about former members of this parliament and nicknames that he may have decided to use against them or about other matters, including things he did to cut funding for aged care and many other services when he was the Treasurer. I know the Prime Minister wants to disown his past and the cuts that he imposed on aged care and many other services in this country but, unfortunately for him, the budget papers tell the real story, and we will continue to remind people of that. It is no surprise then that, because of the cuts that the current Prime Minister, as Treasurer, imposed on aged care, we are now seeing growing waiting lists for a range of aged-care services in this country. The opposition tried to highlight that in question time today by asking the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck, who is here now, to confirm that there are more than 129,000 older Australians waiting for their approved home care packages, an increase of 21,000 from March 2018. We got all sorts of numbers, all sorts of statistics and all sorts of explanations from the minister, Senator Colbeck, during question time but not a straight answer to the one question we actually asked. The minister then also refused to confirm that there are more than 75,000 older Australians who aren't receiving any home care package at all. What he has tried to do when being asked about people who aren't receiving home care packages—as did previous coalition ministers for aged care—is go off on a tangent and talk about the fact that some people are getting some form of assistance even though it might not be what they're actually assessed as needing, as if that is some sort of brilliant excuse. The reality is that there are tens of thousands of Australians who have been assessed by the federal government's own department as needing a certain level of aged care but are not receiving it because of the backlog on the waiting list, which is there because of the Prime Minister's cuts that he imposed when he was the Treasurer. Unfortunately for older Australians, the chickens are starting to come home to roost. Because of the cuts the Prime Minister made to aged care when he was the Treasurer, those chickens are coming home to roost and are being seen in growing waiting lists for home care and other types of aged care. The most concerning result of these cuts and the increased waiting lists is that, tragically, we have seen about 16,000 people in Australia die while being on the waiting list—16,000 older Australians who deserve our respect, our support and our assistance in their elderly years have, due to cuts that this government has imposed on aged care, died while waiting for a home care package or some other form of aged-care service. That is a disgrace and is a direct consequence of the cuts that the Prime Minister, as the then Treasurer, imposed on aged care. I really hope that the minister does take a bit more interest in the number of people who are on these waiting lists and does a bit more to try to restore the funding that his own Prime Minister took away when he was the Treasurer. 18:41 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I've come to the Senate this evening to make a contribution on this Aged Care Amendment (Movement of Provisionally Allocated Places) Bill 2019 because I think it is important to put on the public record, to put on the record of the Senate, what is in fact the real story around aged-care funding in our country and, more particularly, what is the successful story of aged-care funding in our country following the election of the coalition government. If you listened closely to what the previous speaker, Senator Watt, had to say you could hear that temptation to resort to scare tactics, the sort of commentary that is designed not to have a significant input into the policy debate but to unnecessarily scare and spook older Australians, and by extension their families, around what is happening with regard to access to home care packages in our country. The story of the development of a modern aged-care system is, I think, a story of two elements. The first is the introduction of much greater transparency into how our aged-care system works. I remember back in the very late 1990s and early 2000s that a key element of that transparency was the proper reporting and policing of aged-care homes and the establishment of the Aged Care Quality Standards Agency—I think that's what it was called. It had the responsibility of not just policing and raising the level of standards in residential aged-care homes but, importantly, making those reports transparent. What we saw as a result of that initiative, a Howard government initiative, was better standards in aged-care homes because standards became transparent. Because of that transparency, an unfortunate breach of those standards became very apparent, so people in residential aged-care homes and their families could see good aged-care homes being operated in our country but also those that needed much greater care and attention. I think that has been a particularly significant development of the Australian aged-care system. The other element, and it has been touched on here today, is access to public funding—the minister is in the chamber. This has meant that as those small numbers of Australians who require residential aged care—I think it is still only between eight and 10 per cent of older Australians who actually require residential aged care—reach that point, they get a residential aged-care service that is of a high quality that meets their needs, particularly as they start to enter higher levels of frailty, therefore requiring residential aged care and support. Of course, I think a subset of that is the growth in demand and the growth in the provisioning for home care packages—that is, the desire that older Australians have to stay in their homes for as long as they possibly can, to be cared for in their homes for as long as they can and, hopefully, to avoid going into residential aged care and having their families avoid the stress of having to make some of those difficult choices around residential aged care. I think it's important to put on the record this evening what the story is with regard to waiting times. I emphasise this point: this debate is a product of transparency. This debate exists not because it's a new issue but because it is more transparent to people now than it has been in the past. It's transparent because the coalition government has taken a conscious policy position to make the issue more transparent. It is wrong to suggest that the challenges did not exist in previous governments. I'd argue the point that they did exist; they were just invisible to many people. Let's just have a look at some of the facts in the brief time that's available to us tonight. What we know is that, in the end of the financial year data of 2018-19, there were some 125,117 Australians who had access to home care packages, compared to 99,932 at the same time last year. That is a 25 per cent increase in just one year—an increase in the access that Australians have to home care packages. I don't know about anyone else, but I would consider that a success. I would consider that a measure that gives older Australians and their families increased security and increased certainty, not less. What does that mean? That means that over 97 per cent of senior Australians waiting for a package at their assessed level have been offered some support from the Commonwealth government. This idea that somehow people are not being supported is just untrue. Ninety-seven per cent of senior Australians waiting for a package at their assessed level have been offered support from the Commonwealth government. This is also important, and this is important because, if this is what has been achieved in three months, imagine what will be achieved in 12 months or during the course of this term for the Morrison government. The list of people waiting has gone down by seven per cent in just three months—from 129,000 to 119,000. I would regard that as a successful outcome in just three months. Others will be able to tell you what the trend of that would mean over 12 months and over the course of the term of this government. It's important to recognise that a very, very clear and conscious priority of this government is to give Australians greater access to home care and greater access to residential care. In the interest of fairness, I think it is important to demonstrate that aged-care issues have been top of mind for various governments for a long period of time, and we know that, as the Australian population continues to age, the demand for home care and residential aged-care services is going to increase. And, importantly, what is also going to increase is their level of expectation about the quality of that care, so that's why it's particularly important for choice to be added to the aged-care system so that people can choose where they might get their services from, who they might get their services from and the quality of that care that they get. I think it's worth demonstrating to people just how far we have come. In 2012-13, the last years of the Labor government, there were just 60,000 home care packages—just 60,000. That increased to 124,000 in 2018-19 and is expected to grow again to 157,000 in 2022-23. What does that mean? That means a 161 per cent increase. Now, if you were listening only to the contributions of senators on the other side, you would think that less money had been going to aged care—not true. You would be thinking that the quality of aged care in our country is diminishing—not true. You would think that the waiting time is a recent or new policy challenge—not true. Waiting times are a product of transparency in the system. Let's think about this: when Labor had an opportunity just a few months ago to talk about aged care, what did they do? What did they say? At the last election, Labor provided no additional funding in their costings for home care places and no additional funding for aged-care quality, workforce or residential aged care. It's a little bit rich, even for Senator Watt—a Labor senator from Queensland, which is worth footnoting because Labor got a very, very big whack on 18 May in Queensland—and others to come to this chamber and talk about improvements to workforce, improvements to quality, improvements to care standards and concerns about waiting lists when just three months or so ago in the lead-up to 18 May they had an opportunity to put their best foot forward, and what did we get? No additional funding in their costings for home care places and no additional funding for aged-care quality, workforce or residential aged care. I could go on all evening but I'm sure we are just seeing the beginning of Labor's attempts to make aged care their latest scare campaign—to make aged-care concerns increasingly worrisome for older Australians and their families when there's no need for that. I'm sure we'll be debating these issues over the course of the next few months and during the course of this term. But, just to remind people, it is totally untrue to suggest there's been a reduction in aged-care funding. It's totally untrue that Australians have cause for concern about the quality of their aged-care services into the future. The coalition's record of achievement is strong. It's a record of achievement that's been delivered by previous aged-care ministers Kevin Andrews and Julie Bishop and Minister Colbeck, who is in the chamber now. The coalition's record is strong when it comes to providing consistent funding for improved quality in our aged-care services and to making sure Australian families have real quality choices when they come to make those very, very difficult decisions about how to care for their ageing parents into the future. 18:52 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I thank colleagues for their contributions to the debate. Much of it was quite considered, and debate is an important part of the way that we progress this very important issue for Australians—important for Australians regardless of age but particularly for those who are seeking to access services. I would particularly like to thank Senator Smith for his contribution in which he corrected the record on some of the misinformation that had been provided previously by those opposite. It is important that the debate is balanced, and thanks go to Senator Siewert for her considered comments. I know that over a long period of time she has been very passionate and attentive to this issue. It remains a significant challenge for this country to continue to provide high-quality aged care for senior Australians and their families, and they deserve access to high-quality care. As the Prime Minister has said, and as I've said on a number of occasions, it's important that we continue to strive in this space. It is an area where community demand continues to change, and we've seen that over the last two or three decades in particular, with more people looking to stay in their own residence rather than move into a residential aged-care facility. This specific piece of legislation deals with the capacity of the system to be adaptive in respect of the allocation of places, and it's important that we continue to adapt to the way that senior Australians are looking to support their aged-care needs. Importantly, this legislation—and I acknowledge the support from across the chamber for the legislation—supports approved providers to make residential aged-care places ready for use as quickly as possible. We know that constructing facilities can be sometimes difficult, time-consuming and an expensive exercise. There are significant resources required. It's not uncommon for providers to finish aged-care homes with fewer rooms than originally intended, due to planning or construction issues. Where this is the case, the Aged Care Act 1997 needs to be flexible enough to allow these leftover places to be moved to another suitable location. Similarly, a provider may find a more suitable or affordable location for an aged-care home a few minutes drive from the planning region to which the places were originally allocated. Again, the act needs to be flexible enough to allow for this. The amendments in this bill seek to add that flexibility to the act by allowing provisionally allocated residential aged-care places to be moved from one region to another where a provider can demonstrate that the movement is in the interest of aged-care consumers, there is a clear need for places in the region and it is not detrimental to the region to which the provisionally allocated places are currently allocated. The change, as I've indicated, is in the interests of all older Australians and the broader community, and it intends to remove a potential barrier to the community in accessing residential aged care, thereby aligning with the government's commitment to ensuring the delivery of high-quality aged-care places when and where they are needed. I again thank senators for their contributions and commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 72 18:56 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 As no amendments to the bill have been circulated and no senator requires a committee stage, I shall call the minister to move the third reading. 18:56 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Extend Family Assistance to ABSTUDY Secondary School Boarding Students Aged 16 and Over) Bill 2019 72

Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Extend Family Assistance to ABSTUDY Secondary School Boarding Students Aged 16 and Over) Bill 2019

Second Reading 72 18:56 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I rise to support the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Extend Family Assistance to ABSTUDY Secondary School Boarding Students Aged 16 and Over) Bill 2019. Education is critical to improving quality-of-life outcomes. Our social security system has an important role to play in providing the relevant supports necessary to ensure that all children have the opportunity to access education. There is evidence that the current rules, which withdraw family tax benefit when children at boarding schools turn 16, put enormous financial pressure on some families. This has resulted in unfavourable and unintended outcomes. Some students and families are forced into withdrawing students from school to maintain access to the family tax benefit to make ends meet. This is an untenable situation and it must be changed. As parents know, children do not get cheaper as they get older. There are significant costs associated with children in boarding school: uniforms, shoes, clothes, excursions, pocket money, haircuts, sporting equipment—the list goes on. These costs don't just stop because the child is at boarding school or because they turn 16. Abstudy is important. It's helped many school, TAFE and university students to study and thrive. The Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill indicated widespread support for these changes, but it also exposed some issues with the administration of Abstudy. These included the lack of secondary school options in local communities or closer to community; the complexity of the Abstudy system—there are seven Abstudy award types, eligibility triggers, and 12 separate payments; and administrative delays in commencing Abstudy payments for children without immunisation or birth records. There is a lack of accessible communication with families in remote areas about the accessibility of Abstudy and how it works. There is the inadequacy of payments; for some schools, the payment is not adequate to cover boarding costs. The 2019 Closing the gap report found that the school attendance target was not on track. The target was to close the gap in school attendances by 2018. As a nation, we have missed this target and there has been no improvement between 2014 and 2018. This gap is unacceptable. This progress is unacceptable. The overall attendance rate for Indigenous students is 82 per cent, compared to 93 per cent for non-Indigenous students. The gap in school attendance is evident from when the children start school. During primary school the attendance gap was around eight percentage points in 2018. Attendance falls when students reach secondary school, particularly for Indigenous students, and the attendance gap widens to 14 per cent. In remote areas, school attendance by Indigenous students is lower and the attendance gap is larger. In 2018, attendance rates for Indigenous students ranged from 86 per cent in inner regional areas to 63 per cent in very remote areas. This week we read reports that the government had cut federal funding for 100 remote community school jobs in the Kimberley region in Western Australia's north. The funding allowed remote community residents to provide services such as specialised language teachers, ground maintenance and other support roles. We know that remote schools experience many difficulties presented by geographical isolation as it is, without the added burden of federal funding cuts perpetrated by this government. Last week was Indigenous Literacy Day and this year is the International Year of Indigenous Languages. All Australians should have equal access to literacy resources, especially those children living in remote communities. First Nations Australians should have the opportunity to learn language and culture. Language and culture are integral to improving Indigenous literacy outcomes. The strengthening of identity and connection to culture is imperative to improving Indigenous quality-of-life outcomes, and it's very disappointing that this government has ended federal funding for, among other things, the specialised language services. It's also worth mentioning that these remote school jobs were funded through the government's Indigenous Advancement Strategy, which has come under immense scrutiny from the Auditor-General, who raised serious questions about the administration of the strategy and its funding decisions, which have seen $4.8 billion spent over the last five years. Labor is calling on the government to do more, because going away to boarding school is not the right option for many children. We need to invest in more options at home and closer to home. No-one should miss out on a great education because of where they live. While it suits some students and their families, boarding does not work for others. It takes young people away from the family, community, culture and language, and in many instances it exposes them to discrimination and bullying, as we heard in the Senate inquiry into this bill. We need more public and community schooling options that are close to home and culturally appropriate for Indigenous students from remote areas, and we need to make sure that, when students go to boarding school, it is a positive experience and all boarding schools attended by students from remote communities have the cultural understanding to support those students. Going away to school can be tough for any young person, potentially even more so when you're from a remote community and English is your second or third language. Abstudy has allowed thousands of students from remote communities to get a great education at boarding school and complete year 12. The changes in this bill are a step in the right direction, and Labor supports them. They will enable young Indigenous students from remote communities to reach their potential. Every young Indigenous person should be able to write their own story of success and achievement, like the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students before them, no matter where they live or what school they go to. 19:04 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Yes, Labor certainly support the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Extend Family Assistance to ABSTUDY Secondary School Boarding Students Aged 16 and Over) Bill 2019, but we have some concerns—following on from Senator Farrell—that I'd like to go into, given some of the evidence that we received throughout the Community Affairs Legislation Committee process. There is evidence that the current rules, which withdraw family tax benefits when children at boarding school turn 16, put enormous financial pressure on some families. The expenses families face when sending children away to boarding school don't cease when a child turns 16. They still need clothing, books, excursions and the 101 other expenses that come up. Children don't amazingly become less expensive as they get older. The situation with the family tax benefits is untenable and must change, but just dealing with this aspect will not deal with some of the fundamental flaws in the Abstudy system that need to be addressed. It is a reality that First Nations people still face significant barriers to accessing and completing education in Australia, especially so for students living in rural and remote areas. We heard many of these concerns during the inquiry process into this bill, and I might just give some examples there of the evidence provided to us. We heard from Remote Indigenous Parents Australia's Mrs Bennett from Beswick, who spoke about the challenges involved in completing Abstudy paperwork. Mrs Bennett said: With Abstudy itself, writing it down is very hard and challenging because you need identification and immunisation—all these questions—and a few kids haven't got birth certificates because their surname was different to what they have now. I have a niece. She's a very wonderful student here at the school. She's 14. She missed out a year towards going to boarding school because of the waiting. She's still here. Mrs Bennett was talking about a niece of hers in the Barunga Beswick region and that was just one example. We also heard from Mr Franks, the chief executive officer of Indigenous Education and Boarding Australia, who discussed the misinformation about Abstudy in the community and the need to talk to people on the ground about the scheme. He said that out in community there's misinformation about what purpose Abstudy serves, how it works and how it functions—or how it doesn't function in some cases—not only with families in the bush but also with community administration and with schools in the bush. Mr Franks advocated the need for an on-the-ground education campaign to really help people understand how the system works. I certainly emphasise to the government in moving forward with this that there needs to be an education campaign to understand Abstudy, especially given this new dimension that's going to hopefully change and pass through here so that Abstudy is available for those over 16 and so that those families out there actually have an education campaign to understand what the changes mean. That was something that came through quite clearly. We also heard from the immediate past president of the Isolated Children's Parents Association of Australia, Mrs Hick, and she spoke about how complicated the Abstudy application process is as a potential barrier for families to access the scheme. Mrs Hick said at the hearing: We have been hearing that it is very difficult for the families to get through this process. … I would assume Abstudy could be simplified as well, but it needs to be a process that families can understand and get through, because if students are missing out on getting that additional education … then it's quite difficult. So it's very clear from the evidence that came forward to the committee that there must be a very thorough campaign for all those families right across Australia, especially in our regional and remote areas, so that they do have an understanding of what these changes mean, and I'd certainly urge the government to take that on board as a very serious first step. Other issues: a report by KPMG for the Northern Territory government in 2016 found that funding provided by the Australian and NT governments for the provision of boarding facilities in school based settings was insufficient to meet costs. These issues around Abstudy were examined at a forum held here in Parliament House last week as part of Facing North. To give some context to the situation in the Northern Territory: 46.6 per cent of our student population is Aboriginal, as opposed to seven per cent nationally, and 44.2 per cent of students live in remote and very remote areas, as opposed to 2.5 per cent nationally. Enrolments decline exponentially from the end of the primary years and, on top of that, attendance declines in the middle and senior years. When these students come to boarding school in their secondary years they're often identified as having high support needs. Many have poor health outcomes, having lived in overcrowded housing, with entrenched poverty and poor nutrition. And we're also talking about very isolated communities who access this. These are communities that don't operate in the English language as a first language; usually English is a second, third or possibly fourth language. There are more than 100 Aboriginal languages and dialects in the Northern Territory alone, so the information which came back to the committee about making sure there is a widespread communication and education program is really critical. Often these children are not used to the routine and regimen of a boarding school environment and find it challenging to adapt to this way of life and learning. Their support needs from the boarding school can be intensive and complex. These schools are faced with the scenario of having to provide adequate levels of care and education, which come at significant extra cost. This is what we were hearing last week in the forum held here in Parliament House. All Northern Territory boarding schools have reported that almost 100 per cent of the Aboriginal boarding cohort are non-fee-paying students. This means the school only receives the Abstudy contribution, with some receiving even less because parents are means tested out but still do not pay a gap. The KPMG report found that difficulties and administrative burdens in claiming Abstudy had a significant impact on school revenues. It also found significant variances between schools in per-student amounts received from Abstudy. Haileybury Rendall School in Darwin provides a case in point here. The principal of Haileybury Rendall School commenced in January 2018, which is actually when the school itself commenced in Darwin after Haileybury Melbourne acquired Kormilda College, which was the college prior to Haileybury taking over. Kormilda College, which had been there for decades—in fact, since the late sixties—had to close, and Haileybury Rendall Melbourne moved to Darwin to take over the Kormilda College location. That had a significant impact on those students there, but also in particular on the families around the Top End who send their children to boarding school there. I think they were pretty much relieved with the ongoing college facilities there now with Haileybury. It has a boarding house that currently contains 75 boarders, of which 72 are Indigenous children from the remote parts of the Territory. All of the Indigenous boarders are on Abstudy. With some intensive work, Haileybury has been lifting the attendance rates and has introduced programs to lift literacy and numeracy outcomes. In their submission to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry on this bill, Haileybury said it was common for their remote Indigenous students to have been the victims of trauma, to have witnessed trauma, or both, leaving them with social and emotional issues that have to be addressed at school. These were some of the issues that we heard just listening to the evidence that was provided to the committee and also in reading the submissions to the committee. In recent years, Woolaning Homeland Christian College in the Northern Territory, and Shalom Christian College in Far North Queensland have had to close. Again, this has had tremendous impacts on the students in remote and regional areas of Australia who went to and were boarding at those places. It is quite significant for families to know that they can ensure their children are being educated right through to year 12. That's certainly something that came through again with much of the other evidence that was provided by some of the private schools. St Joseph's College and Saint Ignatius' College Riverview also provided evidence to the committee. On the whole, the families were very pleased to know that this is going to be an option. But of course, as I raised earlier on, there is a need for an education and awareness campaign, and a need to simplify the Abstudy process. The forms themselves can be quite complicated. I'd certainly encourage the government to take on board the issues that we saw raised in the Northern Territory. 19:15 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I rise to also make a contribution to the debate on the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Extend Family Assistance to ABSTUDY Secondary School Boarding Students Aged 16 and Over) Bill 2019. This bill extends family tax benefit eligibility to families of Abstudy secondary school students aged 16 or over who need to live away from home to attend school. Under current family assistance legislation, the family is no longer eligible to receive FTB once an Abstudy secondary school student who boards away from home turns 16. Clearly, this is nonsensical in this instance. This can represent a significant drop in income support for families that can be as high as $6,900 per year. FTB supports families with the cost of raising children and should continue to be paid until a student finishes school. This bill will address a significant area of need for families and will assist with covering the costs of clothing, medicines and pocket money when students are away at boarding school. It basically addresses a very significant anomaly. It will, it is anticipated, increase year 12 completion rates for First Nations students. The Greens support this bill as it addresses a key policy gap by ensuring families of Abstudy students are eligible for FTB until they finish year 12. The Community Affairs Legislation Committee held a short inquiry into the bill. During the committee process, several submitters also identified problems with the broader Abstudy scheme. While supporting this particular bill, they took the opportunity to articulate some concerns they had. Having heard these concerns, we share those concerns, some of which I would like to highlight today. To remind people: Abstudy is an important scheme available to First Nations students which aims to encourage First Nations people to take full advantage of the educational opportunities available, promote equity of education opportunity and improve educational outcomes. Unfortunately, the Abstudy scheme in its current form is not meeting some of these objectives, according to the witnesses that we heard from—or any of these objectives. First Nations people still face significant barriers to accessing and completing education in Australia. This is particularly true for students living in rural and remote areas, and Senator McCarthy has just very eloquently articulated some of the problems for those students. In 2018, attendance rates for First Nations students ranged from 86 per cent in inner regional areas to 83 per cent in very remote areas. The Closing the Gap report in 2019—obviously, this year—shows that we are not on track to close the gap between First Nations people and non-Indigenous people in a number of areas, including in school attendance. Attendance rates for First Nations students did not improve between 2014 and 2018. I'd like to articulate just a few of the concerns that people expressed. They talked about the current application process being complicated and said that it acts as a potential barrier to families wanting to access the scheme. I acknowledge that the department outlined to us how it had attempted to improve the situation and to improve the application process. However, it appears that this isn't fully meeting the needs of families. Families— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 76 ADJOURNMENT Workplace Relations 76 19:20 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Last week the US state of California took an important stand for its working families, the people who built the state into the sixth-largest economy in the world. The California legislature voted to disrupt the disruptors. It passed an important law, one that requires gig economy companies like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart to treat their workers like employees, not as independent contractors with no rights. It is a law that will set a precedent that other states and countries could follow. California's Democratic governor is backing the law because, while the wealthiest are reaping an unprecedented share of the fruits of the globalised information economy, the middle class in the US is shrinking, and many people are being shut out of decent and secure work. I'll read out part of the words of the California governor, Gavin Newsom. He is telling us something that is important about how we as a country can prepare for what is called the fourth industrial revolution. The governor is not talking about apps or robots or taking up the latest technology. He is talking about people and the future of work. He is talking about why people need labour rights and why they need labour unions to defend those rights. Announcing his support for this law protecting workers in the gig economy, he said: Working people have lost their bargaining power. The laws and institutions that help them share in the prosperity that they help create have been chipped away—one outsourced factory, one rollback of a financial regulation, one anti-labor law at a time. He said it was no coincidence that at a time when 'union membership has fallen, the share of income going to the top 10 percent has skyrocketed' and the 'economy has stopped working for working people'. What is driving the undermining of workers rights? It is a business model that relies on the wholesale misclassification of workers. Companies eager to save on labour costs identify workers as independent contractors with no rights, rather than as employees with rights. The governor is describing California, but he could also be talking about Australia. Our economy and social safety net are not the same as that of the US, but, make no mistake, the disruption is coming to all corners of our economy. If we do not act, more and more Australians across industries will be condemned to a life with little secure work. All workers deserve fair pay, fair conditions and superannuation, no matter where they work or what they do for a living. In Australia, unions are leading the fight for decent work in the face of the enormous lobbying power of companies like Uber, Deliveroo and Foodora. Last year, Joshua Klooger, who worked as a delivery rider for Foodora, bravely stood up to that company and won his case in the Fair Work Commission that he was an employee, not a contractor. Josh went on to say: Over time I saw they weren't caring about drivers who were out there and doing all the hard work and it's time someone stepped in and made some rules for companies to abide by. Josh wasn't alone, because he had the backing of his union, the Transport Workers Union. So why won't the government stand up for people like Josh? Instead of backing Australian workers, this government has for six years presided over a spike in insecure work, underemployment and wage theft. We know quite clearly what side the Liberals and the National Party are on. The Morrison government's so-called 'ensuring integrity' bill would put further restrictions, unprecedented in the developed world, on freedom of association and the right of people to organise. Meanwhile, working people need unions to fight for them more than ever. Without unions all kinds of workers, from the transport, retail and hospitality industries to accountants and information technology workers, will be shut out of the opportunities of the emerging information and artificial-intelligence-driven economy. (Time expired) Victoria: Rugby Union 77 19:25 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria As a proud Victorian and resident of Australia's most liveable city, it gives me pleasure to rise this evening to speak about rugby in my home state. It may surprise senators from the northern states that rugby in Victoria is growing. The state continues to make a notable contribution to the sport in Australia. After all, we are the state of the distinguished Australian Weary Dunlop, who, amongst many things, had the honour of being the first Victorian to play for the Wallabies. We are the state of Ewen McKenzie, who played 51 test matches before going on to coach our nation. The history of rugby in Australia spans over 140 years. It was in 1878 that the first ever recorded rugby match on Victorian soil was played. That game, between the Carlton Football Club and Sydney's Waratah club, ended in a disputed draw. Ten years later the Melbourne Rugby Union formed, laying the foundation for a strong, vibrant and growing rugby community. From humble beginnings, there are now 27 clubs and over 20,000 participants—men, women and children—competing in juniors, seniors, school competitions, rugby sevens and touch. The mighty Melbourne Rebels are coming up to a decade in Super Rugby. I look forward to seeing them play finals footy next year. Rugby Victoria should be commended for their work in promoting and growing the sport in recent years. I'm sure Senator Hume would join me in these remarks. They have had significant achievements in securing six major Wallabies tests over the next eight years and the 2020 Bledisloe Cup. At a grassroots level, they have secured new funding for upgrades to many facilities that will help grow the sport and develop new and emerging players, including women. Tonight I'm also delighted to place on the record my congratulations to Rugby Victoria on an excellent 2019 season and to salute the 2019 winners of the Dewar Shield, Lindroth Cup and other senior club competitions. This year's season culminated in a brilliant day of finals on 24 August, with eight matches played at the RHL Sparks Reserve near my electoral office in Box Hill. In the Lindroth Cup women's competition, Power House were victorious over the Northern Panthers 13 to 10. Like the two meetings between the teams earlier in the season, the Panthers put up a good fight, but Power House edged them out in a close result. Congratulations must go to Carmen Landkauf, who was awarded the Lindroth Cup Player of the Year. In the last match of the day, the Unicorns triumphed over Box Hill 37 to 15, taking home the Dewar Shield for the 20th time. The match was closer than the score suggests, with Box Hill putting in a strong showing. Rising star Michael Moloney from Box Hill was awarded the Dewar Shield Player of the Year. I want to congratulate Rugby Victoria, their board and the whole team on a fantastic 2019 season and on their recent work to secure a bright future for rugby union in Victoria. I'm sure you will join me, Mr Acting Deputy President Brockman, as we wish the Wallabies all the very best in the upcoming World Cup in Japan. Israel 77 19:29 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales National elections are taking place in Israel today. Benjamin Netanyahu has announced that if he is re-elected as Prime Minister he'll move to annex the Jordan Valley and other territory in the West Bank, in what the UN has called the first step to applying Israeli sovereignty over all settlements and other areas in the occupied West Bank. The Jordan Valley accounts for nearly 30 per cent of the territory in the West Bank, to say nothing of Israeli settlements in the wider West Bank, which Netanyahu has also promised to annex. In fact, earlier this month he said that he aspires to apply Israeli sovereignty on all of the West Bank settlements. Palestinian communities in the West Bank have been living their lives under occupation for more than 50 years. This means restrictions to their freedom of movement; their access to basic necessities like water, electricity and education; and their ability to improve their economic situation by building infrastructure or trading with other countries. Further annexations represent a continued violation of Palestinian rights and international law and, if it goes ahead, will spell the end of any meaningful peace process or realistic chance of achieving a lasting two-state solution, the internationally agreed parameter and consensus for resolving this age-old conflict. The proposed annexation has been condemned by the Palestinians, Arab states, the European Union and the United Nations. This week the spokesman for the Secretary-General of the United Nations said: The Secretary-General is concerned by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's statement declaring his intention, if elected, to annex the Jordan Valley and northern Dead Sea as a first step to applying Israeli sovereignty over all settlements and other areas in the occupied West Bank. Such steps, if implemented, would constitute a serious violation of international law. They would be devastating to the potential of reviving negotiations and regional peace, while severely undermining the viability of the two-State solution. He went on to say: The United Nations remains committed to supporting Palestinians and Israelis to resolve the conflict on the basis of relevant United Nations resolutions, the Madrid terms of reference, including the principle of land for peace, the Arab Peace Initiative and the Quartet Road Map, as well as in compliance with prior agreements between the Government of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, and realizing the vision of two States — Israel and an independent, democratic, contiguous and viable Palestinian State — living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, on the basis of the pre-1967 borders. Italy, Germany, France, Spain and the United Kingdom have released a joint statement that says that they: … call on all parties to refrain from actions in contravention of international law that would imperil the viability of a two-state solution, based on the 1967 lines, and make it harder to achieve a just and lasting peace. There is international consensus in relation to these matters. Australia has a responsibility to call out violations of human rights and international law when we see them happening. I hope the international community calls on Israel to refrain from these annexations if we want to have any hope of a two-state solution that delivers justice and peace for the Palestinian people and a lasting peace that enhances the security of Israel and the region. I note that the previous contribution from Senator Ciccone dealt with some very significant sporting matters in the state of Victoria. I was disappointed once again in a contribution from our Victorian colleagues that doesn't recognise the importance of the only game that really matters this Friday night: that between the working-class heroes of the South Sydney Rabbitohs and the silvertails from Manly and the northern beaches. As I cast my eyes around this chamber, I'm confident that everybody in the chamber would share my view that this is the most important game of the 21st century and we wish the Rabbitohs all the very best! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 I'll leave you to sort that out with your colleagues! Manufacturing 78 19:33 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Last week, the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology, the Hon. Karen Andrews, announced funding to support manufacturers in Australia. I'm going to begin by saying Labor welcomes this funding and any funding for the industry to help it grow and become more globally competitive. But—and there is a big 'but'—this announcement of some $50 million is but a slap in the face, frankly, after the Liberal government has slashed some $4 billion in research and development tax incentives since taking office. It's a short-term quick fix to a problem that needs a long-term solution, and that solution is more investment with research and development. As the shadow assistant minister for manufacturing, I've begun meeting with numerous manufacturers, industry bodies and academics from around the country and all of them have reiterated how important research and development is to the future of manufacturing industries in Australia. In May this year, the Productivity Commission highlighted in PC productivity bulletin that investment in research and development is falling and the share of business innovators is no longer growing. It reads: The current weakness in labour productivity can be partly attributed to a marked slowdown in investment in capital … This is troubling because investment typically embodies new technologies, which complement people's skill development and innovation. This is especially so for investment in research and development, where capital stocks are now falling. It appears that the government's answer to the problem is throwing a small amount of cash at businesses to upgrade their technology and develop their skills to grow labour productivity. But the simple fact is that this is but a drop in the ocean. It is not enough and it is not a long-term answer to the problems associated with the lack of investment that Australia is experiencing. We do need to do something to drive more capital investment into Australian industry, particularly into research and development. I firmly believe that government has a clear role in driving this investment. In fact, the 2017 Sector competitiveness plan by the Advanced Manufacturing Growth Centre has set out actions for a Commonwealth government. They've proposed improving the design of Australian government support for business-led R&D as they say it's currently 'not suited to achieving different research and development outcomes required for the global competitiveness that our nation needs, nor does it deliver the new technology and growth our nation needs to prosper.' They also argue that the government should be approaching research and development in two ways: direct research and development investment in higher risk and longer-term projects, and through research and development tax incentives to incentivise business to carry out their research and development here in Australia. What are the risks of not investing in this way? As the Productivity Commission has said, the investment has, in part, already led to a loss of labour productivity in our nation. Australia will continue to lose its economic complexity, which is the knowledge intensity of the economy, by considering the knowledge intensity of the products it exports. So without this within our economy we're likely to become more reliant on imports than producing unique products for export. This is simply not on. We've had a strong record in Labor on research and development. We went to the election with a strong plan. A lot of the debate at the moment is around the way the economy is, and rightly so. While we talk about infrastructure and investment as a fix to the sluggish economy, we cannot leave this issue of research and development, and creating investment leverage off that, alone. We have to get in there and make sure that we are supporting research and development in our nation. (Time expired) Northern Territory: Community Events, Campbell, Ms Shirleen 79 19:38 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I would like to tell the Senate about something pretty awesome that happened last month. It was the highlight of Darwin's dry season calendar, the Darwin Festival, which in August celebrated its 40th year with great success. It's the time of year when the Top End becomes the envy of the southern states. The weather is perfect—there's low humidity, no clouds in the sky—and the city comes alive. This year more tickets were sold to Darwin Festival than at any other time in its 40-year history. That's a testament to the festival program, the festival team and the people of Darwin. Congratulations to all those involved. In particular, I was pleased to attend so many events recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture and talent—kicking off with From Country to Couture. The Darwin Aboriginal Art Fair Foundation presented two fashion shows, showcasing collaborations between Indigenous artist centres and designers. You should come next year, Mr Acting Deputy President Brockman! This included textile art from art centres across Australia, such as Anindilyakwa Arts on Groote Island; the Tangentyere Artists from Alice Springs' town camps; Warmun Art Centre in WA; Bula'bula Art Centre in Ramingining; and Munupi, Jilamara, Ngaruwanajirri and Bima Wear artists from the Tiwi Islands. This year also saw a special collaboration between Mangkaja Arts in Western Australia and fashion brand Gorman, establishing a national benchmark in fashion-licensing rights for the Mangkaja artists' rights. Gorman has collaborated with more than 80 local and Indigenous artists in the past 10 years, but this was the label's first collaboration with First Nations designers. From Country to Couture put on a proud display of the incredible First Nations talent we have in remote Indigenous art centres nationwide and fused traditional techniques like the hand weaving of native bushland materials with a contemporary fashion platform. It was wonderful see such a showcase of cultural stories in textile art. In particular, I wish to acknowledge Bima Wear, the Tiwi women's creative enterprise based in Wurrumiyanga on Bathurst Island. This year, Bima Wear celebrates 50 years of enterprise, proudly owned and operated by Tiwi women who design, print and manufacture everyday, occasion and ceremonial wear celebrating their Tiwi language and culture. Indeed, Bima Wear was the Territory's very first fashion label, established in 1969 with the assistance of Sister Eucharia. I want to recognise the work of Lucia Pilakui, now 68, who has been involved in Bima Wear since it was first established. While she took a break to get treatment for breast cancer, today she helps train the next group of women making clothes featuring the islands' prints. Their anniversary collection, in collaboration with Tiwi fashion designer Clair Helen, featured in the From Country to Couture fashion show. And while they now cater to mainstream Australia, they continue to make sure Bima Wear is accessible and affordable for its own community. On the theme of Aboriginal art, winners of the Telstra National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Awards, NATSIAA, were announced at a special event in August. It's a great month in Darwin, August! This was at the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. This year, 68 finalists were selected to exhibit their works, and winners were announced across seven categories. Djambawa Marawili from Yilpara in North East Arnhem Land took out the prestigious Telstra award with his bark painting, Journey to America 2018, while a number of other Territory artists also took awards home. It is an incredible painting, Mr Acting Deputy President, so if you get the chance have a look at that one of Djambawa Marawili's. It was certainly a fabulous night, and congratulations to all the finalists and to the category winners. But wait, there's more that happened! The National Indigenous Music Awards saw a record-breaking crowd come together to celebrate the best in First Nations music from around the country. As many performers commented on the night, it was evidence of the diversity of First Nations music right across Australia. Jessica Mauboy, Archie Roach, Dan Sultan, Electric Fields, even Deborah Cheetham, Tasman Keith, Spinifex Gum, Eric Avery and the Kenbi Dancers were just some of the performers. I could go on! I was honoured to present— Senator Siewert interjecting— Senator McCARTHY 122087 Come next year, Senator Siewert! I was honoured to present the award for Artist of the Year to the 'Fresh Prince of Arnhem Land' himself and Young Australian of the Year, Baker Boy. Congratulations to all of the award winners and the nominees of the 2019 National Indigenous Music Awards. Now I'd like to change the topic from a festival of events in August to some pretty tasty food from the Top End from Humpty Doo Barra. I'd like to mention a local Darwin family business that's going from strength to strength. The Humpty Doo barramundi farm, located outside of Darwin, is Australia's largest producer of barramundi in the country. You didn't know that, did you, Mr Acting Deputy President? Well, it is. Run by Dan Richards and his father, Bob, the farm in the last 12 years has grown from having just four workers to now employing 88 staff full time. They sell 66,000 kilograms of fish per week, their best-practice harvest techniques ensuring excellent quality fish are distributed Australia-wide in the best condition, including through Woolworths. I headed out there recently with my Queensland Senate colleague the shadow minister for northern Australia, Murray Watt, who was in Darwin. I took him along and we met Dan, and Dan showed us around. We saw the ponds holding 20,000 to 30,000 fish. We saw the work being done to bulldoze and excavate parts of their land to expand the farm by 30 per cent. And we saw the boxes to send out fish twice a week to restaurants and supermarkets across Australia. I was so proud to see this local business supporting local jobs and our community. Obviously, it was an opportunity to get a briefing directly from Dan and his family about the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility and the significance of how NAIF will be important to this family, who are trying to expand even more into the Australian market. Senator Watt and I were also able to attend the Tourism Top End general meeting, where we heard from the tourism sector about how business was going during the dry season and the challenges for business operators in the Top End. Naturally, we know the dry season month, especially with the festival that I mentioned, brings a lot of tourists, but there is so much more that can be done. To those tourism operators who are coming together on a regular basis: it was terrific to listen to some of your stories at the meeting that night and also to see the new tourism entrants who had joined the membership. Finally, I want to extend my heartfelt congratulations to Shirleen Campbell, who is a finalist in the AFR 100 Women of Influence Awards. Shirleen is someone I feel privileged to have met. Shirleen came here to Parliament House with women from the Tangentyere women's group in Alice Springs. Shirleen is a proud Warlpiri and Arrernte woman who provides a strong voice for women, children and men who are experiencing family and domestic violence. Shirleen was pivotal to the development of the Tangentyere Women’s Family Safety Group, a group of women from Alice Springs town camps who work to make families and communities safer. That group travelled from Alice Springs to Canberra last year to bring their message to parliamentarians here in the Senate and in the other chamber, the House of Reps. One woman a week is murdered by her current or former partner and one in three Australian women experience physical violence from the age of 15. For First Nations women it is much worse. Shirleen is taking a stand, and I am pleased to see that stand recognised by the AFR as one of their women of influence. So, Shirleen, this is for you. Congratulations to you. As a senator for the Northern Territory, I'm enormously proud of the work that you do and the women at Tangentyere do for all our families in and around Alice Springs town camps and in and around Central Australia, but in fact right across Australia. You're an incredible role model. Keep up the good work. To all the women there: thank you for what you do. Disability Support Pension 80 19:48 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Today, here at Parliament House, the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations launched three significant reports into the disability support pension and its operations: firstly, Inequalities in standards of living: evidence for improved income support for people with disability; secondly, At what cost? Indigenous Australians' experiences of applying for disability income support; and, thirdly, The health of disability support pension and Newstart allowance recipients. There are over two million Australians aged between 15 and 64 who report having a mild to profound disability, yet only 35 per cent of these people receive the DSP. Successive federal governments have chipped away at the DSP. In 2006, the Howard government introduced Welfare to Work, making it harder for disabled people to access the DSP and requiring onerous participation requirements. Subsequently, Labor tightened the eligibility criteria and made the application more onerous. In 2012, new impairment tables were released, which focused more on a disabled person's ability to work than their disabling condition. The government also introduced the so-called program of support, requiring people with a disability to undertake a program of 18 months trying to find work—or, as many put it, to be unemployed on Newstart while they tried to access the disability support pension. It's now so difficult that disabled people are being shut out of the DSP at staggering rates. As a result of these changes, the number of new DSP recipients per year has decreased from 89,000 in 2009-10 to around 32,000 in 2016-17. There has been a massive, 30 per cent, increase in the number of disabled people on Newstart. There are now over 200,000 disabled Australians living on Newstart when they really should be on the DSP. The abysmally low rate of Newstart is only serving to exacerbate financial stress and other stress for disabled people. We currently have a situation where a disabled person could be eligible for the NDIS but not eligible for the DSP. This is simply unbelievable. It goes against the very fabric of our social safety net and the very reasons we have the DSP. It goes against our responsibilities under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Under the convention, disabled people have the right to an adequate standard of living and social protection. People who need the DSP should have access to the DSP. Reports on the DSP also highlight the urgent need for reforms. What these reports show overall is that the system has been made worse, that people have less access to the DSP, that they are sicker, that it has caused them harm and that the punitive approach does not work; in fact, it has ripped massive holes in our social safety net for people with disability. The National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, NATSEM, found that disabled people on the DSP have higher living costs and poorer health outcomes than people without disability. It found that the income gap between households with disability and households without is $107 a week. In other words, it costs an extra $107 a week for a household with an adult member with a disability. To close the gap in household income to provide the same standard of living, families already receiving the DSP would need $183 more per week, on average. People with disability living on Newstart would need an additional $343 per week, on average. Remember the 200,000 people with disability living on Newstart that I talked about? Another report, released from Monash University just last week, highlighted the stark differences in the health status of DSP recipients. This report found that DSP recipients had 2½ times the rate of hospital admissions, while 69 per cent of DSP recipients reported experiencing mental or behavioural problems. They were also significantly more likely to report having five or more health conditions, while 48.6 per cent of people on Newstart reported experiencing mental or behavioural problems. A report by Western Sydney University looking at First Nations people's experiences with applying for the DSP found that First Nations people experience around twice the rate of disability as non-Indigenous Australians. The report found that First Nations disabled people experience more barriers to fulfilling eligibility criteria and accessibility requirements for the DSP, increased transportation limitations and increased financial costs in obtaining specialist reports. First Nations people experience significant challenges communicating with Centrelink and often delayed contacting Centrelink due to extended wait times. These three studies clearly demonstrate that the DSP is too low and that the system is broken and hurting people. I will give you a glimpse of the lived experience of someone who had a very stressful experience trying to access the DSP. This is Philippa's experience. Philippa said: I never once questioned whether they would accept my application for disability, I always assumed that based on the criteria and my conditions that I was clearly eligible and would receive the Disability Support Pension. I first began experiencing symptoms of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Fibromyalgia when I was in my twenties and was formally diagnosed at 31. During this time, I was scared, dealing with horrific, disabling symptoms, grieving the person I was and a career and friends I had to let go of - I honestly thought that Centrelink would act in my best interest. I submitted my application to the best of my ability and trusted it was enough. When I contacted the Centrelink Calf Centre I was constantly on hold and hung up on. Despite being limited in my functioning I would go in to my local office as it was easier and I thought if they saw how sick I was face to face they could speed things up. That didn't work and the inconsistency of the advice received, and staff knowledge was hard to manage. I was being told different things by different people. I applied in early 2017 and was rejected in September 2017 due to insufficient medical evidence. I appealed with the new information and followed up constantly. Eventually in July 2018 I found out that my application was again denied again. Eventually my father contacted our local MP and my local MP advocated for me with Centrelink. Centrelink escalated my application. All this effort resulted in Centrelink advising me to make a fresh application for the DSP but I'm too traumatised to be honest to open that door again. The whole situation has been incredibly stressful and confusing. It may seem hard to understand why I don't make a fresh application for the DSP. The experience with Centrelink — making me go to job search providers who were just shocked I was there, telling me I should be on the DSP but that they also couldn't help me achieve that. I still can't quite understand how an agency that is there to support you when you really need it was so inconsistent and careless in their advice both in person and over the phone. They should have done more, if they had communicated effectively with me from the beginning and provided the right advice my stress and trauma levels would be drastically reduced. The stress and trauma I experienced as a person with a disability applying for a Disability Support Pension was so extreme that I cannot face that again. I am currently on Newstart, but I am exempted from the requirement to look for work as I am too unwell. I often have to sleep 20 hours a day whilst suffering from a vast array of symptoms that continue to affect my daily functioning and physical and cognitive output. What Philippa experienced should not happen to anyone in Australia. I am pleading with the government to undertake urgent reforms to the DSP to ensure that people who need to be on the DSP are on the DSP. This is the result of a flawed system. This is where all those changes to the system to kick people off and exclude people from DSP have led us—to people being sicker, people being on Newstart living below the poverty line with a disability. This is the outcome of a punitive approach that seeks to demonise people accessing our social safety net. It is not good enough. We talk about being a country of the fair go and yet this is what happens to disabled people in this country with a system that makes them sicker, that makes them not want to apply because the process is so bad. It needs to be fixed immediately. Tasmania 82 19:58 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to discuss the local economy innovation in my home state of Tasmania, and a Prime Minister only interested in self-promotion instead of the health of Tasmanians. Tasmania continues to strive and succeed in innovation, thanks to previous investments by state and federal Labor governments into education and training. This evening I want to outline the important and successful story of the enterprise innovation hub in Macquarie House in Launceston. In August this year, this exciting project was open for the public to see and it has been a long eight years in the making. The $2.8 million refurbishment of Macquarie House is a marvel, and if it weren't for the former federal Labor government this project would not have come to fruition. In 2013 the project secured federal funding, which covered the majority of the costs for the construction and renovation, which finally took place this year. It has been a battle to see this project delivered, but the project was supported in the end by both sides of politics, along with local businesses in Launceston, the Launceston city council and the University of Tasmania. It is an example of what is possible when individuals come together for better outcomes for the community. The purpose of the Enterprize innovation hub was born out of an idea from young entrepreneur James Riggall, who is a Launceston resident, founder of Bitlink, former president of Startup Tasmania, former community manager at Enterprize and former educational designer at UTAS. Mr Riggall's intention was to build a co-working space and business accelerator in Launceston for innovators. Finally, after much work, lobbying and courage, his vision has been delivered. There have been delays, changes of government and a whole range of challenges along the way, but now Launceston is one of the best places in Australia to build a start-up. This really has been a community project, with engineers giving their personal time to look at Macquarie House and journalists doing what they can to spread the word of the exciting hub. More recently, the Macquarie House project has been spearheaded by Enterprize and the Enterprize team, based in Launceston. There's going to be a new cafe-restaurant in the basement of Macquarie House. The Enterprize co-working space and start-up incubator will be located on the ground floor. On the first floor, UTAS will be undertaking their accelerated Bachelor of Business program, and the top floor of the building will be an event space not only for Enterprize but for other organisations who want to lease it. I hope that, in the years to come, thousands of Tasmanians use this space to benefit the entire community. I would like to take a moment to congratulate all those involved in this project. I would like to thank Jason Clare, the former shadow minister for communications; the former member for Bass, Geoff Lyons; former prime ministers Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd; and all the community activists who made this project a reality. What has been achieved here is staggering. Macquarie House is an 1830s four-storey building in the heart of Launceston which sat vacant for decades. It has been transformed into a co-working space to support start-ups in the technology, digital and creative industries, which is a wonderful achievement. I will read a quote from James Riggall, who has championed this project from the beginning, because I couldn't say it any better than he has. He said: The vision behind the Macquarie House project was always that Launceston could be as great a place to build a startup company as anywhere else in the world. In 2013, when the project was first proposed, there were few projects of its kind in regional Australia. There seemed to be a sense that startup communities could only be built in major cities. The Macquarie House project challenged that idea and the original vision of building a thriving startup community in Tasmania continues to drive not only the Macquarie House project but also related projects like the Enterprize startup hubs in Hobart and Launceston. In many ways, the Macquarie House project staked a claim on a new future for Tasmania, a vision that is now being realised through a range of different projects. Today, the Macquarie House project is only part of Tasmania's startup story, but it was an important precursor for other projects that followed it, and it continues to play an important role. While I have time, I just want to touch on the fact that the Prime Minister was in Launceston on Saturday, when he officially cut the ribbon for this project. I welcome his visiting Launceston and seeing the project in its final stages. However, I must make comment about the circumstances of the visit and what the Prime Minister failed to do. He didn't acknowledge the work of the then communications minister. I was at those meetings when we toured Macquarie House and we spoke to James about the innovation and the project going forward. Unfortunately, it's even worse than that. The Prime Minister visited Launceston and the seat of Bass without acknowledging, let alone addressing, the issue of access to health for over 500,000 Tasmanians. Mr Morrison's visit displays to Tasmanians the intent of his prime ministership—that is, he's an advertising man who likes a good news story, but he isn't interested in rolling up his sleeves and tackling the health crisis in Tasmania. Our health system is broken. The Prime Minister was a mere 200 metres from the Launceston General Hospital on Friday night as he continued at Sporties his coronation from the 18 May election. However, he failed to address the biggest issues facing Launceston. One is bed block—emergency department waiting times, surgery wait times and undervalued and stressed medical fraternity. There are over 9,500 people in Tasmania waiting for elective surgery. Furthermore, only 43 per cent of patients in Bass have all GP visits bulk-billed. But the Prime Minister just ignored these realities. The state and federal Liberals have cut over $210 million from Tasmanians' health system, and consequently our health system is broken. The fact that the Prime Minister wouldn't even visit the Launceston General Hospital and look patients, doctors and nurses in the eyes says it all. This Prime Minister is a good-news prime minister and nothing more, just like the good-news Premier of Tasmania: they are both only interested in photo opportunities and good-news stories. The member for Bass, Ms Bridget Archer, would have assisted in putting together the Prime Minister's schedule, and yet she avoided talking about the most important issues facing our community. Clearly Ms Archer has no influence or standing with the Prime Minister. If she did, she would have taken the Prime Minister to the Launceston General Hospital. What Tasmanians expect from their government members, from their Prime Minister and indeed from their state's Premier are solutions to our broken health system. The medical fraternity is at wits' end. They know as well as anyone—if not better than us as politicians—how broken the health system is. We're at crisis point. We find Tasmanians spending 36 to 48 hours in accident and emergency, waiting to get a bed. This has such a devastating effect on these patients. We need to support all the staff, from the doctors to the cleaners, in our health system to ensure the best outcomes for them so that they have job satisfaction and they aren't dealing with additional stress because of the lack of funding. This was a litmus test for the Prime Minister; but, no, he failed that test just as he fails all Tasmanians when he neglects the health system that is so critical to every community. (Time expired) Energy 83 20:09 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Yesterday I rose and spoke about the Governor-General's speech. I don't want to repeat what I said yesterday, but in general terms I found that the Governor-General's speech, which of course is the government's speech, was something that was pretty uninspiring. It laid out a bunch of housekeeping things that Australia needed to keep doing, but there was no vision in there. There was nothing in there that would excite Australians into thinking that we have a way forward that's going to be really good for everyone. One thing I did talk about, however, was some concerns I had regarding the extraction and export of Australia's oil and gas resources by multinational companies across Australia without Australia maximising the benefit from these finite resources. I want to expand on those concerns that I raised yesterday. The Australian economy has a high dependency on the extraction and supply of natural resources, of which our oil and gas sector is a significant component. In 2018, natural gas and crude petroleum combined represented an 11.7 per cent share of Australia's total exports. The discovery and extraction of oil and gas have delivered substantial benefits to many nations around the world. Senator McKenzie 207825 Hear, hear! Senator PATRICK 144292 Don't get too excited yet, Senator McKenzie. When people think of crude oil and the petroleum industry, an image is conjured up of the Middle East, sheikhs and a region that's gone from nomadic tribes roaming the desert with camels to gold-plated supercars racing down multilane highways. That is something of an exaggeration, but it is true to say that countries that have significant oil and gas resources are generally pretty well off. As we develop the resources and extract them, we get some general advantages. It doesn't matter what country you're in; you get infrastructure advantages, both directly from the facilities and indirectly. You get roads and other things that might lead to facilities; you get jobs, both direct and indirect; and you get the local expenditure on goods and services. What I want to focus on here and now is the taxes and royalties that come from the extraction of oil and gas, the money that gets returned to consolidated revenue in exchange for the extraction and exporting of these resources. That's my focus. I want to caveat things a little bit. I will give some comparisons between what happens here in Australia and what happens in other jurisdictions. It's not quite apples and apples. I am not going to pretend that I'm giving direct comparisons. I just want to give the chamber a bit of an idea. On the home front, particularly in the federal space, there are two tax elements on the oil and gas industry. We have corporate tax and we have PRRT, petroleum resource rent tax. To give you an idea of a corporate tack, it is a bit of a shocker. I just want people to get a feel for what the story is. According to tax transparency data, ExxonMobil Australia, over four years, earned $33 billion in revenue. Guess how much tax they paid? Zero. That's not a good return for the Australian taxpayer. Origin Energy earned $51 billion and paid about $108 million in tax. Shell earned $52 billion in revenue over four years and paid $1.1 billion in tax. I can see Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle shaking his head a little bit. It gets worse, sorry. I know that total revenue is not taxable income—I get that—but, whatever way you look at this, there's not much of a return to the Australian taxpayers. In Australia, income to the state from the oil and gas sector is dominated by multinationals, and the bottom line is that it's substantially lower than one would expect. In the 2016-17 financial year, three of the larger entities, ExxonMobil Australia—I've mentioned them already—Chevron Australia Holdings and ConocoPhillips Australia Gas Holdings had a combined turnover of $11.6 billion and paid zero corporate tax. In terms of PRRT, it's a little bit difficult because there's not a lot of data out there that you can draw on for a comparison, but it's pretty sobering. Across the same year, 2016-17, those entities that I mentioned before also paid zero dollars in PRRT. So they're taking this finite resource, extracting it and exporting it, and we're getting pretty much nothing other than those things I talked about—jobs, indirect jobs and so forth. I went looking to see what happens elsewhere. I found that Norway was a particularly interesting case. As far back as 1972 the Norwegian parliament established a collection of principles to be applied in the development of Norwegian oil. These principles included: (1) national supervision and control must be ensured for all operations on the Norwegian continental shelf; (2) petroleum discoveries must be exploited in a way that makes Norway as independent as possible in its supply of crude oil; (3) the development of an oil industry must take necessary account of the protection of nature and the environment. Of course they're all important things. On top of that there's an underlying understanding that the state must aim for the greatest possible share of economic benefit which can be provided to the broader community. I want to run through the 2018-19 figures. Once again I have moved years around, I accept that, but it's the order of magnitude that will shock the chamber. In 2018-19—remembering those numbers I talked about before in Australia—the taxes paid by Equinor were A$22 billion. They also paid environmental taxes and fees of about $1 billion. And because it's a state owned company, the dividend paid to the state by Equinor was about $3 billion. These are huge amounts of money, and that is but one example. By the way, money goes from Equinor into a Norwegian sovereign wealth fund. I encourage everyone to google the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund and have a look at it. They have a big number showing on the screen. You really have to focus on the number of zeros. But I can tell you that there is over $1 trillion sitting in their wealth fund. It is deemed to be the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world. The point I'm making is that right now in Australia we are struggling in terms of getting revenue out of oil and gas, and I think we need to change that. I don't think we need to change it the way that we did on the last sitting day of the last parliament, when we tweaked the PRRT. There are a number of national oil and gas companies around the world, such as China National Petroleum Corporation, Indian Oil Corporation, Korean National Oil Company, Kuwait Petroleum Corporation. There is a long list of these companies that are national companies set up to extract and export their oil and gas and return a significant amount back to their consolidated revenue. We are doing something wrong. I am not suggesting that we go in and nationalise or set up a national oil company, but I am not saying that we shouldn't. Tomorrow I will be lodging a motion, for consideration on Thursday, for us to look, by way of an inquiry, into how we might do things better, informed by what other jurisdictions do. Senator O'Neill 140651 Like an MRRT, Senator, that great Labor idea? Senator PATRICK 144292 I actually want to explore this. I want to explore this in an inquiry because I do not think we are getting the best that we can. There is so much we could do with the sort of money that Equinor returns to the Norwegian state. We are not doing well. We need to rethink it. I am not talking about a tweak; I am talking about a rethink. We need to rethink it with regard to sovereign risk and property rights. It is important that we reconsider what we are doing. Rural and Regional Health Services, Drought 85 20:19 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I want to indicate to those who might be listening, and to those in the chamber, that we do listen to one another. I think the previous speaker, Senator Patrick, has made some important points. I bemoan the fact that vested interests with such power can influence politics in this country to the point where the MRRT—a scheme that tried to build exactly what the senator is talking about, and that is making sure the wealth of the nation benefits the nation—was taken down by vested interests. These vested interests spent millions and millions of dollars in the media in a concerted effort to dismantle a scheme that would have been for the benefit of all Australians, who would have benefited from Australia's sovereign wealth, our wealth beneath the soil and the sea. This is a very big problem for this country: short termism. It's big, powerful voices with a lot of money turning the media in the wrong way. I want to point something out to the senator, just before he goes—because I know he won't stay for the whole speech that I am about to make. It's one thing to say you support mining communities and for this government to talk about supporting business, but let me tell you that in Cobar, where I was recently—and I'm going to talk about my visit out west—there was a period of two weeks where there was no visiting medical officer for the hospital. There was a crisis of care and access for people. There is a big mine right near Cobar, the fragility of which should not be the case, but it is because this government isn't investing in the services that are needed for the town health services and education services. This country—regional Australia—is at risk in terms of access to basic health services. None of the colleges take responsibility for the distribution of a workforce. Australian taxpayers are paying to create a great Australian medical workforce for ourselves, but it is so poorly distributed, and that is a risk to mining across this country as well. So these things cannot be divorced from one another; mining, health care and education are all intimately and intricately entwined because they involve people. And this government's failures in service provision across this nation are an absolute disgrace and a threat to the wealth and benefit of this nation—apart from being a threat to the individuals who live in those communities without the services which I think they should be able to expect to get when they need them. I also know that all members here will know of the pain and suffering caused by the drought that has afflicted communities across vast swathes of my great state of New South Wales, and also the states of Victoria and Queensland. The Darling River and its tributaries have been driven into hydrological drought as millions of fish die and towns are forced to drink salt-laden water, 15 times saltier than the recommended amount. It's as Henry Lawson described in 'The Song of the Darling River': The skies are brass and the plains are bare, Death and ruin are everywhere— And all that is left of the last year's flood Is a sickly stream on the grey-black mud; This, however, is not a disaster caused solely by climate change, denied by too many of those on the government benches, and adverse weather conditions. This disaster is rooted in the failure of this Liberal-National government and the coalition government of my state of New South Wales to adequately balance the needs of the environment, First Nations people and country towns against the big irrigators who donate to the National Party. Australians spent $13 billion to fix a river system, the lifeblood of many regional communities and unique ecosystems. Instead, under the mismanagement of the state and federal Liberal-National coalition governments, this has flowed into the pumps of irrigators and left devastation in its wake. The river runs dry. People in Walgett, where I met with locals recently, are drinking water, as I said, at 15 times the salinity taste level that is recommended by the health department. And it's not just the lack of palatable drinking water that the drought is causing in the river. This failure of river management is also creating a vicious cycle that threatens the health of families along the river. Senator Patrick 144292 But you've got to water the cotton! Senator O'NEILL 140651 Well, we can talk about the cotton at another point in time, Senator. I know you're particularly interested in it. But let's talk about some of the people who are forced to drink this emergency water that is so high in sodium it's actually damaging the kidneys of the people who are forced to imbibe it. Failing kidney health means that people who have serious kidney problems need dialysis. This reality of having to use highly saline water is impacting the capacity for dialysis because that technology requires desalinated water to work. Is desalination available in these communities? People who are getting dialysis in their communities are now not able to access it, because of the drought. Last month I visited towns along the Darling River with the shadow minister for health, Mr Chris Bowen, to talk with residents about their health services. I have made the point about the staff shortages that exist in these communities. There are people who don't want to bring their families from the city out to the bush, out to the country, out to the regions of Australia because they fear that their children won't get a decent education under this government, which continues to say 'more funding for education', but failure after failure has been documented across the nation and internationally. In my first speech I said that the dirty laundry of this country in failing to invest properly in renewal and renovation of our education system is hanging on the line for all to see, and it's rotten under this government. It is so bad that people are rejecting taking their families to regional Australia because of the schools, which they do not believe can give their kids the advantages in their lives that they deserve. I found that in Broken Hill, Cobar, Bourke, Brewarrina and Walgett even the most resilient rural communities were struggling under the pressure of drought, and they worry every day about whether they'll be able to provide clean water for their children and how they're going to water their stock or their crops. It was reported last month that the water crisis is so bad that, in Warren, the fire brigade will only turn their hoses on a fire if they have to save life. Instead, they declared that they would have to let houses burn and crumble if no-one was inside. If emergency services across this nation cannot draw water from the river to fill hydrants, that will ultimately close hospitals, which need the security of that water source to make sure that they're safe. This reality is confronting us now in Australia, happening on the watch of too many years of irresponsible, self-interested National Party government, with the Liberals, across this country. How can the Morrison government allow this to happen? I notice Senator McKenzie is here, and she's a good Australian—but standing here in the chamber and saying, 'I'm praying for rain' is not a plan. I endorse her prayers, but it's not a plan. Towns from Narromine to Cobar, Nyngan and Warren, even major regional centres like Dubbo, are forced to bore for salty water where they have never bored before, just to keep their community serviced with any water at all. What will the impact of that be on local businesses and jobs? Devastating. And it is on the watch of the Liberal-National government, who claim to be the friend of businesses, small businesses in particular. They are playing with the lives of Australians. They have no drought plan and are withdrawing funding for drought support programs. There's the talk and then there's the failure of delivery, and that is the story of this government. The country towns that I am talking about are paying daily for this government's failures in health costs and for the government's mismanagement of a river system, and the government refuses to adequately invest in reverse osmosis technology as well as to help meet the running costs for cash-strapped councils. Indeed, we live with the consequences of their cuts to the federal assistance grants across this country, which have damaged the financial health of local councils and forced them to put more pressure on local families by increasing rates. That is what the government are really doing to Australians in regional Australia. They've stuck with the Nats. They've stuck with them for too long and they're paying the price. The Nationals come here and, if I can quote former senator Doug Cameron, 'They're lions in the country, but they're mice in this place,' and if their voice is quiet in this chamber, it's even quieter in the meetings they undertake with the Liberal leaders of this country. The Macquarie Marshes, lush and verdant only three years ago, are bone dry. A haven for animals and birds has become a dust bowl. Archimedean solutions are now being employed along the river to save fish from another catastrophic kill. This government has failed. It continues to fail daily as it ignores the needs of the communities that it's supposed to serve. Water is life. The Nats should know that, but they've failed dismally, and the life of these communities who trusted them now hangs in the balance. Climate Change 86 20:29 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Across WA and across the country young people are planning and organising. We are getting ready to leave our classrooms, our schools, our places of education on 20 September, to take the hands of our friends and our parents and our bosses and head to the streets to strike for climate action. I'll be there on 20 September alongside some of my oldest and dearest friends in the climate activism space and thousands more. I want to mention a couple of these wonderful individuals who are putting so much into making sure that the effort in Western Australia is bigger than ever before. There's Bella Burgemeister of Bunbury, a 13-year-old. I first met Bella a couple of years back when I was in Bunbury, and she came up to me and thanked me for the work that the Greens do in the parliament and told me a story about how at the age of 11 she had decided that what she wanted to do with her time was write and illustrate a book explaining the United Nations Millennium Development Goals to young kids just like her. She then took that project on the road, talking to over 3,000 young people across Australia about the need to adapt to and adopt the Sustainable Development Goals, and used the money raised from the book to fund homelessness lockers in her local city. I'll also be out there alongside Angela Lillyman, a good friend of mine for a long time in the Greens who has been one of our best campaigners and most passionate organisers. I'll be with Isaac Smalley, an absolutely incredible young singer/songwriter who has had the honour of singing alongside John Butler of all people. I'll be with Dylan Storer as well. If you haven't heard of him, look him up, folks! He's a 16-year-old bloke from Fitzroy Crossing in Western Australia who hosts his own radio show talking to young people about their issues. I've had the pleasure of speaking with him on many occasions, and he is one of the most articulate and genuine broadcasters in Australia. This effort will be coordinated in Western Australia by Siobhan, Matilda, Michaela, Samson and Aiden of the WA student strike crew, alongside so many others who are working so hard to make our presence in WA the biggest and best we have ever contributed to this movement. Of course, we are coming together, we are organising and we are putting this effort in because we know, as young people, that climate change is putting everything we care about at risk—our homes, our communities and our very futures. We have watched in recent weeks as our communities have burned, and we have managed to conjure up more than simple thoughts and prayers. We have conjured up the desire for action and the determination to hold our leaders to account and demand climate action. This place had the opportunity to show its support for the student strike a very few days ago. Instead of showing that solidarity, instead of showing that support, the major parties of this chamber—the Liberal Party and Labor Party—decided to back their donor mates. It is an absolute farce and disgrace that in 2019 in Australia more courage is shown by kids on the streets to confront some of the biggest and most powerful corporate interests in this country than can be found here in our very parliament. Shame on the lot of you! But regardless of the cowardice that has come to characterise the climate debate in this country, young people are clear: we are passionate and we are united in the knowledge that climate change affects us all, and we are committed to working together to stop it. As we are all affected, we know that we must all work together to be part of the solution, and No. 1 on our agenda is to hold you to account and to give you no peace or place until you act in our name. Do your damn job to safeguard our future. This Friday is a global day of action. Millions will gather around the world in one of the largest global strikes of this century. Here in Australia some estimates suggest that it will be larger than those seen around the Iraq War. The community is alive with a desire for action. We look to this place and we know exactly what is going on. We see the money changing hands. We see the media pieces paid for by corporations that keep you silent and we do not accept it any longer. We will gather together this coming Friday and send this place a clear message that we demand action from this place, that we will not be silent, that we will come together and show you the courage that you should be able to find within yourself in this place. I thank the chamber for its time. Tasmania: Centrelink 87 20:36 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I rise to speak about concerns expressed by members of the Huon Valley community, which is south of Hobart, about the government's plan to co-locate the Centrelink service centre in Huonville with Service Tasmania. Many residents of the Huon Valley hold legitimate fears that this will further diminish the region's face-to-face Centrelink services. Last week I tabled in this place a copy of the Community and Public Sector Union's petition against the move, with over 500 signatures. The same petition was tabled in the House by the member for Franklin, Julie Collins. We also joined the CPSU three weeks ago along with state Labor members David O'Byrne and Alison Standen, Senator McKim and Huon Valley residents to protest against the changes. Another rally was held in March this year at which we were joined by the Secretary of Unions Tasmania, Jess Munday. The co-location follows a gradual reduction over time in the staffing levels at the centre and continues this government's trend of reducing essential public services in regional areas across Australia. In 2017, when the staff numbers at the centre were reduced from three to two, the CPSU noted that this left only one person providing face-to-face customer service for the entire Huon Valley region, a local government area with a population of over 16,000 people. The member for Franklin, Julie Collins, and I have both had a number of people contact our offices about the staffing changes, saying they had waited up to 40 minutes for service. Now, Centrelink customers rely on face-to-face services because they are facing astronomical wait times on the phone and online services do not necessarily provide them with the answers that they need. This is especially an issue for the Huon Valley. Local resident Jane Clarke of Franklin was interviewed by the Hobart Mercury about the co-location decision and had this to say: I think the co-location is indicative of the Government's attitude that face-to-face interactions aren't valued … It's a clear sign of government services being diluted in a region where few people actually have internet access or are equipped with online smarts. To back up Ms Clarke's comments about internet access: there's a recent study on digital inclusion in Tasmania, conducted by the peak body for community services, TasCOSS. One of the findings in the TasCOSS study was that the townships of Dover and Geeveston, south of Huonville, have some of the lowest levels of home internet access in the state. It said that 23.6 per cent of the residents of these towns have no home internet access, and using Centrelink's phone services is becoming a less viable option for them. Some customers trying to get through by phone are experiencing wait times of over an hour. We know that 2016-17 in particular was a horror year for phone services, with 55 million calls to Centrelink met with an engaged tone—55 million calls! If a Centrelink customer can't reach the agency by phone or internet, this leaves travelling to Huonville to access ever-diminishing face-to-face advice as their only option, and this has already been made difficult enough by the expense and infrequency of public transport in the Huon Valley and the distances that some residents have to travel. The Huonville service centre is the last Centrelink office you will reach travelling south of Hobart, after which there is an 84-kilometre stretch of road to the southernmost point of Tasmania. It could take up to an hour to travel by car to Huonville from towns such as Southport and Ida Bay—and it takes much longer by bus—but even travelling from the more substantial population centres like Geeveston takes half an hour by car. The reduction in face-to-face Centrelink services in the Huon Valley comes at a time when the number of Huon Valley residents receiving payments from Centrelink is increasing. There has been a nine percent increase in payments to Huon Valley residents over the last five years. We should also recognise that this is a region in need of further assistance following the devastation of this year's bushfires. To have these services reduced is a slap in the face for a community that has suffered significantly through this recent natural disaster. While the government claims there will be no reduction in service as a result of the co-location, it's hard to take their assurances at face value. The same claim was made about the co-location of Service Tasmania within the Centrelink and Medicare service centre in Kingston, near my local office. Once again Julie Collins and I campaigned hard to save the Kingston Medicare and Centrelink service centre from closing. Thousands of residents in the local area signed our petition, and 300 people attended a public meeting to oppose the government's cruel decision to close the centre. While Ms Collins and I are proud to have saved that service centre, the outcome for the community is still less than ideal. Following the co-location of the Kingston service centre, both my office and the office of Ms Collins were inundated with complaints about the co-located service. So we conducted a survey of local residents who used the service, and found many were highly dissatisfied. Of the 350 people who responded to the survey, 56 per cent said they were dissatisfied or highly dissatisfied with the number of staff at the co-located service centre. The staffing levels obviously affected waiting times, of which 55 percent of survey respondents said they were dissatisfied or highly dissatisfied. However, the No. 1 issue raised by customers who accessed the co-located service centre was privacy, a concern that was no doubt created by the co-location. Sixty per cent of survey respondents said that they were dissatisfied or highly dissatisfied with privacy at the service centre. I want to read a couple of comments from this survey that highlight these concerns. One was: My main concern is the disregard for privacy. Everyone can hear you give your name and reference number and what you are there for. Another person said: The broad nature of services covered at Service Tas-Medicare-Centrelink allows for no privacy of delicate medical or Centrelink related discussions. Another quote: Privacy is a huge factor for me. I resent having to discuss my circumstances within earshot of everyone in the building. Very embarrassing and disrespectful. I hold very similar concerns for the privacy of Centrelink customers should the co-location of Centrelink and Service Tasmania proceed in Huonville. Just like the experience in Kingston, it will create a situation where Centrelink customers will have to discuss sensitive and personal issues while standing next to someone who is getting their driver's license renewed. At this point I would like to thank the CPSU for the leadership role they have taken in this campaign and, in particular, their regional secretary, Zac Batchelor. It was the CPSU that organised the petition that Julie Collins and I tabled in both houses of parliament as well as organising rallies, doorknocking the area and speaking to locals. I would like to see Tasmania's Liberal senators join us in speaking up for the residents of the Huon Valley. I'm severely disappointed that Tasmanian Liberal members and senators have not criticised the government's cutting and outsourcing of more than 2,500 Centrelink jobs across Australia, resulting in ever increasing wait times for phone and face-to-face services. Why won't they stand up for the people of Tasmania? The Liberals are also deafeningly silent on the more than 500 Australian Public Service jobs that have been lost in Tasmania and the impact that this has had on the Tasmanian economy. They've stood by idly while the government has gutted the Commonwealth Public Service in Tasmania. It's time for Tasmanian Liberal members and senators to start standing up for jobs in Tasmania; it's time for them to fight for decent Centrelink services so that Tasmanians can get the help they need to access the payments to which they are duly entitled; and it's time for them to join Labor in fighting excessive phone and face-to-face waiting times for Centrelink customers. By their actions and public statements, the Liberals are making it clear that they simply don't care about the concerns of thousands of Tasmanians, including Huon Valley residents, who are studying, looking for work, living with disability, caring for children or other family members, or receiving the age pension. Only Labor is taking seriously the very real privacy concerns and the very real concerns about quality of service that arise from this government's short-sighted decision to co-locate Centrelink in Huonville and Service Tasmania. Only Labor cares about providing quality Centrelink services to the Tasmanians who need them when they need them. Medicinal Marijuana 89 20:46 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to speak about medical cannabis and what is needed to give more than a million Australians access to this powerful medicine. On Monday, this place was visited by a delegation of concerned citizens asking for major changes to Minister Hunt's regime—his regime of suppressing medical cannabis. I ask the people: are these people radicals intent on subverting Minister Hunt's pharmaceutical game, or are they everyday Australians making a perfectly fair request? I'll let the people decide. Let me name some of the groups in attendance yesterday: the New South Wales Nurses and Midwives Association, Chronic Pain Australia, Epilepsy Action Australia, Cancer Voices, United in Compassion and the Country Women's Association of Australia. Yes, the Country Women's Association were here yesterday, pleading for improved access to medical cannabis. Mr Hunt needs to worry when he gets on the wrong side of the good ladies of the CWA. Minister Hunt will tell you that the number of approvals is rising. 'More people are getting medical cannabis,' he says. That is not quite right. Every time a prescription is renewed for an existing patient, or a brand of medication changed for an existing patient, Minister Hunt adds one to his count. Even if the patient cannot afford their script, which can be as high as $2,000 a month, they are still counted—even when the scripts are not used. Six thousand six hundred and sixty-seven current approvals is probably no more than 2,000 or 3,000 people actually accessing medical cannabis legally, and it may be even less. I have a problem with that level of dishonesty. I have a problem with how we treated Lee Donnollan, an Army veteran from Townsville, in Queensland. Lee served a tour of active duty in Afghanistan and returned with PTSD. It took 18 months of jumping through health department hoops to get approval for medical cannabis, only to find the prescription for two different types of cannabis would have cost $2,000 a month. Veterans' Affairs refused to pay, and Lee could not afford that sort of money. Mr Hunt's department locks people out of medical cannabis. So Lee Donnollan started growing his own, and medical cannabis worked. Medical cannabis allowed Lee to slowly drop the seven different medications his doctor prescribed and replace them with just one: medical cannabis. His health improved dramatically. Unfortunately, the Queensland police didn't share his vision for better health and arrested him. At that point, Veterans' Affairs relented and started funding his prescription—a happy ending, you would think, Mr Acting Deputy President. But, no, Queensland police have refused to drop his case. The department locks people out of medical cannabis. Here is where it gets interesting. If Lee is sent to jail because he has a legal prescription that Veterans' Affairs is paying for, he will be supplied with medical cannabis to use in jail—the very thing he has been sent to jail for doing. Monty Python couldn't make this stuff up! The hurdles placed in front of Lee Donnollan are typical of the hurdles facing everyday Australians needing to access medical cannabis. To be successful, firstly, the patient must have a condition which cannabis can improve. These conditions include juvenile epilepsy, cancer side effects like nausea, and some types of pain and palliative care—a short list, eh? Or, secondly, find a doctor that the government approves of to make cannabis applications, and that may involve travelling hundreds of kilometres. Or, thirdly, submit your full medical history with proof that you have tried all available medications. The department locks people out of medical cannabis. Then there's a fourth hurdle: pricing. Under Minister Hunt, pricing is being used as a barrier to adoption. I understand the need for security and accountability, of course. However, those very expensive legal requirements are being apportioned against just very small volumes, and that means each prescription has a very high cost, of which the actual plant is a tiny part. The department locks people out of medical cannabis. As long as prices remain as high as $2,000 a month, so few Australians will be able to access medical cannabis that the volumes needed for cheap prices will never happen. Minister Hunt has authored a perfect example of catch 22. Minister Hunt's department locks people out of medical cannabis. Barry Lambert, from the Lambert Initiative for Cannabinoid Therapeutics, and Sydney University had this to say about Minister Hunt's system: The Act and Regulations are responsible for these ongoing delays. This dysfunction is harming vulnerable Australians. Without a large-scale domestic industry, expensive and imported products will continue to drive thousands of desperate patients into the black market. And research will continue to be hampered by a lack of suitable pre-clinical and clinical material. While the government has issued 27 grower licenses so far, according to the United in Compassion group only one has been approved to sell their product into the cannabis approval pathway. The rest are relying on the emerging export market to stay in business. Those businesses will need to stay in the export market until the government faces up to its own failure. This is a failure that results from Minister Hunt trying to shoehorn medical cannabis into the world that he and his department understands and creates—a world of pharmaceuticals where every new product is patent protected, enabling huge sums of money to run clinical trials, fill in forms and pass through layers of committees and reports before finally getting approval. The multimillion-dollar cost of that process is built into the price paid by taxpayers forever more. If that process produced a safe result for patients, then one could support that. However, this year 1,000 Australians will die from opioid overdoses—overdoses of legally prescribed pharmaceuticals. These are legal opioids that went through this same approval pathway. The slow, expensive, bureaucrat-laden process is no guarantee of a positive outcome for patients. It could even mean death. Natural medical cannabis cannot be patented. No company will ever spend the millions necessary to navigate this process, because they will never own the rights to the cannabis plant that has proven so effective and safe. The department locks people out of medical cannabis. Yet the need to put cannabis through this process is the reason being advanced for not listing medical cannabis on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, which allows scripts to be filled on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme at low cost to the patient. The department locks people out of medical cannabis. According to Roy Morgan, as many as a million Australians would try medical cannabis as an alternative to their existing medication. Minister Hunt has managed to get cannabis into the hands of a measly few thousand, and his department has succeeded in locking millions of people out of medical cannabis. In the meantime, many patients are suffering. One Nation calls on the government to respect the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship and allow doctors to make the best decisions for their patients free from federal government interference and the department's locks. The pathway system must be amended to allow a single post-prescription notification from any doctor who chooses to prescribe medical cannabis, together with the doctor's assessment of the results achieved should the patient return for a repeat. One Nation is persistent. One Nation has tried four strategies to remove the department's locks, which are clearly not there because of a problem with medical cannabis. These are bureaucratic locks, not safety locks. One Nation has had to try new strategies, because medical cannabis is so safe and effective. The department is locking out competition to protect big pharma's synthetic drugs. One Nation calls for the list of approved conditions to be removed and for use to be allowed at the discretion of doctors, who are best placed to make those decisions. The Therapeutic Goods Administration must then fast-track the approval of medical cannabis preparations from amongst the Australian growers currently licensed for that purpose. We can then have a conversation about the best model for medical cannabis and people can have access to this wonderful, natural, safe medicine. One Nation will continue to listen to the people, continue to depend on the science and advocate for the science, and continue to speak for the people until the people's needs are fulfilled and lives are restored and enhanced. West Australian Gliding Association 90 20:56 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Before we adjourn this evening I will make a few brief remarks to commemorate what is a very important event in the history of flying in Western Australia. I know Senator Sterle, who is the Acting Deputy President this evening, will join with me in acknowledging and congratulating the West Australian Gliding Association on its 75th anniversary. I was delighted to be invited to attend the luncheon that was held on the weekend in Western Australia to celebrate this outstanding milestone. I was delighted to be invited for two reasons. The first was that the invitation was extended to me by Mr Stuart Usher, who is a close and trusted friend of mine. I hope I don't embarrass him by saying this, but Stuart and I went to high school together at Mirrabooka High School and have been great close and trusted friends ever since—that's almost 40 years. As a senator from Western Australia I was also delighted to be given the opportunity to acknowledge and celebrate this very, very important historical milestone and to recognise that professional organisations and volunteer organisations like the gliding association of Western Australia play a very, very important role in building the fabric of volunteerism that makes Western Australia such a wonderful place to live and raise a family. We're honouring a number of things when we celebrate the 75th anniversary of the West Australian Gliding Association. We honour the miracle that is men and women taking to the skies. In honouring that contribution, the members of the West Australian Gliding Association know better than anyone the truth that is held in the remark by Leonardo da Vinci: Once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards; for there you have been, and there you long to return. Of course, we also honour the gliding association for being the oldest gliding club in Western Australia and the second-oldest gliding club in the country. From beginnings in Fremantle, Maylands, Crawley, Subiaco, City Beach, Pingelly and Kalgoorlie to its first humble home in Caversham in 1949 and the wide open and sunburnt landscapes of Cunderdin in 1959, the gliding association of Western Australia has been the meeting place for enthusiasts young and old—men and women who have been brave, and some, I'm sure, who have been very hesitant about the gliding experience. As an association, it has lived the experience of the evolution of the craft of gliding, from the 1934 Buick utility to the Kookaburra training and soaring seaplane and the aptly named VT-TUG Tiger Moth. More than all this, we honour the commitment, professionalism and volunteering that have meant the joy of gliding can be enjoyed by Western Australians over the generations. From where I stand, the gliding club of Western Australia resembles a close-knit group of enthusiasts committed to sustaining their sport for present and future generations of glider pilots. To the volunteers who came back from World War II to help re-establish gliding in Western Australia, to the volunteers who helped move the gliding club to Cunderdin Airfield in 1959, to the volunteers who have worked and planned tirelessly over the years to promote gliding in the skies across Western Australia, at the Sunday luncheon on the weekend just gone we paid tribute, and we honoured all of them. For my part, I pledge to support the volunteers of today and tomorrow, to do all that I can to support this wonderful sport and to ensure that it will grow and avail every Western Australian of the enjoyment that is in gliding. But, to be honest, I think it will take a little bit of an effort to get me into a glider and into the skies. As accustomed to travelling as we all are, I do enjoy looking out the window and seeing a big engine. I do enjoy looking out the window and seeing a big wingspan. I'm not even sure my dear and trusted closest friend Stuart will be able to get me into a glider, though I'm confident he's a very, very competent pilot. I think it might be just a step too far for me, but I do look forward to joining Stuart and other members of the Western Australian Gliding Association at Cunderdin Airfield in the very, very near future. I'm sure I speak on behalf of all senators in congratulating the Western Australian Gliding Association and honouring it on its 75th anniversary. Senate adjourned at 21:01