2019-11-11 46 1 1 Senate 0 1

Monday, 11 November 2019

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Scott Ryan) took the chair at 12:30, read prayers and made an acknowledgement of country.

 

PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 1 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION New South Wales 1 12:31 The PRESIDENT I0Q I inform the Senate that Senator Sinodinos resigned his place as a senator for the state of New South Wales this morning at 9 am. Pursuant to the provisions of section 21 of the Constitution, I have notified the Governor of New South Wales of the vacancy in the representation of that state caused by the resignation. I table the letter of resignation and a copy of the letter to the Governor of New South Wales. DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 12:31 The PRESIDENT I0Q I remind senators that the question may be put on any of those proposals at the request of any senator. There being none, we'll move on. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 1 12:32 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That general business order of the day no. 33 (Protecting Australian Dairy Bill 2019) be considered today at the time for private senators' bills. Question agreed to. BILLS 1 BILLS Protecting Australian Dairy Bill 2019 1

Protecting Australian Dairy Bill 2019

Second Reading 1 12:32 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland The Protecting Australian Dairy Bill 2019 has one overarching purpose, and that is to save Australia's dairy industry. To all the dairy farmers watching this debate today: my heart goes out to you. I know the hardship, the loss and the trauma that you are going through—the loss of your properties and your cattle—and I know that you will be watching this debate with interest. The bill introduces three measures. The first is to task the ACCC with establishing a minimum price for the milk fat and protein content of milk produced on the farm in specified areas of milk regions. I circulated an amendment this morning to that effect. The second is to legislate a mandatory code of conduct to be established for the food and grocery industry. This will include the dairy industry and the first purchaser of milk from the producer. The third measure is to make a referral to the Productivity Commission to make recommendations on a divestiture power for the ACCC. It's disappointing and telling if it is the case that the government will not support this bill. In meetings, the government has been unable to explain how dairy farmers will be disadvantaged by setting a minimum base price for milk. It knows milk has been sold below the cost of water on supermarket shelves and that milk has been sold below the cost of production, and yet the government sits like a spectator watching supermarkets—Coles and Woolworths—together with a handful of milk processors use their market power to control the supply chain and destroy dairy farmers and rural Australia. As the dairy industry, like other farming sectors, becomes concentrated in the hands of large corporates, often foreign owned, we are seeing family owned farms driven out of business. When they go, the rural communities that support and depend on them are weakened and may die. If this bill is not passed, then we move one step closer to reliance on imported long-life milk. This bill is not about taxpayers' subsidies, because there will be no subsidies from the government. The bill does not affect dairy exports or free trade agreements. All the bill asks of the government is to put in place some rules that will work against business models based on anticompetitive practices. It means we will pay a little bit more for milk, but that payment means we can continue in the long term to buy fresh milk. I know the Australian people are quite happy to pay a bit extra for Australian milk and support our dairy farmers. Coles began the milk war in January 2011, and was quickly followed by Woolworths and others. Coles is on record as saying that dollar milk has established them as the best value supermarket in Australia, and it seems they are happy to profit by sending their suppliers out of business. My bill, the Protecting Australian Dairy Bill 2019, is not just about helping dairy farmers; it is about maintaining and growing the rural communities that support and depend on farms. It is about food security, because we have a need to be self-sufficient in dairy products, including fresh milk. It's a poor reflection on the government today that it is One Nation that has had to take the lead on this matter. The Nationals are no longer the party of the bush. The Nationals can make amends and start to rebuild their reputation in the bush by crossing the floor to support this bill. If they don't cross the floor, if they don't support this bill, then it is a clear indication to the Australian people of where they stand in supporting the farmers. I will not stand by and be accused of taking their policies when they've sat on this for so long and did not bring in the mandatory code of conduct before the last parliament when I pushed for it to happen. I want to tell you a true story, which involves a hardworking dairy farm near Gympie. This is only one story, but it's replicated across the country. In the last financial year, these dairy farmers had a turnover of $600,000, and all that money was spent in the local community. The husband and wife are exhausted because they are actually doing the work of four people because they cannot afford to employ other workers. These farmers are under pressure to sign a new contract with French-owned company Lactalis Australia, formerly Parmalat. If they sign the contract, then every litre of the one million litres they can produce will be sold below the cost of production. They rightly ask why the government is not helping people who help themselves. They are not the only dairy farm at risk. These family owned dairy businesses are not asking for subsidies from the taxpayer, unlike wind and solar electricity projects. They simply ask the government to ensure they are not driven out of business by large businesses whose business model is based on anticompetitive practices. Let us be clear: supermarkets, foreign owned multinational milk processors and megadairies are doing very nicely financially out of the misery of dairy farmers. The dairy farmers near Gympie are listening to this debate today, and they are holding off the decision to send their productive herd to the meat packers on the outcome of today's debate and vote. They want to know why the supermarket rebate from the big supermarkets only applies to sales of one-litre bottles of home brand milk. This means they receive a rebate of 3.8 cents a litre and not the 10 cents. The $700 a fortnight they received last financial year from the Farm Household Allowance needs to be repaid because, when they did their tax return, they discovered the principal component of their mortgage counts as income and, on that basis, they owe all the money back to the government. They will not be entitled to the farm household allowance this year, because the sale of one-third of their herd will count as income, even though it is being used to feed the remaining herd. The Protecting Australian Dairy Bill 2019 is vital to protect Australian dairy farmers, to bring sense back into the pricing and sales mechanisms in place for this stable food, milk, and to safeguard Australians generally by providing good quality Australian milk. I have also been told that the Centre Alliance doesn't intend to actually vote for this, based on approximately 130 dairy farmers in their state and that it's about export. It's not about the export market. This is about protecting our own industry here in Australia. We have to stand up for all the dairy farmers. We've gone from 22,000 to under 6,000 dairy farmers at the moment. So if you want to buy imported milk, you'll be looking at New Zealand, or, who knows, possibly even China, who were exporting the milk from our country back to their country. And do you know what? The Chinese don't even want their powdered milk, so what sort of future are we going to have in our country? I call on everyone in this parliament: represent the people of this nation—the dairy farmers, who are on their knees and going under. All they want is a fair price for their milk, and the public will pay for it. 12:40 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland It is an honour and a privilege to serve in the Australian parliament. It is particularly an honour and a privilege to serve and represent the agricultural industry and farmers of Australia, but that is not a privilege that I take lightly. Too often I have had complaints of the amount of regulation and legislation that is choking this country, and one of the reasons that I stand here is to not be a part of that overregulation. There is no more important industry in Australia than agriculture in growing the food and fibre that feeds the nation and feeds a good part of the world. Dairy is indeed an important part of that industry. They are doing it as tough as anybody at this moment—as tough as pork producers, as tough as feed lotters and as tough as anybody who is having to pay a dollar a kilo for feed, who are struggling to get water in the face of a deep drought. But these are not things that can or should be solved by this legislation. I want to recognise Senator Hanson's well-placed passion and support for this industry and for these farmers who are, as we've already talked about, doing it tough. But, as I've already said, this legislation will not protect farmers. It will not protect farmers from unconscionable buying habits from supermarkets. It will not protect farmers from the actions of industry practice, of trading milk swaps and of not paying a fair price. I cannot believe that the Labor Party is going to support this legislation. How tragic it is that there is only a handful of them here in the parliament to hear this debate and to make up their own minds about what is appropriate and what is right for our very important dairy industry. Despite being Australia's third-largest agricultural industry, dairy faces significant challenges. This government knows that, if left unchecked, these challenges will threaten the long-term viability of dairy production in this country. The fact is that raw milk pricing is determined by processors and incorporated into supply contracts entered into with farmers. These contracts aren't uniform; they depend on milk quality, volume supply, timing of supply and the premiums attached to the length of a supply contract. The reality is that it is challenging to compare milk supply agreements and contracts. That is why we're acting on the ACCC's recommendation to introduce the dairy code of conduct. Right now, industry has the opportunity to have a say. Consultation closes on 22 November. We're seeking feedback on the best form of contractual terms and pricing, too. The other issue that I am most concerned about is that, less than one month ago, Senator Hanson launched a Senate inquiry which sought to assess the performance of the dairy industry since deregulation. This inquiry was to give farmers an opportunity to provide their evidence. It was an opportunity for dairy organisations who, I believe, have not been deeply consulted on this and an opportunity to come and publicly explain the issues that they have, and yet we are rushing ahead with legislation which is not complete. We have had amendments to this legislation this morning. I cannot support legislation that is drafted so hastily, with unintended consequences that could potentially affect dairy farmers more adversely than the problem we are seeking to solve. The inquiry even goes so far as to specifically address alternative approaches to supporting a viable dairy industry and the merits of tasking the ACCC to investigate how it can regulate the price of milk per litre paid by processors to farmers. As a Queenslander I strongly support dairy in my state of Queensland. Whether it be on the tablelands or in the south-east, this is an industry that is under enormous pressure. But this bill is premature. It lacks support from industry. It is not based on fact. I particularly disagree with the comments that the National Party is not standing and fighting for farmers right across this nation. As a party, we live in regional areas. We come from these regional areas and we speak, daily, to farmers and processors and producers, who are all part of the agricultural supply chain. Can we do better for the industry? Of course we can. Senator Hanson named one processor in particular who I agree is not doing the right thing for its farmers, and it should be called out for it. But it has to be said that Norco as a co-op and a genuine representative of their farmers is doing a very good job at increasing prices, taking supermarkets to task and increasing the amount that they are being paid for their farmers. I cannot support this legislation. It is not well thought through. I agree completely that there are dairy farmers who are on their knees, who are considering the ultimate solution. That is appalling and tragic, and I will fight every day for them. But this will not solve their problems and, what's worst of all, it gives them hope when it will not provide it. 12:47 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia It is a sad indictment of the Morrison government that this bill needs to be debated in the Senate today. It's an admission that the Liberal-National government has failed Australia's dairy industry miserably. Today government senators will stand up in the Senate to, essentially, pat themselves on the back. They will show no contrition or regret that, as a third-term government, they have been slow to act and have hidden behind reviews and inquiries as an excuse for not acting. The real test today is for the Nationals senators—those once proud Country Party representatives, who are far from that now—particularly Senator McDonald, Senator Davey and Senator McMahon. Will you stand with dairy farmers and vote for this bill? I think you've made it pretty clear that you won't. Unfortunately, you're going to roll over like doormats, once again, and follow the Liberals blindly. The fact is that the dairy crisis occurred not just last week, last month or even last year. It is important to put the critical facts on the table about the current state of the dairy industry. There is a significantly smaller national herd, reduced farmer confidence and ongoing price pressures. Dairy Australia's initial forecast for 2019-20 anticipates a further drop of milk supply, between three and five per cent, to about 8.1 to 8.3 billion litres. It is important that the Senate understand just how tough circumstances have been for our dairy farmers for some time now. For too long our dairy farmers have been caught in a cost-price squeeze, and their plight has now been compounded by the shocking drought. The coalition government turned its back on our dairy farmers when Murray Goulburn, back in April 2016, cut farmgate milk prices and backdated the clawback of the price to July 2015. A week later—and remember this was 2016, when Mr Barnaby Joyce, the member for New England, was agriculture minister—Fonterra did the same thing. It was estimated that the clawbacks created average debts of about $120,000 for each dairy farmer. On 24 May 2016 the shadow minister for agriculture, the member for Hunter, wrote to the then minister asking him to join him in a bipartisan manner to put pressure on Murray Goulburn to deviate from its profit-sharing mechanisms. The member for New England ignored that request and essentially ignored the plight of our dairy farmers. The reckless actions and failed capital raising structure by Murray Goulburn fell disproportionately upon dairy farming families and it was not fair. Murray Goulburn could have suspended the direct link between milk prices and money it pays to investors. They could have directed funds back to higher milk prices for farmers to provide a significant cashflow boost to farmers. But there was no pressure from the then agriculture minister for Murray Goulburn to do the right thing. This is the same man who stands up grandstanding for his own self-interest. He wants the top job back and all of you over there know that. We over here know that. Liberal and National senators will say that in response to the Murray Goulburn debacle, dairy farmers were given access to farm household allowance and concessional loans, but they are missing the point. It should never have come to that. Dairy farmers need a fair farmgate price, transparent contracting and effective dispute resolution mechanisms. All senators in this place already know that there have been a number of inquiries supporting the fact that the dairy industry is facing a number of challenges and a crisis situation. The Senate also noted back in 2016 that the Australian dairy industry is facing an unprecedented crisis with the retail cost of bottled milk per litre often less than the retail cost of bottled water. Australian milk production since deregulation over 15 years has decreased from approximately 11 billion litres per year to nine billion litres per year—that's a 20 per cent decrease—while New Zealand milk production has almost doubled. In 2011 a report to the Senate Economics References Committee recommended that: … producers' contracts with farmers should offer a clear, consistent formula for milk pricing with unambiguous conditions. Five years later the livelihoods of up to 40 per cent of Australian dairy farmers are under threat because of imposed retrospective debt helped by unclear, inconsistent milk pricing contracts with ambiguous conditions. The committee also noted that: Despite being Australia's third largest agricultural industry, the dairy industry faces a number of significant challenges which, if left unaddressed, have the potential to threaten the long term viability of dairy production. The industry is not homogenous and varies with distinct challenges across different geographical regions. Challenges also arise due to the inherent and interconnected relationships between farmers and end consumers. For many farmers, the challenges they were already facing were exacerbated by the retrospective price step-downs of May 2016. Sadly, the issues facing the dairy industry have been left unaddressed and it's most likely why government members, during the previous sittings and on 17 October of this year, voted against another inquiry into the dairy industry by the Senate. Fortunately, the motion was successful even without government senators. Senator Duniam was given the job of trying to explain why the government would not even support a Senate inquiry into the dairy industry, claiming that, 'The government does not support re-regulation via an ACCC investigation as regulation is not supported by the industry. As recommended by the ACCC we're implementing a mandatory code of conduct to increase fairness and transparency between dairy farmers and processors.' This is the government, not me, 'The code has been developed in consultation with industry and will help to address the imbalance in bargaining power between farmers and processors.' They also went on to say, 'Progress has been made to expedite the code and an exposure draft will be released shortly for industry feedback and is expected to be in place by 1 January next year. The government is also reviewing the rural research and development corporation system, with consultation currently open until 4 November 2019.' The rhetoric just doesn't stack up. A Senate inquiry does not have the power to re-regulate the dairy industry and the code of conduct can only do so much, if it ever gets implemented. Essentially, Senator Duniam was being loose with the truth, but most likely he was given that statement by none other than the agriculture minister, Senator McKenzie. The Senate committee inquiry is seeking to ask and answer questions this government is just too scared to do. The inquiry motion begins: That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by the third sitting day in March 2020 … I won't go into the terms of reference, because time is limited, but I will say that we need to do this inquiry. Therefore, the question has to be asked: what are the government members and senators scared of? We know the Prime Minister is too scared to talk to dairy farmers. This was exposed when Shoalhaven dairy farmer Mr Robert Miller blocked the Prime Minister's car during the election campaign, telling him, 'Mr Prime Minister, it's cheaper to wash your car with milk than it is with water.' Sadly, Mr Miller was ushered away from the car, and the Prime Minister disappeared into the ether. What happened on that day in Nowra is another indictment of the Morrison government. Dairy farmers shouldn't be ignored, and the Prime Minister should have taken the time to talk to the farmers. Instead he was only there to open Warren Mundine's campaign office. We know via media reports: Furious Nationals MPs have lashed out at Mathias Cormann's "too cosy" relationship with Pauline Hanson, arguing behind closed doors his Senate deals with One Nation were undermining the party. That's the Nats. They can't help themselves. They go straight to the papers to tell the world. Keep telling us. It was an extraordinary story by Rob Harris that ran on 24 October 2019 in The Sydney Morning Herald. It totally exposed Nationals MPs as being more concerned about their own self-interest than the interests of dairy farmers. It reports: Two former Cabinet ministers—Darren Chester and Barnaby Joyce—were among a handful of MPs to voice their concerns over the Finance Minister's deals … claiming he had shown "a lack of respect" to the junior Coalition partner. This is of real concern. We don't know who the other Nationals MPs or senators were, but I'm sure the member for New England is working on those numbers. Senator McKenzie and Mr McCormack are watching their backs. So far, we know that the list of disgruntled members includes Mr Joyce, Mr Chester, Mr Gillespie, Mr Pitt and Mr Hogan. Whilst Mr Gillespie has again voiced his concerns recently, the Senate should note that the member for Lyne has been frustrated with the Morrison-McCormack leadership team for quite some time. In the House of Representatives on 20 February 2019 the member for Lyne stated: I've spoken before in this House about the crisis facing Australian dairy farmers. I met with representatives from Farmer Power, a dairy producers group from Victoria; and the South Australian farmer who recently exited the industry, Casey Treloar. My predictions are coming true. Unfortunately, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi, time does not permit me to keep going, but I think you get it pretty clearly. We will see that, on that side over there, the once-mighty Country Party has disintegrated back to being doormats. I'm terribly sad that this is how you treat Australia's dairy farmers. We in Labor will be supporting you, Senator Hanson. 12:57 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria In 2016 milk prices were slashed, and farmers around Australia were devastated. Over the years I've heard many stories from farmers that were affected about the struggles that they are continuing to face, but I'd like to share a particular one from a dairy farmer from western Victoria, Karinjeet Singh-Mahil. She and her husband, Brian Schuler, were suppliers to Fonterra, and they faced enormous challenges when the prices were cut in 2016 even just in attempting to get some clarity and transparency about the sudden changes, let alone maintaining their dairy business. Ms Singh-Mahil said in a submission to the Senate in 2017: In neither case has Fonterra been transparent about what the loan balance is, what the terms and conditions are etc. It is all bundled into the total milk price and we are unable to work out what our actual milk price is, what repayments are being deducted for the autumn offset and what interest is being deducted for the loans we didn't take. They had a herd of 360 cows in 2016, and within a short period they'd cut it to 280, and they still ended up with a debt of over $100,000. They had to talk about what would happen if they lost the farm. Karinjeet has been brave in speaking publicly about the strains these challenges put on relationships and communities. She and her husband are still farming and are still concerned about what impacts processors have on the industry. They've been forced to diversify into other projects because of the enormous burden imposed on them by the sudden cuts. Since that crisis in 2016, we have had the 2017 Senate economics committee report, which I participated in, and the 2018 ACCC report on the same set of issues, which was provided to government in September last year. But despite all the inquiries and reports, farmers are still struggling. There are farmers who are still paying off the debts that they were saddled with when processors cut prices in 2016—retrospectively cut prices, let me say. That's why we called for a ban on retrospective price changes in 2016. But the government has only just recently released its exposure draft for a mandatory code of conduct. Better late than never! But it is far, far later than it should have been and there is far less action than there needs to be. Delays in responding to this crisis make it harder for farmers to negotiate with processors, to operate their farms and to deal with drought and the impact of our climate crisis. In turn, that impacts rural communities right across the country. The Greens support rural communities as a vital part of Australian society. We know that sustainable agriculture cannot be delivered without thriving, resilient rural communities, and we know that sustainable agriculture is fundamental to food security. But despite how important rural and regional communities are for Australia, dairy farmers struggle when it comes to negotiating with the dairy processors. In turn, the processors struggle when it comes to negotiating with the supermarkets. To quote the ACCC there are … significant imbalances in bargaining power at each level of the dairy supply chain. This begins with the relationships between retailers and dairy processors, and progresses down to the relationship between processors and farmers. The ACCC continued: … most dairy farmers have little bargaining power and limited scope to reposition their businesses or switch to a different farm enterprise to mitigate this. Right back in 2011, Australian Greens' Senator Christine Milne, with other crossbench senators, made recommendations as part of an inquiry into the dairy sector. A key recommendation was that the federal government develop a mandatory industry code of conduct dealing with relationships between industry participants along the supermarket supply chain. We made that recommendation again in 2017, and in 2018 the ACCC confirmed that a mandatory code of conduct was needed to deal with the relationships between dairy farmers and dairy processors. In this respect, the views of the dairy farmers and their peak bodies seem to be universally supportive. Some think that it doesn't go far enough, but we've yet to hear from anybody who thinks that the mandatory code of conduct is a bad idea. So it's astonishing how much this government have dragged their feet, having only just released their exposure draft. We need to take action, which is why we're here speaking in support of this part of this bill, at the very least. But while all stakeholders support a mandatory code of conduct, their views on the proposal for a price floor are much more mixed. The peak organisation, Australian Dairy Farmers, is not supportive, reflecting the fact that industry supported deregulation 20 years ago. And in our conversations with farmers we've heard a range of things; some have fears about how a price floor may impact their ability to compete with farmers in New Zealand. But there is one consistent theme in all of our conversations, and that's that something needs to be done. Australian dairy farmers recognise that dairy farmers are doing it tough, with sustained high input costs and flat farmgate returns leading to increasing numbers of farmers exiting the industry. Similarly, we spoke to those farmers who were still paying off their debts years after the 2016 price drop. There is a range of views, but nobody thinks that the current approach is working. Given this range of views, we believe that the best approach is actually not to go to a full price floor immediately but to adopt a price notification scheme. This is an approach where the ACCC would monitor prices, and if a relevant entity wanted to change its price then it would have to notify the ACCC. The ACCC could then object or allow the price to change. Price notification schemes are currently in place for services provided by Australia Post, by Airservices Australia and by Sydney airport. We think that, with slight modifications, it's a very useful model for dairy processors. Dairy processors would have to notify the ACCC if they wanted to cut prices below the prices that they had paid over the last 12 months. That would create a role for the ACCC in monitoring and, if need be, intervening on prices while being less drastic than suddenly imposing a price floor. Most importantly, it would ensure that a sudden and unconscionable price drop, like that in 2016, would never happen again. If the situation was repeated, the dairy processors would have notified the ACCC of their intent to decrease prices and there would be an opportunity to object, to intervene and to prevent the tragedy that occurred in 2016. I foreshadow that, at the committee stage of this bill, I'm going to move amendments to put in a price notification scheme rather than a price floor. In moving these amendments and supporting dairy farmers, we are continuing our advocacy for policies that make a real difference for farming communities. We went to the 2013 election with a full suite of policies to tackle the supermarket duopoly and provide an effective set of competition policy laws, as well as back in increased powers for the ACCC and put in place laws and better legislation, standing up for small business and supporting farmers. Our 2013 policy explicitly mentioned the need to end unfair contract protections to farmers in business-to-business dealings. In 2016 new laws were implemented to extend unfair contract dealings to protect farmers. In 2017, having campaigned on it for four years, we worked with the National Party and the Liberal Party to bring in what was one of the most revolutionary changes to competition policy in this country in a decade, which was an effects test. But for dairy farmers there have been enough reports, enough studies and enough recommendations. Rural communities are a vital part of Australian society. For a fair go for dairy farmers, to protect the weak from the strong, it's essential that this government, this parliament, acts and acts now. 13:06 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales When I read in the paper that Senator Hanson had garnered the support of Labor to put this bill before the Senate today, I did what I do every time a relevant piece of legislation comes before me, I hit the phones, not to the Liberal Party, as contested by Senator Sterle and Senator Hanson, but to farmers, real dairy farmers, the farmers I know and the farmers they put me in touch with and others, because I wanted to know what the real dairy farmers think. Most of them said: 'We're writing our submission. Don't worry. We're going to let Senator Hanson know exactly what we think.' They were unaware that, despite the fact that submissions to the inquiry into the dairy industry have not even closed, Senator Hanson has determined that she is going ahead with this bill. They were horrified to think that the process of the Senate was being ignored and that their ability to contribute to our democracy was being undermined. When I look at the history of regulation, I see that it dates back to the 1930s. Some people in this place look back with rose coloured glasses and say, 'That was Utopia,' but it was not. In the history of dairy regulation, there were allegations of corruption within regulating bodies. Multiple reform plans were put forward and refuted by industry and others. Then, in the 1990s, the industry commission found that Australian consumers were paying around $280 million more for fresh milk, and they recommended that the state controls be removed. As a result, there was considerable commercial consolidation even before deregulation. From the 1940s to the 1990s, we saw our dairy herd fall by almost half, so to blame deregulation for all of the ills of the industry is rewriting history. As quite rightly put by Senator Rice, the catalyst of where we are now occurred 16 years after dairy deregulation. It was when Murray Goulburn dairy shocked the sector by announcing it would slash its farmgate milk price to below the cost of production. That was a devastating time. I live in one of the key dairy regions that provide Murray Goulburn and Fonterra with their milk in Australia. I watched friends, farmer against farmer. I watched friends who'd gone from being positive and planning on-farm investment to—overnight—facing huge debt and having to consolidate. But then I saw resolve. That move by Murray Goulburn shocked farmers, who were traditionally loyal to the core to their processors. After that, farmers realised that processors had no loyalty—therefore, why should they? And many started exercising their choice. The result has been, since 2016, that farmers realise they can negotiate. It is not perfect yet, but that is why farmers support a mandatory code of conduct, and that is why the National Party have worked hard with the dairy industry to develop that code of conduct. It is the recommendation of the ACCC that we are following and it is the call by industry. When I was talking to the farmers I wanted to explore the range of opinions. I spoke to farmers from my area, in the Murray dairy region; in the northern Riverina, around Wagga; in the Bega Valley; in Gippsland; and in Western Australia and other states. Not one of the farmers I spoke to said they wanted a floor price. They all said they want a fair price. That's not a floor price. A floor price is not a prerequisite to a fair price. The fear for many dairy farmers I spoke to is the impact the floor price will have on the market. If the floor price is set too high, Australia will become a net importer of cheap foreign milk products. And that would devastate our industry. On the flipside, if the floor price is set too low, there will be no requirement for processors to negotiate, no requirement for processors to pay any more, and it would effectively prevent farmers from being able to negotiate a price that suits their business. The other thing is that Senator Hanson's bill does not include a change to the definition of a processor. So non-processing businesses, like Coles and Woolworths, that purchase milk from farmers would still not be covered by the bill. It also doesn't deal with the issue of the different arrangements in place with processors regarding fat, bacteria and the protein content of their milk. It is not clear how the ACCC will determine a standard composition for milk, for each region, given the variability in operations. I am told by dairy farmers across the board that they are all different. They all have different business models and they need the flexibility to negotiate a price that suits their business model. Therefore, a proposal by One Nation to set a minimum farmgate price is not in line with industry recommendations as outlined by either the Australian Dairy Farmers or the National Farmers Federation, nor is it in line with any individual dairy farmer I have spoken to. This proposed bill would set a minimum farmgate price that would not take into account that variability. It would allow processors to become lazy in their dealings with farmers, and it would not resolve the key issue. The key issue for dairy farmers is input costs. Energy prices are crippling. The cost of fodder during this drought is crippling and, for irrigated dairy farmers, the cost of water on the temporary market is crippling. None of these issues will be addressed by this bill. That is why the Nationals, who are committed to the dairy industry and who do want to work with our dairy industry to ensure their continued success, are committed to passing today's 'big stick' legislation to bring down power price bills. That is why we are committed to bringing in this mandatory code of conduct, so that dairy processors and dairy farmers know where they stand. And maybe the Nationals are prepared to look at the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, which is currently voluntary, to see if we need to get tougher with the retailers, to make sure they pay a fair price for our food. We in the National Party do stand by our dairy farmers. We believe in them and we want them to succeed. We will not force on them a bad policy that they do not want. 13:14 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia Centre Alliance will not be supporting this bill. I want to make sure people understand and don't misconstrue this. It's not because we agree with the government or because the government has performed poorly; it's simply because it's not the right solution. I understand what Senator Hanson is trying to do. I am sympathetic to her cause, but it is not the right solution. There are a number of things that need to be solved in order to help our dairy farmers. I will go through some of those. The first is price perception. The fact is that most people around this country think that a litre of milk is worth about a dollar, and that is just not correct. It's a perception created by organisations like Coles and Woolies, for their own purposes, that has led Australians to think that the cost of milk is less than the cost of water—and that is hugely problematic. Back in 2011, the Senate held an inquiry into the impacts of supermarket price decisions on the dairy industry, so this problem has been understood for some considerable period of time and, yet, not much has been done. In fact, there has been some progress, in that section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act has been modified to deal with misuse of market power. Today, I invite people, when considering the 'big stick' legislation, to support the amendment that Centre Alliance will move that seeks to have divestiture right across all sectors of the economy. Once you accept that divestiture is a useful tool for controlling conduct in the retail electricity market, then it's reasonable to suggest that it's a remedy that is applicable right across the economy. That would help us deal with large corporations who exercise market power in an egregious fashion, as is the case in respect of $1 milk with Coles and Woolies. The second is the farmer-processor imbalance, which has been talked about by a number of senators prior to me. It is good that we are now seeing a move to get an agreement or code of conduct in place. I point out that, along with the ACCC inquiry, in 2017 the Senate Committee on Economics conducted another inquiry into the dairy industry, with a report titled Australia's dairy industry: rebuilding trust and a fair market for farmers. The Senate examined that in the face of the Murray Goulburn farmgate price cuts. Do you know what? That was tabled in 2017 and the government still hasn't responded to it. Once again, I advise we're not supporting this bill, and it's not because we're supporting the government. The government has done very little in this space. The Nationals need to be poking their coalition partners in the side and getting a hurry-on in respect of some of these changes. Water prices are another area of concern. Senator Davey mentioned input costs. The cost of water has increased considerably. We're now looking at things like water trading to see how we can fix that, but it's not just the drought; we've had matter mismanagement across the Murray-Darling Basin for as long as I can remember. It is not just the drought that is causing the problems we see with dairy farmers being unable to compete and pay for water. We've also got feed costs, which in some sense are related to the drought, but, again, that also goes back to proper river management. We see situations where the government is reacting. The pressure's coming on. Senator Hanson's put a lot of pressure on in relation to the code of conduct and the timing of that, so the government reacts. We have all sorts of problems on the Murray-Darling, and the government get reactive about them instead of being proactive, which is where they need to be playing. For as long as the coalition have been in power, since they took over from the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government, energy prices have been high. I, as a South Australian, know that only too well because we, unfortunately, have the highest energy costs in the country, but Victoria's creeping up. There are a lot of dairy farmers in Victoria who are going to end up experiencing extremely high power prices as a result of a failure to deal with policy properly. So I agree with Senator Davey that this bill doesn't address the core problems, but we must also recognise that the government hasn't been addressing those core input cost problems either. Finally, I know senators around the chamber will have an affinity with what I'm about to say—that is, as a senator, you have the honour of being able to pick up the phone and talk to just about anyone in the country. That is a huge honour. We are able to contact people—experts in their field—and, in relation to this bill, that's exactly what I did. I contacted the South Australian Dairyfarmers Association and I asked them for their considered opinion on this bill. They do not want it. As a South Australian senator, I have to listen to what my constituents say. The experts in South Australia—the people who are producing milk in South Australia—do not want this, and it is for that reason that Centre Alliance will not support the bill. 13:21 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland The Protecting Australian Dairy Bill 2019 is a classic example of wedge politics in action. One Nation now wants bureaucrats to regulate the price of milk whilst, at the same time, it is calling for bureaucrats not to regulate water in the Murray-Darling Basin. If you don't like the way bureaucrats are regulating water, what makes you think they'll be any better at regulating milk? Talk about flip-flopping. Like the Murray-Darling, our dairy industry is complex and varies significantly by state. Trying to determine a price for milk that will keep everyone happy is an impossible dream and only goes to show how out of touch One Nation are. So let me say this: a base milk price will not be effective, because of regional variations in dairy farming and the difference in domestic and export prices. If a base price is set by a state, the processors will just buy milk from the state with the lowest base price, thus sending dairy farmers in other states, like Queensland, broke. Not once have I heard One Nation or Labor actually name their price. It's all very well saying you want a floor price. That's the easy part. But has anyone actually done a sensitivity analysis on the different impacts of different base prices? I doubt it. I haven't heard anyone talk about the detail here—that is, if you believe, like those opposite us, that bureaucrats should set prices. Once upon a time, the government set a floor price for the wool industry. Do you know how that turned out? It destroyed the industry for the best part of a decade as a result of oversupply. Why? Because farmers were guaranteed a fixed price regardless of demand. They didn't have any incentive to rein in supply when demand was slowing. Ultimately, this led to a massive wool stockpile that crushed the wool price and the industry with it. My childhood was spent in the sheep yards and shearing sheds mustering, yarding, pressing wool and working alongside my first great love—the Australian working dog. Not many of you may be familiar with what happened to the wool industry, but I am. I had to watch my parents struggle to make ends meet when the industry crashed, and they did. My parents, like so many others, don't bother complaining. They accept that the world isn't perfect, and they adapt to prevailing conditions. It's a pity, though, that the world didn't listen. My father hated the floor price. He hated governments regulating prices, period. He knew it was going to crash the industry, and he was proven right. The devil is in the detail, so let's go there. I think you will soon agree that, like myself, Senator Hanson is sadly lacking any commercial acumen whatsoever—lots of rhetoric but no solutions. Are we talking about the narrow definition of milk or the wider definition? This matters because milk only constitutes 27 per cent of dairy products sold. The largest product sold is cheese, at 36 per cent, followed by milk, at 27 per cent, and butter, at 23 per cent, with yoghurt and ice cream making up the remaining balance. In Senator Hanson's proposed bill, she wants the ACCC to set a base price for milk. The main condition on this is that the ACCC, when settling on this price, must have regard to the cost of collecting, processing and selling dairy products, to the long-term food security of Australia and to the commercial viability of dairy farms and processors. That's about as clear as mud, isn't it. How many bureaucrats are we going to have to employ to work all this out? Sounds like a great waste of taxpayers' dollars to me. Tell me: is this base price meant to be the same for each state, or is there going to be a different price for every state? This matters because the average expense of milk solids varies significantly, state by state. In Tasmania it's $4.36 per kilogram and in Queensland it's $6.63 per kilogram. In other words it's almost 50 per cent more expensive to produce milk in Queensland than in Tasmania. Processors already pay more for Queensland milk than they do for milk from other states. That's right: Queensland receives $7.84 per kilogram of milk, while Victoria only sees $5.87 per kilogram of milk solid. Effectively, by introducing a base price for milk, One Nation is going to throw Queensland dairy farmers under the bus, since they are already the highest-paid dairy farmers in Australia. And, if the price is set by state, how does the bill prevent processors from buying milk from the cheapest producing states? I'll make a couple of other points before I conclude. The preamble to this bill says that dairy farmers have been leaving the industry since it was deregulated in 2000. This is not the full picture. As a matter of fact, more dairy farmers left the industry in the 20 years before deregulation than after it. It's also worth noting that farmers who left the industry after deregulation would more than likely have been part of a transition package funded by the consumer, who had to pay an 11c-per-litre levy for milk for eight years after deregulation, a deregulation that the dairy farmers asked for and that the state governments—not the federal government—agreed to. It should be remembered that much of the land in Queensland that was once dairy farms has now been subdivided into acreage. Many dairy farmers who got out of the industry did so by subdividing and taking profit from rezoning agricultural land into residential land. What the coalition government is going to do is give our dairy farmers greater control over their destiny by bringing in a mandatory code of conduct that will ensure dairy farmers can fairly bargain with processors so they can receive a fair price for their milk and related products. We will continue to fight for lower water charges, Australian ownership of water, lower power prices, strong enforcement of anti-dumping laws and—most importantly of all—higher taxes on profits sent offshore by foreign owned companies, which most of the major processors are. That's something that I would be working on right now if it weren't for this desperate, attention-seeking stunt. I will always be a fierce defender of our agricultural industry and way of life. But the best way to ensure we maintain our high standard of living and vibrant agricultural industry is to ensure that we continue to drive productivity. Our freedoms are the child of affluence. If we don't constantly improve our productivity, we will not continue to earn the profits that provide us with the freedoms we have today. 13:29 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I too rise to speak on the Protecting Australian Dairy Bill. In doing so, I will point out and pay tribute to the three colleagues of mine who have spoken before me on this bill, all of them with direct experience of agriculture in Australia. That is the case with me too. As many of you know, I grew up on a family farm in the South West of Western Australia—a family farm that has done pretty much everything in the course of its life. My dad built a dairy. My dad ran a dairy for a number of years. As with Senator Rennick, he left the industry when I was a young boy—again, well before deregulation took over. On our family farm alone, we've had four highly regulated industries where we've seen the heavy hand of government, sometimes aided and abetted by industry leaders who think they know best, try to control what farmers do. On our farm in the South West of Western Australia, at various times we've produced milk, we've had a fine-wool merino flock, we've had prime lamb production and we've grown potatoes. All of these at one stage or another were massively overregulated. They were highly regulated, with price controls and quotas. You name it; those industries had it, and it affected them all negatively. Senator Rennick talked about the collapse of the reserve price scheme for wool. Dad and Mum struggled on for probably six years with our fine-wool merino flock, but with that wool stockpile hanging over their head they just couldn't do it any longer, and in the end they had to get out. I think Senator Rennick was actually a little bit kind to the impact of the collapse of the reserve price scheme when he said '10 years'. I think it was closer to 15. It's probably only been in the last six or seven years that there have been decent returns for wool again in this country, as finally that floor price for wool and the negative impact it had on the wool industry in Australia have washed out of the system and finally woolgrowers across Australia have got a decent return for their clip. We had a regulated lamb industry in Western Australia and, obviously, a regulated dairy industry. The potato marketing board, up until recently, regulated the production of potatoes in Western Australia. All of these in the end had to wind up. They had to collapse. They had to be wound up because they failed. They failed to meet the test of what agriculture needs, and that is farmers being able to do their best to produce the food and fibre that the world and Australia need. Bureaucrats in Canberra or Perth cannot judge what is required by farmers on the land. It is impossible. We can help set the rules by which everyone operates. We can help make sure that those rules are as robust and fair as possible and encourage transparency as much as possible, but, as soon as we get into the realm of starting to talk about floor prices, we are rerunning history that has already failed. The devastation that was caused by the previous regulation of industries cannot be overstated. I had another example in my professional life when working with the Pastoralists and Graziers Association at the time of the end of the Australian Wheat Board, the export monopoly for wheat, a situation which saw Western Australian grain growers effectively underwriting the cost of marketing wheat to the rest of the world and eastern states grain growers, who operated in a deregulated domestic market, taking advantage of that in some years and ignoring it in others. West Australian grain growers carried the costs. Regulation of industries with a one-size-fits-all model does not work. It has failed. It has failed. It has failed again. 13:33 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to talk about regulations. Having listened to the socialists on my left in the Liberal and National parties, let's have a look at some of the regulations. I've also listened to the farmers who are doing it bloody tough, right up the whole of the east coast and in South Australia. Let's start with property rights being stolen from farmers due to John Howard's government policies, without compensation. Let's have a look at water prices that are now ridiculous thanks to speculators driven by the same John Howard's government policies. Let's have a look at the shortage of water driven by the same Murray-Darling Basin created by John Howard's government. Let's have a look at power prices that are now the highest in the world—and not the lowest as they used to be—thanks to John Howard's government. Let's have a look at the drought, and that has become a water crisis. Drought is natural. The crisis is man made. It's government made. Let's have a look at the banks that have been given an easy ride thanks to John Howard's government. Let's have a look at free trade agreements that are now giving New Zealand and Canada a free ride. So much of this is underpinned by the climate scam, which most farmers know is rubbish, and which most Liberals know is rubbish but haven't got the guts to stand up about. The farmers get squeezed. I was on the banks of the Murray River just a week ago. Water was flowing past. A farmer walked up to me with a construction man, the owner of a construction business. He has not got a single customer, because the farmers are lacking confidence. He told me himself. He said: 'They can handle drought. They can't handle the current uncertainty that is due to government. They can understand nature. They can't understand what the government will do next.' This is urgent and the government won't address it! Senator McDonald opposes regulation. So do I. But this has been created by regulation—uninformed, bureaucratic nightmares driven by the Liberal and National parties over many years. They need to either rescind all of those regulations that I have talked about or pass this bill. We hope that the National Party senators will support Senator Pauline Hanson's bill, because the people do support looking after the dairy farmers. I commend this bill to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D The question is the bill be read a second time. Is a division required? Ring the bells. Senator Hanson BK6 Who said no? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D I heard the noes, here. Senator Hanson, thank you, but it's up to the chair to hear the voices. If you can't hear them, it's not my problem. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that the bill be read a second time.

The Senate divided. [13:40]
(The President—Senator Scott Ryan)

 30 AYES Ayres, T Bilyk, CL Chisholm, A Ciccone, R (teller) Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Hanson, P Hanson-Young, SC Keneally, KK Lambie, J Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Polley, H Rice, J Roberts, M Siewert, R Smith, M Steele-John, J Sterle, G Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS Wong, P 31 NOES Antic, A Askew, W Bernardi, C Birmingham, SJ Bragg, A J Brockman, S (teller) Cash, MC Chandler, C Colbeck, R Cormann, M Davey, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Griff, S Henderson, SM Hughes, H McDonald, S McGrath, J McKenzie, B McMahon, S O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Patrick, RL Payne, MA Rennick, G Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Smith, DA Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 12

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020

Second Reading 12 13:45 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Labor will support these three appropriation bills. Labor does not block supply. However, this should not be seen as Labor giving a free kick to the government's approach in the handling of the budget or the economy. These bills, aside from appropriating the remainder of this financial year's funding—the other bit having been covered by the supply bills passed by the 45th Parliament before the election—also incorporate some election commitments as well as machinery-of-government changes announced since the election. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 seeks to appropriate a total of $58.4 billion in 2019-20 for ordinary annual government services; Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020 seeks to appropriate a total of $7.4 billion for new services and payments to the states and territories; and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 appropriates $160.8 million for the four parliamentary departments. That's what's contained in the bills, which, as I said before, Labor will support. But I think what's more important is what's not in them and what that shows: a glaring lack of a plan to support an economy that is floundering on this government's watch. Last week's statement by the Reserve Bank, where they kept the cash rate unchanged at a record low of 0.75 per cent, noted, 'The main domestic uncertainty continues to be the outlook for consumption,' and it pointed to subdued wages growth which is likely to continue for some time. We have weak domestic consumption driven by wages growth at record lows, which is seen as the main piece of uncertainty for our economy, and this means that, in real life, Australians are doing it tough. The Reserve Bank has seen fit to cut interest rates three times since the federal election. We have household debt at record highs. There are almost two million Australians either looking for work or looking for more work. Just last week we saw the latest retail trade results, which showed the worst result in 30 years, and we saw the RBA, in its latest Statement on monetary policy, downgrading its forecast for economic growth in 2019-20 and wages in 2020-21. But what do we get from this government? They're just sitting there doing nothing. Instead they're making monetary policy do all of the heavy lifting when there are continual calls from the Reserve Bank, economists and even the New South Wales Liberal Treasurer, Dominic Perrottet, amongst others, for the government to do something. It's not clear either that the income tax cuts which are in effect today and which Labor supported are having the effect that the government seems to put so much stock on. We've continually argued that we can have responsible, proportionate and measured stimulus. Instead, from the government, we get just tired old political attack lines, bringing up policies initiated by the then Labor government which, as they like to conveniently forget, helped save the Australian economy from going into recession during the global financial crisis. Labor's called for a bring-forward on infrastructure projects, and we're not the only ones. The Reserve Bank governor has called for greater investment in infrastructure at least seven times since the election, particularly in regional Australia. Last week, 13 senior economists supported the RBA governor's call that further stimulus is needed, with 10 of them calling on the government to use fiscal stimulus like fast-tracking infrastructure investment to help the economy. They joined a list including Ai Group, EY, Master Builders Australia, NAB and Hostplus, who have all called for the fast-tracking of infrastructure investment, all of which could be done without putting the budget surplus in jeopardy. Labor has also called for an increase to the Newstart allowance, and again, as on infrastructure, we're not the only ones. KPMG recently released a report saying that an increase to Newstart will provide much-needed economic stimulus, boosting domestic consumption, especially in regional areas. Organisations such as the BCA, Deloitte Access Economics, Ai Group and COSBOA have all called for an increase—so have ACOSS, the Council of the Ageing, National Seniors Australia, St Vincent De Paul and the Brotherhood of St Laurence. Just to demonstrate that it's something that crosses the political divide, the following individuals have also called for an increase to Newstart: former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard, former Nationals Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, Liberal Tasmanian Premier Mr Will Hodgman, Deputy Nationals leader Senator Matt Canavan, Liberal Senator Dean Smith, Liberal MP Russell Broadbent, Liberal National MP Andrew Wallace, former Liberal senator Arthur Sinodinos and former Liberal MP Fiona Scott. The Treasurer himself has admitted that increasing Newstart would be effective stimulus given that Newstart recipients would be more likely to spend the money out in the economy. These are just a couple of areas where the government could take action now to turn around an economy that is clearly floundering on their watch, but they choose not to do so. We do hear on a tiringly repetitive basis slogans about how the budget is forecast to be in surplus this financial year. Let there be no mistake: Labor supports the budget being in that position, but there is one thing that the government don't like to highlight, particularly as they were apparently elected into office six years ago to get debt under control. This is another example of the government saying one thing but doing something different. Net debt has more than doubled since the government took office with debt at $174.6 billion in September 2013. The most recent monthly financial statements show that net debt has crashed through the $400 billion mark for the first time in Australia's history at $401.7 billion in September 2019. Gross debt has also nearly doubled since the government took office with $280.3 billion in September 2013. The latest data put out last week shows that gross debt is now at $555 billion. These figures don't sound like debt is under control. We know that the government have got their priorities all wrong, with no plans for the country other than a political plan. I would like to highlight a few areas in the remaining time that I have. The first is one of the very few election commitments that the government actually did announce. As is their wont, they announced it along with the rest of their election costings with the barest level of accountability two days before the election. It was an increase to the rate of the efficiency dividend, something which is reflected in the appropriation bills before us today. The proposal involves maintaining the rate at two per cent for a further two years, 2019-20 and 2020-21, before reverting to 1.5 per cent in 2021-22 and then the standard base level of one per cent in 2022-23. Over the forward estimates, this is meant to generate savings of $1.5 billion and, over the medium term, nearly $5 billion. That's another $1.5 billion over the next four years cut out of the Public Service, which follows on from an additional net $1.9 billion of cuts from increases to the efficiency dividend from 2014-15 to 2019-20 that were already in previous budgets. It is a very typical approach from this government to the Public Service to cut jobs, slash budgets and then point the finger when something goes wrong. That $3.4 billion in cuts to the Public Service is going to have a detrimental effect on services to the Australian people. We are talking impacts on frontline services, such as from the ATO and Centrelink. We are talking a long-term impact on capability building and ensuring the APS is fit for purpose as we move into the 21st century. All this government has done through the impact of the efficiency dividend increases, protracted industrial disputes, job cuts and the ASL staffing cap has led to a steadily growing reliance on the use of contractors and consultants and the steady erosion of the capability of the APS. A strong, responsive and apolitical public service can challenge governments to be better and to think about the long-term implications of decisions forged in the bearpit of federal politics. An accountable, transparent and effective public service can deliver services and programs in a way that puts people before profit and manages the needs of our most vulnerable citizens, something that drives all of us in this place. If we continually erode the capability of the Public Service, it makes it more tricky to do these things. At the very least, it makes it more difficult for the Public Service to be 'congestion busting', as the Prime Minister so eloquently put it a few months ago in his finger-pointing tirade to the Public Service. This leads me to a another point about the government's priorities. Just last week we saw a scathing audit report from the Auditor-General about the administration of regional jobs and investment packages. We had $220.5 million in grants. That was $220.5 million of tax payers' money awarded by ministerial panels, with the Auditor-General finding that they approved ineligible applications for funding, approved five late applications for funding with no exemption reasons recorded and awarded 89 per cent of the funding for the New South Wales South Coast region to applications from the highly marginal Liberal seat of the electorate of Gilmore at the expense of the Labor-held seat of Eden-Monaro. They failed to verify claims around ongoing jobs created by each proposed grant. They did not rescore or provide reasons when rejecting 28 per cent of the applications that had been recommended by the department. They approved 17 per cent of applications not recommended by the department, without adequate reasons. They failed to appropriately consider co-funding exemptions, awarding four of the 16 applications where a co-funding exemption was requested a total of $1.74 million. They increasingly overturned decisions over time. They did not consistently apply the eligibility requirements relating to the content of applications, did not manage conflict of interest to a consistently appropriate standard and did not soundly assess applications in accordance with the program guideline. It's an absolutely scathing report. It's one thing to drop this scathing report on Melbourne Cup day; it's another thing to completely mismanage a $220 million grants program. Another revelation last week was that a company originally hired to run a call centre assessed the grants for this program. This company was awarded a $3.15 million contract without a tender or quote from any other company. And the contract itself was incorrectly described on the AusTender website as being for 'professional recruitment services'. Believe me, this is something we will come back to and continue to analyse. This episode is simply emblematic of a government that has no plans other than political plans, has it priorities wrong, and has an aversion to transparency and accountability. Finally on priorities, it's telling that the government is able to spend $220 million on a grants program in a fashion that raises serious questions about how it's being administrated and managed, but then not deal with the situation in our aged-care system. We've recently seen the interim report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. As the shadow minister for ageing and seniors said a couple of weeks ago, it's a heartbreaking and shocking reminder of the unacceptable state of Australia's aged-care system. But the government refuse to do anything. They've known for more than a year that 16,000 older Australians died in a year whilst waiting for home care. They've known for even longer that 120,000 older Australians have been waiting for the home care that they have been approved for. The interim report of the royal commission describes the unacceptable number of older Australians waiting for home care as 'unsafe practice and neglect'. So while it's busy mismanaging a $220 million grants program, it has done nothing to address these very, very serious issues, and the contrast couldn't be starker. As I said, Labor will support these appropriation bills, but this is not a leave pass for the government's approach to the budget, the economy and the priorities for Australian people. Its failings are stark and many, and it's clear that its priorities are wrong. Labor will continue to hold the government to account to ensure that, in its third term, it is actually implementing an agenda which will be a benefit to all Australians and which will help to turn the economy, which is floundering on its watch, around. 13:57 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania The appropriation bills for the annual budget are the most significant pieces of legislation of the year for any government. It's the package of legislation which, more than any other, outlines the vision of the government and makes a strong statement about their values. It is a statement not just of how the government will deal with the day-to-day challenges facing Australia, but also of how they will deal with long-term challenges. At least, that's the statement a budget makes if the government has a vision. But what we see from the Morrison government, this third-term Liberal government, is that they are bereft of any long-term plans. This is a government facing a stalling economy and a climate emergency, and yet it has no plans to address either. Their heads are in the sand. The Prime Minister, who likes to talk about the Canberra bubble, governs by thought bubble. He and his government come up with harebrained schemes, like using taxpayer funds to build coal-fired power stations. His latest bright idea, stopping consumer boycott campaigns, is unworkable and antidemocratic. It's also just a distraction, filling the void left by a government with no substance and no agenda. The Morrison government is asleep at the wheel when it comes to turning around Australia's faltering economy. We get lectures every day from Mr Morrison on the importance of running a strong economy and what it can achieve. Mr Morrison will have no disagreement from those on this side of the chamber about the importance of running a strong economy. But what we don't have from those opposite is any explanation of what they are actually going to do to run a strong economy. They talk about good economic management as if Australians will just take it on faith that that's what they are doing. But Australians are starting to see through this charade. The government's economic narrative is unravelling by the day. Australia is facing a period of low wage growth. This Liberal government has doubled the net debt, and gross debt has reached half a trillion dollars for the first time in history. The cost of household essentials, private health insurance, electricity and childcare are going through the roof. Household living standards are going backwards— 14:00 The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Bilyk, you'll be in continuation when debate resumes. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:00 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia by leave—I table for the information of the Senate a revised ministry list and seek leave to have the document incorporated into Hansardand make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator CORMANN HDA I advise the Senate that the updated ministry list reflects the updated representing arrangements in the House of Representatives. The document read as follows— SECOND MORRISON MINISTRY 29 May 2019 Each box represents a portfolio. Cabinet Ministers are shown in bold type. As a general rule, there is one department in each portfolio. However, there can be two departments in one portfolio. The title of a department does not necessarily reflect the title of a Minister in all cases. Ministers are sworn to administer the portfolio in which they are listed under the 'Minister' column and may also be sworn to administer other portfolios in which they are not listed. Assistant Ministers in italics are designated as Parliamentary Secretaries under the Ministers of State Act 1952. Updated 24 October 2019 Senator CORMANN HDA by leave—I advise the Senate that Senator Canavan will be absent from question time today, Monday 11 November 2019, for personal reasons. In Senator Canavan's absence, Senator McKenzie will represent the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, the Minister for Regional Services, Decentralisation and Local Government and the Minister for Industry, Science and Technology. I further advise the Senate that Senator Reynolds will be absent from question time today due to ministerial duties. In Senator Reynolds's absence, Senator Payne will be represented the Minister for Defence, the Assistant Minister for Defence, the Minister for Veterans and Defence Personnel and the Minister for Defence Industry. Senator McKenzie will represent the Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts. STATEMENTS 17 STATEMENTS Australian Bushfires 17 14:01 Senator CORMANN HDA Western Australia by leave—As we gather today, all of us are very mindful of the efforts and sacrifice of thousands of brave Australians who are responding to the ongoing bushfires in north-east New South Wales and South-East Queensland. Let me update the Senate on the situation to date as well as the broader response of the government to the fires and their aftermath. In New South Wales, fires continue to burn across large parts of north-east New South Wales. As of this morning, there are more than 65 fires burning. More than 1,300 firefighters and support personnel, along with 78 aircraft, have been battling these fires. Tragically, three people have lost their lives and dozens more have been injured, including firefighters. The Rural Fire Service estimates that 150 structures have been lost, including a large number of homes. Evacuation centres have been established. The Prime Minister met with some of the affected communities yesterday. Whilst conditions have eased in New South Wales over the weekend, we can't draw any comfort from that. Fire weather conditions are expected to worsen tomorrow. A total fire ban is in place across entirety of the state. The Premier of New South Wales has declared a state of emergency across New South Wales. A catastrophic fire danger has been forecast for the greater Sydney and greater Hunter areas tomorrow. This is the first time such conditions have been forecast for Sydney since the new fire danger ratings were introduced a decade ago. Fires are also continuing to burn in South-East Queensland. There are reports of property loss but no confirmation of numbers. The situation is ever changing, and a state of fire emergency has been declared across 42 local government areas. Dangerous fire weather conditions are expected to return on Wednesday for parts of South-East Queensland. I should note that we're also watching Western Australia with concern, where severe to extreme fire dangers are forecast today over southern and central fire weather areas. The government is working very closely with our state and territory counterparts. I would like to acknowledge the tremendous national effort taking place, with interstate firefighters travelling from the ACT, South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria. The Director-General of Emergency Management Australia activated COMDISPLAN on 31 October. Firebombing aircraft have been in action against these fires, and the RAAF have transported firefighters from Canberra, Adelaide and Hobart to Port Macquarie. In New South Wales, disaster recovery assistance is being provided under the jointly funded Commonwealth-state Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements, and assistance is available for the mid-north coast bushfires and the northern New South Wales bushfires. The assistance available is extensive. The on-the-ground assistance is administered by the New South Wales government, with the disaster welfare assistance line available on 1800018444. We're also providing additional financial assistance through the Australian government disaster recovery payment. This is a non-means-tested payment of $1,000 for eligible adults and $400 for children. It is available to those whose homes have been lost or directly damaged, who have been seriously injured or who have an immediate family member who has lost their life. The payment has been activated for the local government areas of Armidale, Clarence Valley, Glen Innes Severn, Kempsey, Mid-Coast, Nambucca, Port Macquarie-Hastings, Richmond Valley, Tenterfield and Walcha. As well as the Australian government's disaster recovery allowance, there is a short-term income support payment to assist those who have experienced loss of income as a direct result of the bushfires. The allowance has been activated for the local government areas of Armidale, Bellingen, Clarence Valley, Coffs Harbour, Glenn Innes Severn, Inverell, Kempsey, Mid-Coast, Nambucca, Port Macquarie-Hastings, Richmond Valley, Tenterfield, Uralla and Walcha. Both the disaster recovery payment and the disaster recovery loans are administered by the Department of Human Services, and anyone adversely impacted by the bushfires in New South Wales should contact the Department of Human Services on 1802266. The government is also in close contact with Queensland authorities in relation to the activation of disaster assistance. Assistance through the jointly funded DRFA can be made immediately by the Queensland government to help people in need. As soon as there is a better understanding of the on-the-ground situation, the Australian government, with the state, will provide whatever assistance is needed to help affected communities with their recovery. Australians can be confident that every part of the Australian government stands ready to assist with what is before us. All Commonwealth agencies have been activated and are prepared to assist state authorities and the communities. This is particularly so in the case of the Australian Defence Force, whose full resources will be available to assist where they can. I can report to the Senate that the Minister for Defence has directed and authorised all locally based commanders to provide immediate assistance wherever it is required in response to emerging circumstances. These are difficult days for many communities. No matter where we sit in this chamber, we're all in awe of the professionalism, bravery and dedication of our emergency services workers and volunteers. They have inspired us all. They embody the best of us. On behalf of the government and, I'm sure, the Senate, I would also like to express our thanks to the employers who have emergency services volunteers in their ranks. Thank you for your understanding. We know you're short-staffed, but thank you for supporting your staff as they support our community. It's vital, in coming days, that Australians follow the advice of the emergency services. Though heartbreaking, houses and gardens can be replaced, but family members can never be replaced—they just can't. Your safety is more important than any property or animal you might consider protecting. Please follow advice. Please be aware of your surroundings. Please take no chances. Whilst there are still difficult days ahead, we can draw strength from the way all our people are responding. As the Prime Minister has said, we are seeing Australians helping Australians. We can be proud of our people. And we're determined to do everything we can to help those same people get back on their feet. 14:08 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia On behalf of the Labor Party, I join Senator Cormann in expressing our condolences to those who have lost loved ones in these bushfires. I pay tribute to the emergency personnel, to the volunteers and to all those who have shown such courage in their efforts to protect our fellow Australians. I join Senator Cormann in urging all in affected areas to listen to warnings and to stay safe. As Mr Albanese made clear, both publicly and in his telephone call to the Prime Minister, Labor stands ready to work with the government and affected communities in any way we can assist. As at a short time ago, up to 60 fires were burning in New South Wales and in excess of 45 in Queensland. An unfathomable 970,000 hectares have been burnt in New South Wales and a further 11,000 in central Queensland alone. Tragically, three of our fellow Australians have died. Many have been injured, including firefighters. Behind these numbers are our fellow Australians—Australians facing the most extreme, traumatic circumstances, Australians facing the loss of homes and, worse still, Australians facing the loss of loved ones. Again, I pause to express our sympathies to those whose loved ones have lost their lives and to wish a speedy and full recovery to all who have been injured. In New South Wales 150 homes have been destroyed and in Queensland over a dozen. Most horrifyingly, it appears that the worst is yet to come, with deteriorating weather conditions predicted tomorrow. Western Australia and South Australia are also facing serious threats. It is a national tragedy and a national emergency. Right now, today, there are families grieving, communities in danger and courageous Australians fighting these fires. We're with them and ready to support them in any way we can in this crisis. But I will say this: it is the responsible thing to do, when we are through this current crisis, to focus on what we have to do to keep Australians safe. When I was climate minister, scientists were already warning of longer and more intense fire seasons. Regrettably, these warnings have been proved correct. Individual weather events can't be directly linked, but trends can, and we need a plan to keep Australians safe by dealing with the risk of more extreme weather events. But today we focus on the immediate crisis and those dealing with it: the rallying of emergency personnel and volunteers; people coming together to support one another; and the images we see on our televisions, the stories we hear on our radios and what we see on social media. At a time of trouble in the world what we have seen is in many ways the best of Australia: the way in which we can come together. So I say to all those who are impacted by and facing the threat of this crisis—to all of those confronting it—and I know I speak for all of us in this place: we stand with you. 14:11 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise on behalf of the Australian Greens to speak about the bushfire and climate emergency that our nation is facing. We share the sentiments that have been expressed already by the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and we too express our deepest sorrow and grief at the lives lost, the homes lost and the habitat lost from these catastrophic bushfires. These are truly heartbreaking scenes. We are so grateful to the women and men putting their lives on the line to contain these unprecedented fires, and all the people supporting them right now; our volunteer firefighters, our professional firefighters and all of our emergency service personnel are heroes. On the latest updates, tragically, three people have died and over 150 structures and homes have been lost. There are still 47 fires burning in my home state of Queensland and a state of emergency has been declared in 42-odd local government areas. There are at least 60 fires burning in New South Wales, and the Premier there has also declared a bushfire emergency. Indeed, New South Wales fire authorities have issued their first-ever catastrophic warning. What is unfolding is a direct threat to human lives, and we extend our deep gratitude to all of those working around the clock to keep people safe. What is even more scary is the context in which these fires are happening. The New South Wales Rural Fire Service's Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons has said that above-normal temperatures and below-average rainfall will continue to dominate the coming months. He said: We have got the worst of our fire season still ahead of us. We're not even in summer yet. It's truly terrifying to think that we haven't even entered the traditional bushfire season yet. Of course, our bushfire season is now fundamentally altered. Our bushfire season has extended to become almost an all-year-round threat. For the first time, fires are raging in both the northern and southern hemispheres at the same time. The days of Australian firefighters helping out in California in our winter and vice versa are likely to be over. We cannot say we weren't informed that this was going to happen. In 2006 a report was handed to the Howard government by the CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology that fire and extreme fire-rating days would increase significantly by 2020. We're already in that future. They told us that the fire season would extend and that the window for crucial prescribed burning would narrow. What Australian climate scientists predicted in 2006 has come to pass, and governments have had every opportunity to act and have failed. The question for us is whether this parliament will continue to fail those communities. Australia's greenhouse gas pollution right now is the highest on record. The mining and burning of coal and methane emissions from gas extraction continue to rise. The complete lack of climate policy in this country is simply pouring fuel on these fires, making them more likely and more intense. We owe it to our communities to rapidly transition to a renewable energy economy and unlock the thousands of new jobs in those communities. Thoughts and prayers are not enough to protect the Australian community from future megafires. We need science. We need action from government to rapidly drive down Australia's pollution and, in the process, create those tens of thousands of jobs across the country and keep our communities safe from drier, harsher conditions that are unfolding before our very eyes. This parliament should be doing everything within our power to minimise the risk of losing human life, property and habitat, and that means doing everything we can to stop a climate breakdown. If we in this parliament don't commit to doing this then we'll be back here delivering another statement on another tragic national disaster, with shorter and shorter gaps in between. The Australian Greens do not want statements like this to become frequent and regular. We want to see communities right across the country be safe from harm, and we commit to continuing to work for just that. 14:15 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria As Leader of The Nationals in the Senate, I stand with other political parties to put on the record our thanks to our volunteers. We've had devastating fires that have burnt across large parts of New South Wales and Queensland, claiming three lives, and our thoughts and prayers are with the families and loved ones who are so tragically affected. More than 30 people have been injured, including 20 firefighters. Our volunteers and paid responders, all professionals, continue to put themselves in harm's way to keep us safe. In some cases they've lost their own homes whilst they're out protecting others from the fires—fires that are having a devastating impact on many communities, and the lion's share of these communities are represented by National Party MPs right across regional New South Wales and Queensland. They're out there now on the ground, doing what they can do to support their communities. There are Kevin Hogan and Michelle Landry, George Christensen worried about Bowen, and our new Nationals member for Cowper, the Kempsey boy, Pat Conaghan—his community has been through so much in the past week, and it isn't over for them yet as they mourn the loss of life. David Gillespie in Taree is with his community, and Barnaby Joyce and his community are grappling with the loss of life and the devastating impact on the Glen Innes community, which was the former home of Senator Wacka Williams. Llew O'Brien up in Wide Bay is also heavily impacted in Queensland. This week these MPs are able to be with their communities to do what they can for them, and it shows that, in the midst of such hell, we've seen the very best of regional Australia stand up and support and aid their neighbours and friends. I'm sure everyone in the Senate will join us in thanking them and appreciating their efforts—the Rotary clubs; the Lions clubs; and the local branches of CWA, the Red Cross, St Vincent de Paul and the Salvos are all providing what comfort they can. It isn't just the human toll. Community infrastructure, telecommunications and power infrastructure, bridges, schools and volunteer fire stations have been destroyed. More than 1,300 firefighters and support personnel, along with 77 aircraft, have been battling these fires. Evacuation centres have been established and remain active to support fire affected communities. Our first concern is for the safety and needs of those directly affected. People need to stay alert as fire weather conditions are predicted to worsen again tomorrow and through the rest of the week. We're also watching WA with concern. I urge everyone to stay aware of their surroundings and follow advice from local emergency management authorities. If you're asked to leave by our authorities, for your safety, leave. Our government has made assistance available as quickly as we can. Minister David Littleproud has already acted to provide assistance both to support the front line and to provide financial assistance to individuals and communities. We'll continue to support to disaster affected communities and stand ready to provide further assistance as required, because it's the right thing to do and because we're part of these communities. We're experiencing the shock, horror and exhaustion of the fires with our communities and we're wishing everyone the very best over the coming week. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Regional Jobs and Investment Packages 20 14:19 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland My question is to Senator McKenzie, the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Last Saturday's Cairns Post quoted the member for Leichhardt's office as saying: The department was solely responsible for assessing, recommending and ultimately awarding grants under the RJIP program. Can the minister confirm that this statement is not true? 14:19 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria The RJIP program is what I understand the senator is asking about. I do apologise I haven't got those details to hand, and I haven't seen the article that you're quoting from. I'm very happy to come back on notice and give you the details you're seeking. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Green, a supplementary question? 14:20 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland The electorate of Leichhardt was awarded $16.2 million in the tropical North Queensland round of the RJIP program, but Kennedy was awarded only $1.9 million. How many applications in Kennedy were recommended by the department but overturned by the ministerial panel? And how many applications in Leichhardt were approved by the ministerial panel against advice from the department? 14:20 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Thank you, Senator. As to the details of applications received, recommended and approved, I can get those details for you on notice. The Australian government, in response to the ANAO report, notes the findings of the ANAO's performance audit report on the award of funding under this program. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development has accepted the recommendations of the report, having already implemented improved practices that address these recommendations, based on the findings of an assurance review proactively conducted by the department in July 2018. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Green, a final supplementary question? 14:21 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland One of the programs referred to in that audit includes a grant in Leichhardt for $2.4 million to a company part owned by the wife of the member for Leichhardt's former campaign manager, who was also the chair of the tropical North Queensland RJIP planning committee. The company has since decided not to proceed. Why has the ministerial panel not reallocated the funds to a different tropical North Queensland application? 14:22 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Thank you, Senator, for your question. I will take the details on notice and get back to you. The Regional Jobs and Investment Packages help diversify regional economies, they stimulate economic growth and they deliver sustainable employment in regional communities right across the country. It's a program that has made a great deal of difference in regional communities to ensure that we're backing them. We're backing their economic stimulation through that program. The ANAO report acknowledges that, for an investment of $220.5 million in grant funding, the program has leveraged an estimated additional $467.8 million in project costs to support projects to drive economic growth in regional Australia. So it's been very, very useful in leveraging local dollars and nous and providing jobs across regional communities. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 21 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 14:23 The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the chamber of the Hon. Mariya Didi, Minister of Defence of the Republic of Maldives. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 21 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Drought 21 14:23 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management, Senator McKenzie. Can the Minister please outline how the Liberal and Nationals government is providing stability and certainty with its new support measures to assist drought-hit farmers and particularly small businesses and rural towns? 14:23 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria As you know, this drought is showing no signs of halting, and our government has chosen to stand with our drought affected farmers and their communities from the very, very beginning, from the Drought Summit last year, where all premiers across this country came to Canberra and, as a Commonwealth, actually started towards agreeing how we're going to support our farmers. We were able to make more than $7 billion worth of commitments to our farmers, focusing on assisting them right now, in the here and now—our front line, the farming communities and their families—and then making sure that drought affected communities are supported as the drought continues, because it is not just our farming families that end up affected; it is actually our rural supply stores, the employment in these local areas. So we are supporting those drought affected communities with much-needed economic stimulus. We announced last week a $200 million drought-only round of the BBRF, doubling the Roads to Recovery funding for these councils, so that they can employ locals and so that they can purchase the products for these projects from the local hardware stores and keep that money spinning through regional communities and keep people employed. When businesses dry up and when the cash dries up, people leave town and they do not come back. Over the weekend I was in Moree, and the mayor there, Katrina Humphries, talked about the impact on the whole community. She's a small business owner. Moree is like the moon landscape; it is incredibly dry. I have never seen anything like it. It is usually one of the most productive agricultural regions in the country, and now they're facing year on year of hardship and it's affecting the towns. I spoke to Col, who runs the local motorbike store. He's looking at laying people off if he cannot get the support required. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Davey, a supplementary question? 14:25 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Can the minister also update the Senate on the existing measures which support farmers and communities affected by drought? 14:25 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria When I was speaking to Col in Moree, he said that he thought that the new package of loans for small businesses in drought affected communities was exactly the type of product that would help him get through the drought and into the recovery. It would mean that he could keep his 20-plus employees on board and that he would be able to refinance any existing debt that he had and save tens of thousands of dollars in interest payments. The reality is that, as soon as farmers have the crop in or are restocking, that is when the money will return to these communities. So small businesses are very, very appreciative. Why is that part of the drought support package? Because that's what we've all heard when we've been out talking to drought affected communities and farmers. This is exactly the type of response that our communities wanted. As I said, we've got the economic stimulus, we've radically simplified the farm household allowance and there's legislation before the Senate this week that will assist. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Davey, a final supplementary question? 14:27 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales How are the Liberals and Nationals in government building resilience against future droughts, and is the minister aware of any alternative approaches? 14:27 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria We are supporting our farmers and rural communities to prepare and plan for drought. We hear a lot of harping from other people that somehow we're not actually doing that, but the reality is that we are the first government going through a drought to actually put real money on the table and have a real policy focus to start preparing for the next one. Because guess what? We're Australians; this will not be the last drought. We have the Future Drought Fund, which will see $100 million helping us to prepare for the next one. We have also put a billion dollars into water infrastructure projects and for storages. We want state governments to come on the journey with us and build these much-needed dams and pipelines to drought proof, as much as we can, our regional communities and our productive capacity. That is how you plan for a drought; you plan for the next one now. We're the first government in our nation's history to actually do that. Instead of harping, get on board. (Time expired) Regional Jobs and Investment Packages 22 14:28 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Regional Development, Senator McKenzie. The Auditor-General's scathing report into the regional jobs and investment packages revealed ministers gave four project exemptions from the 50 per cent co-funding requirements worth over $1.74 million, including $365,000 for a food van on Flinders Island in Tasmania without a cent from the proponent. What evidence did ministers rely upon in awarding this grant and co-funding exemption? 14:29 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Thank you very much, Senator Urquhart, for your question. I'll have to take the details of that on notice and check with ministers concerned. But I've already stated in answer to previous questions that the Australian government notes the findings of the ANAO performance audit on the awarding of funding under this particular program. The department's working proactively to address issues. Despite the assertions being made and the cherry-picking of certain sections of the ANAO report, it's worth noting that apparently the ANAO report concluded that there was no bias 'evident in the assessment and decision-making' process concerning funding of projects in RJIP regions over others. The Regional Jobs Investment Package delivers much-needed funds to regional communities to stimulate employment not just into the future but in the here and now. In respect of requests for specific project details, it's all publicly available on the website. The PRESIDENT: Senator Urquhart, a supplementary question? 14:30 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania The food van's proponent told the Launceston Examiner the approved project was originally a physical cafe and community centre, and the viability of the enterprise is questionable. What steps has the government taken to ensure these $365,000 grant for a food van represents value for money? 14:30 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Senator Urquhart, as I've said, I'll take the details of that particular project on notice. That's all I can really do. In terms of— Senator Urquhart interjecting— Senator McKENZIE 207825 Well, it's true. It is all I can do. I'll endeavour to get back to the senator as soon as possible. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Urquhart, a final supplementary question? 14:30 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I note that, since the audit was released, the Deputy Prime Minister has refused to provide an explanation. How can the Deputy Prime Minister have full confidence that all projects awarded under the Regional Jobs and Investment Packages program represent value for money? 14:31 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria It is a rigorous process. The ANAO report in its entirety actually makes some helpful suggestions, which the department has taken on board. Rather than cherry-picking certain sections, the conclusion of the report was there was no bias 'evident in the assessment and decision-making process' concerning funding of projects in RJIP regions over others. That is what the report found. Now, could processes improve? The department's looking at that, and I'm getting more information handed to me. In selecting each of the 10 regions, the government considered a range of factors, including recent structural changes in the local economy, and whether or not the regions were under pressure from falling commodity prices and the downturn in the mining and manufacturing sectors. In each region we had local planning committees develop local investment plans that provided economic— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Remembrance Day 23 14:32 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland My question is to the minister representing the Minister for Defence, Senator Payne. Today, 11 November, marks Remembrance Day. Can the minister please advise the Senate on the importance of commemorating those who have served and died in wars, conflicts and peacekeeping operations? 14:32 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales I thank Senator Scarr for his question. As he has reminded us, today we mark Remembrance Day, the day on which we acknowledge the more than 102,000 men and women who tragically died during or as a result of warlike service, non-warlike service and through peacekeeping operations. Originally known as Armistice Day, today marks the day those guns fell silent on the Western Front during the First World War on 11 November 1918. We had a population of around 4.5 million people at the time, and some 416,000 of those enlisted for service in the First World War. Tragically, over 60,000 of them would not return from the war. The allied nations first observed two minutes silence in honour of those who died and suffered during the war at 11.00 am on 11 November 1919, a hundred years ago today. From villages, towns and, of course, our state capitals, no corner of Australia was untouched by this war or those that have followed. The names of our war dead are listed on the Roll of Honour at the Australian War Memorial. We have all seen them. We have all touched them. We're one of the few countries in the world that know the names of all our military personnel who died in war. The freedoms that we enjoy, the confidence we have that we can peacefully pursue our lives have not come without cost. We must remember those 102,000 always, not just to honour them but to fully appreciate what we have. Lest we forget. The PRESIDENT: Senator Scarr, a supplementary question? 14:34 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I thank the minister. Can the minister advise the Senate how the Australian community will be marking Remembrance Day? 14:34 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales Australians in communities around the nation commemorate Remembrance Day each year, from the young to the old. I, with other ministers and senators, the Leader of the Opposition and members of the House, the Minister for Defence, the Governor-General, ex-service organisations, current serving defence members, veterans and their families, and members of the community joined today to mark Remembrance Day and at the national cemetery at the Australian War Memorial. We know that these Remembrance Day ceremonies occur across every state and territory capital, and in communities right across the country, where people gather at their local cenotaph—now 100 years old in many, many cases—and show their respect for those who have served and died in our defence forces. As we all paused for a moments silence today and displayed, as we do in the chamber this afternoon, our red poppies, I know that we all reflected on a time that military service has affected our own lives in one way or another and we honoured those who have given so much for us. The PRESIDENT: Senator Scarr, a final supplementary question? 14:35 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Can the minister advise the Senate what our Australian Defence Force personnel deployed around the world will be doing to mark this important day? 14:36 Senator PAYNE M56 New South Wales No matter where they are, no matter in what role they are serving, I know that Australian Defence Force personnel will take part in Remembrance Day services on bases and at public shrines and memorials around Australia, as well as around the world. We have more than 2,000 Australian Defence Force personnel serving on operations around the world who will also pause at that moment. They're deployed to operational theatres where they will be involved in commemorations either conducted by Australian contingents or, indeed, as part of coalition forces. They are immensely powerful experiences as coalition forces come together to join in acknowledgement of the Armistice and now of Remembrance Day. Our personnel are serving Australia's national interests around the world, whether it is across the sea, the land or the air domains. I know that all those in our chamber join me in acknowledging the men and women of the ADF on this day and thanking them for their service. Australian Bushfires 23 14:37 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is to Minister McKenzie, representing the Minister for Natural Disasters and Emergency Management. Bushfire victims are suffering from the climate crisis. It's not just 11,000 global scientists telling us about the climate emergency we're in. Affected mayors, Rural Fire Service captains and bushfire survivors themselves are all being reported making the clear link between these intense bushfires and the climate crisis. Will you acknowledge this link? Or do you agree with the Nationals leader, Minister McCormack, that climate change is only the concern of 'raving inner-city lunatics'? 14:37 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Senator Waters, we do this dance—and usually it is with Senator Di Natale, so it is lovely to have a different partner today. I don't know how often I can stand in this place and say I accept the science of climate change, our government does. We have got a suite of initiatives across all portfolios to bring down and reduce emissions. I'm happy to go to the initiatives in my own portfolio as agriculture minister which take climate change seriously and take getting our emissions down seriously. We can do that dance. We know that climate change is causing heatwaves, fire weather and drought to become more frequent and intense. We know that. That's why we've got a raft of measures across government to actually deal with this. We're going to see sea levels rise. We're going to see a whole suite of changes across our continent and that is why we're going to keep our international commitments and reduce our emissions—$3.5 billion of our climate reductions fund to give practical measures to help small businesses and communities lower their emissions and to do their bit. To come in here day after day as if somehow my response will change—it won't change. From agriculture's perspective, we're looking at how we can assist with soil degradation. The Landcare movement is playing a frontline role in assisting our environment and our farmers to adapt. A couple of weeks ago at the AGMIN conference, all of Australia's agriculture ministers put forward climate action around agriculture. I recommend you actually read that document before standing up here and somehow using the misery of those who are in regional New South Wales and Queensland to your political advantage. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator McKenzie. Senator Waters, a supplementary question? 14:40 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Earlier this year over 20 former fire chiefs and fire experts wrote to the Prime Minister warning of catastrophic fire risk because of the climate crisis and saying that Australia's services were unprepared, including in relation to water bombers. They asked to meet with the natural disaster and emergency management minister and the Prime Minister, but they were fobbed off. In fact, this morning they were insulted by Minister McCormack on national radio. Minister, why is the government ignoring these and other experts, and when will your government apologise to the people of New South Wales and Queensland who— (Time expired) 14:40 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria You've asked what our government is doing to prepare for and reduce the effects of climate-related natural disasters. We're investing $130.5 million to deliver the risk reduction initiatives at a national, state and local— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator McKenzie. Senator Waters, on a point of order? Senator Waters 192970 With respect, I asked specifically when the government is going to apologise to people facing— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Waters— Senator Waters 192970 these catastrophic fires and why you didn't— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Waters, please stop it. You're repeating part of the question that came after the time the question expired. Senator Waters 192970 That's because I'd like an answer. The PRESIDENT I0Q Please cease talking when I'm making a ruling. You didn't ask all of that question within the allotted time. I apologise in advance if I wasn't, but I was taking notes, and because you went over the time limit the minister's entitled to answer the part of the question that was asked. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I'm very happy to put on the record how seriously our government is treating climate change and its impact when it comes to natural disasters. As I was saying, $130.5 million to meet the need for authoritative climate and disaster risk information. We've got pilot projects in the supply chain and freight sector to be completed in 2019. We've published tools to support all decision-makers to take better account of disasters when they make decisions that affect our communities across all sectors of society, and we've got the Australian Disaster Preparedness Framework for severe to catastrophic disasters, which is a framework where we work with others to actually ensure it rolls out— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Waters, a final supplementary question? 14:42 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Back in 2006, under Prime Minister Howard, CSIRO and the bureau advised government that extreme fire days would increase by up to 25 per cent by 2020. Here we are. You can't say you weren't warned. Why is the Morrison government doing everything in its power to make these sorts of catastrophic fires more likely by its climate denial and inaction? 14:42 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Senator Waters, I don't know how often I can stand up—and I've stood up for eight years—and say the same thing. Here we go again. You know what? I know it doesn't suit your political purposes to have a coalition government that accepts the science of climate change. I know that doesn't suit you; it makes all things a little tricky. But we've got real money on the table to support our communities to reduce emissions and to do our bit as a responsible global partner to reach our Paris targets. For you to come in here and politicise the misery that is actually going on in there, as if somehow we're not doing anything—again, I'm very happy to go to what our government is doing. I mean, bushfire—yes, climate change. There are other recommendations made by state governments around land management practices. How do we actually access water at a time of need? What about back-burns and firebreaks— (Time expired) Drought Communities Program 25 14:44 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management, Senator McKenzie. Departmental officials told estimates on 21 October that Moira Shire met the rainfall threshold but missed the employment threshold by 0.1 per cent for the Drought Communities Program. Ten days later, Nationals MP for Nicholls, Damian Drum, announced that Minister Littleproud has used ministerial discretion to declare the shire eligible. Why did the people of Moira find out last night that they are in fact still not eligible? 14:44 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I thank the senator for her question and for her interest in drought affected communities, and in regional Victoria in particular. The Drought Communities Program is an incredibly popular program, where $1 million is provided to over 122 councils across the country which are drought affected. It's been going for a couple of years and there have been three rounds thus far. It uses measurements such as rainfall and agricultural employment, amongst a raft of other measures, to determine eligibility. If councils are successful in attaining Drought Communities Program eligibility they can put forward projects to stimulate their local economy: anything from doing up the local hall to building a road. Some councils in South Australia have actually decided to employ drought support officers—yes, stimulating local employment but also making sure that that local community has a dedicated person to look after needs in the drought. So it's been an incredibly popular program. We've expanded it, under our new drought response, to include an additional six councils— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Walsh on a point of order? Senator Walsh 252157 My point of order is on relevance. The question was: why did the people of Moira find out last night that they are not eligible for this program? The PRESIDENT I0Q I note the minister has provided some general context about the program and that she has 45 seconds remaining to come to the specifics of the question, as you've highlighted, Senator Walsh. Senator McKENZIE 207825 With respect to the specifics of the conversation and advice you're speaking about from last night, I'll have to take that on notice. I'll endeavour to do that— Senator Wong 00AOU They're not eligible! Senator McKENZIE 207825 I was not in the room, Senator Wong, through you, Mr President, to actually have an appreciation of that. But I think the Senate knows that when I say I'm going to get back to you I always do. The methodology, as I've outlined, takes into account agricultural employment and also rainfall data. It's an incredibly popular program. We gave those 122 councils who were already recipients of Drought Communities Program funding last week an additional amount of money— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Walsh, a supplementary question? 14:47 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Nationals MP for Nicholls, Damian Drum, is quoted in today's Herald Sun as saying: We were expecting a little bit of ministerial discretion. … I should have kept my mouth shut … What advice was provided by the drought minister or his office to the member for Nicholls on or before 31 October to support his announcement? 14:47 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Thank you very much, Senator, for your question. On the specifics of the advice provided by Minister Littleproud to Damian Drum, I'll take that on notice. But can I say that our drought announcement last week focused on frontline support for farmers, ensuring that those regional towns that are going to be so important for the recovery, once the rains do come, hold onto their local employment. It's seeing money stimulated through their hairdressers, their IGAs and their rural supply stores. This program is key to keeping them in town, their families in town and their kids in school because— Senator Watt 245759 We talked about this at estimates! You know all about it! Senator McKENZIE 207825 We're recognising this. That is why, last week, there was an additional component to the DCP. You might have missed it as you flicked through our drought announcement: $50 million for drought affected councils, which will be at the minister's discretion to use and appoint. I know Minister Littleproud is developing those guidelines as we speak. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Walsh, a final supplementary question? 14:48 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria The mayor of Moira Shire said today: You can't announce something and then not do it. As the Morrison government has failed the people of Moira so badly, how can Australians have any confidence in your ability to support the nation through this drought? 14:49 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Since the drought announcement on Thursday I've met with Northern Territory cattlemen in the Barkly, talking about their dry times. I've also been speaking to farmers in Victoria, in South Australia, in Queensland and in New South Wales. I've been on the ground in these communities for the last three days. I've been listening to them, acting and taking up the things they need to be done. That's what our government have done. We've actually talked to people. We actually know what these communities want to see. They want cash on the tables of our farmers. They want their regional towns supported through the drought so their rural supply stores and the skills sets are still there when the rain comes and we need to ramp up productivity. Our communities, such as Moira, Moyne, Kempsey—you name it—will be supported by our drought announcement, with 122 councils, plus another six and then 50 more using the ministerial discretion. Dairy Industry 26 14:50 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Senator McKenzie. Minister, your department released an exposure draft of the competition and consumer industry code dairy regulation 2019 in the last week of October. The exposure draft differs dramatically from the earlier draft clauses for a dairy code workshopped with dairy farmers in early 2019. In particular, there is a new provision: circumstances beyond the control of the milk processor which permit unilateral price reductions in milk contracts contrary to the recommendation of the ACCC. Would the minister please explain how the new provision concerning circumstances outside the control of the processor came to be put into the exposure draft? 14:51 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Thank you, Senator Hanson, for your question. Our government is taking credible action to support our dairy farmers and it's been doing that since day one. When Fonterra and MG clawed back money from dairy farmers, it was the National Party in government—Barnaby Joyce was the ag minister at the time—that called the dairy industry to Melbourne. I was actually in the room. We got the ACCC inquiry up and going. That was one recommendation of that. Anyone in this room who thinks a dairy code is going to solve every problem for the dairy industry in this country is kidding themselves. It is one part of a suite of initiatives to support this industry. Right now, we have historically high dairy prices, but our dairy farmers are doing it tough because they have incredibly high input costs. Electricity in your home state, Senator Hanson, for this perishable product is controlled by the Palaszczuk Labor government. So go and knock on their door for that one. Then there are water prices for those of us that have irrigated dairy. It's an incredibly high input cost. And the drought has driven the cost of fodder through the roof— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator McKenzie, please resume your seat. I have Senator Hanson on a point of order. Senator Hanson BK6 I'm listening to the explanation, but my question was on the new provision concerning circumstances outside the control of the processor. How did it come to be put in the exposure draft? That is all I want to know. How did that get into the code? The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Hanson, you've reminded the minister of part of your question. The minister is allowed to be directly relevant to any part of the question. In my view, a discussion of the code that you referred to in your preamble does make her answer directly relevant. Senator McKENZIE 207825 We as a government took to the election a commitment to deliver a mandatory code for the dairy industry to address the egregious behaviour of processors to farmers. We know that it's not the only issue. Prior to the election, the eight dairy regions in this country were heavily consulted through two consultations right across the country—not just with our dairy farmers but with the whole supply chain. The exposure draft of the code that is before the public now is actually the result of how those nine principles were consulted on with the dairy industry more broadly. It is not the endgame here. That's why we are out talking to industry and— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Hanson, a supplementary question? 14:53 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, you didn't even answer the question, because you don't know the answer to it. The exposure draft that was drawn up in a matter of days has been widely criticised as poorly written, with concerns about who actually wrote it. If my assumptions are not correct, can you assure the Senate that the exposure draft in its current form is the same as the one provided to you by the Office of Parliamentary Counsel? If not, who made the changes? 14:54 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Senator Hanson, the department and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel drafted the code on the basis of the consultations undertaken prior to the election—full stop. There were no revisions in my office; there was nothing. So you can rest assured that the consultations with the processors and with the dairy farmers across eight very specific and unique dairy regions in this country all come to bear in the code that is out as an exposure draft now. And I am rapt to see people engaging with this process. I'm speaking to farmers in WA who— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Hanson on a point of order? Senator Hanson BK6 A point of order: the minister is not answering the question. I asked: is it the same exposure draft that was drawn up previously— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Hanson, there are opportunities for debate. I remind all senators: a point of order is not simply a chance to re-ask a preferred part of the question or to simply re-ask it. It must relate to whether the answer is being directly relevant. I've been listening carefully to the minister and I believe she was being directly relevant to answering about the preparation and release of the code that you asked about. Senator McKenzie. Senator McKENZIE 207825 Sorry, Senator Hanson—I forgot you're actually new to this issue, so you probably don't appreciate the history. So why don't I walk you through pre-election on the dairy code development. As I said, departmental officials visited eight regions. The first round of consultation was in late 2018 and it identified views. Then we went out again— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Hanson, a final supplementary question? 14:56 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Still I don't get a direct answer and neither do the people of Australia or the dairy industry. The exposure draft shifts the financial risk from milk processors—and many are foreign owned—to Australian dairy farmers. Why? 14:56 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria The National Party has been at the forefront of changes to competition and consumer law for decades. It is something we take very, very seriously. It is why we were the party that developed the sugar code and we are also the party that has promised to bring forward a mandatory dairy code, because we back our farmers and we also appreciate that, when they don't have market power against processors and against retailers, that sometimes you need to govern that relationship. This is something we do in the normal course of business, and this is exactly what we're doing. Now, we've consulted, as I said, excessively. The draft code is an expression of those consultations. It is now out there to hear from industry, and I'm getting direct feedback to the department from right across Australia on what changes we can make to the code so that it is the right code. It's got to be the right code for all our dairy farmers. (Time expired) Aged Care 27 14:57 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Aged Care and Senior Australians, Senator Colbeck. Can the minister advise the Senate on what measures the government has been delivering to support older Australians? 14:58 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I thank Senator Van for the question. Just on indulgence, I'd like to acknowledge the tremendous effort that went into ensuring that 140 residents were safely evacuated from the Carramar aged care facility on Friday 8 November. These senior Australians took refuge from the bushfires at the evacuation centre, their local library and nearby facilities, at Kabara Hostel and the Arcare facility. They were able to return to their homes yesterday, Sunday 10 November. I know that other facilities had prepared themselves ready to evacuate as well, including Japara Noosa. I'd like to particularly thank staff for their tremendous work, as well as volunteers, families, emergency workers and the senior Australians themselves for the part they played in responding so well at such a difficult time. Back to your question, Senator Van. I acknowledge your interest in issues of aged care. Our government has been investing more than ever before to support older Australians, but we recognise, following the release of the interim report of the royal commission, that additional investment will be required to ensure that all Australians have access to high-quality care as they age. It's worth noting that, when those opposite left office, funding for aged care was at $13.3 billion, and it's growing every year, from close to $22 billion this year to over $25 billion at the end of the forward estimates. We know that senior Australians are increasingly choosing to remain in their own homes longer, and the government is committed to supporting this choice. There were 60,308 aged-care packages under Labor in 2012-13. This will grow to 157,154 in 2022-23 under the current settings—an increase of 161 per cent. Over the same period— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Van, a supplementary question? 15:00 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Can the minister please update the Senate on the progress of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety? 15:00 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania As you would all know, the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety handed down its substantive interim report on 31 October 2019. At this point in time, I would particularly like to pay tribute to Commissioner Richard Tracey, whose work the report predominantly was. Tragically, he passed away recently after a very, very short period of time with a very aggressive cancer. The report is largely his work, and I would acknowledge the work that he did on the report, because it is a significant one and important for Australia's older Australians. Establishing the royal commission was one of the Prime Minister's first decisions as the new leader of the government. As the PM said at the time, we had to brace ourselves for some difficult stories arising from the royal commission, and clearly that has occurred. The interim report of the royal commission has put us all on notice: it has put governments on notice, it has put providers on notice and it has put the community on notice. We must all learn from the stories that are in the report. We must confront them honestly— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Van, a final supplementary question? 15:01 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Can the minister outline measures that the government has undertaken to improve aged care since the Prime Minister called the royal commission? 15:01 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Our track record in improving aged care since the royal commission is extensive. We've done a lot. We've invested $2.2 billion into homecare packages. We've released 14,275 new residential care packages. We've established the new Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. We've implemented new consumer focused Aged Care Quality Standards. And we've put in place a new single Charter of Aged Care Rights. We've implemented new provider requirements to minimise physical and chemical restraint, and there's further work to do on that. We've introduced a new mandatory national quality indicator program. And we've provided $21 million for research into 13 research projects that will focus on risk reduction, prevention and tracking of dementia, which is now Australia's second-leading cause of death. Farm Household Allowance 28 15:02 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Senator McKenzie. Last month, Minister, you told farmers struggling with years of drought: A one-off drought relief payment of up to $13,000 for a farming family, and up to $7,500 for an individual is designed to help people determine whether they will be sustainable, should look at succession options or, in some instances choose to sell. Do you stand by your statement that the drought relief payment is a one-off payment and that farmers should look to sell? 15:03 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Thank you very much, Senator Sterle. The radical expansion and simplification of the farm household allowance was as a result of a farmer-led review into the payment. You, like those of us over here that represent rural electorates, know that the farm household allowance application process was very complex and essentially too long. We've cut that down by more than one-third; we've made substantial changes to the paperwork. One of the things the farmer-led review actually suggested was that rather than it being a payment for four years in a lifetime of hardship for a farmer, it be changed to four years of payment over a 10-year period, recognising that in a country like Australia farmers will go through more than one period of hardship in their life. We've accepted that recommendation. We've also accepted all of the recommendations made by the review, and, as such, we estimate that over 30,000 farmers and their families who currently are not in receipt of this payment, but potentially could be, will become eligible. Part of the problem with farmers accessing this much-needed support is that they self-assess and think they're not going to make it. So I urge farmers to have a crack with their rural financial counsellor. With respect to the legislation before the Senate this week, the lump sum payment of $13,000 that you speak of is for this financial year; it's $13,000 for a couple, or $7½ thousand for a single farmer—bearing in mind, 80 per cent of farmers are partnered. The legislation also contains a rule where I'll be able to make a rule, going forward, for additional lump sum payments, when and where they're required. I've made it very public that I've committed to do that. As long as the drought goes, we'll be standing with our farmers and supporting them. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator McKenzie. Senator Sterle, a supplementary question? 15:05 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Yes, and I look forward to finding out if the minister believes that farmers should sell out. Minister, when will drought-affected farmers receive the one-off lump sum payment? Can you please let the Senate know the specific date. 15:06 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Senator Sterle—through you, Mr President—I want them to receive it as soon as possible. We can't get that done till it's legislated. That's our job as a Senate this week—to get this legislation passed so we can get royal assent and we can actually get this payment out to farmers. I'm hoping we can get this done by the end of the year. If the Senate gets behind the legislation, we're ready to go behind the scenes to get this payment able to be applied. I'm very happy to reinforce what I've always said, and what the National Farmers Federation have said, and what AgForce has said and the VFF have said, that farmers are business men and women and they need to make decisions. Sometimes that is about selling up and getting out. Sometimes it's about changing how I farm or how my business is structured to make it more profitable. Sometimes it's about saying: 'You know what? I'm succession planning, and the next generation can have a crack.' These are valid decisions. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Sterle, a final supplementary question? 15:07 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Minister, what advice would you have for farmers struggling with no financial assistance because of the Morrison government's decision to cut farmers off the farm household allowance? 15:07 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Well, let me reassure farmers who are on our farm household allowance—which is not just a drought payment; it's actually for farmers in hardship—we are standing with you. We are not cutting you off. This is a time limited payment—as also endorsed by the National Farmers Federation's own drought strategy; they also believe that it should be a time-limited payment—which is why we've got this additional response, in the ability to create lump sum payments as the drought continues, and we will do that. But if you are a farmer who has been assessed and is ineligible for farm household allowance, despite the changes we're making to off-farm and on-farm income and asset changes et cetera, then we do have a loan facility, through the RIC, of up to $2 million, interest free and repayment free for two years, and then interest only until year five, which is— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator McKenzie. Senator O'Sullivan. Employment 29 15:08 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business, Senator Cash. Can the minister update the Senate about the recent jobs fair held in Western Australia and how these jobs fairs assist Australians into jobs? 15:08 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator O'Sullivan for his question. Can I also acknowledge the work that Senator O'Sullivan has done prior to coming into this place—in particular, his dedication to getting people off welfare and into work. As Senator O'Sullivan stated, recently the Morrison government held a jobs fair in Mandurah in Western Australia. Jobs fairs have been held around Australia, and, to date, we've had in excess of 20,000 Australians come along and talk with local employers about opportunities for work. The Morrison government is committed to getting people off welfare and into work. The jobs fairs are a really practical way of making local connections. Local employers are able to come along to the jobs fair and advertise the local jobs that they have available. It's all about making face-to-face connections. Local people who are looking for work are able to come along, have a look at the jobs board, have a look at what's available and then go and talk to the specific employer who has the job advertised. This is all about the Morrison government's commitment to ensuring that we are getting Australians off welfare and into work and ensuring that Australians understand where the local jobs are available. Since we were elected to government in 2013 the economy has created almost 1.5 million jobs. This is because those of us on the Morrison side of the chamber understand that governments don't create jobs; employers do. We put in place the policy framework. Under our policies employers are able to prosper, grow and create more jobs for Australians. Under this government we've achieved record participation rates, record full-time employment and record women participating in the workforce. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Sullivan. 15:10 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Minister, why is it important to help Australians into work? 15:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The best form of welfare is a job. This is something that we as a government fundamentally believe. It is also work that is integral to supporting a strong economy. When a person is able to get a job—when they move from welfare and into work—they are no longer in receipt of social services and they become taxpaying citizens. That is a good thing. But there are also the incalculable other benefits that having a job provides. When you go and talk to people who've been on unemployment benefits and made that transition into the workforce, they describe to you the self-esteem they get because they now have a job and the ability to provide for their family and because, more than that, now that they have a job, they are able to be a role model for others around them. Under this government welfare dependency is the lowest it has been in 30 years. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator O'Sullivan, a final supplementary question? 15:12 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Can the minister inform the Senate of the policy priorities of the Morrison government to continue to support job growth in Australia? 15:12 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Of course, our plan is to continue putting in place the policies that will ensure a strong economy. Senator Watt 245759 What about the risks? The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Watt. Senator CASH I0M Our plan is all about rewarding and building resilience and rewarding aspiration. Lower taxes are in our DNA. Why? Senator Watt 245759 How is economic growth going? Is that a good economy? The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Watt, take a breath when I call you to order. Senator CASH I0M Because we want Australians to keep more of what they earn, more of their hard-earnt money. We on the coalition side of the chamber are also committed to reducing the costs of doing business. This, of course, includes deregulation but also ensuring that small and medium enterprises are paid on time and ensuring that we give Australians the skills that they need and that businesses are telling us that they need. Senator Watt interjecting— The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Watt, give someone else a turn. Senator CASH I0M And of course there is the great work done by successive trade ministers to expand our trade borders to access more markets, because, when a small or medium business is able to access another market, they are able to grow their business and create more jobs for Australians. Centrelink 30 15:13 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia My question is also to Senator Cash, the Minister for Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business. Senate estimates revealed that 104,480 jobseekers and jobactive participants who had their payments suspended had not re-engaged with Centrelink. That is, they have dropped off the income support system. This includes 12,000 First Nations peoples, nearly 14,000 disabled people and nearly 10,000 homeless people. Fifty per cent of the 104,000 were under the age of 30. Is the so-called lowest dependency on welfare due to the fact that 104,000 people have disappeared off the system and that the department said they didn't know what had happened to them? 15:13 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I thank Senator Siewert for her question. You are correct, Senator Siewert. This was explored by you in detail with the department at Senate estimates. To be fair to the department, you are merely paraphrasing part of their responses to you. In terms of the answer to your question, it is a very simple no. You and I will disagree, and that is fair enough, in relation to the commitment of those of us on this side of the government—and our commitment is to get people off welfare and into work. In that regard—and you know this well—we have made changes to the targeted compliance framework, and it is actually working. It is now simpler and easier for jobseekers not only to understand what they need to do but also take control of their own personal requirements. It is also providing protection for vulnerable jobseekers and those who will undertake deliberate and wilful noncompliance. Senator Siewert, you and I have debated this in previous parliaments. You know that we, as a government, have put in place safeguards to ensure jobseekers are not penalised for failing to meet mutual obligation requirements that are not appropriate to their circumstances. So, Senator Siewert, the answer to your question is no. On this side of the chamber we will do everything that we can to get people off welfare and into work, and the changes we have made to the targeted compliance framework are, indeed, doing that. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Siewert, a supplementary question? 15:15 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia Does the government, or does it not, know what has happened to the 104,480 people who have dropped off income support? Does the minister seriously think that 10,000 homeless people and14,000 people with a disability—and 50 per cent of that cohort are under the age of 50—have all got jobs? 15:16 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, Senator Siewert, this was canvassed, in detail, by yourself and the departmental officials at Senate estimates. What the departmental officials took you through was the process that is undertaken before a person exits the system. That process involves a number of steps along the way to ensure that, at all times, if there is a barrier to discharging your mutual obligation that this is taken care of, and if your job plan needs to be adjusted accordingly, it can be. Senator Siewert, you'll also recall, the department stated to you that jobseekers whose payments are cancelled are able to reapply for income support at any time, and, once they are recommenced, they will receive services and income support as usual. Again, the targeted compliance framework has made it— The PRESIDENT I0Q Order, Senator Cash. Senator Siewert, a final supplementary question? 15:17 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I will ask again: does the government know what has happened to the 104,480 jobseekers who have dropped off income support? Have some of them re-engaged, have some of them got work or, as many people strongly suspect, do they have no form of income or income support? 15:17 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Again, as the department explained in detail to Senator Siewert at Senate estimates, there are a number of reasons that a person exits the system, including that these people have found work. But, Senator Siewert, again, what the department explained to you, in detail, is the process taken with a person, in particular, in the event that they are not able to meet their mutual obligation requirements. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! Senator Siewert on a point of order. Senator Siewert e5z The minister is not answering the question. Does the government know what's happened to the 104,000 people? The minister is not answering that question. I've asked it so many times. The PRESIDENT I0Q Order! On the point of order, Senator Cormann. Senator Cormann HDA Mr President, Senator Cash is being directly relevant to the question. Senator Cash could not be more directly relevant to the question if she tried. The PRESIDENT I0Q Senator Siewert, I remind you that you are making an assertion that is not in the standing orders about the nature of the answer to the question. I can't instruct the minister how to answer a question. I am only empowered to ensure she is being directly relevant, and I believe the material she is using makes it directly relevant. There is an opportunity after question time for debate of the answers that ministers provide. I call the minister to continue, Senator Cash. Senator Cash I0M Thank you, Mr President. Again, Senator Siewert, the department explained in detail to you at Senate estimates that once a jobseeker exits employment services following a payment cancellation the department is limited—and I think you would understand—due to privacy considerations, in its ability to collect information about the jobseeker's circumstance. However, they are able to reconnect— Senator Cormann HDA I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. CONDOLENCES 31 CONDOLENCES Tillem, Mr Mehmet 31 15:19 The PRESIDENT I0Q It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the untimely death on 9 November of former senator Mehmet Tillem, a senator for the state of Victoria from 2013 to 2014, known to many of us through our service with him here. A motion of condolence will be moved in the Senate later this week. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 31 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Regional Jobs and Investment Packages 31 15:20 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I just wanted to address some of Senator Green's concerns and provide an answer that I took on notice to provide. I have received some advice from the minister. In relation to the questions regarding conflict of interest in relation to an application from QRX for a grant under the Regional Jobs and Investment Package, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development has answered questions about this application in quite some detail at estimates, and the minister would refer that senator, in particular, to the Hansard of the committee for 21 May 2018 and answers to questions provided on notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 32 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Regional Jobs and Investment Packages 32 15:21 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Agriculture (Senator McKenzie) to questions without notice asked by Senators Urquhart and Green today relating to the administration of regional grants programs. Senator McKenzie was meant to be representing the Deputy Prime Minister today. The questions that I asked and that Senator Green asked flowed from front pages in the Cairns Post and the Launceston Examiner. Both of these newspapers are fine regional newspapers, yet the Deputy Prime Minister's office failed to adequately brief the representing senator. So it appears to me that Nationals senators clearly don't follow the regional news. Minister McKenzie also misled the chamber in her response to my primary question. She said, 'All information in relation to applications is publicly available online.' Well, it is not. So the Deputy Prime Minister's office needs to properly brief Minister McKenzie, and then Minister McKenzie needs to come in here to the chamber and admit that she misled the chamber on that particular point. Her key talking point was that the critics are cherry-picking. No-one is cherry-picking. The whole Auditor-General's report is scathing. My first question was: 'What evidence did ministers rely upon in awarding the grant'—the grant that I was talking about was the $365,000 for a food van on Flinders Island in Tasmania—'and the co-funding exemption.' Minister McKenzie sought to take that on notice. The Auditor-General's report said that the department recommended the project but advised the ministerial panel that the applicant supplied limited evidence to support their case. That's what the Auditor-General's report said: that it 'supplied limited evidence to support their case' for a co-funding exemption. Of the 233 grants that were rewarded nationwide, the Killiecrankie food van on Flinders Island was one of just four projects that was exempted from a co-funding arrangement—just four. I go back to the Auditor-General's report, which said that the department recommended the project but advised the ministerial panel that the applicant supplied limited evidence to support their case for that exemption for co-funding. So why is the proponent not contributing even one cent to this project? What does that say about the viability of the enterprise? My second question went to the issue of what steps the government had taken to ensure that that $365,000 for a food van represented value for money. Again, Senator McKenzie took that question on notice. So my questions are: did the ministerial panel re-evaluate this application after it was changed? The original application was for a physical cafe and community centre. It was then changed to a food van. Did the ministerial panel re-evaluate the application based on the changed circumstances from a physical cafe—a building and a community centre—to a food van? There is a lot of difference between those two scenarios. How much does a food van cost? The minister should come and answer that. Could it really cost $365,000? It's a lot of money for a caravan on wheels—a lot of money. Is the van being retrofitted in Tasmania? That's another question I would put to the minister. And how many jobs are actually being created on North Flinders Island as a result of this? And how many jobs are actually being created in Tasmania from this $365,000 being spent on a food van? I would go back to the minister and say: 'Come in here and clear up the discrepancies. Give us a full, comprehensive outline of the details around why this particular project does not require the proponent to put in one cent. And why has it been funded fully by the government through this project?' (Time expired) 15:26 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I'm quite happy to rise in this place to defend the government's award of funding under the Regional Jobs and Investment Packages, or RJIP. I said once before in this place that if my good friends opposite refer to a document, always get the original document and read what the document says. Let me give you some of the recommendations and findings from the Auditor-General's report in relation to RJIP. Recommendation 6 says: In total, 233 projects were awarded $220.5 million in grant funding across the 10 regions. The grants represent 32 per cent of the estimated total project costs of $688.3 million. That's the first point I want to make: that $220.5 million of grant funding leveraged $688.3 million in total expenditure. That is a good outcome. That is, in fact, a better outcome than what was predicted in the original policy announcement made in 2016 by the then Liberal and National parties that this would leverage only on a one-to-one basis. It was only expected to leverage an extra $220 million, but in fact the total expenditure was $688.3 million. So this project has in fact been extremely successful. But you wouldn't know it, listening to those members opposite. Another finding from the Auditor-General's report—which of course has not been referred to by those opposite; it will be very interesting to see if it's referred to by those opposite who may speak after me—was: There was no bias clearly evident in the assessment and decision-making processes. I'll say it again: There was no bias clearly evident in the assessment and decision-making processes. Decisions to not approve recommended applications occurred in two Queensland regions— my home state of Queensland— at a rate more than three times the average across the other eight regions; these decisions affected five electorates each of which was held by the Coalition. But you wouldn't know that from listening to those opposite. And one of those projects—if I can refer to one of the great projects that received support under that project funding—was the construction of an aged-care facility in Mossman. The Salvation Army has just entered into a construction contract for the construction of that facility, and let me tell you that the mayor up in Mossman is absolutely delighted. Mayor Leu said the start of construction was a 'huge moment'. She said: We are absolutely thrilled that this day has come. The Mossman Aged Care Centre has been a high priority project that the community has been striving to get for more than 23 years. That project is going to be delivered, in part, under regional funding provided under this program. As a senator for Queensland I say that's a success. As for Senator Green drawing comparisons between the good people of Leichhardt and the good people of Kennedy, let me say that only a few months ago I attended the opening of an extra wing of a beautiful aged-care facility in the lovely town of Tully, in the seat of Kennedy. That was, in part, funded by Commonwealth government funding—even though it's in the federal seat of Kennedy. Even though it's in the federal seat of Kennedy it was funded by the Commonwealth government. Senator Green 259819 Under this program? Senator SCARR 282997 It doesn't matter which bucket of money it comes out of, Senator Green. As long as it's delivered to my constituents, in my home state of Queensland, I'll be extremely happy. It doesn't matter which bucket it comes out of. As long as the funds reach my constituents, in the state of Queensland, I'll be happy. Senator Green 259819 What happened to the rest of them? Senator SCARR 282997 Senator Green, I'm very happy to take your interjection but, can I say to you, I hope that if you do get up in this place and speak on this question you actually address that finding of the Australian National Audit Office, which says there was no bias evident in the decision-making process under this scheme. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Chisholm? 15:31 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Madam Deputy President, and— Senator Hanson BK6 I was on my feet. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 I'm working off a speakers list, Senator Hanson. Senator Hanson BK6 It's whoever's first to their feet. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 No, it's not. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 We've got a speakers list, and there's usually time for the crossbench towards the end. I called Senator Chisholm. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The point I'd make, Senator Scarr, is that if this audit report was so good why was it released an hour before the Melbourne Cup? If it's so good, why didn't they release it so everyone could pay attention to it? They tried to bury it. This was done before the Melbourne Cup because they're embarrassed by the rorts it identifies that those opposite have partaken in. That's exactly what it does. It is telling that the Deputy Prime Minister was hanging out with the inner-city lunatics when it was released. He likes to say they're inner-city lunatics. Where was he? He was at the Melbourne Cup. This morning he said that the inner-city lunatics are so out of touch, yet there he was at the Melbourne Cup hanging out with them on the day this audit report was released. I don't begrudge him having a day off and going to the races. Good luck to him. But he needs to be held accountable for what this report says. There is a history to these packages. They were announced in the lead-up to the 2016 election, and we know in regional parts of Australia, and I know in regional Queensland, that there are significant job challenges. They announced these packages throughout regional Queensland in the lead-up to the 2016 election, yet they sat on them for 12 months. They did not announce the guidelines, they did not spend one cent, they did not create one job for 12 months after that election and they said, 'We're working on the guidelines.' After they sat on it for so long—they didn't spend a cent and it didn't create one job—we see the reality of what they created, through this audit process that highlights serious problems with this program. We see that as many as 64 applications deemed eligible by the department were rejected, and they favoured, in what could only be called political decision-making, their preferred proponents of some of these projects. We see the history of these programs and the fact that regional Australians are desperate for jobs, and this is the way they are treated by the government. They don't take these things seriously. They sought to bury this report on Melbourne Cup day. The Deputy Prime Minister himself—and you would have to question his judgement after his behaviour over the last couple of weeks—was at the Melbourne Cup when it was released. This project, dreamt up by the National Party, has failed to deliver for regional Queenslanders. That is what the Audit Office identifies today. As to the projects throughout regional Queensland that were supported, there's been no transparency about why some of those projects were rejected or why decisions were made to favour some projects over others, and there's been a failure to account for how many jobs could've been created if other projects were supported at the expense of the ones the National Party focused on to deliver. There's no doubt that, after winning that election in 2016, this government went into hibernation on these projects. Clearly, they scrambled, behind the scenes, to try and get guidelines in place, which they've then gone about ignoring as part of the process of identifying which projects were going to get funding at the expense of others. Now that it's been exposed, we see sitting members try and justify the projects that were supported. We've seen that with Ken O'Dowd in Flynn and with Llew O'Brien in Wide Bay. They've tried to highlight some of the projects that were supported, but what they haven't done is give any justification for the projects that were rejected. There's been no evidence provided nor any correspondence back to proponents who put forward proposals that the department supported and ticked off on yet were rejected on political grounds. That is what happened as part of this process: projects in areas throughout regional Queensland that needed jobs on the ground—projects that the department said they had approved—were rejected through the political process that was set up by those opposite. And it's actually the local chambers of commerce and local business representatives that are calling on the government to provide answers. We've seen that in Bowen, Gladstone, Gympie and throughout various parts of regional Queensland. This program was supposed to provide regional jobs, and we've seen no correspondence and no effort by the government to explain why some projects were rejected. We will absolutely hold them to account because we want to ensure regional Queenslanders get a fair deal. (Time expired) 15:36 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia It's good to be able to stand here today and talk about what this government is doing to create jobs. Time and time again those opposite use this time, in taking note of answers to questions, to give us another opportunity to talk about the great record of this government in creating jobs. So I thank those opposite for raising this and giving us that opportunity again. This particular program, the Regional Jobs and Investment Packages, is creating thousands of jobs in regional Australia. The Australian government committed $222.3 million of funding in RJIP to help diversify regional economies, stimulate economic growth and deliver sustainable employment. In the first half of 2018, 233 projects across the 10 pilot regions were approved. Projects are expected to create more than 12,000 local jobs. As the ANAO report acknowledged, for an investment of $220.5 million in grant funding the program has leveraged an estimated additional $467.8 million in project costs to support projects that drive economic growth in regional Australia. That is a fantastic return that the Australian government has been able to get on behalf of taxpayers in investing that money and creating jobs. But that isn't all that the Australian government is doing. The Liberal-National government has a tremendous record in creating jobs in regional Australia through other programs, such as the $841 million Building Better Regions Fund, which is delivering 832 projects. There's one particular project I'd highlight, which is in the very southern part of Western Australia, in the town of Esperance. Through this fund we are enabling the development of a jetty that's going to enable deep-water vessels to come in there, and, again, it's creating jobs. There are projects right across regional Australia that we on this side of the chamber could all point to where the Liberal-National government is investing significant sums in great investments that are returning amazing outcomes. We could have asked some questions. We could have taken note of the question that I gave to Senator Cash where we talked about, in another regional part—although it's very close to a major urban setting but, nonetheless, an outer urban area—and that's in my neck of the woods in the city of Mandurah, where we had the Jobs Fair just over a week ago. There were 91 apprenticeships on offer in that job fair. Apprenticeships are life-changing opportunities for people, and there were 91 apprenticeships that were on offer in that area. We saw the whole place filled with people. There were plenty of other jobs there. Many hundreds of other jobs were available. The place was there. People were optimistic. They were looking forward to it. You only need to go back a few years in Mandurah and you would know that there have been significant and high levels of youth unemployment, but the ship is turning. There is significant change happening there, and there's optimism. People are looking forward to the opportunities that are being created in this economy. Over 300,000 additional jobs were created last year, in 2018-19. That's a growth of 2.6 per cent. These are big numbers, but it represents families. It represents individuals who have been able to get ahead and make a better life for themselves and their families. It is a significant impact upon their lives. This government has a tremendous record when it comes to creating jobs, particularly in regional areas. The National Stronger Regions Fund is a $611 million program that's delivering 225 projects. The $272 million program of the Regional Growth Fund is delivering 17 projects, and there's over $157 million going, importantly, to the Drought Communities Program, which is delivering 489 projects across Australia. 15:41 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I rise to take note of the answers provided by Senator McKenzie to my questions about the Regional Jobs and Investment Packages and the audit by the Australian National Audit Office, which was scathing of the processes conducted by this government. This government blocked recommendations made by the department and instead handed out grants to projects not approved, not considered on the basis of value for money or on how many jobs they would deliver but approved by this government because they were in a marginal Liberal-held seat. Senator Scarr 282997 No bias. Senator O'Sullivan 283585 The report said no bias. Senator GREEN 259819 I'm really pleased that the gentlemen opposite have stayed to hear a little bit more about what's in the report, because I know they want to quote one little section of it. But here we've got some other things that were found in the report that I think they might be interested in hearing about. The Audit Office also found that they approved an ineligible application for funding. They approved five late applications for funding, with no exemption reasons recorded. They failed to verify the claims around ongoing jobs created for each proposed grant. They did not provide reasons when rejecting 28 per cent of applications recommended by the department. They approved 17 per cent of applications not recommended by the department without adequate reasons. They failed to appropriately consider co-funding exemptions awarding four applications, a total of $1.74 million, without any private co-investment. We're not standing here trying to say that this investment in regional areas in Queensland is a bad thing. We're certainly not trying to say that the projects that received this funding didn't deserve the funding or need the funding, but what we are here trying to ask and find out the answer to is: why was this process so skewed by ministerial intervention to lead to a situation where one electorate received 89 per cent of the funding pool? I also want an answer to the question that I asked Senator McKenzie about the statement that was made to TheCairns Post, and Senator Urquhart did refer to those announcements in TheCairns Post and in Tasmania. It is a surprise that she wasn't able to answer that question today. But I asked her about the process conducted by the department. The Cairns Post on Saturday reported that a statement from the office of Warren Entsch, the member for Leichhardt, said that these decisions had been made by the department. We know that's not true. We know that is a misleading statement. The department didn't agree with the statement, of course, and told The Cairns Post that this was an issue for the government to answer. So we've come here today looking for that answer, and of course we haven't received it. We know that the ministerial panel, including the Deputy Prime Minister, was responsible for assessing and awarding grants. The statement by the member for Leichhardt's office is completely misleading. Why is the member for Leichhardt's office giving misleading statements to The Cairns Post? Perhaps it's because 12 months ago The Cairns Post broke a story about a $2.4 million grant being awarded under an extreme cloud of conflict of interest. I would want to avoid front pages like that as well if I were in the government. Let me be clear: people on this side do support investment in regional Queensland. We want these jobs to flow and these projects to get off the ground, but surely questions must be answered when the member for Leichhardt's office is giving misleading statements to The Cairns Post, when 89 per cent of a funding pool goes to an electorate, and when we know that tropical North Queensland is a region that covers two electorates. These are questions that need to be answered, and I would be happy if the minister would come in here and answer these questions, would make this information public, would tell us which projects missed out, and would tell us what has happened to the $2.4 million for QRX Group 1. All they need to do is release this information, but they won't do that, because we know that this is a rort for regional votes. While parts of regional Queensland missed out and while parts of Kennedy missed out and while the jobs that this investment was meant to create go wanting in a place that needs them more than anywhere else, one job was protected, and that was the job of the member for Leichhardt. Question agreed to. Australian Bushfires 36 15:47 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Agriculture (Senator McKenzie) to a question without notice asked by Senator Waters today relating to climate change. I rise to take note of what I can't really call answers—I certainly posed some questions to Minister McKenzie representing the Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management—but perhaps we can generously call it a response. I asked Senator McKenzie about the outlandish claims made by her leader, the Nationals leader and Deputy Prime Minister of this nation, Michael McCormack, on national radio this morning, where, in a somewhat unhinged manner, if you can pardon my description, he described people who were concerned about climate change as 'raving inner-city lunatics'.    I put to the minister: does that describe the 11,000 climate scientists that last week begged this government for action on the climate crisis? Does that describe the mayor of one of the regional areas that have been hit by these unprecedented and catastrophic bushfires over the weekend? Does that describe the Rural Fire Service captains who, likewise, are making the link between the climate emergency and these absolutely destructive bushfires? And, of course, I asked whether that description describes the actual survivors of these bushfires, who are also making the link between the climate emergency and these bushfires. Perhaps it's a bit awkward for the minister—she can't really throw her own leader under the bus—but she maintained that she in fact accepts the science. Perhaps she needs to have a few more discussions in her party room, because it's very clear that the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Michael McCormack, thinks climate science is the province only of 'raving inner-city lunatics'. There has been much commentary about this today, and I'm not going to stoop to name-calling, but I would urge the minister she's representing and her owner leader, Mr McCormack, to refresh themselves on the climate science. There is no shortage of experts who are making the link and begging this government to do the same. In fact, that was the next point I put to minister. There was a request for a meeting some months ago from over 20 former fire chiefs and fire experts. They had written to the Prime Minister himself, as well as to the minister for natural disasters and emergency management, seeking a meeting, wishing to brief our national government on the dangers of the climate emergency, on preparedness for bushfire risk, on how to reduce that risk and on what we can expect if this government continues to do nothing about the climate crisis. But, surprise, surprise, they didn't get the meeting that they sought. In fact, this morning, Minister McCormack was quite dismissive—I thought he was insulting—of that group of 20 former fire chiefs. He somehow asserted that they were a front group and that sometimes front groups sought meetings with him and it was all very suspicious. He wasn't sure whom he was meant to be meeting with. What an embarrassment when those actual fire experts want to grace this government with their expertise and are desperate for some genuine climate action. Instead, they not only get fobbed off with their meeting request refused but get insulted on national radio by the Deputy Prime Minister of this nation. Unfortunately the minister representing in the Senate here today didn't have a good answer for that. Again, maybe that's because her leader has well and truly put his foot in it and she felt a bit awkward about calling that out. Nonetheless, this is question time. Sadly, there's a reason it's called question time and not answer time. The last point that I put to the minister was that Australian climate scientists, who are world renowned and do amazing work, have, since 2006, been warning of the increased fire risk from the climate emergency. BOM and CSIRO in 2006 gave a report to then Prime Minister John Howard. It was ignored. But we can't say we didn't see this coming and we can't say that this government haven't had advice at hand from experts on how to reduce the severity and the destructiveness of the force of these fires: by taking action on the climate crisis. Instead, all we hear from this government is that they're sending thoughts and prayers to people who've just had their homes burnt and to people who've just lost members of their family. That does not cut it, folks. You're meant to be running this country and you don't even have the dignity or the humility to take advice from experts on how to reduce fire risk and keep people safe. Surely that is the first job of government: to keep the community safe and to listen to advice from experts. That hasn't happened in this instance and the government continue to maintain that they're somehow acting on climate when we know that we are the world's largest per capita emitter and, even if this government's pathetic targets were met, we would still be the world's largest per capita emitter. It is time to wake up, give the dirty donations back from coal, oil and gas and take action to protect us from the apocalypse that's coming. (Time expired) Question agreed to. BUSINESS 37 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 37 15:52 Senator DEAN SMITH ( 241710 Western Australia — ) ( ): by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Canavan for today, for personal reasons; and (b) Senator Hume for 11 and 12 November 2019, on account of ministerial business. Question agreed to. 15:53 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator Brown for today, for personal reasons; and (b) Senator Kitching for today, for personal reasons. Question agreed to. 15:53 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator Di Natale for today and tomorrow. Question agreed to. NOTICES 37 NOTICES Postponement 37 COMMITTEES 37 COMMITTEES Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 37 Reporting Date 37 15:54 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. MOTIONS 37 MOTIONS Freshwater Sawfish 37 15:54 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I, and also on behalf of Senator Whish-Wilson, move: That the Senate— (a) notes that:    (i) the Fitzroy and Margaret Rivers in Western Australia are home to the critically-endangered Freshwater Sawfish (Pristis pristis) that can grow up to seven metres long,    (ii) in December 2018, 46 Freshwater Sawfish died in pools connected to Snake Creek, a tributary of the Fitzroy River,    (iii) the Western Australian Government is investigating whether there is a connection between these deaths and the extraction of billions of litres of water out of Snake Creek on Ms Gina Rinehart's Liveringa pastoral lease,    (iv) Ms Rinehart and others have proposed an irrigation scheme that would take a further 325 billion litres of water per annum out of the Fitzroy River, and    (v) 16 October 2019, is World Sawfish Day; and (b) calls on the Western Australian Government to ensure the protection of the Fitzroy River and its population of critically-endangered Sawfish. Question agreed to. Anti-Poverty Week 38 15:55 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I wish to inform the chamber that Senator McCarthy and Senator Marielle Smith will also sponsor this motion. I also seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 207, concerning jobseekers. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Have the amendments been circulated? Senator SIEWERT e5z I understood that they had. It's purely to put it in the past tense, because these were carried over from last time. Leave granted. Senator SIEWERT e5z I amend the motion by omitting paragraph (a) and substituting 'acknowledges October 14 to 17 was Anti-Poverty Week 2019'. I, and also on behalf of Senator McCarthy and Senator Marielle Smith, move the motion as amended: That the Senate— (a) acknowledges October 14 to 17 was Anti-Poverty Week 2019; (b) notes that the Anglicare Jobs Availability Snapshot 2019 found that:    (i) one in seven jobseekers have barriers to work such as age, disability and education level,    (ii) it is taking people an average of five years to find work,    (iii) there are at least five jobseekers who do not have qualifications or work experience competing for each job at their skill level, and    (iv) there are 1.16 million people who are underemployed in Australia; (c) notes that there are over 200,000 people living on Newstart who are sick or disabled; (d) acknowledges that poverty is a barrier to employment, and there are many unemployed and underemployed people in Australia struggling to get by on the current rate of Newstart; and (e) calls on the Federal Government to adequately support people to find employment by immediately increasing Newstart and Youth Allowance. Question agreed to. Anti-Poverty Week 38 15:56 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I wish to inform the chamber that Senator Dodson will also sponsor this motion. I also seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 208, relating to poverty rates for First Nations peoples, along the same lines on which I amended the previous motion. Leave granted. Senator SIEWERT e5z I amend the motion by omitting paragraph (a) and substituting 'acknowledges October 14 to 17 was Anti-Poverty Week 2019'. I, and also on behalf of Senator Dodson, move the motion as amended: (a) acknowledges October 14 to 17 was Anti-Poverty Week 2019; (b) notes that:    (i) more than one-in-ten Newstart recipients are First Nations peoples, and one-in-five Youth Allowance recipients are First Nations peoples,    (ii) First Nations peoples living in remote areas of Australia face significantly higher costs of living, and    (iii) research by the ANU Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research estimates the poverty rate for First Nations peoples is around 31%, with poverty rates stagnating in regional areas and rising in remote areas; (c) acknowledges that First Nations peoples are disengaging with the social security system because of the onerous and punitive reporting requirements attached to income support payments; and (d) calls on the Federal Government to act to reduce poverty rates for First Nations peoples by immediately increasing Newstart and Youth Allowance. Question agreed to. Indigenous Australians 38 15:58 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that the Family Matters Report 2019 found that:    (i) First Nations children are now 10 times more likely to be in out-of-home care than non-Indigenous children, which is an all-time high,    (ii) the number of First Nations children in out-of-home care will more than double in size in the next 10 years without urgent action, and    (iii) almost 1 in 3 First Nations peoples are living in poverty, and this contributes to the over-representation of First Nations children in out-of-home care; and (b) calls on the Federal Government to implement the key recommendations of this report, including to:    (i) develop a national comprehensive First Nations children's strategy that includes generational targets to eliminate over-representation, and addresses the causes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child removal,    (ii) invest in quality First Nations community-controlled integrated early years services through a specific program with targets to increase coverage in areas of high First Nations peoples population and high levels of disadvantage,    (iii) establish state-based and national First Nations children's commissioners to enable improved government accountability and oversight, and    (iv) end legal orders for permanent care and adoption for First Nations children, replaced by a focus on supporting their connections to kin, culture and community. Question agreed to. Poverty 39 15:58 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I move: That the Senate— (a) recognises that, according to the Poverty in Australia Report 2018:    (i) in Australia, 968,000 people from wage earning households are living in poverty,    (ii) as a proportion of all Australians living in poverty, this group has increased from 32% in 2013-14 to 38%, and    (iii) more than half of these households are families with children; (b) notes that:    (i) 1.9 million Australians are looking for work or for more work,    (ii) this Government has presided over the worst wages growth on record, and    (iii) Australia's economic growth is the lowest in a decade; and (c) calls on the Federal Government to combat working poverty by getting wages moving, raising the rate of Newstart, ceasing their attacks on Australian workers and their unions, and by reversing the cuts to penalty rates to ensure that Australian families have a better quality standard of living. Question agreed to. Wallarah 2 Coal Project 39 15:59 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that:    (i) the Wallarah 2 Coal Project is a proposed longwall underground mining operation northwest of central Wyong on the New South Wales Central Coast,    (ii) the proposed mine would produce 4 to 5 million tonnes per annum of thermal coal each year for 28 years, leading to more than 264 million tonnes of CO2 being released into the atmosphere, and    (iii) the Wallarah 2 Coal Project poses a serious risk to the Central Coast's drinking water supply; and (b) calls on the Federal Government to protect the water of Central Coast communities, and cancel all environmental approvals granted under Federal law. 15:59 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The Wallarah 2 Coal Project will produce up to five million tonnes of high quality thermal coal a year, creating over 1,100 direct and indirect jobs during construction and over 850 direct and indirect jobs during operations. The project has a 10 per cent Indigenous employment target, and its high-quality coal will provide affordable electricity for millions of people. The project was approved under the EPBC Act in January 2019. The approval requires a water management plan to be in place before mining. This project was assessed almost seven years ago. 16:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Madam Deputy President, I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING Labor will always stand up for safe drinking water for the Central Coast and against any threats to the water security of the region. The member for Robertson, Mrs Lucy Wicks, has done nothing to protect the safety of the drinking water, despite her saying she agreed with the concerns that residents had over its effect on the water supply. Today's motion does not protect water quality, and that is why Labor will not be supporting the motion put forward by Senator Faruqi. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 211, standing in the name of Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:05]
(The Deputy President—Senator Lines)

 8 AYES Faruqi, M Hanson-Young, SC McKim, NJ Rice, J Siewert, R (teller) Steele-John, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 36 NOES Antic, A Askew, W Ayres, T Bilyk, CL Bragg, A J Brockman, S Carr, KJ Chandler, C Colbeck, R Davey, P Duniam, J Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Griff, S Henderson, SM Hughes, H Lambie, J Lines, S McAllister, J McDonald, S McKenzie, B McMahon, S O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Rennick, G Roberts, M Scarr, P Sheldon, A Smith, DA Urquhart, AE (teller) Van, D Walsh, J 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Beetaloo Basin 40 16:08 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 214 standing in my name for today, concerning fracking in the Beetaloo Basin, before asking that it be taken as formal. It is just to update the currency, because it was a carryover from last time. Leave granted. Senator WATERS 192970 I also inform the chamber that Senator Steele-John will be co-sponsoring the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator Steele-John, move: That the Senate— (a) notes that:    (i) Origin Energy has commenced drilling as part of its Beetaloo Exploration Program in the Beetaloo Basin,    (ii) the final report of the Independent Scientific Inquiry into Hydraulic Fracturing of Onshore Unconventional Reservoirs in the Northern Territory concluded that gas extraction projects in the McArthur region, including the Beetaloo Basin, could contribute more than 6% of Australia's emissions,    (iii) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has stated that reductions in gas production in the near term will be required to meet international reduction targets committed to in the Paris Agreement,    (iv) approximately 90% of regional water demand in the Northern Territory is supplied by groundwater – communities and traditional owners throughout the Northern Territory continue to express concern regarding the impact of hydraulic fracturing on these critical groundwater resources,    (v) the majority of submissions to the Northern Territory inquiry opposed fracking, and the final report noted the 'strong antipathy surrounding hydraulic fracturing for onshore shale gas',    (vi) traditional owners have called on Origin Energy to immediately halt fracking operations in the Beetaloo Basin,    (vii) the impact of the Beetaloo Basin project on water resources has not been assessed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, and    (viii) the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee inquiry into the Landholders' Right to Refuse (Gas and Coal) Bill 2015 received more than 370 submissions, the vast majority of which supported landholders and traditional owners being given the right to refuse to allow mining and fracking on their land; and (b) calls on the Federal Government to:    (i) support calls by traditional owners for Origin Energy to immediately halt operations within the Beetaloo Basin,    (ii) support the Landholders' Right to Refuse (Gas and Coal) Bill 2015 to ban fracking and ensure that traditional owners and landholders are empowered to refuse damaging mining and fracking activities occurring on their land, and    (iii) expand the application of the water trigger provisions of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to the impacts of shale gas projects on water resources. 16:09 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Australia needs to develop more gas to help bring down energy prices for Australian families and to support jobs. The Beetaloo Basin has the potential to be a world-class gas province. Some estimates say that around 6,500 full-time jobs could be created, including jobs for Indigenous Australians. The Australian government expects all gas producers to engage with the traditional owners, and they must achieve consent where required under native title laws. By rigidly opposing the Beetaloo Basin development, the Greens are denying Indigenous people their right to choose and are consigning Australian families to higher living costs and fewer jobs. 16:09 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING Labor won't be supporting this motion. We believe that proper process must be followed when it comes to mining and gas exploration. We acknowledge calls from traditional owners and believe that they should be heard and respected, but motion after motion from the Greens in the Senate is not how projects are, or should be, determined. Labor believes science, consultation and proper process should be at the heart of decision-making. 16:10 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland In lieu of dividing, I seek leave to make a one-minute statement. Leave granted. Senator WATERS 192970 I thank the chamber. A month ago, fracking for gas began in the Beetaloo Basin in the Northern Territory against the wishes of local traditional owners, local farmers and pastoralists. This motion calls on the government to listen to traditional owners and landowners in the Beetaloo, who are terrified about the impact of fracking on their water resources. Uncle Ray Dixon, who is a Mudburra elder, has pleaded with Origin Energy to stop fracking and protect water. Northern Territory pastoralists are so concerned about access and environmental impacts that the owner of Amunjee Munjee Station has commenced legal action challenging the fracking plans. Fracking the Beetaloo threatens water resources and would unleash a carbon bomb that would undermine any prospect of Australia's meeting its international climate responsibilities, yet neither the climate impacts nor the water impacts of this fracking are even considered by our national environmental laws. This motion calls on the government to respect traditional owners, to listen to them; to support my bill to ban fracking; and to fix our environmental laws. Question negatived. DOCUMENTS 42 DOCUMENTS Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety 42 Consideration 42 16:12 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I rise to comment on the interim report of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety. This is a very important report. Unfortunately, as horrific and shocking as it is, for many people it isn't shocking, because they've known for a long time that in Australia our aged-care system urgently needs reform. There were many shocking personal stories of people who had received substandard care, and of a confused system. Of all the issues the commissioners heard—and we know that the final report is not coming out until November next year—the three key things that they feel need attention now are home care, restraints and young people in nursing homes. I'll go with young people in aged care first. This is an issue that this Senate has looked at on a number of occasions. I chaired an inquiry—in fact, two inquiries—that dealt with this issue. It's been before the government for many, many years. It will require the government to allocate resources but also to drive change about the way that we support young people with disability. It's a mindset change that needs to occur. It's a matter of implementing their own commitment to supported accommodation; to implementing, in fact, the regulations they've put in place. It is not beyond this country's ability to deal with this issue, but in the past there's been an absolute lack of will. In this chamber in the near future there's going to be a debate about restraints. There's currently, as we in fact heard earlier today, a regulation before this chamber. I don't intend to debate that now, but I will take the opportunity to urge all senators to look at the evidence that has been given already to the Joint Standing Committee on Human Rights. Go and read the transcripts, the Hansards,of the evidence that has been received. Go and read the submissions about the urgent need to address restraints. It is a blot on this country that we are applying both physical and chemical restraints to such a high degree in our residential aged-care facilities to manage behaviour—not for therapeutic processes; this is to manage behaviour. We urgently need to address this issue. We need to aim for the elimination—or not aim for but commit to the elimination of the use of restraints to manage people's behaviour. That means, again, the whole mindset about the way that we support older Australians. Then we get to home care packages. Again, we've known for a long time that home care urgently needs to be addressed. We continue to argue about how long the waiting list is, without standing still and saying, 'It is absolutely shocking that we have a waiting list.' That is important, and it urgently needs to be addressed. But, also importantly, we need to start addressing and preparing for what will come in the final royal commission report—that is, a change in mindset, a fundamental reform, around the delivery of aged care and supporting older Australians in this country, both in their homes and in aged-care facilities, as well as those with dementia. We know that there are a growing number of older people with acuity going into aged care because they are living longer and are healthier for longer. But it means that, when they are ready for aged care, they are quite ill, and people are making decisions hastily when they end up in emergency rooms. That should not be happening in this country. I urge people to read this report and look at what it means for the way we think about aged care in this country. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Commonwealth Ombudsman 42 Consideration 42 16:18 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I rise to take note of document No. 77, relating to the Migration Act 1958 and assessment of detention arrangements by the Commonwealth Ombudsman. I want to start by drawing colleagues' attention to a report released by the Human Rights Commission this year entitled Risk management in immigration detention. In Commissioner Santow's foreword to that report, he makes the blindingly obvious observation, 'No-one held in immigration detention has forfeited their human rights'. Later in that foreword, he says: … the average length of immigration detention in Australia is currently close to 500 days— that's approaching a year and a half— a period that is many orders of magnitude greater than almost any other developed country. And, again, he rightly points out that risks to human rights increase the longer a person is held in immigration detention. The report outlines a range of concerns that the Human Rights Commission has about the way our immigration detention framework is delivered in this country, and those concerns are shared by the Australian Greens. But today I want to speak about one particular detention centre—that is, the detention centre on Christmas Island. This is a centre that was closed last year and sat mothballed after that closure, but, in the process of trying to scare people about the effects of the medevac legislation, the government spent tens of millions of dollars reopening the centre. Since it reopened it has housed just four people: a family from Biloela who travelled to Australia to try to flee persecution and make a life in this country. They are a family who are much loved by the Biloela community and who, after a raid under cover of darkness, where the kids were dragged screaming out of their house—and these are very small children, toddlers—have been in immigration detention ever since. There are more than 100 staff members at the Christmas Island detention centre to look after one family of four, including two toddlers. This is a scandalous and pointless waste of public resources. At Senate estimates, Home Affairs revealed that it had cost $30 million. When I put that information out publicly, people were absolutely furious. So I asked people on my social media sites how they thought that $30 million should have been spent, and I want to put a few of their answers on the record. Maree McCulloch said: To start we could have assisted this family to educate their children & ensure the parents have all the skills needed to work full time. The rest could have assisted farmers in drought areas & invested some much needed money in TAFE. Quite right, Maree McCulloch. Julia Taylor said, 'The choices are endless! Help the communities affected by drought and reduce waiting lists for elective surgery.' Tara Sargent said: Spend it on helping the homeless and ensuring more people don't become homeless because of poor job security and unaffordable housing. Nicole Hayward said: I work for a rural high school where the students can barely use the toilet facilities as they have not been renovated since they were installed in 1972. We could really put some of the 30M to good use. Mhor Doyle said: By housing and feeding and helping all of our asylum seekers and people on bridging visas. We don't allow them to work and yet we don't provide for them. Ben Rheinberger said, 'Spend it on Newstart or fighting climate change.' Kristi J Archer said, 'Meanwhile I've been waiting 17 months for the NDIS to approve funding so I can get a wheelchair.' Rosie Lone said: As someone that lives in a regional town affected by drought here in Tamworth, on level 5 water restrictions and with day zero fast approaching - $30 million could have made a huge difference for farmers here, in Dubbo, Tenterfield, Stanthorpe etc to be able to drink and feed stock. These comments go on and on and on. Mr Acting Deputy President Gallacher, I refer you to my Facebook page if you want to see the many, many hundreds of really smart suggestions people had for the investment of this $30 million. But, no, what the government has spent this $30 million on is inhumanely detaining a harmless family of four who were trying to build a life in the small Queensland town of Biloela, where they were much loved by the community. Free the Biloela family and let them go home. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 204953 Senator McKim, are you seeking leave to continue your remarks later? Senator McKIM JKM I am, thank you. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 43 DOCUMENTS Consideration 43 COMMITTEES 47 COMMITTEES Membership 47 16:25 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 204953 The President has received letters nominating senators to be appointed to committees. 16:25 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Australia ' s Family Law System—Joint Select Committee— Appointed—Participating members: Senators McKim, Siewert and Waters Implementation of the National Redress Scheme—Joint Select Committee— Appointed— Senator Dean Smith Participating members: Senators Abetz, Antic, Askew, Bragg, Brockman, Chandler, Davey, Fawcett, Fierravanti-Wells, Hughes, McDonald, McGrath, McMahon, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Rennick, Scarr, Stoker and Van Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee— Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Siewert to replace Senator McKim for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Native Title Legislation Amendment Bill 2019 Participating member: Senator McKim Road Safety—Joint Select Committee— Appointed— Senator McMahon Participating members: Senators Abetz, Antic, Askew, Bragg, Brockman, Chandler, Davey, Fawcett, Fierravanti-Wells, Henderson, Hughes, McDonald, McGrath, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Rennick, Scarr, Dean Smith, Stoker and Van. Question agreed to. BILLS 47 BILLS Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2019, Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019 47

Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2019

First Reading 47 16:26 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I indicate that the two bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I shall move a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 48 16:27 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019, and I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— FARM HOUSEHOLD SUPPORT AMENDMENT (RELIEF MEASURES) BILL (NO 1) 2019 Our farmers are key to achieving our ambition of a $100 billion agricultural industry by 2030. Australia has a world class agricultural industry. But increases in the quality and quantity of our agricultural production largely depend on good seasonal conditions in our rural areas. And there are farmers and their communities that are doing it tough right now. By keeping the economy strong, the Government can support our agricultural industries to combat, recover and prepare for drought. There are times, like now, when persistent widespread drought conditions impact on primary production, and the livelihoods of our farmers and their families. These are challenging times for many in the bush. Supporting farmers is the Australian Government's most urgent priority. This Government recognises that farming is a long game. Support in times of hardship is part of what is needed to help farmers and their communities through these difficult times. That's why the Farm Household Allowance (FHA) was created – with strong bipartisan support. Multiple reviews recommended creating a payment that would respond to individual need. When a farmer can't pay their creditors and suppliers it's academic about the cause of the cash flow issues. What matters is they can't put food on their own table. And that's ironic – because they are putting food on everyone else's tables, and clothes on their back. Since introduction of the FHA in 2014, over $365 million in fortnightly payments have been made to almost 12,700 farmers and their partners. FHA is not a drought measure. It helps farmers facing financial hardship, which does not need to be caused by drought conditions. However, many of the farmers who access FHA do so because of drought. The program gives income support to eligible farmers and their families to pay for basic household necessities while they make decisions about the future of their farm businesses and take action to improve their circumstances. It also provides thousands of dollars to help with professional financial assessments of the farm business, and for activities and services that maximise the chance of recipients' better managing their businesses. During its operation, the Australian Government has made a number of changes to ensure the allowance meets the needs of Australian farming families. The Farm Household Support Amendment (Relief Measures) Bill (No 1) 2019 is another vital step in the Government's commitment to supporting farmers in challenging climatic conditions. The Bill aligns with the Government's three point drought plan: immediate action for farmers, support for the wider communities affected, and longer term resilience and planning. Our plan will continue to help farmers to get through their immediate problems, and to prepare for the future. This Bill is the first piece of legislation to support implementation of the recommendations made by the Review 'Rebuilding the FHA: a better way forward for supporting farmers in financial hardship'. The new arrangements outlined in this Bill will allow more people to be able to claim FHA. The Bill will allow farm business losses of up to $100,000 to be deducted from other income. This means the true net position of the farm business will form the basis of establishing their need. The bottom line is that through this amendment we will be able to reach more farmers in need. This Bill also means that for the first time, farmers generating income from agistment can offset those gains against either the farm loss, or the loss of another related business. This recognises that many farms have multiple arms to their operation. They are pretty clever at making money when there's money to be made. In addition to running the farm business they often have contracting businesses, like harvesting or spraying or earn money by value-adding to their produce. The Bill will also enable farmers and their partners to receive FHA for four in every ten years. This acknowledges that farmers may experience more than one period of hardship in their lifetime, often due to cyclical and unpredictable impacts to agricultural production in Australia. These changes will better reflect the real financial position of our farmers. As you would expect, we are counting the first ten years from 1 July 2014, when FHA was launched. The first ten year anniversary falls due on 1 July 2024. After that time, farmers and their partners who face tough times again, can have the breathing space to address the drivers of business shock and make the big decisions about their future. Finally, in recognition of the extending severe drought conditions, this Bill provides for a Relief Payment for those farmers who have or will exhaust their four years of payment up until 30 June 2020. Each couple that has come to the end of their four year payment period will be given a Drought Relief Payment of $13,000 and for singles this Drought Relief Payment will be $7,500. That's the equivalent of 6 months FHA payment. Some FHA recipients have done everything they can to respond to their circumstances. Many have continued to face severe drought conditions. Nothing any of us can do will make it rain but we can ease this transition off payment. This creates more space for those people to take the time they need to decide what their long term future holds. FHA is about taking stock. Farmers are exposed to lots of risk that they can't control. Good planning is essential to get through difficult times. If they continue farming and face another tough period, they can access FHA again from 1 July 2024. The FHA program has always been designed to help farmers assess their position, to look at succession or decide to sell-up. The program has a suite of measures designed to assist them look at these options. This includes up to $1,500 for a professional financial assessment of the business. The person chooses who does that assessment – their own trusted advisor. This comprehensive look at the farmer's bottom line informs their approach to maximising the opportunity of being on payment. But we don't leave it there. We don't pay for the road map and leave them to it – hoping they'll make decisions that are right for them. We make up to $4,000 available to each recipient to pay for advice and training – either on or off-farm. Recently we've approved people undertaking courses to maximise farm production, improved financial administration, additional training for occupational therapy, and food safety handling and assessment. All this is supported by one-on-one case support from the Department of Human Services, and also agri-business expertise from the Rural Financial Counselling Service. There is more that we are doing. The Government has already announced its plan for a radical simplification to make the FHA easier for farmers to access payments and better support their families. The measures in this Bill are just the first instalment of the changes required to simplify the FHA. We are also improving claim procedures for farmers and their partners, cutting unnecessary red tape. Farmers and their partners will soon be able to apply for FHA using just one application. Removing duplication in the application process will mean more time for farmers and their partners to manage their farm, and look after livestock. Supporting drought-affected communities remains the Government's most urgent priority. TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (PROHIBITING ENERGY MARKET MISCONDUCT) BILL 2019 This Bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to define energy market misconduct and provide a series of penalties and remedies for companies engaging in misconduct that is prohibited. The Australian energy market has not been serving consumers well. That's why the Liberal National Government directed the Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (ACCC) to undertake a Retail Electricity Pricing Inquiry in March 2017. This review identified problems in the retail, wholesale and contract markets, calling the situation "unacceptable and unsustainable" and noting that energy retailers "have played a major role in poor outcomes for consumers". The ACCC found three key failures. In the retail market, retailers deliberately confuse customers with their discounting strategy, often using what the ACCC call "excessively" high benchmarks and complex offer structures. In the wholesale market, a lack of competition has resulted in higher prices. In the contract market, a lack of liquidity can act as a barrier to entry, where the dominant position of "gentailers" can make it harder for smaller retailers to get hedging contracts and therefore to compete. It is these problems that the Government is seeking to address in order to strengthen competition in the market and put downward pressure on electricity prices. The measures in this Bill build on a package of other initiatives that the Government has recently announced to ensure that Australians have access to affordable and reliable energy. The Government has introduced a default market offer, which acts as a price safety net for households and small businesses. The default offer protects consumers and small businesses from being exploited by inflated standing offers, while still allowing for the benefits of retail competition. The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) has developed cheaper, comparable default prices, with savings being passed through to families and small businesses from 1 July 2019. The Government has also acted to simplify the confusing array of offers that are currently on the market by requiring retailers to use the new default rate as a reference point for all advertised discounts. This gives customers more clarity when they compare retailers and offers and help ensure they get the best deal. The Government will also underwrite new firm, low‑cost generation, which is particularly important for Australia's commercial and industrial users who the ACCC found were struggling to get medium to long-term contracts. This program will be technology neutral, as recommended by the ACCC. The Bill we introduce today is an essential part of this package, and will address energy market misconduct, improve competition and bring down energy prices for Australian consumers. The Government has directed the ACCC to monitor retail prices, wholesale bids and contract market liquidity in the National Electricity Market until 2025, and announced that this would be backed up by a series of remedies where the ACCC identifies misconduct by electricity market participants. This Bill will establish the misconduct to be prohibited, and targeted, proportionate remedies to apply in respect of misconduct in three key areas. First, the retail market. In the event of a "sustained and substantial" reduction in supply chain costs, retailers will be required to "make reasonable adjustments" to their retail prices for market offers, including to households and small businesses. The explanatory memorandum makes clear retailers will not be required to pass on small or short-term cost variations that might last a week or a month. Rather, if they enjoyed a sustained and substantial cost reduction, they need to pass it on. Second, the wholesale market. Generators will be prohibited from gaming the spot market. This can occur in a number of ways, for example, by scheduling discretionary maintenance at high summer demand periods with the specific purpose of causing a spike in prices for their other generators or by making low bids that were designed to discourage other companies from bidding into the market only then at the last minute increasing the price of their bids. The ACCC has specifically recommended that rules around false and misleading bids be strengthened and our legislation does exactly this by prohibiting bids that are fraudulent, dishonest or in bad faith for the purposes of distorting or manipulating prices. Third, the contract market. Energy companies will be prevented from withholding hedge contracts for the purpose of substantially lessening competition, which draws on existing concepts from section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act. Unlike "gentailers", smaller retailers are unable to manage the risk of volatile spot prices without a hedge contract. The measures in this legislation are designed to ensure financial market liquidity and facilitate competition in the energy market. In each of these markets – retail, wholesale and contract - the ACCC will be actively monitoring behaviour. Where companies are in breach, they will act. The legislation sets out a graduated set of penalties that can apply in the event of misconduct. The ACCC will be able to issue a warning notice, accept an enforceable undertaking or seek a financial penalty of up to the greatest of $10 million, three times the value of the total benefit attributable to the conduct or 10 per cent of the annual turnover of the corporation in the 12 months before the conduct occurred. For the most egregious conduct, the ACCC will be able to recommend that the Treasurer either issue a Contracting Order or pursue a Divestiture Order in the courts. A Contracting Order will only be able to be made following a breach of either the contract liquidity or aggravated wholesale conduct prohibitions. A Divestiture Order will only be able to be made following an aggravated breach of the wholesale conduct prohibition. Both are sanctions of last resort. In respect of these orders, companies will be given a chance to explain their conduct before such an order is made. A Contracting Order would require generators to make reasonable offers in the contract market and the Divestiture Order could see companies required to sell an asset allowing them at least 12 months to do so. The Treasurer may only apply to the Federal Court for a Divestiture Order when the ACCC and the Treasurer are satisfied that the order has a net public benefit and that it is proportionate to the breach, namely that it is necessary to prevent such conduct occurring in the future and that no other remedy would achieve the same outcome. These laws apply to government-owned and privately-owned corporations. In the case of a government-owned corporation, a Divestiture Order can only require divestiture to another government-owned corporation. Recent Parliamentary amendments ensure that if the divestiture of a government-owned corporation occurs, the buying corporation must have equal or greater government ownership than the selling corporation. The Bill does not empower the Court to order privatisation. This ensures the relevant asset remains in government ownership while still addressing the misconduct in question and promoting competition. The current Bill includes a Parliamentary amendment that addresses an interaction between a divestiture order and the Fair Work Act. It ensures that when an employee moves with a divested asset, their existing rights and protections are preserved under the ordinary operation of the Fair Work Act. The Bill also includes a Parliamentary amendment that commits the Government to review the new laws within four years, taking into regard its effectiveness in improving energy reliability and affordability for Australians. These new laws will commence six months after Royal Assent, allowing the ACCC time to develop guidelines and make its enforcement approach clear to industry. Finally, this Bill will also provide additional information gathering powers to the Australian Energy Regulator (AER), bringing the AER's powers in line with comparable regulators including the ACCC. The AER will be able to share this information with Commonwealth agencies. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour. Customs Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia-Pacific) Bill 2019, Customs Tariff Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia-Pacific) Bill 2019 51

Customs Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia-Pacific) Bill 2019

Customs Tariff Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia-Pacific) Bill 2019

First Reading 51 16:28 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 51 16:29 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— CUSTOMS AMENDMENT (GROWING AUSTRALIAN EXPORT OPPORTUNITIES ACROSS THE ASIA-PACIFIC) BILL 2019 The Customs Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia‑Pacific) Bill 2019 amends the CustomsAct1901 to implement Australia's obligations under the three concluded free trade agreements with Indonesia, Peru and Hong Kong. This Government is committed to creating more export opportunities across the Asia-Pacific region. For the first time, a government is bringing to the House, not just one or two but three free trade agreements to be considered. These three agreements with Indonesia, Peru and Hong Kong reinforce the Morrison Liberal and Nationals Government's commitment to growing Australia's strong economy through free and open trade, promoting Australian jobs and providing new opportunities for businesses of all sizes. In the last six years of Coalition Government, our trade covered by trade agreements has grown from 26 per cent to around 70 per cent. Australia has now concluded free trade agreements with seven of its top eight export markets for goods and services. This Government's record on trade speaks for itself – a record number of goods exporting businesses – over 53,000, the second longest consecutive run of trade surpluses, and more trade than ever before covered by free trade agreements. This comes on top of bringing into force trade deals with China, Korea, Japan and of course the TPP-11. Those opposite failed to start and conclude a single free trade agreement, and oversaw the total number of Australian businesses exporting decrease when in office. The Member for Maribyrnong even said the TPP was "dead in the water" when the US withdrew, yet the Coalition stood up for our farmers and businesses to do the hard yards and we saw that agreement delivered. Just as we have with these three agreements. Today is about supporting Australian businesses and farmers to get better access and more opportunities to export their goods and services, allowing them to grow, diversify and employ more Australians. The agreement with Indonesia, the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership, or IA-CEPA, will be critical in building Australia's strategic, economic and investment relationship with our largest near neighbour. This agreement will allow 99 per cent of Australia's goods exports to enter Indonesia duty free or with significantly improved preferential arrangements. Australian agricultural producers will enjoy better market access and greater certainty, including for red meat and live cattle, grains, dairy, horticultural products and sugar. Australian manufacturers will have better access for products such as steel, plastics and copper cathodes. IA-CEPA builds on the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement by, for example, having additional tariff cuts. All of Indonesia's goods exports will enter Australia duty free. For the first time ever in an Australian FTA, there will be a dedicated chapter on non-tariff barriers to trade which the Export Council of Australia said was "one of the most important parts of the agreement". This agreement will also create more opportunities for Australians to help meet Indonesia's growing needs for investment and demand for Australia's world‑class services, including in sectors like education and tourism, with universities and vocational training providers already looking at opportunities in Indonesia. The two-way benefits of IA-CEPA will launch a new chapter in our bilateral relations with Indonesia. It will foster partnerships between business, communities and individuals in both countries and support the shared interest of Australia and Indonesia in a secure and prosperous region. Under the agreement with Peru, Australia has achieved significant new access to one of South America's fastest growing economies. This agreement secures new quotas for Australian dairy, rice and sorghum free from tariffs. Australia has been able to get market access to Peru that was not possible under the TPP-11. Peru will eliminate its relatively high tariffs, up to 29 per cent in some cases, on major Australian exports like dairy, beef, grain, sheep meat, sugar, wine, pharmaceuticals, manufactured goods, medical devices, paper products, iron and steel. The agreement with Peru is not just about goods; it also opens up an array of new opportunities for Australian service providers, recognition of Australian university degrees, and enables Australian tertiary education providers to establish campuses in Peru. This agreement delivers greater access for Australian financial, legal and other professional service operators, as well as for Australian businesses supplying mining-related and oilfield services in Peru, where Australian businesses are significant investors. PAFTA further expands on our close investment links. The number of Australian companies operating in Peru has grown significantly from ten in 2003 to currently over ninety. The Australian and Peruvian mining sectors, in particular, are already closely integrated. PAFTA provides a platform for expanding and deepening these relationships.Hong Kong is a leading business and financial centre in Asia, and a significant and well-established commercial partner for Australia. Hong Kong is Australia's seventh‑largest export destination. We have a strong investment relationship, with Hong Kong as our fifth‑largest source of total foreign investment. This agreement provides increased certainty for Australian exporters and investors and locks in zero tariffs on all Australian goods exported to Hong Kong. This ensures Hong Kong cannot apply tariffs to Australian goods in the future, benefiting Australia for generations to come. Hong Kong will guarantee open market settings for services suppliers so Australian exporters of education, financial and professional services can continue to explore growth opportunities in Hong Kong's large and competitive market. The agreement will significantly improve conditions for two-way investment, including through updated investment rules to protect investors on both sides. The agreement with Hong Kong, and the associated Investment Agreement, will underpin our growing economic engagement and support Australia's long-term economic and commercial interests by strengthening this already substantial and important relationship. The agreements are balanced, and have best practice protections for governments to legislate in the national interest including in public health and the environment, these protections are absent in the older style investment agreement. It, also, importantly, reaffirms Australia's support for the 'One Country, Two Systems' principle, through which Hong Kong's autonomy has underpinned its success as a regional business hub. We know that some raise issues about the movement of natural persons. None of the agreements include any new commitments on Labour Market Testing waivers. But it is not just the Government saying are benefits and value in these agreements. Importantly, Australian businesses and industry groups also strongly support these agreements because they recognise these agreements will bring benefits for Australian exporters, Australian jobs and Australia's economy. Some of these industry groups and businesses include: the Australian-Indonesian Business Council, the National Farmers Federation, Australian Grape and Wine, Meat and Livestock Australia, TAFE Directors, Group of Eight Universities, Business Council of Australia, Universities Australia, Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Export Council of Australia, the Minerals Council of Australia, Pork Australia, CaneGrowers, Australian Industry Group, Citrus Australia and the Australian Red Meat Advisory Council, the Australian Dairy Industry, Graingrowers, Australia-Peru Chamber of Commerce, Australian Industry Group, CPA Australia Perth USAsia Centre, Ausveg, Bluescope, Consolidated Pastoral Company, the Food and Grocery Council and the Australia-Latin America Business Council, as well as many others. I thank them for their strong advocacy and support, in some cases over many years. I note that the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has considered each of the three agreements in detail and recommended that binding treaty action be taken for all agreements. I thank the Committee for their work on the agreements with Indonesia and Hong Kong, and the former Committee for its work on Peru. Swift passage of this Bill will enable the agreements to enter into force promptly and unlock the benefits of these agreements for the Australian economy. The three agreements covered by this Bill support Australia's national interest. They will enable our exporters and investors to build on our already strong and growing commercial relationships and to take up further opportunities across the Asia-Pacific. This bill will allow Australia to ratify these three free trade agreements with Indonesia, Peru and Hong Kong and at a time of global uncertainty and trade tensions open up more opportunities for Australian businesses, Australian investors and Australian farmers to export and invest across the Asia-Pacific. The Morrison Liberal and Nationals Government is focussed on creating more opportunities and more jobs for Australians and that is exactly what this legislation and these trade agreements with Indonesia, Peru and Hong Kong will achieve. I say to the parliament: we need to pass this legislation like we did for the TPP-11 last year and continue take a bipartisan approach to trade as we have done for the past 30 years, so that this Parliament can pass these agreements to benefit Australian businesses, farmers and investors. I Commend the Bill. CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (GROWING AUSTRALIAN EXPORT OPPORTUNITIES ACROSS THE ASIA-PACIFIC) BILL 2019 The Customs Tariff Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities across the Asia‑Pacific) Bill 2019 amends the Customs Tariff Act1995 to implement Australia's obligations relating to goods under the three recently concluded free trade agreements with Indonesia, Peru and Hong Kong. The amendments contained in this Bill complement the amendments to be made to the Customs Act 1901 by the Customs Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia‑Pacific) Bill 2019. I reiterate the comments I made in relation to the introduction of that earlier bill, the Customs Amendment (Growing Australian Export Opportunities Across the Asia Pacific) Bill 2019. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate adjourned. Education Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2019, Treasury Laws Amendment (International Tax Agreements) Bill 2019 53

Education Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2019

Treasury Laws Amendment (International Tax Agreements) Bill 2019

First Reading 53 16:29 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania These bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I shall move a motion to have the bills listed separately. I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 53 16:30 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— EDUCATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (TUITION PROTECTION AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2019 Today I am introducing a package of Bills to reform tuition protection. This includes the Education Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2019, which will establish strong and sustainable tuition protections for domestic students accessing a VET Student Loan, a FEE-HELP loan or HECS-HELP loan with a private education provider or TAFE. To achieve this, I am intending to expand the successful Tuition Protection Service (TPS) for international students, to also protect this cohort of domestic students who are accessing Government loans. These tuition protections will ensure students are supported if their education or training provider stops teaching or closes entirely. Students protected under these new arrangements will be assisted to complete their studies in a similar course with another provider and gain a qualification, or may have their loan removed for the parts of their study they have commenced but were not able to complete. It makes sense to expand the TPS model to domestic students accessing Government loans. Since its inception in 2012, the TPS has proven to be successful for students and providers, and contributes to the strong reputation of Australia's international education sector. The Bill also provides from 1 January 2020, the new tuition protection arrangements will: be administered by a statutory appointed Director. The same Director will manage the VET Student Loans, HELP Loans and TPS tuition protection arrangements; require all non-exempt approved providers to contribute annual levies commensurate with their size and risk. The levy system ensures the new arrangements are sustainable and can respond to sector trends; establish two new special accounts, one each for the VSL providers and the Higher Education HELP providers, to avoid any risk of cross-subsidisation between the different student and provider streams. The special accounts will be managed by the Director to administer the arrangements and support displaced students; ensure there are strict requirements for providers who cease delivering a course, or close, to ensure these providers put the interests of students first; enable payments to be made in connection to tuition protections and allow the rules and guidelines to prescribe circumstances for which payments can be made. These rules or guidelines can enable an incentive payment that will benefit providers who take on displaced students. This will enable financial support to be given to these replacement providers for taking on these displaced students; The peak bodies who represent the sector have publicly supported the new arrangements. The positive feedback, particularly in relation to the support of governance structures and the new incentive payment to replacement providers, indicates the new arrangements will be welcomed by the sectors. Students, providers, and the training and education sectors can be confident the new tuition protection arrangements will support students, and replacement providers. This is all part of Government's ongoing commitment to safeguard the integrity and reputation of its income contingent loan programs. I commend the Bill. TREASURY LAWS AMENDMENT (INTERNATIONAL TAX AGREEMENTS) BILL 2019 Australia and Israel share a close friendship and have longstanding trade and investment ties. In 2017-18 total merchandise trade between Australia and Israel was worth over $1 billion, and Israel's investment in Australia was over $300 million. Behind these numbers are many real-world examples of this economic relationship. This includes Australian startups using the Tel Aviv Landing Pad to access Israel's innovation ecosystem. It also includes two Israeli biotech companies, Azura Opthalmics and Bioforum that have established a physical presence in Australia to take advantage of our world-leading clinical research environment. This bill, and the treaty contained within, will further nurture and strengthen this growing economic relationship. On 28 March 2019, the Convention between the Government of Australia and the Government of the State of Israel for the Elimination of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income and the Prevention of Tax Evasion and Avoidance, as it is formally known, was signed by Australia and Israel. The first of its kind between the two countries, it brings with it a range of benefits. The Convention will support new trading opportunities for Australian businesses by reducing withholding tax rates, helping to create a more favourable bilateral investment environment and making it cheaper for Australian business to access Israel's capital and technology. The Convention will also improve tax certainty for business by introducing anti-discrimination and arbitration rules, as well as a range of rules to prevent double taxation. Importantly, the convention will strengthen the integrity of Australia's tax system and help detect and prevent tax evasion. It does this by authorising the revenue authorities of Australia and Israel to exchange taxpayer information on all taxes covered by the Convention. Finally, the Convention incorporates important integrity provisions from the G20/OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project, known as BEPS. These provisions are designed to minimise tax avoidance opportunities and ensure that multinational corporations pay their fair share of tax. The new Convention will enter into force following the last notification that both countries have completed their domestic requirements which, in the case of Australia, includes the enactment of this Bill. As well as amending the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to give force to the convention, the bill also amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to introduce a new deemed source of income rule. This will ensure that Australia can fully exercise the taxing rights it has negotiated under this new convention and future international tax agreements. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019 55

Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019

First Reading 55 16:31 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 55 16:31 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Customs Amendment (Product Specific Rule Modernisation) Bill 2019 (the Bill) amends the Customs Act1901 (Customs Act). Similar to the 2018 Act of the same name, this bill will streamline the implementation of our free trade agreements (FTAs) and help facilitate smoother trade between Australia and our existing FTA partners. Australia's FTAs contain rules of origin for determining whether goods are eligible for preferential tariff treatment under the FTA. These include product specific rules of origin (PSRs). The PSRs apply to goods containing material sourced from a non-Party. PSRs are based upon the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, also called the Harmonized System. The six FTAs addressed by this bill each have a separate PSR Annex that is implemented domestically by being replicated in regulations (the FTA regulations). Currently importers consult both the text of the FTA and the FTA regulations in order to work out whether their goods are eligible to claim preferential tariff treatment. The amendments in this Bill mean that businesses importing goods under any of the FTAs covered by the Bill will, in future, only refer to the PSRs in the FTA The 2018 Amendment Act resulted in the repeal of some 2,692 pages of regulations, reducing them to 48 pages. It is expected that this bill will significantly reduce the size of the regulations for the six affected FTAs, from over 3,000 pages to about 90 pages. The changes proposed by this Bill are technical in nature and are not controversial. They do not make any changes to the benefits that are available under any of the FTAs. The changes proposed by this bill will also mean no delay in Australia implementing changes under the harmonized system. It will reduce the likelihood of errors that could occur in prescribing the PSRs in FTA regulations. The Bill will also greatly reduce the use of government resources in amending and updating large regulations in the future. Importantly, the changes will make it easier for businesses new to using FTAs to understand their obligations by using consistent and simpler language across the legislation that implements the FTAs negotiated by the Australian Government. In introducing this Bill, the government honours its commitments to its FTA partners to ensure our agreements remain up to date. Debate adjourned. Education Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2019, VET Student Loans (VSL Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 2019, Higher Education Support (HELP Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 2019 55

Education Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2019

VET Student Loans (VSL Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 2019

Higher Education Support (HELP Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 2019

First Reading 55 16:32 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 56 16:33 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— EDUCATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (TUITION PROTECTION AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2019 Today I am introducing a package of Bills to reform tuition protection. This includes the Education Legislation Amendment (Tuition Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2019, which will establish strong and sustainable tuition protections for domestic students accessing a VET Student Loan, a FEE-HELP loan or HECS-HELP loan with a private education provider or TAFE. To achieve this, I am intending to expand the successful Tuition Protection Service (TPS) for international students, to also protect this cohort of domestic students who are accessing Government loans. These tuition protections will ensure students are supported if their education or training provider stops teaching or closes entirely. Students protected under these new arrangements will be assisted to complete their studies in a similar course with another provider and gain a qualification, or may have their loan removed for the parts of their study they have commenced but were not able to complete. It makes sense to expand the TPS model to domestic students accessing Government loans. Since its inception in 2012, the TPS has proven to be successful for students and providers, and contributes to the strong reputation of Australia's international education sector. The Bill also provides from 1 January 2020, the new tuition protection arrangements will: be administered by a statutory appointed Director. The same Director will manage the VET Student Loans, HELP Loans and TPS tuition protection arrangements; require all non-exempt approved providers to contribute annual levies commensurate with their size and risk. The levy system ensures the new arrangements are sustainable and can respond to sector trends; establish two new special accounts, one each for the VSL providers and the Higher Education HELP providers, to avoid any risk of cross-subsidisation between the different student and provider streams. The special accounts will be managed by the Director to administer the arrangements and support displaced students; ensure there are strict requirements for providers who cease delivering a course, or close, to ensure these providers put the interests of students first; enable payments to be made in connection to tuition protections and allow the rules and guidelines to prescribe circumstances for which payments can be made. These rules or guidelines can enable an incentive payment that will benefit providers who take on displaced students. This will enable financial support to be given to these replacement providers for taking on these displaced students; The peak bodies who represent the sector have publicly supported the new arrangements. The positive feedback, particularly in relation to the support of governance structures and the new incentive payment to replacement providers, indicates the new arrangements will be welcomed by the sectors. Students, providers, and the training and education sectors can be confident the new tuition protection arrangements will support students, and replacement providers. This is all part of Government's ongoing commitment to safeguard the integrity and reputation of its income contingent loan programs. I commend the Bill. VET STUDENT LOANS (VSL TUITION PROTECTION LEVY) BILL 2019 I am also introducing the VET Student Loans (VSL Tuition Protection Levy) Bill 2019 as part of Government's package to implement sustainable tuition protection arrangements from 1 January 2020 for students accessing a VET Student Loan, a FEE-HELP loan or HECS-HELP loan with a private education provider or TAFE. The levy framework in the Bill, has been developed by the Australian Government Actuary and is broadly consistent with the levy structure used by the Tuition Protection Service (TPS) for international students. The TPS is a proven success for students, the taxpayer and the sector and is financially sound. The Bill imposes a levy on non-exempt providers. The levy has three components – an administrative component, determined by legislative instrument by the Minister, a risk rated premium, and special tuition protection components, which the VSL Tuition Protection Director sets by legislative instrument. The Treasurer is required to approve the legislative instrument made by the VSL Tuition Protection Director. The strong governance arrangements of the TPS, and flexibility in the levy framework, will ensure the levies settings can respond to any emerging trends in the vocational training sector. This is essential as it will reward providers when the sector is stable, but also protect the sustainability of the model for Government and the taxpayer. This is why I introduce this Bill today. HIGHER EDUCATION SUPPORT (HELP TUITION PROTECTION LEVY) BILL 2019 Finally, I am also introducing the Higher Education Support (HELP Tuition Protection Levy ) Bill 2019 which forms the final piece of this Government's package to protect students, the taxpayer and the training and higher education sectors in the event of a provider closure. The levy framework reflected in this Bill was also developed by the Australian Government Actuary, drawing on the experience of the successful Tuition Protection Service for international students. The levies will apply to private and TAFE higher education providers offering HELP loans. This Bill will equally ensure the sustainability of the new model for Government, further enhance the already strong reputation of the higher education sector and benefit those providers who assist displaced students. I commend the Bill. Debate adjourned. Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019 57

Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019

First Reading 57 16:33 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 57 16:34 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— This Bill establishes the cash payment limit and introduces offences for entities that make or accept cash payments of $10,000 or more from 1 January 2020. The Black Economy Taskforce Final Report found that large cash payments can be anonymous and untraceable allowing businesses to under-report their income and to offer consumers discounts for transactions that reflect the businesses' avoided obligations. This practice has a profound negative impact on businesses that do the right thing. The vast majority of businesses that diligently pay their fair share of tax, and meet their other obligations, are not able to offer the same unfairly discounted price for their goods or services. The cash payment limit sends a strong signal to the community that the government will protect the rights of honest businesses and their families from unfair competition from those who want to avoid their obligations. The cash payment limit not only targets those avoiding their tax obligations, it helps to fight organised crime syndicates. We know that large amounts of cash is essential to the business model of criminal gangs. These gangs launder the cash from the proceeds of manufacturing and selling drugs and other serious crimes through the legitimate economy. The cash limit will make it harder for them to do so. The Government is committed to providing our intelligence agencies with the tools and laws that enable them to disrupt these criminal activities. This is not to say that consumers and businesses do not have legitimate reasons to conduct cash transactions and the Government recognises that cash remains an important part of the economy and a legitimate means of payment for individuals and businesses. The cash payment limit will only apply to businesses and individuals that make or accept payments that involve $10,000 or more in cash. The majority of businesses' and individuals' daily interactions involving cash are unlikely to exceed the cash payment limit. We are living in a time where a large majority of businesses now transact through electronic payment methods which reduces their costs associated with the storage, transport, loss and monitoring of cash. The cash payment limit does not apply to private transactions (excluding real property transactions) – for example the sale of a private car to another person. All Australians will continue to be able to deposit and withdraw cash in excess of $10,000 into and from their accounts, and to store more than $10,000 of their money outside a bank. Black economy activity is not simply a matter of under reporting income or tax evasion. It is a criminal matter. It can involve criminal activity to hide income through the exploitation of people, processes and systems. The government is sending a strong message to the community that using cash to avoid obligations and potentially engage in criminal activity is a serious matter that requires a sufficient level of deterrence. Contravening the cash payment limit carries with it a criminal offence provision. The penalties provide a balance between monetary penalties to deter the use of cash transactions to avoid tax obligations and jail for individuals and businesses involved in organised crime. I would also like to acknowledge the work of Michael Andrew AO whose passion and dedication to combat the black economy was instrumental in the introduction of this legislation. Unfortunately Michael recently passed away and I wish to pass on my condolences to his family. The Government shares Michael's commitment to tackle the black economy to ensure a fairer environment for all businesses. Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate adjourned. Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and Their Families First) Bill 2019, Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019, Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2019 58

Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and Their Families First) Bill 2019

Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2019

Returned from the House of Representatives 58 Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2019 58

Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2019

Returned from the House of Representatives 58 COMMITTEES 58 COMMITTEES Membership 58 BILLS 59 BILLS National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2019, Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Work Test) Bill 2019, Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019, Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2019, Treasury Laws Amendment (Ending Grandfathered Conflicted Remuneration) Bill 2019, ANL Legislation Repeal Bill 2019, Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019, Emergency Response Fund Bill 2019, Emergency Response Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019, Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019, Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2019, Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Measures No. 2) Bill 2019, Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2019, Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and Their Families First) Bill 2019, National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill 2019, Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2019, Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019 59

National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation Amendment Bill 2019

Paid Parental Leave Amendment (Work Test) Bill 2019

Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019

Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2019

Treasury Laws Amendment (Ending Grandfathered Conflicted Remuneration) Bill 2019

ANL Legislation Repeal Bill 2019

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019

Emergency Response Fund Bill 2019

Emergency Response Fund (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Regulatory Levies) Amendment Bill 2019

Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Measures No. 2) Bill 2019

Treasury Laws Amendment (2019 Tax Integrity and Other Measures No. 1) Bill 2019

Australian Veterans' Recognition (Putting Veterans and Their Families First) Bill 2019

National Rental Affordability Scheme Amendment Bill 2019

Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Amendment Bill 2019

Civil Aviation Amendment Bill 2019

Assent 59 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 59 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Migration (Fast Track Applicant Class – Temporary Protection and Safe Haven Enterprise Visas) Instrument 2019 59 Disallowance 59 16:36 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the Migration (Fast Track Applicant Class – Temporary Protection and Safe Haven Enterprise Visas) Instrument 2019, made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed [F2019L00506]. This is a classic example of scope creep by this government. Having established the unfair, punitive, unjust fast-track arrangements that have caught so many people who arrived in our country by boat seeking asylum, they now want to expand that erosion of rights and apply it to a further cohort of people. This Senate quite rightly rejected such a move by this government in the last parliament, and I call on my colleagues today to hold the line, stand up for some of the most vulnerable, disadvantaged people in our community today and vote to disallow this instrument. Almost exactly a year ago, the Morrison government attempted to extend fast-track assessments to people who arrived by boat before 2014 and were already living in Australia. That expansion would have captured an extra 108 people. I want to make one thing very clear about the fast-track process: it is neither fast nor fair. The fast-track assessment process removes access to the normal processes of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and denies people their rights to a fair review of government decisions. People subjected to fast-track assessments are not given a fair opportunity to put forward their case for asylum, they're not given a fair opportunity to present new information in the review process, they're not given a fair opportunity to attend a face-to-face interview, they're not given a fair opportunity to respond to adverse information used in their assessment and they're not given a fair opportunity to request ministerial intervention for unique or compelling circumstances. The fast-track cohort cannot have negative decisions made by the government reviewed in the usual way by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Non-fast-track decisions are reviewed on the merits of the claim by the Migration and Refugee Division of the AAT. However, fast-track decisions are reviewed on the papers by the Immigration Assessment Authority. This is, in reality, a quality assurance process rather than a review of the merits of the claim, and it's conducted by a tribunal that was established specifically to review fast-track decisions and which does not hear directly from the applicant. This means that fast-track applicants who receive a negative decision will not have any access to any form of merits based review. The fast-track assessment was introduced in 2014 by the Abbott government, to attempt to process a legacy case load of nearly 31,000 people. Five years later, more than a quarter of those people still have not had their applications finalised. So the idea that this is a fast process needs to be understood by all senators to be a crock. Some people have been here more than seven years and still do not have a final outcome. Many of these people are waiting and have been waiting in limbo for a period of time that is longer than the visa that they were actually applying for in the first place, and they still haven't had their applications finalised. Seven years, colleagues. Also in 2014, the Abbott government abolished publicly funded legal assistance for most asylum seekers who'd arrived in Australia without a valid visa, which included a majority of the legacy case load. Then, in 2018, the Morrison government withdrew all income support for many of the legacy case load people. Now, without properly funded legal assistance, or access to work rights, social services or Medicare, people with limited or no English language skills and limited or no family or community support networks, many suffering post-traumatic stress disorder, are expected to fill out lengthy, legally complex applications, in English, without the right to a meaningful review if the application is rejected. The fast-track assessment process creates different classes of people in Australia: some who have access to certain legal options and some who do not. People in the fast-track process are not given fair opportunity to put forward their case for asylum and respond to adverse information. People in the fast-track process are often blindsided by issues and evidence they knew nothing about. Without giving people an opportunity to respond to adverse information affecting their applications, this is a process that intentionally sets people up to fail. This process, the fast-track process, is a significant denial of natural justice and procedural fairness. It also significantly increases the risk that some people will be returned to persecution—in contravention, I might add, of our non-refoulement obligations under the refugee convention to which we remain a signatory, despite the bastardry that we have inflicted on so many tens of thousands of desperate people fleeing persecution, who held out a hand to our country and asked for our help. In addition to the original fast-track cohort—that is, people who arrived by boat between 13 August 2012 and 31 December 2013—this instrument that the Greens are seeking to disallow today will cast the net even further. It will capture people who arrived by plane but were not immigration-cleared on entry—that is, they did not have a valid visa. I'll pause there to point out that the refugee convention is abundantly clear: it is entirely considered by the refugee convention that people who are fleeing persecution may not have the appropriate paperwork, such as travel documents or passports, and may not actually have valid visas for the countries to which they are fleeing. Nevertheless, the refugee convention imposes obligations on signatories, which, as I said, includes Australia. This instrument that we're seeking to disallow will also capture people who arrived by boat before the introduction of the fast-track regime, including those who had their applications for permanent visas automatically converted to temporary visas when laws changed while their applications were still being processed. It will also catch those who were not permitted to apply for a visa at all for many years. Talk about shifting the goal posts, colleagues! We have people who had put in an application under one regime; the goal posts were shifted while their application was on foot inside the department; and, lo and behold, they're having the rules changed halfway through their engagement with the department. If this disallowance is unsuccessful, this instrument will now also catch children born to anyone who holds or has held a temporary protection visa in any of those TPV categories. I might add here that many of these people have already been found to be genuine refugees—that is, they have a well-founded fear of persecution that they were fleeing from, and we, Australia, have agreed by our adoption of the refugee convention that they should have certain rights in this country. They are having those rights trampled by this government. These are desperate and vulnerable people. Many of them have already been found to be genuine refugees, which means we owe them protection. But these people were already only eligible for temporary rather than permanent protection visas. That is something that also needs to change in our law, because we should not be offering temporary protection to people who successfully claim asylum in this country. We ought to be offering permanent protection to those people, with a pathway to citizenship of Australia, and we should be upholding all the things that we agreed to do when we signed the refugee convention. Temporary protection visas mean people found to have genuine claims of protection live in continual fear about being deported from Australia. Rather than being full and participating members of our community and rebuilding their lives for the long-term, they are forced to live day-to-day in this terrible, weighty fear of one day getting a knock on the door in the middle of the night, just like the family from Biloela did. Now, at the expiry of a three- or five-year temporary visa, around 4,000 people will be required to reapply for another temporary visa, this time under the unfair fast-track assessment process. I want to make it abundantly clear that this process, as I said earlier, was designed to set people up to fail and it was designed to minimise the number of people who could successfully claim asylum in Australia. It is part of an ongoing and punitive campaign against refugees, against people seeking asylum, that is being waged by both major parties in this place; although I do acknowledge the Labor Party's previous support—and I hope their support today—for this disallowance motion. This latest attempt by the LNP to expand fast-track assessments is simply a demonisation of people who seek asylum and of refugees in this country in order to extract electoral and political advantage. Last time the Morrison government tried this on, we were talking about 108 people. This time we are talking about the lives and the futures of around 4,000 people. That is 4,000 people whose future lies in the balance as we debate this instrument today. The discriminatory fast-track assessment process should be scrapped entirely, as should—as I said earlier—temporary protection visas. Until that day, the Senate should not allow the Morrison government to continually move the goalposts on this group of people who are living today in our community. It is not just people living in our community who have suffered under the politicisation of migration, of refugees and of seeking asylum in Australia. There are still many hundreds of people in Papua New Guinea and Nauru who are about to clock up seven years in offshore detention. Just let that sink in, colleagues: seven years. Think about all you have been able to achieve in the last seven years. Think about all that your families and your children—if you have children—have been able to achieve in the last seven years. There is a group of about 350 or just over 400 people, because it changes every day, who are still in Papua New Guinea and Nauru, and there are many hundreds of that cohort who were in Australia for medical treatment or for other reasons as we debate this disallowance who still have no idea what their future will hold. They still have no idea whether they can get the freedom and safety they so desperately need and deserve. This is a dark chapter in our country's story. It's a terrible blot on our national history and there will be a royal commission into offshore detention and onshore immigration detention at some stage in the future. I'm not naive enough to stand here today and predict when that will happen, because history shows that the primary architects of the issues which ultimately lead to royal commissions need to leave the parliament and leave public life before a royal commission is established. But that will happen one day. Some of the primary architects have gone; some of them still remain in this chamber and the other chamber. When they go, the Greens will be here again, calling for and demanding a royal commission so that we can come to an understanding of how low we've sunk as a country, so we can come to an understanding of how we could have let this dark period occur, and, most importantly, so we can come to an understanding that this kind of thing should never happen again in a so-called civilised society. The instrument that the Greens are seeking to disallow represents yet more scope creep by this government. It represents a continued and expanded demonisation of refugees, migrants and people who sought asylum in this country. It represents a moving of the goalposts—in many cases, halfway through a previously established lawful assessment process that's considering a live visa application. We can do better, colleagues, than what this government is presenting us with today, and one of the ways we can do better, one of the ways that we can genuinely start to make amends for the terrible actions that we've committed on refugees and people seeking asylum in the last 20 years, is to support this disallowance motion today. I commend it to the chamber. 16:52 Senator GRIFF 76760 South Australia Centre Alliance supports this disallowance for the simple reason that this instrument will otherwise strip temporary protection visa holders and safe haven enterprise visa applicants of due process simply to ease the workload of the Department of Home Affairs and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. If this latest fast-track instrument is allowed to stand, it will redirect appeal cases away from the AAT, which is struggling to manage its workload, and put them before the Immigration Assessment Authority, which effectively only reviews cases using information shared by the department. A fast-track appeal is pretty much a tick-and-flick review process. The IAA does a quick paper review that does not allow for additional or new information except in exceptional cases, and it has no obligation whatsoever to hear directly from the visa applicant. It would mean all temporary protection visa and safe haven enterprise visa applicants, as well as holders of these visas who seek to renew their TPVs or SHEVs, will no longer have access to the full and independent merits review process. This creates a real risk that refugees in need will be wrongly denied protection. It means they can be returned to persecution or other serious harm. This is highlighted by research from the University of Technology Sydney that shows that the Immigration Assessment Authority, unlike other review tribunals, upholds the vast majority of decisions. As I said, it's very much a tick-and-flick exercise. The UTS research found the IAA has upheld 87 per cent of decisions since 2015. After undertaking its limited reviews, the Immigration Assessment Authority came to the same finding as the department in almost nine out of 10 cases, effectively being a rubber-stamp organisation. This compares to appeals made under the former Refugee Review Tribunal process, in which about 65 per cent of decisions were upheld. In its report, Lives on hold, the Human Rights Commission paints an even starker picture. It said that, between June 2009 and June 2013, merits reviewers upheld decisions for only 20 per cent of asylum seekers who arrived by boat. Last month I read a very good piece on The Conversation titled, 'There's no airport border "crisis", only management failure of the Home Affairs department'. This piece detailed the staffing and management problems in the department and how poor decision-making at the primary level was causing backlogs in the AAT. The article made the case that government favouritism in stacking the AAT with political allies lacking the proper expertise had led to more errors by the AAT, more appeals to the courts and delays in finalising cases. The chaos within the department and inappropriate AAT appointments are not problems that should be shifted to clients. It's a mess the government needs to clean up without impacting the people who have a right to have their cases properly heard. The fast-track process was set up for a limited purpose, which was to help the department clear a backlog of maritime arrival cases, and legislation was required to make this process happen. In late 2014 former senator Nick Xenophon agreed to support the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Bill 2014, which introduced fast-tracking processing, but he did so on the basis that it would only apply to the intended cohort of asylum seekers who arrived between August 2012 and January 2014. He made that expressly clear at the time. But we've all seen how this government likes to take advantage of every inch it is given. Since then, the government has used delegated legislation such as the instrument we are now debating to steadily expand the fast-track process to more and more categories of visa holders. Many, by no means all, of the current cohort of TPV and SHEV holders belong to the original legacy case load who had their claims assessed under the fast-track process. Their claims were obviously found to have merit at the time. They will likely continue to be found to have merit. In cases where the department challenges or rejects their claim, they and any other TPV or SHEV applicant should very much be permitted a proper and independent review process. 16:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I rise in support of Senator McKim's disallowance motion. Labor supports Operation Sovereign Borders. This means boat turnbacks where it is safe to do so, regional resettlement and offshore processing. But Labor believe that we can be strong on borders without losing our humanity. The instrument we seek to disallow today will make no contribution to strong borders. What this instrument does is push people who have already been found to be refugees, through Australia's standard refugee status determination process, and who are on temporary protection visas into the Morrison government's so-called fast-track process. The fast-track process was first introduced by the Abbott government in 2013 in an attempt to more quickly process refugee applications, primarily of asylum seekers who arrived in Australia by boat between 13 August 2012 and 31 December 2013. Through this instrument, as the visas of TPV and SHEV holders expire, rather than having their TPV or SHEV extended through the existing processes a refugee will instead be forced through this fast-track process. Labor's consistent position has been that this so-called fast-track process is neither fast nor fair. This process prevents vulnerable refugees from accessing independent reviews and instead forces them to rely on a paper based review by the Immigration Assessment Authority, which is little more than a rubber stamp for the decisions of the Department of Home Affairs. We know that Peter Dutton's home affairs department is racked with tired and overworked officials who don't have the resources they need to do their jobs. Home Affairs was recently ranked last of all 97 Australian Public Service agencies for staff engagement, with one in three departmental officials wanting to quit and more than half of the department believing they don't have the tools and resources they need to do their jobs. In this kind of poisonous atmosphere, how can we expect Home Affairs officials, who are making so-called fast-track decisions, to get it right every single time? But this is what Minister Dutton and Minister Coleman are asking us to believe. Under the Dutton-Coleman fast-track review, refugees have little chance of mistakes by Home Affairs officials ever being corrected. In fact, we know that this legislation has nothing to do with Operation Sovereign Borders. Instead, this instrument is yet another misstep by this tired and apathetic third-term government, and another instance of Peter Dutton's incompetent management of the Department of Home Affairs. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT G0D Senator Watt, please refer to the minister by his appropriate title. Senator WATT 245759 Certainly, Mr Acting Deputy President Bernardi. While the actions of former Prime Minister, Mr Kevin Rudd, and the current Prime Minister, Mr Scott Morrison, stopped the boats, the current minister, Minister Dutton, has overseen nearly 100,000 people arrive by airplane and claim asylum in Australia. Over 90 per cent of these people have been found not to be refugees. The egregious exploitation those people face when they're in Australia includes being paid as little as $4 an hour or being forced into sexual servitude. There are the record-breaking 230,000 people on bridging visas in Australia, and citizenship and spouse visa processing times are blowing out to two to three years. Labor will not support stripping even more rights away from people who are in Australia and who have already been declared refugees. These people have already had their claims for protection approved by the government, and if the government insists their status be reviewed then those reviews should be subject to the right safeguards and oversights to ensure that vulnerable people are not returned to prosecution. As such, Labor will be supporting this motion. 17:02 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania By supporting this Greens led motion today, Labor is proving once again why it cannot be trusted to protect the integrity of our humanitarian and border protection programs. The effect of this disallowance is that a person who arrived in Australia as an illegal maritime arrival, an IMA, before 13 August 2012, or as an unauthorised air arrival, a UAA, who lodges an application for a subsequent subclass 785 temporary protection visa, a TPV, or a subclass 790 safe haven enterprise visa, will not have their claims for protection assessed through the fast-track assessment process. This will result in the assessment of their application blowing out from 23 days on average to 504 days. By supporting the disallowance motion, 4,000 illegal maritime arrivals will not be considered fast-track applicants, delaying the time it will take to finalise their protection claims and increasing the cost to the Australian taxpayer. The PRESIDENT I0Q The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:07]
(The President—Senator Ryan)

31 AYES Ayres, T Bilyk, CL Carr, KJ Chisholm, A Ciccone, R (teller) Dodson, P Farrell, D Faruqi, M Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Griff, S Hanson-Young, SC Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M McKim, NJ O'Neill, D Patrick, RL Polley, H Pratt, LC Rice, J Sheldon, A Siewert, R Smith, M Steele-John, J Urquhart, AE Walsh, J Waters, LJ Watt, M Whish-Wilson, PS 33 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 Fierravanti-Wells, C Hanson, P Henderson, SM Hughes, H Lambie, J McDonald, S McGrath, J (teller) McKenzie, B McMahon, S O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Payne, MA Rennick, G Reynolds, L Roberts, M Ruston, A Ryan, SM Scarr, P Seselja, Z Smith, DA Van, D 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

COMMITTEES 64 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 64 Reference 64 17:10 Senator PATRICK 144292 South Australia I seek leave to amend Business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 standing in my name for today. Leave granted. Senator PATRICK 144292 I move the motion as amended: That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by the final sitting day of June 2020: (1) That the Senate notes recent statements concerning Australia's relations with the People's Republic of China, including: (a) the speech of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne, on 19 September 2019 in which she stated that in pursuing Australian diplomacy she will advance 'Australian values' and that 'at times that will mean speaking our mind or taking actions that seem disagreeable to others'; (b) the comments of Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Dutton, on 11 October 2019 that it is necessary to have a 'frank conversation' about China’s global influence: its Belt and Road Initiative, expansionism in the South China Sea and growing military and aid presence in the lndo-Pacific; (c) Mr Dutton's further observations that the values, policies and actions of the Chinese Communist Party are 'inconsistent' with Australian democratic values and that 'We're not going to allow theft of intellectual property and we're not going to allow our government bodies or non-government bodies to be hacked into'; (d) the remarks of Prime Minister Scott Morrison, on 12 October 2019, that Mr Dutton's comments 'just simply reflect the fact we're two different countries' and that 'China will do what they do in their country, and we respect that too'; (e) the comments of the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan, on 13 October 2019 that Mr Dutton was 'just stating the facts of the matter' and that it is a 'longstanding fact' that Australia and China have different systems of government and political values; (f) the statement of the Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong, on 14 October 2019 that she has made 'repeated requests' to the Minister for Foreign Affairs that relevant agencies, such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Office of National Intelligence, provide a detailed and comprehensive briefing for parliamentarians on Australia's relationship with China; and (g) Senator Wong's statement on 24 October 2019 that the Minister for Foreign Affairs has written to the Opposition declining to provide the requested briefings. (2) That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by the final sitting day of June 2020: Australia's relations with the People's Republic of China, with particular reference to: (a) the management of a mutually respectful and beneficial bilateral relationship between Australia and China; (b) Australian and Chinese perspectives on, and interests in, regional and global security issues; (c) trade, investment and infrastructure issues, including Australia's engagement with China's Belt and Road Initiative; (d) educational and research cooperation; (e) tourism, cultural exchanges and people-to-people ties; (f) management of diplomatic and consular arrangements; (g) dialogue on human rights issues; (h) the roles of Australian institutions in Australia's relations with China, including, state and local governments, universities and other academic bodies, business and non-government organisations; and (i) any related matters. I make no apology for the groundhog day aspect of this motion. As senators will be aware, I have already twice moved motions which, in their operative parts, were identical to today's motion—that is, to establish an inquiry by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee into Australia's relationship with China. I have been prompted to revisit this matter by the significant statements made since the Senate last voted on this question, on 16 September. As set out in the preamble of the motion, these statements include the speech by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 19 September, in which she highlighted the importance of Australian values in our nation's diplomacy and especially in our relations with China, including the importance of being prepared to speak our minds even to the discomfort of others. The foreign minister spoke well on that occasion. She subsequently made further comments in which she said that Australia and other countries must hold the Chinese government accountable for its human rights abuses domestically because, aside from the intrinsic importance of human rights, 'Countries that respect and promote their citizens' rights at home tend to be better international citizens.' Australia does need to stand up in international affairs and speak up for our values of democracy, human rights and respect for the rule of law and a rules based international system. That is especially true of this institution, the Australian parliament. Significant statements referenced in today's motion also include the observation of the Minister for Home Affairs in which he called for a frank conversation about China's global and regional influence and aspects of our bilateral relations, including Chinese political interference, activities on our university campuses, the theft of intellectual property and the hacking of Australian government and non-government bodies. Mr Dutton observed that the values of the Chinese Communist Party are inconsistent with Australian democratic values and said: We're not going to allow theft of intellectual property and we're not going to allow our government bodies or non-government bodies to be hacked into. I would add that the last matter, computer hacking, has included not only Australian government agencies, political parties and the Australian National University but also the computer system of this parliament. By implication, according to the Home Affairs minister, we haven't been having a frank conversation about these matters. As senators will be aware, Mr Dutton's remarks triggered a strident response from the Chinese embassy. The embassy denounced Minister Dutton's statement as 'irrational', 'a malicious slur on the Communist Party of China' and 'an outright provocation to the Chinese people'. It's strong language, but that's not unusual from the Chinese government. Subsequent to that statement by the embassy, Prime Minister Morrison observed that the Home Affairs minister was just stating the facts. A similar comment was made by the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan. On 14 October the shadow minister for foreign affairs, Senator Wong, also contributed to the debate, with a significant speech to the Australian Institute of International Affairs. Senator Wong called for a bipartisan debate to help 'define the boundaries' of Australia's engagement with China in an environment in which our two countries have 'substantial and growing differences'. Senator Wong observed: It is inevitable that Australia will make more decisions that China doesn't like. This means that the way the relationship is handled will become even more important. …   …   … Although there continues to be convergence of interests, the divergences have become more apparent and acute—due to both Beijing's increasing assertiveness and greater awareness in Australia as to the implications of the CCP's— the Chinese Communist Party's— behaviour and ambitions. We must look at how best to engage effectively with China while always standing up for our values, our sovereignty and our democratic system. Senator Wong rightly observed that, while the Australian government has to provide leadership, all stakeholders, including the Labor opposition, the foreign policy and defence community and business, 'need to work together to identify opportunities for deeper engagement where our interests coincide and to manage difference constructively'. Senator Wong said that Labor wants to engage in a bipartisan way on a China policy. She observed: I have made repeated requests to the Foreign Minister that relevant agencies, such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Office of National Intelligence, provide a detailed and comprehensive briefing for parliamentarians on Australia's relationship with China. That request was first made on 18 August this year, nearly three months ago. It was reiterated on 6 September. On 11 September, in answer to a question from Senator Kitching, the Minister for Foreign Affairs replied negatively. Senator Wong appears to have still held out some hope that the government might change its mind. In her 14 October speech she indicated that she did not regard the matter as closed. However, on 24 October Senator Wong told the foreign affairs and trade estimates hearing that she had just received a letter from the foreign minister that formally advised that the government will not provide the agency briefings requested by the opposition. That's an unfortunate decision by government. The question that the opposition now face is: where do they go next? Senator Wong is right to highlight the importance of a non-partisan debate on Australia's engagement with China. She is also right to emphasise the importance of developing a serious and long-term plan that can proactively navigate us through the strategic competition between the US and China and manage this new phase of our relationship with a more assertive China. This is something that can't be done by government alone. It's not something that can be done by one political party alone. This is a challenge that needs to be taken up through a broad and inclusive process—a process that will bring the full range of stakeholders and interested groups to the table. It's a process that should avoid partisan politics. It should holistically embrace economic and strategic considerations and take a long-term view of Australia's national interests. It's against that backdrop that I have brought back to the Senate today this motion for a Senate committee inquiry. China is the No. 1 issue in Australia's foreign relations. There can be no question about that. We have a much more complex and challenging relationship, one that is increasingly fraught in some respects, and it is all the more important that the Australian parliament fully engage on this vital question. That is what is proposed for a Senate committee inquiry today—to provide a forum through which the Senate can engage in a non-partisan, thoughtful way, drawing on a full range of available expertise from within government, business, universities and non-government organisations. It could only be in Australia's national interest to have a comprehensive inquiry examine how we might pursue a mutually respectful and advantageous relationship with Beijing, while being mindful of issues in relation to which greater caution may be required. Issues that could be examined include China's strategic ambitions in South-East Asia and the Pacific, including Beijing's growing influence in Timor-Leste, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea and elsewhere. An inquiry could examine our vital trade relationships with China, including our dependence on raw material exports, and the potential to develop new trading opportunities and a more balanced export trade pattern. There is also the question of Chinese investment in Australia, in resources and critical infrastructure, as well as in agriculture—including, for example, takeover bids for Australian exporters such as Tasmanian based company Bellamy's, which produces infant milk formula. We need to consider the federal aspects of our relationship with China, not only the role of the Australian government agencies but also the engagement of state and territory governments with Chinese trade and investment activities. We also need to take a close look at China's influence and interference in Australia, including the activities of the so-called United Front organisations in Australia and the role of the Chinese-government-controlled student organisations on Australian university campuses. There would also be the opportunity to examine human rights issues, including the deeply worrying case of imprisoned Australian Yang Hengjun. As I noted previously, there is, of course, nothing unusual in the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee conducting an inquiry into Australia's relationship with other countries, including China. The Senate committee has previously conducted inquiries on China, though not for well over a decade. My understanding is that the Senate FADT committee members were quite supportive of this proposed inquiry when the idea was first raised. I've got no doubt that the chair of the committee, Senator Kitching, would lead a very measured and substantive inquiry. I don't see any reason why such a Senate inquiry would harm or complicate our relations with China. The inquiry proposed by this motion would engage all elements of opinion within the Australian parliament—the coalition, Labor, the Greens and the crossbench. With that, we might find our way through partisan controversies and towards developing a forward-thinking approach to this critically important relationship that would enjoy support not only across this parliament but across the broad Australian community. This will be the third opportunity for the coalition and Labor to come together in the national interest and agree to work together on a comprehensive parliamentary review of Australia's relations with China. Only then will we start to build a new national consensus on managing this relationship in what are difficult and troubling times. Australia's national interest demands nothing less. 17:23 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Australia's relationship with China is a government priority. We will continue to be clear and consistent in the management of our relations with China. We reject any attempts to politicise this. There is great benefit to our cooperation with China on issues of mutual interest. We manage any bilateral difficulties from a national interest perspective, on the basis of respect, including on issues of sovereignty, for which we make no apology. As the foreign minister has said in the parliament, all MPs, including the opposition, are able to join relevant committees and receive extensive briefings from agencies and departments. 17:24 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales This is the third time that Senator Patrick has attempted to find the agreement of the Senate to refer this matter for an inquiry. In September, Senators Gallagher and Brown explained why Labor is not supporting this referral, and nothing has changed for us since then. Also, unfortunately, what has not changed—and it was indicated in the response provided then by Senator Colbeck—is the reticence of the government to approach this matter in a sensible and a constructive way as has been suggested by Labor. It is clear that there is a strong interest across the parliament in the management of Australia's relationship with China, and there have been many expressions of this interest, including this proposal for an inquiry from Senator Patrick. But we believe that a call for an inquiry reflects the broader desire amongst parliamentarians to be better briefed on the points of convergence and the points of divergence in Australia's relationship with China. As the shadow minister for foreign affairs told the Australian Institute of International Affairs' national conference on Monday 14 October 2019: Australia's relationship with China is complex and consequential. China is, and will continue to be, of great importance to Australia, to our region and to the world. Senator Wong went on to indicate that the key question for Australia is how we best make the relationship work for us. How do we make it work? It is by recognising that challenges may intensify and the relationship may become harder to manage in the future. It is reasonable and appropriate for a parliamentarians to want assurance that our national interest is being served. Access to quality briefings is critical to constructive parliamentary engagement. Labor is disappointed that the government has declined to take up our request that relevant agencies such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Office of National Intelligence provide a detailed and comprehensive briefing for parliamentarians on Australia's relationship with China. This approach reflects our desire for a calm and mature debate and the hope for a continuing bipartisan approach to the relationship. Labor continues to believe that this is the best approach, regardless of Senator Patrick's alternative arguments. Labor has also established a caucus process for engagement of this subject, because Labor believes it is the job of all parliamentarians to protect and advance the national interest. The national interest is best served by a bipartisan approach to the relationship. This does not mean uncritical support of the government's approach. Mr Morrison needs to look beyond the next manoeuvre, stop undermining his foreign minister and trade minister, and develop a serious long-term plan for Australia's engagement in the region and in the world—a serious and long-term plan that could proactively navigate us through the strategic competition between the United States and China and to manage this new phase in our relationship with a more assertive China. All members of the parliament should advance a sensible, calm and mature discussion without seeking to exploit complexities in the China relationship for political advantage. 17:27 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania This really should not be a contentious suggestion made in the form of a motion by Senator Patrick. This is, as Senator McAllister has just said, a very calm motion. It does not make any wild claims in either the surrounding material or the terms of reference; it simply asks for a series of matters that relate to Australia's relationship with the People's Republic of China to be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for an inquiry. To the Greens, it seems an eminently sensible suggestion, particularly as the opposition has been stonewalled by the government in its attempts to have some private briefings from relevant government agencies in relation to Australia's relationship with the CCP. This should not be at all controversial. It is not a complex suggestion. This is a matter that has been the subject of significant public debate in this country, particularly in recent months and years. Senator Patrick's suggestion is a very sensible proposal to break the deadlock that now exists between the government and the alternative government in this place, the Australian Labor Party. For those reasons and others, the Greens will support Senator Patrick's motion. I want to be very clear about a couple of things. First, the CCP is a totalitarian regime. They're engaged in a cultural genocide on the Uygur people at the moment. They have imprisoned, on conservative estimates, over a million Uygur people in so-called re-education camps, and many informed observers believe that number is actually over two million people. But it's not only the re-education camps where we've seen Uygur people incarcerated and detained. In Jinyang the prison population—this is not the re-education camps; this is the existing prison population—has spiked over 500 per cent in the last two years. That's been reported recently by The New York Times. At the same time, in fact, imprisonment rates in the rest of China have remained relatively stable. So you've got a situation where there is an ethnic cleansing, a cultural genocide underway perpetrated against the Uygur people by the CCP, a rampant disregard for human rights, a total disregard for the rule of law. We are talking about a government which oversees a court system that is far closer to a conviction factory than it is to a genuine justice system. They've got form in Tibet, where they have absolutely invaded and attempted to destroy the Tibetan culture. They've murdered many, many tens of thousands of Tibetans along the way, I might add. And we've also got a situation currently in Hong Kong, where, for many months, brave protesters have been standing up for their democratic rights. Many of us, including me, are worried about the actions that the CCP may take in Hong Kong to put down the protesters. We have seen instances of brutality perpetrated not just against protesters but against journalists reporting on those protests. The CCP is a government that is becoming more assertive internally, it is becoming more assertive externally, and it's absolutely time that we had an informed debate in this country and in this parliament about our relationship with the CCP and about what we are doing to respond to this internal and external assertiveness that we've seen under the regime of President Xi. If we're going to have that kind of informed debate, we need information at our fingertips. Senator Patrick's suggestion, a very calm and mature suggestion, is a very clear way forward for us to have that informed debate. The idea that the Labor Party would not support this motion today actually beggars belief. They've been completely stonewalled by the government saying to them, 'No, we're not going to have relevant agencies brief you so you can come to an understanding of the situation.' Yet they won't support an inquiry that would allow them to come to an understanding of the situation. It's difficult to conclude anything other than that Labor is happy in its ignorance on this matter because, if they genuinely wanted to know, they could support Senator Patrick's motion and we could have the inquiry that he is suggesting. I want to make a couple of quick remarks about the relationship between the CCP and my home state of Tasmania. President Xi actually visited Tasmania in 2014, and I wrote an opinion piece that was published in Hobart's TheMercury just before he got to Tasmania. I made the point that he wasn't coming here to experience our wilderness and that he wasn't coming here to taste our Pinot Noir; he was actually coming to case the joint. And so it's turned out. I'm extremely concerned about CCP influence in Tasmania. I'm very concerned about the level of CCP investment into Tasmania and I'm extremely concerned that our state government has not yet come to grips with the challenges that this represents now and will represent in the future for my home state. I well remember standing on the Hobart domain, when President Xi was visiting, with a small bunch of Tibetan protesters when we realised that there had been chartered jets landing at Hobart Airport containing large numbers of CCP-supporting students from the mainland of Australia. They overwhelmed us with their numbers and their giant CCP-sponsored flags. I remain more concerned about my home state of Tasmania in regard to CCP influence and money than I am about the rest of our country, because we are on the radar of the CCP. It's time that the Tasmanian senators in this place stood up for more information to be shared with the Senate and the Australian people about CCP influence, CCP soft power and CCP money in this country and in my home state of Tasmania. We'll very happily and proudly support Senator Patrick's calm and mature suggestion contained in this motion, as we have in the past. I urge two things of the major parties in this place. Firstly, to the LNP, to the government: please provide these briefings that have been requested by the opposition, and extend those briefings to members of the crossbench in this place. That would be a mature way to respond to this situation. In the absence of those briefings, I say to the Australian Labor Party: you can't just sit there complaining that you haven't got the information you want when there has been a pathway suggested to you by Senator Patrick, in this motion, that would allow you to understand far more than you currently do about CCP influence in this country and the way that the government is attempting to respond to it. The last thing I want to say is about bipartisanship in this place. Bipartisanship between the LNP and the ALP in this place has seen over 200 pieces of legislation passed in the last two decades that take away fundamental rights and freedoms from Australian citizens. Bipartisanship in this place ought to be ended, because it is the opposition's job in a democracy to oppose. Simply agreeing with the government as they remove our rights, freedoms and liberties in this country and not standing up, and then using bipartisanship as an excuse, is letting down the Australian people. It's letting down those Australians, including my family members in some cases, who have fought and tragically died to defend the very rights and freedoms in this country that you are colluding with each other to get rid of. It's why we need a charter of rights in Australia. We are the only liberal democracy in the world that doesn't have a charter of rights, and it would be one way of ending, or at least slowing down, this ongoing erosion of rights, freedoms and liberties in Australia. 17:39 Senator BERNARDI G0D South Australia I find myself in a rather uncomfortable position, because I do support this motion by Senator Patrick, who is a very measured contributor to this place and recognises there are difficulties facing this country that need to be confronted through the appropriate Senate committees, but I find myself having to vote on the same side of the chamber as the Greens. To me, it beggars belief that, somehow, the Greens party are now supporting individual freedoms in Australia. There is not a totalitarian regime—there is not a version of communism or Marxism or Leninism or Trotskyism or any other 'ism' that they've had—that they've never supported. They love totalitarian governments, and now we're expected to believe that somehow they're against big, centralised government. These are the people who want to nationalise industry in this country. These are the people who want to condemn those who have a different point of view as having hate speech, these are the people who encourage protesters to glue themselves to bitumen and bring traffic to a halt in the name of their own totalitarian ideology, and yet somehow we're meant to believe today that they're the champions of freedom in this place. Give us a break! It's extraordinary. Senator Patrick, you've got my vote on this, but, really, you're making it very, very difficult when we have to have bedfellows like the Greens supporting an inquiry into the Communist Party of China. Perhaps—just perhaps—they're looking for a better blueprint to implement their own policy in this country, where they can take it over. But the simple fact is that Senator Patrick has a very good point. I understand how delicate this matter is for the government and the opposition. The Chinese government is a very important trading partner and a very important contributor to the Australian economy, and we don't want to jeopardise that. But I come back to this: the risk for Australia or the risk for any business or exporting nation if it is reliant on a single customer for its livelihood, the wellbeing of its business, the financial probity of its business or the success of its business is that the customer owns the business, because you cannot exist without it. Quite frankly, that is my concern. My concern is that the Australian economy is becoming too reliant on the massive Chinese market. Not only is it in the area of our mining exports, where we value-add too little here and we just ship it off to China, principally, but we're also seeing it in our food supply industry, we're seeing it in our agricultural industries, we're seeing it in our education industry and we're seeing it, unfortunately, in our political industry. I hate to describe politics as an industry, but it's clearly an industry for some. What's been going on in New South Wales with the Chinese diaspora pumping bags full of cash into the Labor Party, and perhaps others, should fill us with concern. I don't buy the fact that, because a couple of senators have been drummed out of this place or because ICAC has pushed out a Labor state director or secretary, the problems have fully been uncovered. Let us not gild the lily. People don't give you $100,000 cash in a bag, after making billions as recipients of largesse of the Communist Party of China, and throw it into Australian politics for no reason. They do it for a reason. It is to gain access or influence, and we've seen just how damning that can be on individuals. We've had some in this place. There are many more, I suspect, around the rest of the country. But we don't know what we don't know. The very starting point in all of this, as far as I'm concerned, is to establish exactly the facts about how the agencies of the Chinese government, whether they are commercial agencies or state funded or endorsed ideas, are impacting our economy. How many people are coming here and using the soft student visa program as a backdoor way of gaining permanent residency? How are they influencing our educational institutions to revise history and gloss over the 100 million or so deaths that were part of the revolution? How is it that they're saying that this is just another version of capitalism when people are oppressed and have their organs allegedly harvested, genocidal claims are being made and whole swathes of individual racial or religious groups are being interned and killed? We don't know. But what we do know is that we're seeing some of that activity here in Australia. We're hearing reports about people being threatened and intimidated and our businesses being influenced. Are those reports true? I don't know, but I'd like to get to a starting point, and that's what this inquiry would do. The numbers are clearly against us, but—as distasteful as it will be!—I will sit with the Greens, probably at the furthest end of the chamber to make it comfortable for both me and them— Senator Siewert e5z Yeah, thanks! Senator BERNARDI G0D You're welcome, Senator Siewert! But I will be joining Senator Patrick and whomever else in saying we should shine a light on this matter. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e4t The question is that the motion moved by Senator Patrick, as amended, for the referral of a matter to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:50]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Fierravanti-Wells)

 13 AYES Bernardi, C Faruqi, M Griff, S (teller) Hanson-Young, SC Lambie, J McKim, NJ Patrick, RL Rice, J Roberts, M Siewert, R Steele-John, J Waters, LJ Whish-Wilson, PS 39 NOES Abetz, E Antic, A Askew, W Ayres, T Bilyk, CL Bragg, A J Brockman, S Carr, KJ Chandler, C Ciccone, R (teller) Colbeck, R Cormann, M Davey, P Dodson, P Duniam, J Fierravanti-Wells, C Gallacher, AM Gallagher, KR Green, N Henderson, SM Hughes, H Lines, S McAllister, J McCarthy, M McDonald, S McKenzie, B McMahon, S O'Sullivan, MA Paterson, J Pratt, LC Rennick, G Scarr, P Seselja, Z Sheldon, A Smith, DA Smith, M Urquhart, AE Van, D Walsh, J 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 70 BILLS Ministers of State (Checks for Security Purposes) Bill 2019 70

Ministers of State (Checks for Security Purposes) Bill 2019

Report from Committee 70 17:54 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia On behalf of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the Ministers of State (Checks for Security Purposes) Bill 2019, together with documents presented to the committee. Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 70

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020

Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020

Second Reading 70 17:54 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania As I was saying before, the government talk about being good economic managers as if Australians will just take it on faith that that's what they are, but Australians are really seeing through this charade. We're facing a period of record low wage growth. The Liberal government has doubled net debt, and gross debt has reached half a trillion dollars for the first time in history. The costs of household essentials, private health insurance, electricity and child care are going through the roof. Household living standards are going backwards. Real household median income is lower now than it was when the Liberals came to power. Household net debt has grown by $650 billion to a record high of 190 per cent of household income. Economic growth is the slowest it has been since the global financial crisis, and 1.9 million Australians are looking for work or for more work. Consumer confidence is down. Business investment and retail sales growth have fallen to their lowest levels since the 1990s recession. Under Labor, Australia was the eighth-fastest growing economy in the OECD. Under the Liberals we've fallen to 20th. Just last week the Reserve Bank downgraded its forecast for economic growth for the third time in six months. In its statement the RBA said: … a defining feature of economic developments over the past several years has been very slow growth in household income. …   …   … … consumption has been significantly weaker than expected … It has joined the IMF and the OECD in downgrading their forecasts for Australia's economic growth. I ask those opposite: do all the facts I've just outlined paint a picture of the strong economy Mr Morrison keeps talking about? If you listened to those opposite, you'd think running a budget surplus is the be-all and end-all of economic management—not that those opposite have delivered a surplus. They are in their third term and their sixth budget and they are talking up a surplus, but what they have delivered is a forecast of a surplus at the end of the financial year. Even if those opposite deliver their promised surplus at the end of the year, it's by no means a cause for celebration, particularly when it's built on a $4.6 billion underspend in the NDIS, depriving some of Australia's most vulnerable people of the services they need to lead a dignified life. Running a surplus budget is not a proxy for good economic management. It doesn't, in and of itself, deliver on boosting the productive capacity of the economy. It doesn't help to build a national broadband network that uses 21st century technology and makes Australia competitive in the global digital economy. It doesn't reinstate the funding cut from TAFE, traineeships and apprenticeships to ensure Australians get the skills they need to participate in the labour market. It doesn't drive research, development and innovation. It doesn't help replace the $2.2 billion cut from Australia's universities, which will result in 200,000 young Australians missing out on university over the next decade. Let's not forget that only recently those opposite were trying to convince us that the way to stimulate economic growth was to give a tax cut to multinationals and the big banks. If you believe that then you might as well believe in fairies and unicorns. While those opposite will regularly offer their gratuitous advice about economic management, they are the last people on earth I would be taking advice from. Even if we accepted the claim of those opposite, against the overwhelming weight of evidence to the contrary, that they are good economic managers, we should also recognise that economic management is not an end in itself. Ultimately, government is about improving the lives of the people you represent. The economy doesn't deliver this on its own, unless you subscribe to the outdated and discredited theory of trickle-down economics. While those opposite have successfully deluded themselves into thinking that they are superior economic managers, surely they can't be so brazen as to claim that they are making Australians' lives better. A budget surplus is nothing to celebrate when it's delivered at the expense of some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in Australia and when it's delivered through cuts to the essential services that Australians rely on for their quality of life. A case in point is our aged-care system, which is falling apart. It's often said that the greatness of a nation is measured by how it treats its weakest or most vulnerable members. Older Australians in need of aged care are some of the most vulnerable people in our country, and, at the moment, they are being treated appallingly. While the aged-care royal commission has shone a light on many of these issues, it was known well before the commission that the aged-care system in Australia was in crisis. The Morrison government has failed to heed our call to combat the problems caused by its own mismanagement: the abuse that is occurring in residential aged-care facilities; the instances of providers spending just $6 a day to feed their residents; and the widespread overuse of chemical restraints. The government has 12 reports on the aged-care sector sitting on its desks, gathering dust. After ripping billions of dollars out of aged care, the Morrison government needs to take responsibility for its contribution to the crisis. It needs to take responsibility for the 120,000 Australians who are sitting on a waiting list to receive the home care packages they've already been approved for. It needs to take responsibility for the fact that those on the waiting list with the highest care needs are languishing for up to two years before receiving their package. Sadly, 16,000 older Australians died before receiving the home care packages they had been approved for, while another 14,000 who would have stayed in their homes had they received the support they had been approved for went into residential care. If the government cannot fix the crisis now, then I shudder to think what is yet to come. It is estimated that Australia will need a workforce of a million aged-care workers to meet the demand for aged care in 2050, yet this government can't even address the current demand. Another vulnerable group of Australians is people with disability. To prop up its budget surplus, this government has underspent on the National Disability Insurance Scheme by $4.6 billion this financial year. It has done this at a time when NDIS participants are waiting months to receive plans or have their plans reviewed. As I've mentioned before in this place, I recently attended a forum with the shadow minister for the NDIS, Bill Shorten, and the Tasmanian shadow minister for disability, Jo Siejka, where we spoke with NDIS participants and their families and carers. This system is failing many of them. There is universal agreement among families and carers that the concept of the NDIS, introduced by the previous Labor government, was an important and necessary reform—one with the potential to make the lives of people with disability, their families and their carers a whole lot better. However, due to this government's poor management, we have a system that is bogged down in bureaucracy where people are not getting the support they need. Even when they are, it's being delivered far too late. When a child is born needing immediate assistance from the NDIS, they should not have to wait until they are six months old to get a plan approved. When a person with disability has a six-month plan in place, their families and carers should not have to immediately start work on the review of that plan just to make sure it gets done in time before the current plan expires. There really should be a way to ensure that every person who is eligible for the NDIS can get the support they need. In my home state of Tasmania, only 6,500 people are participating in the NDIS when an estimated 11,000 are eligible. Those opposite are responsible for the mess that has been made of the NDIS, and they need to fix it now. Did the government really think it could underspend on the NDIS by $4.6 billion and there wouldn't be any consequences? Budgets are all about choice. I would argue that the government could still have its surplus without having to target some of the most vulnerable people in Australia. I remind those opposite that, in the wake of the global financial crisis, Labor found over $250 billion in savings without targeting disadvantaged and vulnerable Australians the way that the Liberals zealously do time and time again. Even if they are too lazy or incompetent to find those savings, I'm sure most Australians would agree that underspending on the NDIS by $4.6 billion to prop up the government's surplus is just downright cruel. There are many other examples of the government's cruelty. Another case in point is their steadfast refusal to increase Newstart Allowance. In my home state of Tasmania, there is a housing and homelessness crisis fed by a saturated rental market. Median rents in Hobart have reached $464 a week—the third highest of the capital cities, overtaking Melbourne. If the median rent in Hobart is $464 a week, it's no wonder people on Newstart struggle to find housing on an income of $280 a week. It's hard enough paying rent on Newstart without meeting other basic living expenses, as well as all the expenses associated with finding a job, such as travelling to interviews, wearing presentable clothes and printing copies of your resume. We keep getting told by Liberal frontbenchers that Newstart is a transitional payment, but there's nothing transitional about a payment that jobseekers live on for an average of three years. If those opposite will not listen to Newstart recipients themselves, will not listen to the evidence that has been furnished in Senate inquiries, and will not listen to welfare agencies or their peak bodies, like ACOSS, who work with people living in poverty on a daily basis, then perhaps they will listen to the Liberal Premier of Tasmania, Will Hodgman. On ABC Radio, only last week, when asked about his views on increasing Newstart, Mr Hodgman said: … certainly in Tasmania we have a higher proportion – share on Newstart and other social security benefits. So, of course, we would welcome any increase to support to those Tasmanians. When further pressed on it, Mr Hodgman said: … it would be a good thing to see those on low incomes and those who do depend on social security benefits to have an increase to reduce that pressure in their lives … And of course if the Commonwealth government can do that, we'd welcome it. I appreciate Premier Hodgman's honesty on this issue because he knows it's impossible to live on $40 a day. I'm sure those opposite know it too, even if they cannot bring themselves to admit it. I often hear those on the other side of the chamber dodge questions about whether they could live on $40 a day. Of course they couldn't. One or two of them complained, in fact, that they can't even live on their parliamentary salaries. For heaven's sake! Everyone in this place knows that Newstart needs to be increased. Those opposite know it but they just won't admit it. It's bad enough that they won't admit it without comments like those of the Minister for Families and Social Services, who said that any increase will just end up in pubs and in the hands of drug dealers. What an outrageous statement to make about some of Australia's most disadvantaged social security recipients. Another form of cruelty this government is inflicting on our most vulnerable people is the debacle of the automated debt recovery system. This government has been at the helm of the robo-debt system, which has been described as extortion. These aren't Labor words; they are the words of the retired Administrative Appeals Tribunal member, Terry Carney, and 'extortion' is a very apt description. What else would you call it when you accuse someone of having a debt and then put the onus on them to produce the evidence to prove otherwise? Given the cuts the government has made to Centrelink services, the difficulty Australians are having accessing face-to-face services, and the horrendous wait times that are experienced on the phone to Centrelink, I wonder how many recipients of a robo-debt notice actually don't owe the debt but have simply given up fighting it. Every time a robo-debt case has been advanced to the AAT—guess what—the government has settled. It means there's never been an opportunity to test the legality of the system. Yet the government still can't admit that they got this wrong. A cruel system like robo-debt, the government's refusal to increase Newstart, the underspend on the NDIS and the cruel cuts to aged care are all indications of the rotten black heart at the core of this government. It is at the core of Liberal philosophy that whenever there is a buck to be saved by targeting the most desperate, most disadvantaged and the most vulnerable people in the community, those opposite will take it. Looking after the most vulnerable people in the community is surely what government should be about. But not this government. The Morrison government is also asleep at the wheel when it comes to the challenge of taking serious action on climate change. When the government's lack of a plan to tackle carbon pollution is exposed, they twist the facts to suit themselves. Mr Morrison keeps claiming the government will meet their Paris Agreement targets 'in a canter'. Well, I tell you, the reality is this: the government isn't cantering towards their Paris targets; they're galloping in the opposite direction. Whatever weasel words the Morrison government uses to pretend they're on track to meet their Paris targets, the undeniable truth is that emissions were falling year on year under Labor and they have risen every year under the coalition. They are projected to continue to rise, according to the government's own figures, every year until 2030. Ten industry associations recently signed an open letter which points the finger squarely at the Morrison government's inadequate policy for this failure, and the letter, whose signatories include the Australian Industry Group and the National Farmers Federation, says the government's policy will not reduce the emissions economy-wide due to: … the cost and complexity of engaging with the ERF; the shallow and monopolistic market for credits; and the lack of clear long term ambition. This is hardly a resounding endorsement of the government's policy. Nothing in the government's budget seriously addresses climate change because the government isn't doing anything serious. This are a government that pretends to act on climate change because they know Australian voters are overwhelmingly concerned and calling for action. At the same time, they do nothing because they are ruled by climate change deniers. The policy they have now is from the Abbott era, dreamt up by a man who said he was unconvinced by the science on climate change and was voted out of parliament on a wave of enthusiasm for action on climate change. If you ask the question, 'What is this government about?' it's hard to figure out exactly what they are setting out to achieve. Tony Abbott once famously described the Turnbull government as being in office but not in power. Now we have a government that's in power but not governing. It's a government that is overseeing a tanking economy but has no plan to turn it around. It's a government facing a climate emergency but has no plan to take real action on climate change. It's a government that has no plans to address the crisis in aged or disability care or to address the growing levels of poverty and inequality faced by Australians. They have no plans, no ideas, no agenda, and many Australians are left scratching their heads and thinking: what is the point of the Morrison government? With 2½ years left of this third-term, do-nothing government, it's high time it actually started governing. 18:12 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to use this speech to ask the government to start governing. Where's the vision in this government? What about Australia's productive capacity in the future? Governance has three parts. Firstly, there's trusteeship, which is looking after the values of the country—the principles. Secondly, there's stewardship, which is about managing. And, thirdly, there's governorship, which is about making sure that the country has a future. Minister Littleproud was asked about water storage some time ago. In response to finding out that water storage is depleting and that, in fact, storage per person will have reduced by 30 per cent by 2030—a critical infrastructure feature and something that Australians, humans in general, must have: water—he said it was 'a lack of planning'. He said that there have only been 20 dams built since 2003 and 16 of them have been built in Tasmania and four in the rest of the country. 'It's time for the eastern states to do their job,' he said. They have done 'three-fifths of bugger all', he said. 'It is time for them to start planning and building,' he said. 'There is no reason to stop; now is the time to do it—when it's dry—to start digging the holes.' Again, he said: 'Let's release some of the figures on the water storage state by state. In Queensland'—his home state—'it's gone from 2.78 gigalitres per person to 1.75'. That shows that there's been 'no planning'—this is Minister Littleproud talking—'no thinking. If we continue to get a population increase, which we will—we're naturally getting that through migration—we have to have the state governments have water, which is a source of life for all of us.' So the minister knows—he is the minister for water—that water is the source of life, but he admits there is no plan for the productive future of this country. This government is reacting and building facades, and that's bringing this government undone. We dodged a bullet when we fortunately did not have Mr Shorten elected as Prime Minister, but this government thinks that putting on a farmer's shirt and a baseball cap or a high-vis vest, a hard hat and safety glasses is governing and leadership. It's not. So I ask Mr Morrison: where the bloody hell are ya? Look at energy and the prices skyrocketing. We went from having the lowest electricity prices in the world and a stable and secure supply to now the highest prices in the world. We have the same basic resource for generating electricity, yet our prices have increased, while our competitors, like China, take our coal and use it to provide cheap, clean, affordable, reliable and environmentally responsible electricity. Quantities of water are drying up. The price of water is skyrocketing. As for property rights, farmers can no longer manage their land because the bureaucrats are managing it. They've had their property rights stolen from them. We say to those farmers: 'We will keep pushing for the restoration of your property rights that were stolen by the John Howard government in collusion with Labor Party premiers and National Party premiers in the states of Queensland and New South Wales. We will seek restoration or compensation.' We have a natural drought that is a part of Australia's cycle of climate, but we have a man-made water crisis. We have free trade agreements that are undermining Australian industry. We have a taxation system that lets multinationals get away with paying no tax or little tax, and that's been the case since 1953, thanks to a Liberal prime minister in Sir Robert Menzies. A lot of these policies are underpinned by the climate scam. Never has there been any empirical evidence proving that human-caused carbon dioxide affects climate. The Greens continue—they're on day 63—of being unable to provide that. They continue to avoid that, yet we have these policies, a lack of property rights, energy prices that are skyrocketing, a lack of water and high prices for water. There's one area not based on climate, and that is the banks. The four major banks are enabled by both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party to have a go at every Aussie. So Aussies are not being given a fair go. I've seen companies fail, I've rescued companies, I established a pioneering world-class project that led its way internationally and certainly in Australia, and I know that the solution to this country's problems is having a government with a long-term focus that wants to restore Australia's productive capacity—a government that makes decisions based on solid data, calmly makes decisions on facts and has a proactive approach with a plan. That's leadership: understanding and meeting people's needs cohesively, holistically and consistently, and driving to a vision. Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything, and that's exactly what we're seeing in the governance of this country under both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party, under their duopoly. Right now we are witnessing the disintegration of a government. People are waking up. They were certainly terrified at the thought of Mr Shorten as Prime Minister, but now they're realising that Mr Morrison is just a facade builder and a marketing man. So where the bloody hell are ya? By the way, the ABC is now inciting violence, yet the government want to fund the ABC further. I say, and One Nation says: close the ABC or sell it. They recently revealed in Senate estimates, under questioning from me and Senator Hanson, that they got the Al Jazeera tapes—which were a fabrication—in January, and put them to air five months later, just before an election. That's interfering. The government is paying for the ABC to interfere and enable a foreign power to interfere in our government and in our political system. That's why we are questioning the government's lack of vision, philosophy and values. Where the bloody hell are ya? This bill highlights the piecemeal approach that's poor governance. Australians want, and Australia needs, a vision, strategies and plans based on objective data, and we need to start doing that by starting to restore property rights for farmers and restoration or compensation. We will be supporting these appropriation bills, but we highlight the fact that these bills are exposing the government's failure to manage this country and govern this country. 18:19 Senator SIEWERT e5z Western Australia I rise to make a contribution on the debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020, Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2019-2020 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2019-2020 and funding for some of the annual services of government. I argue now that some of those funds are misspent on poor services, the funds could be better spent and the services do not provide value for money, do not deliver outcomes and are hurting many Australians. Over the past decade, Australia's social security system has increasingly become more and more based on conditionality and compliance. Under this government, punitive programs have become the cornerstone of Australia's social support system. Rather than helping people and truly supporting people, it is a hindrance to people. We need to look no further than compulsory income management, which has proven to not be successful—jobactive, the Community Development Program, Work for the Dole, ParentsNext and Centrelink's debt recovery program. Our government hides behind phrases like 'mutual obligation requirements' and 'targeted compliance framework'. These phrases are an attempt to gloss over the harsh, damaging and perverse outcomes of increase compliance arrangements. Make no mistake: the targeted compliance framework is designed to punish people, and that is exactly what it is doing. Under jobactive, people face financial penalties and payment suspensions. People are forced to navigate compliance activities and jobseeker errors or are accused of making errors when it is actually the system that is making the errors. They get accused of not attending and get non-attendance failures; no show, no pay failures; and serious failures. This system is clearly not fit for purpose, yet the government wants it to go through to 2022 before any attempt at reform of the broader system is made. One of the biggest failures is that employment service providers design job plans that have errors or are inappropriate, and you only need to look at the targeted compliance framework figures to see that. Jobactive participants pay the price for these errors, with around 48,500 jobactive participants having their three demerit points wiped because of inappropriate or wrong job plans. That is actually at a very strong emotional cost for those people who have to try to wrangle the system. These compliance arrangements seek to control and punish people instead of supporting and encouraging them. It is clearly not enough for this government to keep people in poverty by refusing to lift the rates of Newstart and Youth Allowance—and I will come back to that. This system is hurting people. It is keeping people in poverty. It is a barrier to trying to find work. They are paying $1 billion year for a system that does not work and that is keeping people in poverty and provides barriers to employment. Through Senate inquiries into various programs and policies, we are starting to unravel some of the devastating consequences of the government's punitive approach to the provision of social security and the jobactive program. We are hearing evidence that a large number of people could be disengaging from the social security system because of its punitive and discriminatory nature. First I want to turn to the Community Development Program. At the Senate inquiry last year, we heard of almost 6,000 people missing from or no longer in the Community Development Program. These numbers cannot be explained away by the government—as it attempts to do—by saying people have got work. It is highly likely that one of the reasons that thousands of people are disengaging from the CDP is because of the punitive conditions attached to the program. The recent review into the CDP—and this is the government's own review—found that CDP participants are the most penalised group of social security recipients. First Nations participants are 25 times more likely to be penalised then non-remote jobseekers and 50 times more likely to have a penalty imposed on them for so-called persistent noncompliance. Under that program, income suspensions last for an average of 23 days. CDP was meant to be helping people in remote communities into work. By focusing on compliance and punishment, the system is clearly missing the mark and failing to meet its objectives. Recently there were some changes—that do not go far enough—and some of those penalties for First Nations peoples have come down. However, the government should not mistakenly think that the program is now working, because First Nations peoples are still vastly disproportionately penalised compared to other Australians in other programs. At the recent Senate inquiry into the cashless debit card, we also heard that a lot of First Nations people are disengaging from the income support system for a variety of other reasons, as well. To access the income support system, you need to navigate a complex and bureaucratic system. It also requires having access to the internet, a phone, computer literacy and strong English language skills. This means that many First Nations peoples in remote communities are shut out from the very beginning of the process, and that was part of the evidence to our inquiry just 10 days ago. At Senate estimates in October, I asked the Department of Employment, Skills, Small and Family Business about people who disengage from Centrelink after a payment suspension. They told me that, between July 2018, when the TCF started, and August 2019, 104,480 people did not re-engage with Centrelink after a payment suspension. The department did not have clear answers, on that day, about what happened to these people. They said they presumed they moved into jobs. But, with this group of people, it is unlikely that many of them moved into jobs, particularly when you consider that 42 per cent of people on Newstart have a partial capacity to work, and only 14.5 per cent of them had reported earnings in the last quarter. In other words, it's highly unlikely that those people have moved into work. The point here is that, for all the money we're spending on these services, the government cannot tell us, the government doesn't know, what's happened to those people. And it sounds, quite frankly, as if the government doesn't care. That's because those people are not on welfare, as the government calls it; they have dropped out of our income support system, and—guess what?—that's a goal of this government. It's a goal of this government to try and reduce the number of people on income support. You can do that by helping them into work, but we've just heard that the jobactive system is failing; it's not helping them into work. There's a growing list of people who are long-term unemployed, particularly older and younger people, who are not being helped into work. So it's highly unlikely that all those people got work. But it's okay! They've dropped off the income support system, so, tick, the government has achieved one of its aims! The minister today couldn't or wouldn't answer the question about what has happened to those people. One of the biggest problems around the question of people missing off income support is that we don't have a clear picture of the situation through any data or research, and, therefore, it's impossible to find out. As the Central Australian Aboriginal Congress Corporation said at the Alice Springs hearing of the committee inquiry into Newstart the week before last: … the system does not really want to know the real answers, otherwise the research would be done. I am urging the government to better capture this data and find out just what is happening to people who are not re-engaging with Centrelink, who are clearly dropping out of the system and who are still highly likely to be eligible for social security. We desperately need consistent research and data on the different cohorts of people engaging with the system. Given the number of people facing payment suspensions, and given that's growing under jobactive, I'm very concerned that we will see more and more people disengaging from Centrelink—people who have the right to social security. Australians are being locked out of and excluded from their basic right to social security, as a result of the punitive compliance arrangements. We know this, when 104,840 people have dropped out of the system and have not re-engaged. We know this, when we look at the way that the TCF is operating and the fact that there are also so many people whose vulnerabilities are not being picked up. They're having to suffer through the process of trying to meet their jobactive plans, although their jobactive plans are not meeting their needs and have been proved, by the system, to be inappropriate or wrong. We know these people aren't getting the support they need from the system. We're spending $1 billion a year on this system, when it's plainly failing people who need the support to find work. As I said, the government sees fewer people on income support payments as a win. It doesn't matter what's happened to them; they're off the system. I think this is a very, very dangerous approach to the way that we support some of the most vulnerable members of our community. Sitting suspended from 18:30 to 19:30 Senator SIEWERT e5z When we went to the dinner break, I was saying that people are coming off the income support system and we don't know where they are going and that that is not a satisfactory way to be providing services and an income support system in this country. People who disengage from our social security system actually don't just disappear if they haven't found work—and my very deep concern is that a lot of those people won't have found work, particularly when you look at the cohorts that are turning up very significantly. For example, over 50 per cent of those 104,480 people are young people. I'm deeply concerned that the system isn't meeting young people's needs. In fact, that's consistent with evidence we've been given in the Newstart inquiry, and with what people talk to me about personally. They're depending on an already overstretched community sector. They're relying on programs and services run by non-government and not-for-profit organisations. And we know that, for organisations like Foodbank, each year the calls on their services are increasing, so the government is outsourcing support programs to the not-for-profit sector and to the community, and also to family and friends and other community members. In some instances, they may well be people who are also receiving income support. In other words, that money is stretching further and further, and people are being pushed further and further into poverty. And there will be some—for example, those who are homeless—who don't have friends to rely on. What is happening to them? The harsh compliance arrangements attached to our social security system have flow-on effects for the entire system. Deliberately punishing people in exchange for income support does not work and should be abolished. Our current regime is pushing people further into poverty. The last week we sat was Anti-Poverty Week, and we heard example after example of how that is happening—hence my argument that the system that we are currently funding is not producing the outcomes for the amount that we spend on it. Many people argue that we should in fact be spending more on, for example, our employment system to produce a really quality employment system. But my argument is that the money that we're investing now is not producing the outcomes—and the government knows that. They are trialling a new system in two small areas, but that system is not going to be rolled out, if it is proved to be effective, until 2022. We know, from the inquiry into jobactive, that the system is not fit for purpose these days. The other thing that should be included in these appropriations is an increase to Newstart. Overwhelmingly, we know that Newstart does not meet people's needs. It hasn't had an increase for 25 years—25 years! Last time it was increased, I didn't even have a mobile phone. Most people wouldn't have had a mobile phone, or they would have had one of those bricks. The interweb wasn't a thing. Social media wasn't a thing. But, most importantly, what you can afford to buy, with the current rate of Newstart, means that people are having to choose: 'Do I buy my medication, or do I buy food?' People are consistently eating one meal a day or going without. They can't afford public transport. It's a barrier to employment, which is what the government says it wants, but it does not give people dignity and equality of life. It is absolutely shameful that the government will not invest in the people in this community, and that investment is increasing Newstart. If people got $75 a week, not only might it enable them to afford to not make the decision to go without insulin, which is happening, and to instead make the decision to actually stay well, eat and pay a few bills rather than going without in that way but it is also a good investment in our economy. We know it will invest over $4 billion into the economy and create 12,000 jobs, many in regional communities, which are absolutely essential. We need to be investing in Newstart for the sake of the community and also, I'd argue, for our economy. The government runs the argument that we need to be lowering dependence on social security and welfare and that Newstart is only a temporary repayment, ignoring the fact that the average length of time people are in receipt of it is 156 weeks—in other words, just below three years. The government runs the line that it's such a drain on the public purse and imply that the Newstart program and youth allowance are a major proportion of the social security and welfare budget. We spend $67½ billion on assistance to the aged. It's a very good investment. I'm not arguing here that we shouldn't be investing the money. We spend a significant portion of our money supporting people with disabilities: $44 billion. Again, it's a good investment. These are all good investments, as is the investment of $10½ billion on those that are unemployed or ill. That is a good investment. Why argue that the unemployed make up a significant proportion of the amount we spend on our social security system when investing in the health of the Australian community is one of the key things the government needs to be doing? Income support is an investment in Australians. That's what our social security system is. Why isn't an increase to Newstart included in this budget and this appropriation? It should be. We also need to make sure the money we are investing directly into things like employment services is well targeted in meeting people's needs and is not just lining the pockets of providers. It's not meeting people's needs. The system is demonising people and not supporting them into work. We need to improve that situation. We need to raise Newstart and make sure the services that are supposed to help people actually do help people and don't further complicate their lives and become yet another barrier to work. 19:38 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I thank all senators for their contributions to the debate on these bills and I commend the bills to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bills read a second time. Third Reading 77 19:39 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 76760 No amendments have been circulated. I shall call the minister to move the third reading. 19:39 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I move: That these bills be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019 77

Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019

Second Reading 77 19:39 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019. Labor was critical of the original bill in the last parliament. It risked doing harm and it seriously risked the privatisation of publicly owned electricity generators. The government has dealt with some of our reservations by introducing into this parliament a different bill, which makes improvements, particularly in relation to privatisation. The passage of this bill will not change the fact that, after 17 attempts, the coalition government still has no sensible overarching energy policy to drive investment, to reduce emissions or to cut power bills for struggling Australian households and businesses. This legislation has not been recommended by the consumer watchdog. Not only did the ACCC, after its lengthy examination of the retail electricity market, not recommend the legislation, but indeed it specifically recommended against a divestiture power, as did Professor Ian Harper in his landmark review of competition policy for the government a couple of years earlier. As any observer of this debate would know, various business groups, energy users and energy suppliers over the last 12 or 18 months have been critical of the legislation in its different iterations. But, since the election in May, the business groups—most notably the Business Council—have changed from opposing the legislation to instead seeking to work with the government to improve the operation of this bill. That too, in the spirit of being constructive, has been the approach of the Labor Party. Most notably, after considerable debate about the impact of potential ministerial overreach in the operation of the original bill, it is pleasing to see that the government has curbed or pulled back the ministerial power that would be able to be exercised under this legislation. Instead, a role for the ACCC has been put in place, as well as a very important role for the Federal Court. We take that as a significant improvement to the bill, given that, since its original presentation, we have been complaining of overreach on the part of ministers. Since the original presentation of the bill, we have been steadfastly against its very significant loophole which would have allowed the privatisation of publicly owned electricity assets—namely, the forcible divestiture of publicly owned electricity assets and the transfer of those assets to private companies. We know that the Liberal Party is addicted to the privatisation of electricity. We were promised that there would be more choice and that there would be better prices and more competition in the market, but I think anyone who has had even a casual look at the operation of the electricity market knows that privatisation has worked for the companies but it hasn't worked for consumers. The member for Kennedy and Labor identified this loophole after the original presentation of the bill in the other place. Labor was able to ensure that the loophole was closed absolutely and completely, to ensure that, if the operation of this legislation results in the divestiture of a publicly owned asset, it can only be divested to another publicly owned asset with the same or a greater level of public ownership. As the Labor Party, we are of course very concerned that workers and their entitlements not be prejudiced by the operation of this legislation. Workers have no responsibility for the conduct that is apparently the driver of this legislation, no responsibility for allegations of cartel conduct and no responsibility for reductions of competition in the market. It's not surprising to anyone that the government has apparently paid no attention at all to the possibility that workers' entitlements will be reduced by the operation of this legislation. It's simply not a matter that is typically on the radar for the government. Labor in the other place moved an amendment to ensure that the transmission-of-business provisions of the Fair Work Act are deemed to apply to this type of transmission—namely, a forcible divestiture. This will ensure that those entitlements that are contained in registered enterprise agreements and in awards are preserved and protected for workers, who are, as I said, not the subject of the so-called mischief that lies at the heart of this legislation. Since consideration in the House, and thanks to the work of the Senate committee which inquired into this bill—an inquiry in which I took part—it has become clear that a similar issue exists for non-registered agreements between workers and employers in the context of possible divestiture. Labor does not accept that workers should be made worse off as a result of divestiture which is a remedy for prohibited conduct that workers themselves had no part in. Put simply, workers should not be punished for the anti-competitive actions of a company. That is a position that all senators in this place should agree with. That is why I am now flagging that Labor will move a further amendment in this place to ensure that non-registered agreements between workers and employers which provide workers with additional protections agreed by employers should be safeguarded in the event of divestment. That is the right thing to do—it's the Labor thing to do—and we call on the government to support our amendment. I want to be clear that this bill in no way substitutes for a proper, coherent national energy policy. We are in the throes of the deepest energy crisis since the mid-1970s. But, unlike that crisis, which was caused by an external shock, this crisis is the product of a profound public policy failure. Households and energy-using businesses are paying the price for this crisis. Power bills for households and businesses are going to go up and up, and it's quite clear that the market expects those bills to go up too. Wholesale prices are up across the National Electricity Market—on average, by 158 per cent since the Liberal energy crisis really took a grip in 2015. The Financial Review reported very recently that forward prices in the electricity market are up 29 per cent, in just 12 months since the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and the National Energy Guarantee were both dispatched in a coalition party room ambush. The key problem identified in advice after advice and in all of the evidence that has been put forward to the Senate committee that examined this is the lack of a coherent national energy policy. The Grattan Institute, reflecting on what's happened to wholesale prices under this energy crisis, confirmed that it has resulted in $1 billion in additional windfall profits to just the three big private energy companies. That is an additional $1 billion in profits every year since this crisis took hold, paid for by Australian households and energy-using businesses. The Prime Minister seeks to convince the Australian people that everything is hunky-dory; that this is fine. We did have a burst of investment in renewable energy to meet the Renewable Energy Target that the Labor Party put in place when we were in government, and those opposite have tried to tear that down time and time again, particularly the now Minister for Energy, who came into this parliament surfing a campaign about being anti renewable energy. But what the Prime Minister doesn't tell the Australian people is that Bloomberg—the organisation that he enlists in his claim that we're leading the world in renewable energy investment—has also reported that renewable energy investment is already down 50 per cent in the first half of 2019 alone. The Clean Energy Council says that's probably a low-ball estimate. We should expect thousands and thousands of jobs to be lost from this sector which should be growing. We do support this bill, but we will continue to hold the government to account for its completely hopeless management of energy policy. 19:48 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise tonight to make my contribution on behalf of the Australian Greens on this bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019. Right up-front, let me be very clear: the Australian Greens oppose this bill because it won't lower electricity prices and, in addition to not doing that, it will make global warming worse, as this government will use the powers in this bill to keep coal-fired power stations operating for longer—and we know that the longer coal-fired power is produced, the harder and longer it's going to be for us to get global warming under control. As I stand here tonight, I do so in the midst of what we know is a horrific scene unfolding across the country, with bushfires burning across Western Australia, New South Wales and Queensland, and now, just in the last few hours, there have been a number of very serious warnings in my home state of South Australia. In fact, just three hours ago, we had an emergency warning for Port Lincoln in South Australia—and I will read this, because I think it is really important. The South Australian Country Fire Service issued a warning this afternoon. It says to the people of Port Lincoln and Lower Eyre Peninsula: You are now in danger. Take shelter in a solid building. Do not leave or enter this area in a vehicle or on foot. It is too late to leave as the roads will not be safe. Conditions are dangerous and firefighters are now unable to prevent the fire spreading. Shelter before the fire arrives as heat can kill you well before the flames reach you. That is the official warning from the South Australian Country Fire Service in the last couple of hours in relation to Port Lincoln. SA Power Networks has issued a statement: Due to the rapid escalation of weather and fire conditions we're now disconnecting power to Port Lincoln to ensure community safety. So the power has been turned off in Port Lincoln as the fire rages. I convey my thoughts and concern for everybody facing these disasters, and urge people to listen to the advice of emergency services and personnel. Follow their advice carefully and stay safe. These fires are supercharged by the climate crisis we are facing and are being fuelled by the record drought we are experiencing. Firstly, Prime Minister Scott Morrison must bear some responsibility for the situation we are confronted with today. He has not only continued to make the climate crisis worse with bills such as this one before us tonight but also failed to bring down global warming pollution across the board. Secondly, the Prime Minister must take some responsibility for his refusal to heed the scientists and fire officers who have been warning that Australia is unprepared for extreme fires exacerbated by the climate emergency. Tonight I call on the Prime Minister to apologise to the communities that are being impacted by this fire, especially after refusing to heed the warnings of fire chiefs only a number of weeks ago. Scott Morrison needs to apologise to the Australian people as a whole for putting their towns and their lives at risk by making global warming worse. He must apologise, and then, more importantly, he must act. He must act to deal with the climate emergency that we are facing. Bills like this one before us tonight do nothing to help the towns and communities who are suffering. All this bill is going to do is make climate change worse. It's going to do that by keeping open the very power plants that contribute to climate change and make it more and more damaging. It is more harmful to keep these coal-fired power stations open for longer, and it makes it harder and harder for us to transition. Of course the Australian Greens, along with the rest of the country, are devastated and deeply saddened by the loss of life in these fires. We heard many contributions in this place earlier today. Our hearts go out to all the families and communities impacted. As I mentioned, I'm thinking particularly, as I stand here right now, of friends and colleagues facing the threat in Port Lincoln in South Australia. But words and concern are not enough. Thoughts and prayers are useless without action. In fact, thoughts and prayers from our leaders—well, I would prefer that our leaders dealt with brains and policy. That's what we need as we face this crisis and this emergency. Unless we lead a global effort to quit coal and cut pollution, these terrible, horrific scenes will only continue and get worse in the years to come. Just this month, former fire chiefs warned the Prime Minister on national television that the climate crisis was making a catastrophic bushfire risk worse and that Australia was unprepared. Greg Mullins is a firefighting veteran and a former head of Fire and Rescue NSW. He appeared only last week on the ABC, in a 7.30 story. He said: My whole career as a fire chief was trying to calm people down … When you have people like me who have been around for half a century doing this work getting frightened—and I'm frightened—it's time for everyone else to be, particularly politicians in Canberra. That was a direct warning to not just the Prime Minister but every single one of us in this place and in the other to take seriously the concerns that scientists and those on the front line are raising. Filmed while he was visiting the fireground in California, Mr Mullins said: The most fire-prone parts of the planet are burning more and more … Here in California, 18,000 homes last year, 9,000 the year before. Previously 3,000 was the biggest they'd think of. They're just shaking their heads saying, 'What the hell is round the corner?' Mr Mullins said the Australian fire services are dangerously unequipped to deal with the 'new normal' of catastrophic fire weather fuelled by the climate crisis. He led a delegation of former fire chiefs and fire professionals and experts in writing to the Prime Minister, seeking action. But the Prime Minister, in Mr Mullins's own words, just 'fobbed them off'. He says: It's up to the retired fire chiefs who are unconstrained to tell it like it is and say this is really dangerous … People are at risk, we need a game changer in how we deal with these catastrophes because they're going to get worse and worse. He's angry that the government wouldn't even talk to them, saying: We were fobbed off to Minister Taylor who is not the right minister to speak to … We wanted to speak to the Natural Disasters Minister and the PM. We asked for help with that, we never got a reply. You had 23 experts willing to sit down with a PM and come up with solutions, but he's just fobbed us off. What does it take to wake these people up in Canberra? I don't know. It's time we all woke up. It's time we all took the very serious and dire warnings of not just Mr Mullins and the fire experts but of course the scientists as well. It is outrageous that 23 former senior emergency figures have been trying to get the Australian government to listen to their concerns about climate change and the missing capacity to fight fires in the new era, and the government has failed to listen to them. Just this morning we heard the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr McCormack, attack those fire officers, fobbing them off once again and suggesting perhaps this was all part of some climate-change conspiracy. It is simply insulting that individual officers like these 23 fire experts and former fire chiefs would be treated with such disrespect by the Deputy Prime Minister. These are people who have put their lives on the line for others, for their community; people who are watching and helping and out there today, risking their own lives. And we have the Deputy Prime Minister saying that the reason no-one responded to their letter is because they didn't know if it was real. It is an insult and it is absolutely galling that this could come out of the mouth of our Deputy Prime Minister. One of the key issues that Mr Mullins and fire experts have warned about and wanted to discuss with the Prime Minister was the lack of aircraft for fighting fires here in Australia. He said: The Erickson sky cranes, the Elvis helicopters, 737s with 15,000 litres, C130 Hercules with 15,000 litres. We don't have them in Australia … He was saying this as he was reflecting on what it was taking to battle the fires in California. It is a major problem that the seasons in Australia and California are now overlapping. The same equipment, the same aircraft, are going to be busy on totally opposite sides of the planet. Mr Mullins, speaking of those in California, said that, for one fire service—one fire service—they had 23 fixed-wing water bombers, and here in New South Wales we have only one. He said: As each of the states and territories in Australia, their fire seasons heat up and start early, they won't be able to share trucks, people, incident-management personnel, so it's going to be harder and harder to fight these fires and we need a national response … Scott Morrison, as Prime Minister, does not have the climate crisis under control. It is not even summer yet and already firefighters are running out of adjectives to describe the fires that are burning across the country. Bushfire seasons are longer, the country is drier and the fires are worse. Instead of pursuing a piece of legislation like this before us tonight that is going to make climate change and global warming worse, the government should be dealing with the climate emergency. The failure of successive Liberal-National prime ministers to accept and address the climate crisis has led to higher electricity prices. Since the Abbott government's abolition of the Greens-Labor carbon price, pollution has increased year after year and electricity prices have continued to rise. They are now higher than they were when the carbon price was put in place. We have gone backwards when it comes to electricity prices being on the rise. They are getting higher and higher. I have no faith that this bill will do anything but make that worse. Why? It is because of the uncertainty about the carbon risk caused by the failure to put in place a new national energy policy with clear emissions reduction goals. This has continued to lead to a lack of adequate investment in new energy generation. The Abbott government's war on renewables followed by the Morrison government's war on energy companies trying to manage the retirement of old, unreliable coal-fired generation and the transition to renewable generation has exacerbated the uncertainty for investors. We should be investing and helping the transition for new generation. Smart grids, demand management and storage are the elements that ensure we do not just have power prices come down but have a climate that is heading in the right direction and that will be safe—to reduce the pollution that we know that the current energy production is creating. Instead of a clear timetable for retirement of coal fired-power stations, proper planning and investment in grid infrastructure, and a clear pathway to zero emissions in the electricity sector, the electricity market has a war of words, threats and ad hoc policy. If you want to know why power prices in this country are so high, have a look at the Liberal-National party room. That is why. They cannot get their own house in order. They have done nothing to reduce power prices. All they have done is have a war of words amongst themselves, a war of ideology—speaking tough out there while doing nothing in here. Meanwhile, pollution grows, uncertainty grows and investment declines. This bill represents the latest round in the Liberal-National's ideological war on a rational energy transition to renewable energy. Dressed up as a bill to deal with electricity prices, it is absolutely crystal clear to anybody who has watched this debate, read the bills, listened to the speeches and listened to the arguments being made by the government, the opposition and those in the industry that this bill is designed to enable the government to bully power companies to keep unreliable, old and dirty coal-fired power stations open longer. That is what this bill is about. It is going to do nothing to reduce electricity prices, but it is going to do everything to keep pollution going up and keep those coal-fired power stations—particularly those that are on the brink right now—open for longer. Contributions from government members during the debate in the House of Representatives were explicit on this point. They said the big stick of the divestiture of powers in this bill was necessary to stop AGL from retiring Liddell rather than selling it. We have members of the government who want to bully AGL because AGL have made a decision that it is time to transition away from coal—to retire their old clunker, the Liddell Power Station. The government says, 'No, we do not want you to retire it; we want you to sell it so it can stay open for longer.' That is what this piece of legislation is about. Do not be fooled. It's not about reducing power prices. It's not about putting Australia on track to a secure, clear, rational energy future. It is about propping up old clunkers of coal-fired power stations, because the coalition and the National Party are at war over climate policy. That is what this bill is about. We know that, when Liddell was listed for closure, AGL were very clear about the fact that it's an old power plant, that it's one of the dirtiest in the country, that it isn't meeting the efficiency standards, that it isn't effective any longer and that it needs to close if we are to get on with the transition. This government, rather than bullying, should be listening. I'll be moving two sets of amendments tonight to this piece of legislation to try to at least reduce how bad this bill could be. The first will address the Liddell issue by inserting into the bill amendments that will prevent orders being made which would have the effect of inhibiting, delaying or stopping a planned closure of a coal-fired power generator. If the government and the opposition don't believe that this bill is designed to do that, then they should back in these amendments and make it crystal clear that this is not about trying to prop up a dying clunker of a coal-fired power station. The second set of amendments will ensure no public money can be used on propping up ageing, dirty and unreliable coal-fired powers stations. This is taxpayers' money, and it shouldn't be spent propping up the old technology that we must transition out of if we are to deal head-on with the climate emergency that we are facing. This will not just be a test for the government, of course; this will be a test for the Labor Party. Prior to the election, the Labor Party said they would support this amendment because they understood that we have to transition. Fast forward a couple of months later and an election loss and now the Labor Party are saying they are just going to tick and flick this bill through. Will Labor vote for the future or stick with the past and aid and abet the government's plan to keep coal operating for longer? As we deal with this drought, when bushfires are raging across the country, when we've got communities in rural and regional Australia crying out for some leadership, the last thing we need is for the two big parties cuddling up—wink, wink, nudge, nudge—and saying, 'Let's just pass it, and we can keep our coal mates happy.' If you care about what is going on out there tonight in some of our regional towns, do something to start bringing down pollution and deal with climate change. Act tonight: knock off this bill and put it in the dustbin so we can get on with decent, genuine climate policy for this country. 20:08 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I rise tonight to join my colleagues in supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019, which is currently before the Senate. As some in here would know, I've spent much of my career in and around the energy market. It's clear that we need to bring some sense and some knowledge to this debate, and I hope to do that now. This bill defines what is considered misconduct in the energy market and gives the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission a raft of powers to monitor, act and apply large monetary penalties to energy suppliers breaching the laws of fair competition towards consumers. The bill also increases the authority of the Treasurer to act against gross market misconduct in the energy market. This means that the Treasurer will have the direct authority to pursue a divestment order in the courts over a particular energy supplier. This is a bill that fulfils the coalition government's pre-election commitment to take on market operators that behave in an unethical manner towards energy consumers and to ensure strict accountability of these businesses. It is a strong but necessary bill to provide much-needed safeguards to Australian energy consumers, both households and businesses, who all were losing out due to the unfair pricing and uncompetitive behaviours in the retail and wholesale sectors. The coalition government's energy policy is based on two fundamental principles: firstly, security of supply, and, secondly, lower electricity bills. This bill is one aspect of that commitment, as it injects much-needed fairer competition into a complex but essential utility for Australian households and businesses. Other measures undertaken by the federal government to enhance electricity supply and lower prices have followed the recommendations of the 2018 ACCC retail electricity pricing inquiry. As a result, the government introduced a default market offer, which acts as a price safety net for households and businesses. In essence, this policy is a ceiling on highest prices set by the Australian Energy Regulator. However, it is important to note that it is a reference price, not a legislated price cap. It is estimated that, since 1 July 2019, some 800,000 households and businesses have benefited by having their power contracts reduced to the default price. This is yet another tangible example of how this coalition government is working to bring down electricity prices. To give another practical example, in the retail market, as supply chain costs fall in a sustained manner, the retailer is compelled to adjust and lower its prices accordingly for the consumer. In essence, this bill is an antigouging law. Another aspect of the government's policy is to bring more secure supply and therefore lower electricity prices. This is under the Retailer Reliability Obligation. It is an enforced obligation. It is incumbent upon suppliers of electricity to meet demand with supply. The Australian Energy Market Operator will monitor the obligation placed upon the suppliers to have sufficient generation of electricity to meet the demand. It is a long-term policy that attempts to stop future blackouts or brownouts—a serious problem that continues to affect my home state of Victoria, particularly during peak usage periods in summer. However, even with all of our ongoing successes to date in our attempts to further reform this essential but complex area of the market, this government has been hindered by those opposite, by the Greens and, more importantly, by obstructionist state Labor governments throughout Australia. Remarkable as it may be, the federal Labor Party are not the worst offenders in forcing up power prices and creating insecurity in the energy market. The Andrews Labor government of Victoria takes that cake. Its careless policies, based on extreme and unrealistic ideology, have driven up electricity prices in Victoria to be the highest in Australia. AEMO found that, due to the 'continued deterioration' of the reliability of ageing brown-coal units, energy reliability in Victoria would get worse. It is clear that Premier Andrews has learnt nothing from the 200,000-odd households and businesses that suffered severe blackouts last summer. It is beyond comprehension that the once economically thriving state of Victoria could be, and has been, reduced to such a crippled state of affairs. It is based on foolish ideology and incompetent management, shrouded in their hatred for base-load energy. I remind those senators here that Victoria used to be a net exporter of energy and is now an importer of energy. On Premier Andrews' watch, and in fact with his encouragement, Victoria has seen the closure of one of the state's major electricity suppliers, the Hazelwood Power Station, with no base load replacement. Its closure means a straight-out reduction of power generation in the state. This equals loss of reserves in high-demand usage periods. Also through mismanagement, the Victorian state Labor government was blindsided by AGL's Loy Yang power station going into shutdown mode for maintenance at the start of the summer season. Frankly, this is a gross failure by the Andrews' Labor government in assuring energy security. Victorians have their fingers crossed that AGL's guidance to the market—that the unit will reopen mid next month—is accurate as any major slip will almost guarantee blackouts and will certainly lead to higher prices. To compound Victoria's power crisis, the Andrews' government has upped the stakes and introduced compulsory use by suppliers of the 50 per cent Renewable Energy Target by 2030—a law with the Orwellian title of the Renewable Energy (Jobs and Investment) Act 2019, Victoria, as their instrument. It is a target that will likely foretell the closure of the Yallourn Power Station. It will not only be due to costs imposed by the Andrews' government but will be primarily due to the unrealistic mandatory renewables target. As a result, it will not be financially viable to operate or update the ageing power station, so we can only guess that it will be a matter of time before Yallourn goes the way of Hazelwood. Victoria's unrealistic and damaging renewables target is at the fundamental core of Victoria's high energy prices and unreliable energy supply. It is a situation that is severely damaging our economy and future investment opportunities. 'Blackout Dan', as the Premier has become known, has now made high prices and blackouts the new normal in Victoria. Once upon a time, this was never the case, nor could it have even been fathomed. The investment attraction for the great state of Victoria was its cheap and reliable power prices. We forged our strong reputation and economy upon this. That reputation has since gone by the wayside. In contrast, this government, the Morrison government, has a realistic and balanced policy in place requiring a 23 per cent renewables target. It supports investment in baseload energy without ruling out coal merely for rigid adherence to ideology alone. A vote against this bill is a vote for big power to further dominate and manipulate the market economy, contrary to fair practice and at the expense of Australian households and small business. To vote against it is to have pensioners, retirees and low-income families facing higher power prices. For those Australians, it will be a case of having to make the grave decision to either flick the power switch on or not—something that was once rare but is now an ever-increasing occurrence in Australia. As a senator for Victoria, the state whose energy security is in disarray because of a lack of long-term vision from the Andrews' state Labor government, I urge senators in this place to support this bill in order to bring greater security and accountability to the energy market. It will place downward pressure on prices Australia wide. I again restate: the legislation will also be good for the market economy. It procures more market competition, thus creating a more efficient, competitive and fair market. These reforms will actively reach all the way to personally supporting Australian households and businesses by lowering the cost of living and business expenses. It is yet another example of how the coalition is restoring common sense back into the practice of good government. 20:19 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Tonight I also rise to make a contribution on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019, otherwise known as the government's 'big stick'. During the 45th Parliament the Labor Party were very strongly and rightly critical of this legislation. It seriously risked the privatisation of publicly owned electricity generators. The bill introduced into this parliament is different, and the government has gone some way to addressing the concerns raised by Labor, particularly in relation to privatisation. So we're supportive of the bill. But let's be clear: even with the passage of this legislation, the government, after some 17 failed attempts, will still not have a coherent overarching energy or climate change policy that would drive investment, reduce emissions or go any way at all towards reducing household energy costs. Let's be clear: that is not what this bill can or will deliver. Nor does it address climate change, the effects of which have been so hotly and devastatingly realised by too many Australians in recent days. This is something that government after government has been forewarned about, and this government has failed to heed the call. We have here a tired government that has failed to get this right and has failed at every turn when it comes to these questions. The ACCC undertook a lengthy examination of the retail electricity market and specifically did not recommend legislation of this kind—not at all. They deliberately recommended against this kind of divestiture power, just as Professor Ian Harper did previously in his review of competition policy. We've had six years of reviews and we've had solid advice, and the Liberals and Nationals continue to be stumped on energy—another classic example of the coalition policy machine at full steam! Perhaps the only reason they did pick this up was the tantalising idea that they might be able to intervene to retain coal-fired power stations. But let's look at what's really going on with coal-fired power around the country. I'll use my home state of WA as an example. The Muja Power Station, which is our only coal-fired power station in Western Australia, has had two units close already. Keeping Muja C open is estimated to cost WA taxpayers at least an additional $350 million. That means it will be staged for retirement from October 2022. It is also why a foresighted government which is actively engaged in these issues is looking at transition plans for the local community, where they've got an Industry Attraction Team, a $60 million Industry Attraction and Development Fund and a $20 million Collie Futures Fund to drive economic opportunities and jobs in Collie. What did the people of Collie say to me when I visited there just the week before last? They expressed their extreme concern about the fact that this government does not have a coherent energy policy and they said that the way the government frames energy debates as coal versus renewables does nothing to serve the community of Collie—let alone the communities around places like Liddell or anywhere else in the country. So it's high time the government picked up their game and really thought about what kind of just transition our nation needs. We know that the many and various iterations of this bill have been viewed by business groups as well as energy users and energy suppliers over time with some criticism. But we note that, since the May election, business groups have changed their views and have been seeking to work with the government. Labor wants to do the same, in the spirit of being a constructive opposition—in the spirit of being constructive, given we're not in government—and I guess if this is all that you can put forward, then it is what we have left to constructively deal with. With this iteration of the bill, the government seems to have minimised some of the ministerial power that would have been able to be exercised under this bill and has allayed some of our concerns about the impact of potential ministerial overreach. We see that the ACCC, as a legislated Commonwealth body, will play a significant role in protecting the interests of consumers, as, of course, does the Federal Court. We've long had concerns about overreach on the part of government ministers, so we welcome the changes to the bill in this respect. As a Western Australian, I'm also particularly keen to ensure that publicly owned electricity assets remain in public hands. The Muja power station, which I was just speaking of, is a publicly owned asset. Western Australia has many publicly owned electricity assets—generation, retail and transmission. But we have in the Liberal Party a party addicted to the privatisation of electricity. That went really well for Colin Barnett back in 2017—not! The last thing we want to see is the forcible divestiture of publicly owned electricity assets and the transfer of those assets to private companies. That's why I'm very glad that the member for Kennedy and Labor identified the significant loopholes in the original version of the bill that would have allowed for the divestiture of publicly owned assets. Australians were assured by the government that there would be more choice and better prices and competition in the market. However, I think the majority of Australian consumers know that privatisation in the energy market has tended to work better for companies than it has for them as consumers. This is born out from experience of Western Australia compared to the eastern states. We've also experienced electricity price increases with the changes with required investment in the grid and for generation, but nothing like what we've seen in other places. Labor has successfully closed the loophole in this legislation to ensure that, if the operation of legislation results in the divestiture of a publicly owned asset, it can only be divested to another publicly owned asset with the same or greater level of public ownership. We are pleased that the government have agreed to our amendments and that we've been able to work constructively with them. Our community should rightly expect careful management of our nation's essential services. As was noted in Labor's additional comments to the Senate Economic Committee's report on this bill, we hold serious concerns about the impact of this bill on workers, particularly for those on non-registered worker agreements. With the introduction of new energy technologies and the inevitable closure of legacy generation assets—and there are good examples in WA—as they reach their end of design life, the energy sector is experiencing significant change and a period of adjustment. It is not the simplest time to be progressing this bill. The Australian Energy Market Operator has said that, over the next 10 years, it's expected that 12 legacy coal-fired power stations are likely to close and to reach the end of their life. This is already happening, as you can see by the existing changes in WA. Unions like the CFMMEU and the ETU have rightly rung the bell on this issue, which, under the functioning of this bill, coupled with the process of plant closures, could adversely affect members and workers in the sector. In evidence to the committee the ETU told the Senate that a divestiture order applied to an ageing generator scheduled to close: … puts at risk all of the good work that may have been done in planning to minimise the impacts of the closure and the disruption to the community. In a written submission to the committee the CFMMEU raised similar concerns, citing the example of Liddell: … the commitment made by AGL Energy Ltd to "no forced retrenchments" with respect to the retirement of the Liddell power station. This means the company will, inter alia, rely on employee retirements, voluntary redundancies, redeployment to the nearby Bayswater power station and redeployment to other activities at the Liddell site. This is a reasonable outcome, given the closure of a workplace, but the agreement between AGL and the union, as the employer representatives of the Liddell workers, is not a registered agreement under the Fair Work Act. The agreement, which for all intents and purposes is a good outcome for workers, would not be captured by the transfer-of-business provisions that apply to registered agreements in the case of divestiture. Here you could have an asset divested to another company. It could easily mean that all existing employees lose their jobs. Their pathway to a just transition is potentially completely disrupted by these divestiture powers in this bill. Labor is here for workers. It is our view that non-registered agreements between workers, their representatives and asset owners should be protected in the event of a divestment order. Efforts between workers and asset owners that are positive should be encouraged. On that basis it is reasonable that this bill also seek to protect workers in the instances of such divestment. Workers have no responsibility for the conduct that is apparently the catalyst of this legislation being put in place, the market misconduct that the government has spoken of. Workers are not the ones that bear responsibility for allegations of cartel conduct or reductions of competition in the market. However, in true Liberal Party fashion, the drafting of this bill has given no consideration for the impact on workers. That is something that I don't think will surprise anyone. The government has paid no attention to the possibility that workers' entitlements will be reduced by the operation of this legislation. In the other place it was Labor that moved an amendment to ensure workers under registered enterprise agreements would have their entitlements protected. We have ensured that the transfer-of-business provisions of the Fair Work Act are deemed to apply to this type of transmission—that is, forcible divestiture as a remedy for prohibited conduct in the energy sector that workers themselves have had no part in. Workers should not be punished for the anticompetitive actions of a company. This is the position of Labor senators and, I think, should be the position of all senators in this place. Following the good work of the Senate committee, Labor will be moving an amendment in this place to ensure also that non-registered agreements between workers and employees, which provide workers with additional protections agreed by employers, are safeguarded in the event of divestment. This is a very Labor thing to do, but we call on the government to support our amendment and to protect workers and their interests in the progression of this legislation. I place on record tonight my appreciation for the good work of unions like the ETU and the CFMMEU for acting in the best interests of their members and for working to protect the entitlements and livelihoods of workers in the energy generation sector. It is a great shame that the government will not, even with the passage of this bill and after six years, have come up with a coherent national energy policy. We find ourselves as a nation not only in climate crisis but in the throes of the deepest energy crisis since the mid-1970s. And unlike the energy crisis of the mid-1970s, which was caused by an external shock, this crisis is the product of a profound failing in public policy. Households and energy-using businesses are paying the price for this crisis. We've already seen vast changes in our electricity markets. We've already seen a growing capacity for renewable energy to make a contribution to bringing down energy prices. However, in the face of a lack of a coherent energy policy from this government, the chaos and division have driven a crisis in investment and have had a terrible impact on both households and businesses around the nation. It isn't just household consumers paying the price; manufacturing businesses across many parts of the country are struggling under these high energy prices. They can't get energy contracts that ensure the future of their operations in an energy market that provides no certainty. And the government is doing nothing at all to remedy that. The only thing that manufacturing and other energy-using firms can be sure of is the failure of the tired old government that sees the energy sector with no clarity and that has a shaky ability to forward plan—very little capacity to forward plan at all, I would say. Wholesale prices are up across the National Electricity Market, on average by 158 per cent, since the Liberal energy crisis really took grip back in 2015. The AustralianFinancial Review reported only recently that forward prices in the market are up 29 per cent in just the 12 months since the former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and the National Energy Guarantee were both dispatched in a coalition party room ambush. The Grattan Institute has reflected on what's happened to wholesale prices under this energy crisis and has confirmed that it has resulted in an additional $1 billion worth of windfall profits to just three big private energy companies since this crisis took hold, paid for by Australian households and energy-using businesses. So that makes it clear what the motivation has been and why Labor supports this legislation. Big profits like that need to be passed on in the form of savings to electricity consumers. However, it does not address the government's lack of policy in the overall energy market and energy framework. So Labor will support this bill but, here in this place and across the country, we will continue to hold the government to account for its useless management of energy policy. The way it has approached things is simply not good enough. Households, consumers, families and businesses deserve much better. 20:38 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to summarise this bill by borrowing a phrase from Senator Whish-Wilson, who uttered it, I think, a couple of years ago. I don't normally see his phrases containing accuracy but this one is accurate: 'This bill is like a dog revisiting its own vomit.' The Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019 should really be the government's 'we failed' bill. It is proof of failed governance and it vindicates all that we've been saying about energy and climate for the last three years yet the government touts it as a big stick to protect users. That is a lie. It is another Liberal-Nationals facade. Energy prices are ridiculous, and it's of the government's own making. When large companies, as we see today, need help and are crying out for help, it's really saying something. Aluminium smelters were built in the states of New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia because of our cheap coal-fired electricity. They have shut, and now more are shutting. Large industries are crying out for relief. Food processors and fodder growers are crying out for relief from electricity bills. Families are crying out for relief from electricity bills. Before getting into the detail, I want to talk about the primacy of energy. Since the Industrial Revolution, which started around 1850, we have seen a relentless decrease in real prices of energy. That has driven the material development of Western civilisation, and now civilisation around the world. When energy becomes cheaper, productivity increases. When productivity increases, wealth increases. When wealth increases, we have much more ability to do the things that people want and need us to do. And the environment improves. It is a well-known fact that high productivity leads to wealth, which leads to improved environmental outcomes. I also want to talk about the market we had in this country, under what is known as competitive federalism in our Constitution. It meant that, if any one state was sloppy on its electricity prices, raised electricity prices or didn't deliver reliability, then businesses and families moved to other states. We've seen that in South Australia recently; we've seen businesses leaving South Australia. But we haven't seen South Australia wake up. We've seen the Greens driving South Australia downhill, with the Labor Party—especially in the form of Jay Weatherill—piling on, and the Liberal Party, Senator Bernardi and the Centre Alliance all piling on. Why? Because South Australia has been bailed out by the other states, especially Western Australia. It's no longer competitive federalism in this country; it is competitive welfare-ism. Now we have Victoria following South Australia's lead. We have Queensland, under the Palaszczuk government, threatening to follow South Australia's lead. It's a mess. Employers have bailed on South Australia. And now employers—you watch!—will bail on Victoria in the near future. So that means companies are now looking to go overseas, and they well need to, because that's where they're getting competitive energy prices. Brickworks, a major Australian company, is talking about moving to America. And it's not the only one; others are talking about it. Let's go through the government's glossy brochure on this bill—the 'we failed' bill. It talks about retail pricing prohibition, which, it says: … requires retailers to pass on 'sustained and substantial' reductions in costs to consumers. That means the market has failed. Secondly, it talks about 'contract liquidity prohibition', which, it says: … penalises generators that withhold electricity contracts for the purpose of substantially lessening market competition. That means it's not a market; it is a racket. The government talks about 'wholesale prohibition', which, it says: … bans generators from manipulating the spot market, for example by withholding supply to inflate prices. That means the market has failed. On and on and on it goes. Watch them get around all these civil penalties. Then the government talks about contracting orders. It says: … if recommended by the ACCC, the Treasurer can require a generator to offer contracts to third parties for up to three years. The market has failed. Divestiture orders are another gamble from the government. It says: … if recommended by the ACCC, the Treasurer can apply to the Federal Court to force a company to sell an asset or assets to an unrelated third party. What happened to free enterprise? The Liberal and National parties have become bastions of socialism and of governments allocating the means and resources of production. This is a question from the government: Did you know: The ACCC found retail margins more then doubled between 2007–08 and 2017–18. In one decade, retail margins doubled, under the Liberal-Labor-National policies over the last 15 or 20 years, starting primarily with John Howard's Liberal-National government. The government says: The ACCC has the power to obtain information from retailers about their costs, including the cost of: …   …   … • complying with green schemes (environmental costs). That sounds like the Murray-Darling Basin again. And then the government says, 'The ACCC will choose the most appropriate remedy for the size of the wrongdoing.' More bureaucracy, more socialism! Then we read here that the government says: Where a company—known as a gentailer— there's a new term, a gentailer— owns both generation and retail services, it might be tempted to withhold contracts to drive up prices or gain an advantage in the retail market. Socialism has failed. The legislation penalises generators that refuse to offer electricity contracts for the purpose of substantially lessening competition. Regulations caused this. The government goes on to say: There are good reasons why a generator may not enter into contracts with rival retailers. For example— hello, listen to this one!— intermittent generators like wind farms— and solar— are unable to sell supply contracts because they can't be certain they can produce the generation when it is needed. This kind of behaviour is not prohibited. But it is common sense. We told them this would happen with solar and wind. And then the government talks about prohibited conduct on the electricity spot market, basic and aggravated cases. I will get onto the aggravated case later. For basic cases, it says: A corporation contravenes this section if: (a) the corporation:    (i) bids or offers to supply electricity in relation to an electricity spot market; or    (ii) fails to bid or offer to supply electricity in relation to an electricity spot market; and (b) the corporation does so:    (i) fraudulently, dishonestly or in bad faith; or    (ii) for the purpose of distorting or manipulating prices in that electricity spot market. This is the Liberal-Nationals-Labor-Greens market for electricity in this country—destroying farmers, destroying industry, destroying exports. Let us go on, though, because this is an essential service that has failed under this Liberal-Labor duopoly governance. We go onto section 153H—big, capital letters!—'PROHIBITED CONDUCT—ELECTRICITY SPOT MARKET (AGGRAVATED CASE)': A corporation contravenes this section if: (a) the corporation:    (i) bids or offers to supply electricity in relation to an electricity spot market; or    (ii) fails to bid or offer to supply electricity in relation to an electricity spot market; and (b) the corporation does so fraudulently, dishonestly or in bad faith, for the purpose of distorting or manipulating prices in that electricity spot market. This is the supposed market that the Liberals, Labor, the Nationals and the Greens have concocted over the last 15 to 20 years. It is not a market; it is a bureaucratic racket. It is socialism that has failed. Then we see that, if you get two basic cases, they become an aggravated case. Again, market failing! This is the Liberal-Labor government admitting failure. The dreamers in the Labor Party still will not own up. At least the Liberal Party—although it did not know it—has owned up. They have created this mess. And we see the Queensland Labor government. Listen to this; this is coming from the Liberal-National government: To prevent forced privatisation, government-owned businesses will be provided the opportunity to divest to another business owned by the same government that is considered to be in genuine competition with the business. Annastacia Palaszczuk's government owns the generators in Queensland. There is no competition. She had competition before, because she competed with New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria. Now it is gone. There is no competition. The Labor Party in Queensland milks the taxpayers in Queensland for all they are worth—or, rather, the electricity users and businesses in Queensland for $1.4 billion going to $1.6 billion a year. This happens because policy on energy is based on a lie. That leads to a bigger scam, which is the energy scam, the energy racket. Mr Angus Taylor knows this. He knows from his farming business what is going on in this country. We need to bring back competitive federalism. Socialism has failed. You created this mess with regulation. Now you're trying to fix it with regulation—more regulation and more complex and onerous regulations. That adds more cost and it employs more bureaucrats and more lawyers. It's more socialism, government control and allocation of the means of production. It could be Lenin leading you lot. We told them that solar and wind are not sustainable and not economic. They added subsidies that Australians are paying for with their jobs, not just their wallets. We told them solar and wind are not reliable. They ignored us. Now they claim that this will ensure solar and wind generators that are not reliable will be hit with a reliability penalty and that will add to prices. What is going on in this country? I could talk about Kilcoy where governments are subsidising the proposed installation of the largest solar panel in the Southern Hemisphere, destroying 10 kilometres of a mountain range and destroying the productive capacity of productive farmland—valuable farmland—raising electricity prices and killing industries. And they're subsidising the Chinese to do it, because the Chinese will be building this solar industrial complex. When the Japanese bombed Darwin, Prime Minister John Curtin, a Labor leader, did not send them a cheque saying, 'You'll need to pay for the bombs,' but that's what we're doing with the Chinese. We're paying for them to destroy our energy. Meanwhile, they'll take our coal and build cheap wind turbines and cheap solar panels with it, and then we'll pay them subsidies to install them and run them. What is going on? Minister Taylor knows that farmers lost their property rights to the Howard Liberal-Nationals government working with the Borbidge National Party government in 1996, and in 1998 the Beattie Labor government in Queensland and the Carr Labor government in New South Wales. Minister Taylor has firsthand experience of the damage to farming and the pain to farmers. Liberal and National party MPs know that climate change is crap and rubbish. It is really climate variability that is just going through cycles, yet this lie has been perpetuated. This afternoon we heard Senator McKenzie telling us that the Nats are committed to pushing this—committed to climate action. The sad thing is they are, and it's destroying us. Look at them hanging their heads in shame. The Liberals say they're working on climate change, while they're trying to do as little as possible, yet still people pay the high prices. Industry pays the price. Families pay with unemployment. Farmers pay by going out of business. Labor senators say they're working on it, yet people smashed them for it five months ago. The root cause is that energy policy under the Liberals, Labor and the Nats has followed the Greens, implementing the UN's agenda now known as the 2030 Agenda—previously known as Agenda 21. Senator Pauline Hanson has rightly been calling it out for 23 years. It's an agenda for central global governance, as UN bureaucrats have admitted many times. In 2004, it was written into Greens policy and written into the policy agenda of the ALP. The Liberal-Nats pushed it. Ask Senator Robert Hill, who drove it. Queensland LNP has successfully passed several motions, I believe—certainly two; maybe three—banning their federal MPs from enacting Agenda 21. They passed that in 2013 and 2015. Does the name Smeed mean anything to you? Does the name 'Noosa branch' mean anything to you? Does the name 'Wide Bay branch' mean anything to you? They drove this right through the state. Have a look at the Greens' policies today aimed at 2030 to comply with the UN's agenda. The UN's agenda is unelected global socialist governance. The Liberal-Nats are socialists hell-bent on regulating everything centrally and ultimately in accord with UN treaties, protocols, agendas, agreements and declarations—like the 1972 UN Lima Declaration that Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam signed in 1975 and Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser ratified the following year; like the 1992 Rio declaration, which gave birth to UN Agenda 21, now known as 2030; like the 1996 UN Kyoto protocol that drove John Howard's Liberal-National government to steal farmers' property rights, against the Constitution, with no compensation; like the 2015 UN Paris Agreement that President Donald Trump has just pulled America out of. We ask you again: pull Australia out of the Paris Agreement. It continues, as does the control of property, the control of energy and the control of water. The UN admits it. Under water, for example, UNEA, which stands for United Nations Environment Assembly, says of itself: In May, countries will meet in Nairobi for UNEA 2—the world's de facto "Parliament for the Environment"— not my words, UN words— to discuss how the United Nations Environment Programme can deliver on the environmental dimension of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Those are not my words; they are the UN's words. And they claim credit, in the article, for installing water trading in Australia to control water quantities and prices. Look it up. The article from UNEA is entitled 'Development of water trading in Australia'. They take the credit for it because it's all based on a lie—the UN's climate lie, which is embedded at the heart of Liberal, Labor, Greens and Nationals policies, which are based on UN dictates and lies. The Greens are leading the charge as the UN's useful idiots, despite wrecking our nation and hurting our people. There's an underlying philosophical problem. The UN-Greens goal is to keep nature as it is, untouched. Our goal is human happiness. Animals affect the environment. Humans are no different. Yet we are the only species that has the ability to know when it is hurting the environment and the only species with the intelligence and the care to minimise our impact. The Greens say we must choose between the environment and civilisation. According to the Greens and the UN, they're mutually exclusive, and they're brainwashing the kids to choose one or the other. We say that is nonsense. We say the environment and civilisation both need each other. They're mutually dependent. The future of civilisation depends on protecting the environment today. The future of the environment depends upon making sure we have a civilisation that is healthy. The UN-Greens approach is antihuman. Our approach is prohuman. We are happy when people are happy. We've seen that regulation begets regulation—just bandaids on bandaids on bandaids. That adds cost. Canberra's workforce is growing. It is the wealthiest town, with the highest growth, in Australia—lawyers, bureaucrats. That's not productive capacity. It is destroying productive capacity. While Canberra grows, the rest of the country is putting up shutters. Just go anywhere in the bush. Our productive capacity is being destroyed, smashed, killed. So I grit my teeth. This situation is almost hopeless. Yet most MPs don't even see the problem. I grit my teeth because we must support this legislation to close the exploitation that Liberal and Labor have designed into their duopoly's energy policies. The real and honest solution, Mr Taylor, is to tell the truth on climate and to get back to policy based on solid data and facts. Let the cheapest generator prevail, on a level playing field. I want to commend Craig Kelly, who questions the Bureau of Meteorology for its lies on climate, its distortions, and who is working diligently to turn the ship around. I want to compliment Senator Rennick for questioning the Bureau of Meteorology. And I want to acknowledge Maurice Newman, former international banker and head of the Australian Stock Exchange, who has said the same and exposed the UN's desire for control openly and publicly. Energy primacy, water privacy, property rights primacy—we will restore the productive capacity of our beautiful country. 20:58 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Madam Acting Deputy President Fierravanti-Wells, let me reassure you and reassure the chamber that, as a National, I am not hanging my head in shame while standing here speaking to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019. I'm not hanging my head in shame that our Minister for Agriculture stood here today and said the climate is changing. There is nothing wrong with supporting a cleaner environment across the board. There is nothing wrong with being cleaner, reducing pollution, cleaning up our society, getting rid of plastic waste, getting rid of pollution, to support a cleaner society. But we need balance. We need reliable, affordable power. In the absence of a clear pathway with state support for new, reliable coal-fired power plants, and in the absence of clear support to build the cleanest power available—that being nuclear power—we are tying our own hands. I also want to address some comments made by Senator Pratt, who supports jobs. I commend her for supporting jobs and supporting transition arrangements between power companies, such as AGL, which are looking to the future when they close down. But what about the jobs in the smelting plants? What about the jobs in our aluminium sector, which relies on absolutely reliable power at an affordable price? If one of those smelting plants loses power for a significant period of time, that shuts down the plant. There is no reopening. That is thousands of jobs lost. So what we on this side of the chamber are trying to do is introduce a mechanism that serves consumers well, that serves the market as well as it can be served, without overburdened regulation. This bill is designed to amend the Competition and Consumer Act to define energy market misconduct, to provide a series of penalties and remedies for companies engaging in misconduct that is prohibited, and to enable us to have a fairer market and better outcomes for consumers and the power market in general. I commend my colleagues in the Nationals, who have long championed reliable and affordable power—particularly for our rural and regional communities. We have worked hard to achieve greater transparency in the electricity market. The Nationals are not wedded to one type of power over another; it is not coal or bust, and it is not renewables or bust. We will take power from anywhere. We are power agnostic, and proud to be power agnostic. We are proud to be part of a government that invests in renewables at a higher per capita rate than any other nation, and we're also proud to talk about other options such as nuclear power. We know that the Australian energy market has not been serving consumers well, which is why we directed the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to undertake a retail pricing inquiry in March 2017. In undertaking that inquiry, the ACCC identified clear problems in the retail, wholesale and contract markets, labelling the situation unacceptable and unsustainable, and noted that energy retailers have played a major role in poor outcomes for consumers. That is why the Nationals, in coalition government, are working to address those problems identified by the ACCC. That is why, in January, over 458,000 Australian families and 39,000 small businesses received a better deal on their energy prices, thanks to pressure from the coalition government on big energy companies to put customers first by moving them off high-priced standing offers. On 1 July, this government introduced a default market offer—a cap on standing offer prices, locking in a safety net for around 700,000 Australian families and 110,000 small businesses. Since its introduction, family power bills have come down between $130 and $190 per household per year. We are committed to underwriting new generation investments of all types and implementing a reliability guarantee across the energy market. We will also make competition more effective in energy markets by extending the consumer data right to energy. We will make it difficult for companies to shut down power plants when there is a willing buyer in the market, because that's not fair. That's not fair to our consumers. That's not fair to our energy marketplace. Market participants in markets that lack competition can be tempted to engage in misconduct, to the detriment of consumers. This new law addresses that issue by specifying three types of electricity market misconduct: failing to pass on sustained and substantial reductions in the cost of electricity, refusing to enter into contracts for the purpose of substantially lessening competition, and distorting or manipulating prices in a way that is fraudulent, dishonest or in bad faith. This new law introduces a range of graduated penalties to apply when the ACCC has identified market misconduct. While both private and public electricity firms will be subject to the legislation, this bill does not allow for blanket privatisation. The court can order only that a government owned asset be divested to another government owned firm. Many in the energy sector oppose this new legislation, but the government is determined to act to address the misconduct so as to protect consumers, because that's what this is about. This is about consumers. This is about jobs in the consumer market and businesses that need and rely on affordable power. The status quo, in the words of the ACCC, is unacceptable and unsustainable. By introducing this new legislative framework of prohibitions and remedies, the government is determined to improve competition and lower prices across the energy market. Make no mistake: our government, and the Nationals in government, are absolutely committed to fair competition in marketplaces, and where needs be we will take action to ensure it happens. I commend this bill to the chamber. 21:06 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I rise tonight to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019, otherwise known as the 'big stick' bill. As many of you will know, Labor was deeply critical of the original bill in the last parliament as it risked doing harm and seriously risked the privatisation of publicly owned electricity generators. This issue is particularly important to me and my fellow Tasmanians. The building of Tasmania's hydroelectric system—its dams and pipelines, turbines and power stations—created Australia's largest producer of renewable energy. Since its first hydropower development over a century ago, Tasmania has led the nation in renewable energy development. Today it uses water and wind power to harness natural energy that is then sold on to the country on the national grid. Tasmanians and many migrants who battled often cruel working conditions, difficult terrain and huge engineering challenges—not to mention environmental disputes that divided families and communities—are enormously proud of their hydro and the thousands of people who sweated to build it. We've made it clear time and again that we are not prepared to countenance it being sold off and privatised. The Morrison government has attempted to deal with some of our reservations by introducing in this parliament this bill, which makes improvements particularly in relation to privatisation. Labor, while supporting the bill, remain highly sceptical that it will make a real difference to the power bills of ordinary Australians, and we will continue to hold this government to account for its absolutely woeful management of energy policy in this country. Most recently, we witnessed the demise of the National Energy Guarantee and the career of the prime minister who backed it. Since then, and under new leadership, the government have wandered around producing their own special emissions in the form of thought bubbles and other expulsions that they think the Australian people might buy as actual policy. After 17 attempts, the coalition government still have no sensible energy policy to drive investment, reduce emissions or cut power bills for struggling Australian households and businesses. This absence of a coherent, overarching policy should be a source of shame to this government. It is yet another example of a government without any plan for our country. Just the other week we heard Malcolm Turnbull state that the Liberals are simply incapable of delivering policy that takes account of carbon emissions. The government continue to squabble amongst themselves over carbon emissions and refuse to capitalise on the very clear evidence that a coherent policy would both benefit the hip pockets of energy consumers and create jobs, industries and opportunities for the future. Just to be clear: the dubious nature of the impact this legislation might have is indicated by the fact that our own consumer watchdog, the ACCC, has not recommended it. Not only was it not recommended by the ACCC after its lengthy examination of the retail electrical market but, indeed, the ACCC recommended against a divesture power, as did Professor Ian Harper in his review of competition policy for the government a couple of years earlier. As any observer of this debate would know, various business groups, energy users and energy suppliers over the last 12 or 18 months have been critical of the legislation in its different iterations. However, since the election in May, business groups have changed their view from one of opposition to one of seeking to work with the government to improve the operation of this bill. In the spirit of being a constructive opposition, the Labor Party has also adopted this approach. In particular, we've been concerned about the impact of potential ministerial overreach in the operation of this original bill. It is important to note that the government has seen the error of its ways and pulled back the ministerial power that would be able to be exercised under this legislation. Instead, it has appropriately substituted a role for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and a role for the Federal Court. Since the original presentation of this bill, Labor has been steadfastly against its very significant loophole to allow the privatisation of publicly owned electricity assets—namely, the forcible divesture of publicly owned electricity assets and the transfer of those assets to private companies. We know the Liberal Party is addicted to the privatisation of electricity. We were promised there would be more choice and there would be better prices and competition in the market, but I think anyone who has even had a casual look at the operation of the electricity market knows that privatisations have worked for companies; they haven't worked for consumers. Mr Bob Katter, the member for Kennedy, and Labor identified this loophole in the original presentation of this bill. Labor in the other house was able to ensure that loophole was closed absolutely and completely to ensure that, if the operation of this legislation results in the divesture of a publicly owned asset, it can only be divested to another publicly owned asset with the same or a greater level of public ownership. Also, as a Labor Party, we are, of course, very concerned that workers and their entitlements not be prejudiced by the operation of this legislation. Typically, this government appears to have paid no attention at all to the possibility that workers' entitlements could be reduced or negatively impacted by the operation of this legislation. Workers' entitlements, as we know, don't tend to be front of mind for Liberal governments. Workers cannot be seen as having responsibility for the conduct that is apparently the driver of this legislation being put in place—that is, allegations of cartel conduct or reductions of competition in the market. Labor in the other house moved an amendment to ensure that the transmission of business provisions of the Fair Work Act are deemed to apply to this type of transmission—namely, a forcible divesture. That will ensure that those entitlements that are contained in registered enterprise agreements and in awards are preserved and protected for workers. Since consideration in the House, and thanks to the good work of the Senate committee that inquired into this bill, it has become clear that a similar issue exists for non-registered agreements between workers and employers in the context of possible divestiture. Labor does not accept that workers should be worse off as a result of divestiture, which is a remedy for prohibited conduct that workers themselves have no part in. Put simply, workers should not be punished for the anticompetitive actions of a company. That is a position that all senators should agree with. That is why Labor will be moving a further amendment in this place to ensure non-registered agreements between workers and employers which provide workers with additional protections agreed by employers should be safeguarded in the event of divestment. That is the right thing to do, it is the Labor thing to do, and we call on the government and others in this place to support our amendment. I want to be clear that this bill is in no way a substitute for a proper, coherent national energy policy. Australia finds itself in the midst of the deepest energy crisis since the mid-1970s. Unlike that energy crisis in the 1970s, which was caused by an external shock, this energy crisis is a product of profound public policy failure. Households and energy-using businesses are paying the price for this crisis. Power bills for households and businesses are going up and up, and it is quite clear that the market expects those bills to continue to go up. Wholesale prices across the National Electricity Market are up by 158 per cent on average since the Liberal energy crisis really took hold in 2015. The Financial Review has reported that forward prices in the electricity market are up 29 per cent in just the 12 months since the former Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and the National Energy Guarantee were both dispatched by a coalition party room in turmoil. The key problem, as identified by advice after advice, is that lack of a coherent national energy policy. The Grattan Institute, reflecting what has happened to wholesale prices under this energy crisis, confirmed that it has resulted in $1 billion in additional windfall profits to just the three big private energy companies every year since this crisis took hold—paid for by Australian households and energy-using businesses. This government is, quite disturbingly, trying to persuade the Australian people that all things are tickety-boo in the investment market. It is true that we did have a surge in investment in renewable energy to achieve the Renewable Energy Target that the Labor Party put in place when we were in government. Now that target is discharged it is clear that, while Australia was leading the world in renewable energy investment, the level of investment in that sector is already down 50 per cent in the first half of 2019 alone. The Clean Energy Council said that that is probably an underestimate. This sector should be growing. Labor sees it as a beacon for investment, innovation and job creation, yet we expect it to shed thousands and thousands of jobs, because of policy uncertainty and the lack of a plan. We do support this bill, but we will continue to hold this government to account for its woeful management of energy policy and its lack of vision. 21:17 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019. The last few weeks have been dominated by the crushing effects of the drought being experienced right around this country. The last few days have seen, frankly, apocalyptic climate-driven bushfires which have now taken lives as well as homes and huge swathes of bushland. Those fires come on top of the fact that towns are soon to run out of water. A few towns in my home state are already having water trucked into them. Regional communities are under enormous financial and psychological pressure, and the government's own reports have detailed the increased frequency with which farming areas will be turned into desert because of our climate collapse, yet there's no government legislation in front of this parliament to deal with those society-wide challenges of our planet cooking and drying out. But we do have this 'big stick' bill. What a very big stick it is! Of course, it is purely targeted at bullying energy companies to keep coal in the system for as long as possible. Today we have not just the government but the opposition, both big parties, supporting government intervention in the market to prop up old coal-fired power stations as we have warnings of catastrophic bushfires bearing down on New South Wales and where my home state of Queensland is on fire. We have bipartisan support for coal-fired power and keeping those old clunkers going, despite industry wanting to move away from them. Not only does this approach fly in the face of the climate science—we're getting a bit used to that—but it flies in the face of global economics. Coal use in the National Electricity Market is down eight per cent in the last year. Many of those coal-fired power stations that are in the NEM are old and outdated. They are clunkers that break down regularly, and every month they get older and pose an even bigger threat to the reliability of our energy system. This government cannot hold back technological progress, no matter how hard they try—and even when they have the Labor Party's legislative support. Of course, Labor opposed this bill before the election, but now they are too scared to talk about government-backed just transitions away from coal and coal-fired power and towards clean, job rich, renewable energy. What an absolute travesty and abrogation of duty that is! The fact is that renewable technologies are getting cheaper and more efficient every month. In the next few years, building a new solar plant will be cheaper than running those existing coal-fired plants—that is huge. That is despite the fact that those existing plants would have already been paid off and run into the ground to squeeze out every last dollar of profit. We know that new solar is already cheaper than new coal, but in the next few years it will be cheaper than existing coal-fired power. Instead of a clear timetable for the retirement of coal-fired power stations, proper planning, investment in grid infrastructure and a clear pathway to a zero-emissions electricity sector, the electricity market has been victim to a war of words, threats and ad hoc policy bubbles. This bill represents the latest round in the Liberal-Nationals ideological war on a rational energy transition to renewable energy. As a result of the policy uncertainty created by this government's unwillingness to accept the climate crisis, what we have here is yet another strategy to cause chaos and uncertainty in order to scare away the billions of global dollars wanting to invest in clean energy. It sounds to me like a strategy to keep their coal donors donating. The government don't care that this uncertainty will keep driving power prices up, and they certainly don't care that coal workers will be thrown out of employment at a moment's notice, instead of guaranteeing that not one worker will be left behind, as Germany managed to do in the coal transition plan that they have now delivered. This government doesn't care that keeping coal open longer will make the drought a constant, lived experience and force the migration of farming families. All they care about is the donations of coal, oil and gas companies continuing to line their parties' pockets. Under any other government, a divestment power for anticompetitive conduct and market manipulation would be welcomed by our party—and that is why we are going to support Senator Patrick's amendment—but we cannot support this legislation, because it is designed solely to bully energy companies to keep open old coal-fired power stations—like Liddell, in particular—which will result in driving up prices and creating even more uncertainty and unreliability in our energy system. It is absolutely clear that the government hounded the former CEO of AGL out of the country and then established the Liddell Taskforce and now have introduced this bill, all with the express purpose of keeping one of Australia's dirtiest power stations open, against the owner's wishes and against commercial reality. If the Liberals weren't so in love with privatisations, the government would still own Liddell. But I guess they are a victim of their own success in that regard. The powers contained in this bill are largely friendless. Evidence to the committee and statements in the media show that almost the whole of the energy sector is opposed to this bill. A number of legal bodies and energy policy experts have also expressed deep concerns, including the Grattan Institute and the Law Council. The powers in the bill have not been requested by any of the agencies tasked with managing the energy market. In fact, the government commissioned the ACCC to inquire into and report on electricity prices, and they didn't recommend these powers. The Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills also raised concerns—in particular, about the reversal of the onus of proof in some of the offences contained in the bill. But the bill is before us, and it is because the cabinet is full of bullies who want more legal power to push around their political opponents—and Labor cannot feign ignorance that they are supporting the government and handing over this bullying power. Contributions from government members during debate in the House of Representatives were explicit on this point. They said that the 'big stick' of the divestiture powers in the bill was necessary to stop AGL from refusing to sell Liddell power station instead of retiring it. Both our major political parties are swimming against the tide of progress. By backing in coal and making it as hard as possible for low-cost, clean energy to power our cities and homes and our National Electricity Market, you are condemning Australian homes to higher power prices, you're cutting off the lifeline to energy-intensive industries that need cheap, abundant power to be competitive and you are worsening the climate emergency that is already wreaking havoc on people's lives, their homes and our bushland. Just like for the farmers suffering through this frightening drought, clean energy is the only hope. That is why the Greens will unequivocally oppose this bill and it's why we've given notice that we will move some amendments to enable this bill to operate as it ideally should—not as just a mechanism to try and keep old coal-fired power clunkers going long past their use-by date. 21:25 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I'm pleased to rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (Prohibiting Energy Market Misconduct) Bill 2019. If there's something I hate more than inefficient bureaucracies, it's parasites in the private sector bleeding the taxpayer dry by living off government subsidies—and what a private sector we have in the energy market, made all the bigger by Senator Watt's previous boss, Anna Bligh, selling all of Queensland's gas and wind assets back in 2007. For those of you that need reminding, Queensland Labor privatised wind assets for $460 million, gas assets and Enertrade for $268 million, Powerdirect for $1.2 billion, Sun Retail for $1.2 billion and Allgas for $535 million. Here it is, the truth about who sold Queensland's energy assets: Queensland Labor—and never forget it. The private sector in energy is only going to grow bigger in Queensland, because Queensland Labor are subsidising private industry to build power plants that aren't needed. That's right: they aren't needed. Why? Because the maximum amount of demand in Queensland ever recorded, on Valentine's Day last year, was 10 gigawatts, and we currently have a 16-gigawatt capacity in the system—13 gigawatts in coal and gas, and three gigawatts in renewables. Despite this, Queensland Labor want to spend billions more on installing another 19 gigawatts into the grid by subsidising the private sector to do this. These billions should be spent on building dams, not on further energy generation which will only increase transmission costs, storage costs and auxiliary costs. This is the real reason why energy prices are rising across the country: if you add more energy generators to the grid, you've got to have a bigger grid, you've got to have more storage and you've got to have more auxiliary services. So, there you go: if these assets are rendered worthless, it will bankrupt the state of Queensland. These assets that I'm talking about are the current assets we have in Queensland, which, might I add, generate power for $9 a megawatt. That is on page 120 of Alan Finkel's report—$9 a megawatt. For Kogan Creek, Stanwell and Callide, it's $17 a megawatt. That's cheaper than any other energy source in the country. The Labor Party are a disgrace. They have no idea. Even after having their backsides handed to them on a plate at the last election, they still don't get it. Led by their chief yapping poodle, Senator Watt, they hide in their Twittersphere safe space with an ever-decreasing band of zealots spouting bile, incapable of rational argument. For several years now, the rising cost of living has constantly been the most common issue raised when I talk with Queenslanders. These sentiments are also reflected in the published polling, which consistently shows that cost of living is the No. 1 concern for Australians—more than any other issue and well ahead of climate change. Essential expenses such as electricity are putting a huge drain on household budgets. Fifteen years ago Australia had some of the cheapest energy prices in the world. Over that time we have slipped dramatically and now have some of the most expensive, to the detriment of Australians, their businesses and our economy. Look no further than my home state of Queensland, where the Palaszczuk-Trad Labor government puts extreme green ideology above the needs of everyday Queenslanders. And where have we seen a near doubling of government returns on electricity in recent years? It's gouging. This amounts to a secret tax—a secret electricity tax that punishes small business and rips off our most vulnerable and disadvantaged, simply to funnel more revenue into another cash-hungry Labor government and big corporates in the renewable energy sector. In my first speech, I said that national interests should always come before vested interests, and I stand here today, pleased to be speaking on a bill which goes to the very heart of that statement. It is in our national interest to have cheaper power. Cheap power drives our economy and helps create jobs for Australians and takes the pressures off working families. Senator Watt 245759 You know renewable power's free! Senator RENNICK 283596 No, it's not, Murray. It costs a lot of money to build solar panels. I'll take that interjection. It's free, is it? So how many synchronous condensers are you going to need in your renewable paradise? Do you even know what a synchronous condenser is, Senator Watt? No, I bet you don't. Never heard of it! You wouldn't have a clue, would you? This bill will help the federal Liberal-National government honour its commitment to a 25 per cent reduction in wholesale electricity prices by the end of 2021, which is a great start in helping Australian families, pensioners and small business. Electricity assets tend to become natural monopolies, and this is particularly true in regional Queensland, where consumer choice is virtually non-existent. It is up to responsible governments to provide oversight and to step in when monopoly power is abused. Generating electricity should not be a licence to print money at the expense of everyday Australians, and it should never be allowed to become one. This legislation is about ensuring that big corporate electricity providers and cash-hungry state governments do not abuse market power and become robber barons with a light switch. And don't we know all about that? Who can remember the numbers released in August 2018 by Origin and AGL showing profits up by 20 per cent despite the fact they didn't generate any more electricity? That's what you call a monopoly gouging everyday hardworking Australians. This government is going to do something about it—fantastic! I'm pleased that this Morrison government is doing something about this. Competitive markets work best when there is a clear understanding on both sides of the transaction. People understand that bread is bread and can make an informed choice based on price, convenience and their personal preference. An electricity account, on the other hand, is more complex. Big corporates should not be able to take advantage of customer loyalty and confusion around such complex matters simply to line their own pockets. Any competitive or deceptive practices detrimental to consumers must end. Such practices will only end when targeted disincentives and harsh penalties are imposed to make sure they do end. The spiralling cost of electricity has made reform imperative, particularly in situations where effective regional monopolies mean there is no other consumer choice available. Retail price-gouging, where retailers fail to pass on substantial price savings to consumers, will be prohibited by this bill—and about time. The Australian people are not an ATM for big energy retailers. This prohibition is long overdue and simply corrects the abuse of market power by some electricity retailers. This bill also deals with anticompetitive contracts designed to cut out the knees from under small electricity retailers to remove effective competition. We wouldn't stand for this type of behaviour in any other sector, and we definitely should not stand for it in the provision of an essential service. The ACCC was established to protect Australian consumers from conduct just like this, and I am pleased to see that the Morrison government is acting decisively to ensure that this unethical behaviour is rooted out. Further, the wholesale contract prohibition in this bill will prevent any deliberate market manipulation and anticompetitive conduct by generators. It's ridiculous that we allow generators to deliberately withhold supply from the energy market in a way that essentially amounts to price manipulation. We would not tolerate big supermarkets or petrol retailers who deliberately shut half their outlets to raise prices in others. Nor should this be permitted to occur in our electricity market. These new prohibitions provide a strong framework to deal with the worst of the misconduct evident in our energy market. The message I hear across Queensland is loud and clear: we must get electricity prices down. This bill will help to do that, and I am pleased that this Liberal-National government has demonstrated the courage of their convictions by tackling the big energy companies head-on. Any law is only as good as the appropriate authority's ability to enforce it and the disincentive that the legislative penalties provide. This government has not shirked its responsibility in this regard. The legislation allows for a series of graduated and tailored remedies to ensure that the ACCC is empowered to deal swiftly and appropriately with poor conduct, meaning that there is no blind eye or incentive for market players to push the envelope. Initial warnings and infringement notices from the ACCC will put operators on notice immediately, while significant penalties will remove any incentive to simply pay the fines and move on. Any further serious misconduct where a generator refuses to offer electricity financial contracts to a retail rival for any competitive purposes will allow the ACCC to recommend that the Treasurer issues a contracting order. The most controversial element of this so-called big-stick legislation is the final and most severe element—namely, the mechanism for a court ordered divestiture order. It is important to note that a divestiture order can only be issued by the Federal Court in serious and repeated instances of market manipulation and gouging, only with the recommendation of the ACCC, following a referral from the Treasurer, and only where such an order will result in a net benefit to the public. Divestiture orders can only be considered where a corporation's conduct is shown to be fraudulent, dishonest or otherwise unethical for the purpose of manipulating prices. As with all other remedies outlined in this bill, a clear process must be followed and strict criteria must be met, including the penalties that must be reasonably proportionate and must target the conduct appropriately. Court ordered divestiture under the terms of this bill will not empower the court to order the sale of any asset to a private purchaser. I am confident that this legislation will work effectively to bring down power prices over the term of its life, as the legislation is set to sunset on 1 January 2026, which will be at the conclusion of the ACCC's ongoing monitoring inquiry. Like any calm and sensible government, we will ensure that there is appropriate scrutiny and make sure that all measures continue to function as intended. The government will also conduct its own internal review in 2024 to comprehensively examine how well the legislation is working and to determine if its life should be extended. I proudly support this bill as one pillar of the Morrison government's comprehensive strategy to get electricity prices down and ensure we keep the lights on. This is an absolute priority for everyday Australians, and it is a responsibility, and indeed a commitment, that we on this side of the chamber take very seriously. This bill will work in conjunction with the government's other energy policies, including the default market offer and the retail reliability obligation. Both commenced earlier this year. Collectively, these measures will ensure that prices come down and supply is assured for all Australian families and businesses. It is encouraging that those opposite have chosen to support this bill. While Labor may have been dragged kicking and screaming to support the government's plan to lower electricity prices, it is good to see that they are finally waking up to the cost-of-living pressures faced by Australian families. It is my hope that Labor's epiphany on the virtues of reliable and affordable power will quickly transfer up the road to their colleagues in the Queensland Labor government, because that government's manipulation of the energy market continues to suck money out of the pockets of Queenslanders—all day, every day—and it too must stop. I will quote the figures for those who can't remember: the amount of money collected from the energy assets last year was $1.7 billion, up from $1.4 billion the year before—a massive 15 to 20 per cent increase in one year. That's what you call price gouging by Queensland's state Labor government. If they're not careful, they're going to render those assets worthless and there's $20 billion worth of debt that's secured against those assets. So, if that's added to the existing debt that we've got in Queensland, you're going to send the state broke. Just keep that in mind. Senator Watt especially might like to keep that in mind, given his past involvement in selling assets under the prior state Labor government. To those against this bill, I make one further point. Companies that act ethically and appropriately and do not engage in misconduct will not be adversely affected. In fact, those operators will now enjoy a level playing field, unhampered by market manipulation and anticompetitive behaviour. Finally, the government understand that this legislation imposes a new framework on players in the marketplace. That is why we are taking the sensible option of giving them six months to understand their obligations—they shouldn't need it—and make any necessary adjustments before the legislation takes effect. This bill is what good government is all about: a focus on the real issues facing Australians, with proper consultation and careful consideration of all factors at play. I commend the bill to the Senate. 21:40 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Well, Mr Acting Deputy President, what a night it's been! I flicked the telly on and watched some of the performances over the course of the evening. I've got to say that it fell off a cliff after Senator Pratt, really. I watched Senator Roberts's performance this evening. With all that stuff—the UN one world socialist government, the solar industrial complex—I could feel myself getting stupider as each minute went by. Senator Rennick 283596 That's saying something, Senator Ayres! Senator AYRES 16913 I'm coming to you in a minute, Senator Rennick, because you weren't much better. I think—if I properly understood what you were saying—you were for it and he was against it, but I couldn't tell the difference between you. Each of you is as silly as the other. If Australians are listening to the Senate— Senator Rennick interjecting— Senator AYRES 16913 If Australians are listening to the Senate and they tuned in after Senator Pratt, they will have got a very clear understanding of why the country's in so much trouble on energy policy. The kind of loopy stuff that we heard from Senator Rennick and the kind of wacko conspiracy stuff that we heard from Senator Roberts is the same stuff that we hear in the House of Representatives from the member for Hughes, and that's what's really driving the behaviour and thinking of people in the coalition party room. That's why you're in so much trouble on energy policy. That's why we're into coalition energy policy No. 17. It's because you people—this crowd over here, Mr Acting Deputy President—are driven by some of the loopiest thinking on energy policy in the country. What is the coalition for on energy policy? Bills have gone up by 148 per cent. Ever since the start of what passes for this lot being in charge, bills have gone up by 148 per cent. Senator Rennick 283596 Queensland Labor is gouging. I just explained it, mate!' Senator AYRES 16913 Emissions are up— Senator Rennick 283596 It's been privatised. Senator AYRES 16913 I know Senator Rennick doesn't believe emissions are a problem, but emissions have gone up. Investment in the sector: down. Reliability of the system: down. That's because you lot don't have an energy policy. I watched closely Senator Rennick's interview on Sky this afternoon. He was there with Senator Watt. I've never seen Senator Watt so quiet. I've never seen him in an interview so reluctant— Senator McGrath 217241 We want to see more of it! Senator AYRES 16913 We all want to see more of it. I've never seen Senator Watt so reluctant to step up to the microphone. But we all know why he was reluctant. He was acting in the Labor Party's interests and making sure that the Australian public saw as much of Senator Rennick as possible. We know what's driving the coalition's energy policy. It's not the experts; it's the little blokes in their basements—on the old Google or the dark web or whatever they do—looking up the conspiracy theories, thinking really hard about energy policy and— Senator Rennick 283596 I'm not looking up any conspiracy theories! I'm talking logic, mate. Senator AYRES 16913 Talking logic—that's right, Senator Rennick. They're applying their own logic, sitting there in their basements. They've got the avatars on their accounts. They look like Brad Pitt but really they look like Senator Rennick. That's what this lot are doing. That's what's driving their thinking. The Labor Party will support this legislation, when it's been amended, but we don't believe it will have the slightest impact on energy and prices. What the country really needs is a comprehensive energy policy. It's like the old Hippocratic oath—do least harm in this place. The failure to have a proper energy policy will very likely drive down investment in the energy sector and continue to drive up electricity prices. The bill claims to address market misconduct, when there is very little evidence to support the scale of intervention set out in this bill. Finally, the policy development process for the bill has been rushed. It's a sign that the bill is more about politics than good policy—another signature of this government. When the Liberal government came to power in 2013, they dismantled four major climate change programs and began drafting legislation to repeal the Clean Energy Act 2011. They've introduced a whole series of legislation—the only country in the civilised world to actually go backwards on climate change and energy policy. Senator Rennick interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 30484 Order! Senator Rennick. Senator AYRES 16913 I think you should just let him go; he's got to get it all out! After changing prime ministers, the Liberal government had another go at energy policy. Senator Rennick interjecting— Senator AYRES 16913 You've been at the heart of this too. You've been at the heart of this disaster. In 2017 Malcolm Turnbull proposed the National Energy Guarantee, targeting emissions and reliability. He didn't have the support of his own party and he didn't last for much longer. We recently heard from the former Prime Minister that the energy crisis will continue under the Morrison government. He said that the Liberals are simply incapable of delivering policy that takes carbon emissions into account. If they were serious about ending the energy crisis, the government would come back to the table on the National Energy Guarantee. Instead of getting serious and making real, lasting attempts to fix the mess, this is what we've had from the government in the last few months. We've got an inquiry into nuclear power, as if an expensive and dangerous nuclear power plant that won't be operational for 20 years is supposed to solve a crisis that we're experiencing here and now. We have attempts to keep increasingly unreliable and economically unviable ageing coal plants open, rather than policy to support their replacement with clean, cheap alternatives. I've been to the Liddell Power Station. I've worked with people who've worked on Liddell Power Station. Everybody knows it's a power station that's running out of time. Lastly we've got this bill—the 'big stick' energy legislation—which is not going to go anywhere near solving the crisis that's in front of the country. In short, all the government has achieved is a confusing jumble of policies, with no vision, no guiding principle and no policy coherence. The coalition is beholden to climate change deniers and pro-coal lobbyists. Anyone who believes in the need to take urgent action on climate change and invest in renewable energy is barely visible in the government, and they are frightened to speak up. Anybody who has any trouble understanding how much trouble the Morrison government is in on energy policy should tune in and listen to the Senate tonight and listen to Senator Rennick's brilliant interview on Sky television, and that will tell you exactly how bad it is over there. Since 2015 under this government, we've seen gas prices triple and wholesale power prices across the National Electricity Market skyrocket by 158 per cent. Millions of Australians haven't had a wage increase in that time, and this has put an unacceptable strain on household budgets. The lack of energy policy from the government has been cited by the Finkel report, AEMO, the Energy Security Board, industry and Infrastructure Australia as driving up energy costs for all Australians. It's not only skyrocketing energy prices that have brought us to this crisis point. The Australian Energy Market Operator warns that Australians are at increased risk of power shortages this summer, with more than a million homes expected to suffer power shortages of up to five hours. New South Wales will become particularly vulnerable. EnergyAustralia has warned that blackouts in some areas could last for weeks. These dangers are exacerbated because Australia's energy grid is highly interconnected and increasingly fragile, putting all Australians at risk. Putting aside the direct impacts of power outages on the lives of individual Australian households and the impact of rising electricity prices on Australian households, the Australian economy risks becoming uncompetitive because of the drastic and unsustainable rise in energy prices. This year, BlueScope Steel invested a billion dollars in a steel plant in Ohio instead of in Australia and what they directly said— Debated interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 96 ADJOURNMENT Outback Queensland Tourism Awards, Queensland Government 96 21:50 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I would remind Senator Ayres of our visit to Whyalla, where we heard from GFG with respect to their proposal to introduce an electric arc furnace into the steelworks at Whyalla to modernise that facility, an extra $125 million, approximately, of up-front capital cost because of the instability in the South Australian electricity grid caused by its reliance on wind and solar. I hope, Senator Ayres, that the steelworks at Whyalla doesn't close down and those jobs don't disappear to Ohio as well. I rise today to speak about a concerning situation I came across during a trip to Longreach and Winton, when I was visiting to attend the Outback Queensland Tourism Awards. I went through a journey of emotions. First, there was the delight of attending the Outback Queensland Tourism Awards. A number of fantastic contributors to the Queensland tourism industry were recognised, including Stewart Benson, Stewie, from Blackall, who was awarded the Vince Evert Award for outstanding contribution to tourism for his work in making sure that the droving culture is respected and honoured in his home town of Blackall; the Festivals and Events winner was the Big Red Bash out at Birdsville; Cultural Tourism, Qantas Founders Museum; Outback Eco Project, the Australian Age of Dinosaurs project; Visitor's Choice Best Outback Queensland Stay, Saltbush Retreat; Tour and Transport Operations, Outback Aussie Tours—good people achieving great things in outback Queensland for the tourism industry, creating jobs in the regions. And then, unfortunately, as the Palaszczuk-Trad government is wont to do, I was brought down to earth when my host, Lachie Millar, took me to meet some participants in the kangaroo processing and harvesting industry who'd just received some advice from the Queensland government with their quota for the 2020 year. Ben and Liza Cameron of Western Game Processing Pty Ltd have done their bit for regional Queensland. They established a business in the kangaroo industry, employing 18 staff, including two meat inspectors. They've been upskilling staff so that there are now 50 accredited Longreach macropod harvesters. They've established chiller and buying facilities at Barcaldine, Winton, Aramac and Isisford, and they also engaged and hired five local chiller box operators. They've done their bit. They've invested $2 million of capital in Longreach. And then they get this letter on 28 October 2019 from the Palaszczuk-Trad government, which tells them that their company, Western Game Processing Pty Ltd, can now apply for their 2020 licence. So they read the letter—they weren't given any notice of any of this—and then they get down to the last paragraph, which says: 'Oh, by the way, there will be no harvest in 2020 in the central zone north of the eastern grey kangaroo; no harvest in the central zone south of the eastern grey kangaroo; the common wallaroo, no harvest.' Apply for your licence, but you get no quota. Thanks for that, Palaszczuk-Trad government. You really understand the regions, don't you? Senator Rennick 283596 Another kick in the guts. Senator SCARR 282997 As Senator Rennick says, it's another kick in the guts for regional Queensland. I actually did some research when Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk was found in contempt of the Queensland parliament. Annastacia Palaszczuk was found in contempt of the Queensland parliament. I asked the Parliamentary Library, 'Has any other leader—any other premier or prime minister—in Australian history ever been found in contempt of their parliament?' The answer was none; it is an Australian first. Well done, Premier Palaszczuk! Not only is she in contempt and has been found unanimously, including by her own members in the Labor Party, to be in contempt of the Queensland parliament but she is treating the people of regional Queensland with contempt. This is just one example. It follows many, many other examples in Queensland. We have had the debacle of the flora trigger map, which, amongst other things, found that there was endangered flora on Suncorp Stadium. We have had the debacle of the vegetation management laws, the shark control fiasco scaring tourists away from regional Queensland, the Rookwood Weir, Paradise Dam and our commercial fishermen treated as if they are criminals. It goes on and on. Absolute contempt! This latest fiasco is the kangaroo cull. I would like to quote from the great state member for the seat of Gregory, Lachlan Millar. He said, 'I've seen departmental correspondence to individual stakeholders'—and that is the correspondence I refer to—'which appear to be a reminder to renew their licences, until you read the bit about a zero quota for the central, north and south zones.' This is what Lachie Millar says, not my words: This is an appalling way to communicate with people whose livelihoods you are summarily shutting down and I have written to the minister asking her to restore quotas in the central zone, and to conduct departmental forums so stakeholders can be heard. Mr Millar said that the zero quota affects a huge area of Queensland, from the McKinlay shire boundary all the way down to the New South Wales border. We need to manage our way through this drought nimbly. Annual quotas based on two-year-old surveys will not fit the bill. We need clear heads, not wilful ignorance. Mr Millar says: We need clear heads, not wilful ignorance That is what we are getting from the Palaszczuk-Trad government in Queensland: wilful ignorance. Mr Millar goes on: We need a lot of steady rain over many, many months to break this drought. I am very clear-eyed that when that happens we will be facing a new set of troubles. The Queensland Government must actively assist good management of those challenges not exhibit ideological self-indulgence aimed at green activists in Brisbane. The people of regional Queensland are sick and tired of a state Palaszczuk-Trad government that is exhibiting again and again and again the ideological self-indulgence that is aimed at green activists in Brisbane. Whilst we are at it, I say there needs to be a review of the kangaroo industry in this country. I say this—and they are not my words; let me quote from Dr George R Wilson, who wrote an article, which I recommend to all senators, which appeared in The Zoologist this year: Millions of kangaroos are dying in 2018 but without good conservation outcomes. Populations are crashing in drought and contributing to land degradation. Non-commercial culling is increasing because landholders seek to stop kangaroos from competing with their conventional livestock … Non-commercial kill leads to poor animal welfare outcomes … The fact of the matter is that graziers can still apply for damage mitigation permits, bringing in shooters who are not licensed, who do not kill in the way that the licensed shooters kill and who do not engage in practices which are appropriate. Those kangaroos, when they are shot under damage mitigation permits, are left to rot on the ground. It is madness. Instead of that resource being harvested and used in a sustainable way, it is left to rot in the paddocks. And all that my good friends from Western Game Processing Pty Ltd get from the state government after they have invested $2 million in Longreach, created over a dozen jobs and provided thousands of dollars to businesses in their regional area—an area which is doing it tough—is a letter saying, 'Please apply to renew your license in 2020, but, by the way, your quota next year is going to be zero.' That is how they are being treated. Annastacia Palaszczuk, the Premier of Queensland, was found in contempt of the Queensland parliament—the only premier or prime minister in Australian history to be found in contempt of parliament—and she is treating the people of my home state of Queensland with utter and absolute contempt. Torres Strait Islands: Housing 98 22:00 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Kirriri, or Hammond Island, is an island in the Torres Strait. It's around 3,000 kilometres from this place—or, perhaps better put, there's a ferry and a small plane then a big plane and then another plane between that island and Canberra. The short ferry ride from Thursday Island to Hammond Island glides you over crystal-clear waters. There is only one word to describe the Torres Strait, and that is 'paradise'. And you do feel a million miles away from the rest of the world. It is an ancient place, full of culture and custom. When I was there recently, I heard stories of families from the mainland arriving for a visit one day and then never going home. It's just that kind of place. On Kirriri Island, the streets skirt the coastline, as if everyone is vying for the best slice of the best view in the world. Seeing the water or being close to the water is important spiritually and practically. Each house we pass is cared for. Gardens are watered when water restrictions permit. Private memorials for loved ones sit adorned outside their front steps, with fresh flowers and polished headstones—a sign of respect for generations past; a sign of closeness to the families that grow up around the graves. These homes are important. Kirriri is where the Torres Strait Island Regional Council's Mayor Fred Gela delivers services and advocacy on behalf of 15 island communities. His reach goes all the way up to Saibai and to Boigu Island, which lie a short boat ride from PNG—a short tinnie ride, in fact. Across these 15 islands, there are six different dialects, five different First Nations clusters, 23,000 border movements, and 900 social houses. I imagine that most people living on Kirriri feel the distance from this place, too—not just in terms of kilometres. It would be hard to feel heard from so far away. It is the same for many communities in the cape and the Torres Strait. When your issues, your way of life and the things that are important to you are not being talked about or considered here, it makes the distance seem deafening. The government talks a big game about standing up for regional Australia, and we saw evidence of that tonight. But somehow they forget that regional Queensland includes remote Indigenous communities. I wish that senators opposite would give such impassioned rants about these regional Queenslanders! Tonight, I want to talk about these communities and the homes that they love and the promises that they were made, because, no matter how far away they live from this place, as Australia's First Peoples and as Queenslanders, they deserve to be heard. This isn't confected outrage or some political pointscoring; this is just really important to those people. Right now, tonight, many members of the Indigenous communities across Far North Queensland are going to sleep on couches, in crowded homes, in the homes of their sisters, cousins, aunties and uncles, because there are simply not enough houses. Homelessness and overcrowding is a very real, present way of life for Indigenous communities. In May, before the election, the member for Leichhardt, Warren Entsch, and former Minister for Indigenous Affairs Nigel Scullion promised Indigenous communities in Queensland $105 million, to be provided directly to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander councils, to fund remote Indigenous housing. It was a promise well received by the council and mayors like Fred Gela. It wasn't the funding that they had hoped for. The federal government had walked away from the National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing. The partnership had seen more than $1 billion invested into housing in regional Queensland between 2008 and 2018 through a partnership between the state and federal governments. But the Morrison government have refused to commit funding. The announcement that they made instead to provide money directly to councils was the federal government's alternative to signing back up to NPARIH. But six months on, they have failed to allocate any of this funding. Six months on and there is no indication by the Morrison government that they have reached an agreement with any entity to deliver the vital funding. Six months on and no houses have been built, no jobs created and not $1 handed over; yet waitlists for housing continue to grow. The councils need to know when they will receive this funding so that they have the certainty that they need to employ workers and plan maintenance. I was in the Torres Strait last week and I was told that there is a seven-year waitlist for housing. In the meantime, some households have up to five families under one roof, with seven to eight children sometimes sharing one room. This is completely unacceptable. This funding is crucial to support health and economic outcomes for First Nations communities. Many First Nations people live in households that are overcrowded, a situation that can lead to a wide range of health problems. Overcrowded living conditions can lead to increased risks of chronic ear and eye infections, skin conditions, respiratory infections and mental health issues. Overcrowding can also make it harder for children to get a good night's sleep, to study at home and to grow up happy and healthy. Housing programs do more than provide health outcomes; they also provide jobs and apprenticeships for local workers in the communities, supporting the skills and development of local economies. Cape York mayors have said that housing projects have become a key economic driver for many Indigenous communities, supporting jobs and providing apprenticeships for young people. The NPARIH wasn't perfect, but the government's own review of it found that it was making good progress on the problem of overcrowding and recommended that the recurrent program be funded. In Queensland, the program built 1,114 new dwellings and refurbished a further 1,490. It is a disgrace that the Morrison government walked away from NPARIH. It is a disgrace that six months after its alternative funding model was announced it looks like it was more like a thought bubble than an announcement—an election promise made to keep these communities quiet. The member for Leichhardt in this government has a job to do when it comes to regional communities, and he is not doing it. He made a promise and he needs to keep it. He said that he would fix this problem and he hasn't. The member for Leichhardt needs to stand up in Cairns tomorrow and tell Indigenous communities when they will receive this funding—no 'what ifs' and no 'maybes'; just a date when construction can start—but he won't do that. He will fob off these questions and play politics and try to point-score and blame the state government. As we have seen so clearly tonight, Liberal senators opposite are preoccupied with what the state government is doing and not what their government has failed to do. Six months after this announcement was made, still no new houses have been built in communities that desperately need this housing. No wonder these communities don't feel heard by this government and feel far away from this place, when these issues that are so important to these communities are fobbed off and when these communities are told that 'one day' they will receive this money but are not told the date that it will be received. I can understand why they feel that they are so far away from the decisions that are made in this place. This is an issue that should be raised by a voice to parliament by the First Nations people—not a voice to parliament that doesn't include the Torres Strait islanders who live north of the Cape. If we had a genuine voice to parliament, if the Uluru statement were accessed in the way that our First Nations people have asked, would I really need to be standing here talking about people who live 3,000 kilometres away and advocating on their behalf or would they be doing it for themselves? Ultimately, that is what we need in this place, and I hope that this funding is delivered long before the First Nations people— (Time expired) Climate Change 99 22:10 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland On this Remembrance Day, and as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to pay tribute to those who, through their labour, helped build this amazing country. I speak of our farmers in communities right around our country. Farm work is more than just dawn-to-dusk physical work; it is more than the stress of banks; it is more than the stress of bureaucrats and environmentalism. Here, on the driest inhabited continent on earth, our farmers must contend with natural drought. Sadly, they must also contend with unnatural bureaucracy and unnatural levels of ignorance. Driven by the United Nations Environmental Assembly, farmers are being blamed for climate variability through vegetation reduction and even their farting cows—maybe even their burping cows—yet, Mr President, have you seen what happens to a property in a drought once it is deprived of water? It turns into a wasteland with a corresponding loss of habitat for native Australian animals. It stops sequestering carbon. I mention the word 'carbon' because it's a favourite play toy of the Greens, the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Nationals. Let's explore the word 'carbon' for minute, because this is dogging farmers. Carbon is a solid. It is diamonds; it is graphite in the lead of pencils. Carbon dioxide is a gas. A solid is not a gas. Carbon, the solid, is in every cell of every living organism. It's in every cell of ourselves. As I said, carbon dioxide is not carbon. We inhale air with a carbon dioxide content of 0.04—trivial. We exhale it at 100 times that level: four per cent. So we are making carbon dioxide, and the plants love us for it because carbon dioxide is the driver of everything that is green. Everything that is green relies on carbon dioxide. Farmers know this. Farmers know that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and yet they are being blamed for causing climate change when it's really just natural climate variability. By their own nonsensical climate change argument, the Greens, the Labor Party and the Liberal Party show that dewatering a property makes the environment worse off, not better. When you stop water, you stop plant growth. When you stop plant growth, you stop the sequestering of carbon dioxide. On my recent visit to Cobram, in Victoria, farmers shared stories of the wildlife on their farms. One dairy farmer had a wildlife expert who counted 35 native Australian species on his small dairy farm. This included fish, frogs and turtles in their dam, and mammals and native Australian birds on the land. On another farm, with 100 acres of native bush down the back that benefited from run-off from their farming, he found 200 species in that little area. Our farmers are doing much more than just saving Australians from starvation and the weather; they are saving our wildlife as well, and yet all we hear is that farmers are causing climate change, which in turn has caused the terrible fires. That is false. Farmers are now being blamed for fires, yet they're the ones who want to have fire breaks, fire trails, vegetation thinning and back-burning. They know how to prevent fires and how to manage and minimise the fuel load. Farmers don't cause fires; farmers prevent fires. I say to the people promoting the nonsense that farmers control fires: how dare you, because it is false. Farmers must contend with activists invading their homes as well. Farmers are blamed for footage of animals suffering in the live export trade, only to find out, after their livelihoods were destroyed, that the footage was faked. Activists suborned fake footage to promote their antihuman hate campaign against farmers. Anybody who hates farmers hates humans. The ABC ran the story. How can those city journalists of an organisation with such a long history, with so many ties to the country, through ABC rural services, hate our country so much? How can these journalists hate farmers so much? Farmers along the Queensland coast are being blamed for the chemical contamination of the reef, which is non-existent, because farm chemicals are not detectable in the reef water. Why do they demonise, for no reason, farmers who are growing products Australians use every day? This is madness. Despite this, the farmers continue their work. Water has ceased to be an input to production and has now become an input to politics. Water is being used to send small, medium and family farms to the wall. This is corporatism masquerading as environmentalism. The 'useful idiots', the Greens, are being used by corporate agriculture and the United Nations to wipe out the competition, steal property rights and control every business input. We could name farmer after farmer who has been devastated by rampant regulations driven by political environmentalism. Political environmentalism is not making the world a better place; it is making the world cold, hungry and miserable. In Cobram the other day I met an earthmover and a teacher. Terry was the earthmover, and the teacher needed to be anonymous to protect her career—such is what happens these days when one speaks up against the Left. Terry, though, depends on farmers. He works in construction. When farmers need work done, whether it is a dam or some clearing, he gets it done, but now farmers are not ordering jobs, because they have lost confidence. They haven't lost confidence because of the drought—they know that droughts come and go, droughts start and end, and they know this one will end, because droughts are cyclical—farmers have lost confidence because of government. They cannot see the end to political and bureaucratic insanity. They don't know what is down the road tomorrow, next week, next month or next year, coming out of this place and out of their state capital in Melbourne. Still the farmers' spirit shines. They will rally in Yass on Tuesday 2 December and drive in convoy to Canberra, where they will let us know what they think of the people in this building. One Nation applauds and thanks our farmers for their efforts and looks forward to the day when our society casts off this pseudo-environmental lunacy that is just socialism masquerading as environmentalism and once again appreciates farmers for the amazing work that they do in growing food and fibre for the world, for us all. Rockliff, Lance Corporal Adye Glen 100 22:18 Senator ABETZ N26 Tasmania Today I had the privilege of laying a wreath on behalf of the Prime Minister and the people of Australia at the Hobart Cenotaph to commemorate the contribution of our service men and women on this Remembrance Day. As I did so I recalled that last month a simple death notice marked the passing of Tasmanian World War II veteran TX3754, Adye Glen Rockliff. The death notice read as follows: … the widows, children, grandchildren and friends of Adye's commrades from C-Company of 2nd/3rd Machine Gun Battalion extend our deepest sympathy to his family. A humble, able and much respected man; and— most poignantly— the last surviving prisoner of war of this unit. One of Dunlop's Thousand. He was 98 years old. Adye enlisted in the Second AIF, aged 18, and trained initially in Tasmania. The 2/3rd Machine Gun Battalion was formed in June 1940 and served in Egypt, Syria, the Netherlands, the East Indies and New Guinea. Under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Blackburn, the battalion was primarily a South Australian unit, although it had subunits: B Company in Victoria, C Company in Tasmania and D Company in Western Australia. In April 1941, the battalion embarked for the Middle East. In June and July it saw action against Vichy French forces in Syria with the 7th division. Following Japan's entry into the war, Australian troops from the Middle East were transferred to the Pacific region. In early 1942, the Japanese advanced through the Netherlands East Indies. Four days after the fall of Singapore, and on the day Darwin was bombed, Australian troops disembarked in Java from the troopship Orcades, having been diverted on their return journey to Australia. Adye's unit was joined by the 2nd/2nd Pioneer Battalion and the 2nd/2nd Casualty Clearing Station, which had served at Tobruk. The clearing station included the much renowned surgeon Edward 'Weary' Dunlop, a man whom I had the privilege of meeting. These units and others already on the island became known as Black Force. On the night of 28 February, when the Japanese began landing, Tasmania C Company was at the forefront of the action. It resulted in the loss of seven members killed and 28 wounded, but afterwards they found that they had killed no fewer than 200 Japanese. However, Black Force was ordered to surrender on 9 March, following the Dutch capitulation the day before. Members of Black Force unit spent captivity in a wide range of locations, including Thailand, Japan and Singapore. One hundred and thirty-nine from the 2nd/3rd MG Battalion died as prisoners. Adye and other Tasmanians moved to a prisoner-of-war camp and came under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Weary Dunlop. They were then transferred to Changi, in Singapore, and then the Burma-Thailand railway. Nine thousand five hundred Australians worked on this railway, where 2,646 died from the deprivations, the effects of tropical diseases and malnutrition. This was despite the heroic efforts of doctors and officers like Weary Dunlop. After 18 months of this brutal existence, Adye and some of his unit were selected to work in Japan in undersea coalmines. His convoy of 14 transport ships suffered bad weather and attacks by allied submarines, meaning only four ships reached Japan. Twenty-seven members of his machine gun battalion died on one of those sunken ships. Rockliff survived in the coalmine until the end of the war. He returned to Tasmania after six years at war and immediately found it difficult to reacclimatise to normal life, no longer fighting to survive each day or dealing with life-or-death issues. He found Australia had changed. His brothers and sisters had grown. And he felt the loss of being part of a large organisation such as the Army. Like his prisoner-of-war camp commander Weary Dunlop, after the war Adye became an advocate for his returned comrades, often battling the department for medical and social assistance for fellow mates. In recent years, he took the opportunity to write to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and also to write a book on his wartime experience, entitled simply The WarTime Memories of Adye Rockliff. Adye was the loving husband of his wife, Sheila (deceased); loving father of John (deceased), David, Kathy and Chris; father-in-law of Merril and Sue; and grandfather of Claire, Megan, Aaron and Luke. Adye Glen Rockliff's sacrifice in war for his family and his country was typical of many Australians who served in World War II and those who continue to serve in the Australian Defence Force. His battles with the Department of Veterans' Affairs remind us of the importance of getting the right response by government to the recommendations of the Productivity Commission's review of veterans' entitlements. His life reminds us of the importance of Australian values mateship, loyalty and courage in the face of adversity and that there are virtues, values and principles which are worthy of sacrifice. His sacrifice and that of his fellow veterans was acknowledged by the Prime Minister in his recent visit to Hellfire Pass and the memorial to our prisoners of war that were on the Burma Thailand Railway. The memorial, I had the honour of visiting—and, indeed, of hearing, as I walked around, the reminiscences of former Labor minister Tom Uren and former Liberal government Senate leader John Carrick, both of whom continued their service, after the war, in this parliament. It is appropriate on days such as this to reflect that our privilege to serve in this place was bought with the blood and lives of our forebears and continues to be protected today by similarly minded individuals in our ADF. In my home state, we have seen the Headstone Project in Tasmania mark the final resting place of World War I veterans who previously lay in unmarked graves. It is right and proper to continue the tradition of acknowledging the sacrifices of our diggers on Remembrance Day and to offer our deep heartfelt thanks to all those who served in any war or conflict. Lest we forget. Senate adjourned at 22 : 26