I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator.

As my colleague Minister Colbeck was starting a speech yesterday, I would like to reiterate that this bill, the Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2019, passed in the other place, made provision for the chair or sole commissioner to authorise assistant commissioners to hold private sessions. As has already been outlined, the bill placed limits on the circumstances in which an assistant commissioner could be authorised to hold a private session. Only appropriately qualified and senior staff of the commission could be authorised as assistant commissioners. The bill made the presumption that private sessions must be held by a commissioner unless the chair or sole commissioner considered that there were circumstances that justified assistant commissioners holding private sessions. This provision was intended to give more flexibility to a commission. It was not envisaged that the power would be necessary for multipanel inquiries with many commissioners. It may have been useful for a royal commission with only one or two commissioners to hold more private sessions. I think I may be a little bit ahead of myself; nonetheless, I thank senators for their contribution to the debate, and I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill, and I seek leave to move government amendments (2), (3), (4), (5), (7) and (8) together.

Leave granted.

I move:

(2) Schedule 1, items 7 to 13, page 4 (line 18) to page 6 (line 10), omit the items, substitute:

7 Section 6OB

Repeal the section, substitute:

6OB Power to hold private sessions

Who may hold a private session

  (1) If a Royal Commission is constituted by 2 or more members, the following members may hold a private session for the Commission to obtain information in relation to matters into which the Commission is inquiring:

(a) the Chair of the Commission;

(b) a member who is authorised in writing by the Chair of the Commission.

  (2) If a Royal Commission is constituted by a sole Commissioner, the sole Commissioner may hold a private session for the Commission to obtain information in relation to matters into which the Commission is inquiring.

Number of members who may hold a private session

  (3) A private session held under subsection (1) may be held only by one or 2 members.

Conduct of a private session

  (4) If a private session is held for a Royal Commission under subsection (1), any member of the Commission holding the private session may (subject to the Letters Patent establishing the Commission and Division 3) determine any matters relating to the conduct of the private session, having regard to any directions given by the Chair of the Commission.

  (5) If a private session is held for a Royal Commission under subsection (2), the sole Commissioner holding the private session may (subject to the Letters Patent establishing the Commission and Division 3) determine any matters relating to the conduct of the private session.

(3) Schedule 1, item 16, page 6 (line 24), omit "person", substitute "member".

(4) Schedule 1, item 16, page 7 (line 1), omit "person", substitute "member".

(5) Schedule 1, item 21, page 7 (lines 16 to 18), omit the item, substitute:

21 Paragraph 6OC(6 ) ( a)

Omit "of the Child Sexual Abuse Royal Commission".

(7) Schedule 1, item 27, page 8 (lines 11 to 13), omit the item, substitute:

27 Section 6OG

Omit "of the Child Sexual Abuse Royal Commission".

(8) Schedule 1, item 42, page 12 (line 2), omit "6OF,".

We also oppose schedule 1 in the following terms:

(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (lines 6 to 11), TO BE OPPOSED.

[who may hold private sessions]

(6) Schedule 1, items 24 and 25, page 7 (line 29) to page 8 (line 7), TO BE OPPOSED.

I was reading from the wrong area on the bill, so I do apologise to the Senate. The bill passed in the other place made provisions for the chair or sole commissioner to authorise assistant commissioners to hold private sessions. The bill placed limits on the circumstances in which an assistant commissioner could be authorised to hold a private session. Only appropriately qualified and senior staff of the commission could be authorised as assistant commissioners. The bill made a presumption that a private session must be held by a commissioner unless the chair or sole commissioner considered that there are circumstances that justified assistant commissioners holding private sessions. This provision was intended to give more flexibility to a commission. It was not envisaged that the power would be necessary for multi-panel inquiries with many commissioners. It may have been useful to a royal commission, with only one or two commissioners, to hold more private sessions. However, the government has listened to stakeholders and determined that only royal commissioners should be empowered to hold private sessions.

It is important that individuals who may share highly sensitive and personal information in a private session feel confident in the process. That is why the government has circulated amendments to remove the provisions relating to assistant commissioners. This approach is consistent with the private session regime adopted by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The effect of the amendments is that only a sole commissioner, the chair of a multi-member commission or a commissioner authorised by the chair is empowered to hold private sessions.

Labor is pleased to support this amendment. The amendment would remove the ability of a royal commissioner to delegate to a senior staff member the power to receive evidence in a private session. This amendment addresses a concern that was raised with Labor by Senator Steele-John and disability advocates in relation to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability—concerns that we then raised with the government.

While there may be circumstances where it is appropriate for a senior staff member with particular skills to receive evidence in a private session in the context of some future royal commissions, Labor agrees that it would not be appropriate in the context of the disability royal commission. Labor recognises that survivors of abuse should have the opportunity to have their stories heard by a commissioner and not by a senior staff member, however qualified that person may be. While there was no suggestion that the chair of the disability royal commission would in fact delegate to senior staff members the power to hold private sessions, the existence of such a power caused understandable anxiety for some in the disability community. We thank Senator Steele-John and disability advocates for raising their concerns with Labor on this issue. We also thank the government for working with Labor to positively and constructively respond to those concerns by moving this amendment.

I would like to thank the crossbench and the major parties for working with disability organisations and the Greens to progress these amendments. It is right to say that, when the bill in its original form was presented to the community, there were concerns about the potential impacts on victims and the creation of a three-tiered royal commission process. These amendments effectively address those concerns. I would also like to put on the record our acknowledgement that there will be a large amount of work for this royal commission to do in terms of hearing the stories of survivors and organisations. If we take the institutional responses royal commission as a template, over the period of its life, that royal commission heard from 8,100 individuals. It is not unreasonable to suggest that this royal commission will hear from far more folks coming forward with their stories. So there may well be a capacity challenge for the commission going forward. I would encourage the government to engage with disabled people should such a challenge occur and to keep itself open to the idea of the appointment of additional commissioners to the process in order to bring additional expertise into the commission and ensure that it can be completed within a reasonable time frame. Having said that, we commend these amendments.

Despite moving the two amendments together, we will deal with the question separately. The question is that items 5, 24 and 25 in schedule 1 stand as printed.

Question negatived.

The question is that the remaining amendments, numbers 2 to 5, 7 and 8, be agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time.

The Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Bill 2019 aims to provide an additional independent layer of accountability and assurance over the regulation of Australia's livestock exports. The bill's purpose is twofold: (1) to promote continual improvements in the regulatory practice, performance and culture of the department's function as the authority responsible for the administration and operation of the export regulatory system as it applies to the export of livestock in Australia; and (2) to provide an additional layer of accountability and assurance over the regulation of Australia's livestock exports.

The agriculture minister's speech made it clear that the inspector-general, in addition to providing greater assurance in the regulation of live animals, will also review and report on broader animal welfare issues. It is important to make this point, as the bill itself did not initially mention animal welfare. So Labor is pleased that the government has moved amendments to clarify the intent of the bill. However, the fact that it has taken the coalition government over six years to ensure that there is another layer of independent oversight to the regulator says a lot about the culture of this government and its attitude towards animal welfare.

I also note that the minister's speech, on cue, did mention the 2011 suspension of the live cattle trade to Indonesia, making the bizarre claim, 'It's amazing how quickly we have forgotten.' Nobody on this side has forgotten and nobody is shying away from how difficult the suspension was. The Liberal-National coalition government remind the parliament at every opportunity, but their political motivation is telling of how this sad government works. For the last six years, there has been a lot of talk from the coalition government, but yet again we have seen very little real, long-term action. The bill that we are discussing today is not new and should have been legislated no less than six years ago.

I want to make it clear that Labor will be supporting the bill. However, I will be moving a second reading amendment which criticises the government for abolishing the Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports position established by the former Labor government. This decision removed an additional layer of accountability for the regulator and contributed to the demise of public confidence in the regulator.

If the government had legislated the inspector-general bill back in 2013, the regulator possibly would have better understood what they should have considered in terms of animal welfare when issuing export permits. It took the 2018 60 Minutes program to expose the fact that animal welfare was not properly considered before the regulator issued permits.

The fact is mortality is not—and I say again: not—an indicator of animal welfare; it is just an indicator of death. I acknowledge that the minister does admit that Australians were 'appalled' in 2018 when they saw footage of sheep dying on voyages to the Middle East, and many were further angered by the assessment that the mortality incidents report 'did not match the footage'. However, I note that the minister omits talking about the Morrison government shutting down, overnight, the live sheep trade during the Middle Eastern summer, without any support being provided to the affected sheep farmers—the Morrison government. Indeed, that might be why we have another new agriculture minister, because the previous minister, Mr Littleproud, did take the issue seriously and made many tough decisions which revealed failings by the regulator and a massive problem in the culture within the department.

But let's go back to 2013. On 30 July 2013 the former Labor agriculture minister, the member for Hunter, announced that Labor would appoint an inspector-general of animal welfare and live animal exports. The position would have added another layer of assurance that our regulatory system was delivering the animal welfare outcomes we want through auditing and reviewing the investigative and compliance processes. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? At the time, Labor made it clear that, with the new position, there would be no additional burden of red tape on our exporters or on our trading partners, that the position was to provide confidence that appropriate animal welfare outcomes were being met—it was not about shutting the industry down—and that the position was a sensible extension of a world's best system that balances the need to ensure that the regulatory system is delivering the international animal welfare standards the Australian community expects.

It is important to reflect on the concept of the 'world's best system', because this system was put in place by Labor very quickly post the suspension of the trade in 2011. This system, for those who don't know, is called the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, which we refer to as ESCAS. ESCAS has ensured the long-term sustainability of the trade—in particular, the cattle trade. The inspector-general might have ensured the long-term sustainability of the sheep trade, as the heat stress of the sheep might have been brought to the attention of the regulator earlier and changes in animal welfare standards could have been developed.

But, back in 2013, post the election, the then agriculture minister—that's another one altogether, the member for New England, and we know who that is—made it clear what the culture should be from the regulator. Actually, I'll make it even clearer; it was Mr Barnaby Joyce. He said that that would have an inherent conflict of delivering the minister's mandate and trying to be an independent regulator even though the position is not a statutory position. So, on 31 October 2013, three ministers ago, the former minister—as I said, the member for New England—abolished the inspector-general, claiming that the inspector-general was 'a classic example of layer upon layer of bureaucracy without any practical outcome'. He also said that the livestock export regulator 'was already, and remains, subject to appropriate oversight and review mechanisms'. He also said that this was 'one bit of red tape we can do without'. Remember, this is Mr Joyce, the member for New England.

But Mr Joyce wasn't the only opponent. Surprise, surprise, the National Farmers' Federation also appeared short-sighted—I don't say that too lightly, because, unfortunately, I've had to deal with them many times—and wrote to the former minister, claiming that the NFF 'is concerned that the proposed independent inspector-general of animal welfare and live animal exports addresses a perceived political problem but does not address the concerns of industry, animal welfare groups and stakeholders. Any new institution must not be a cost on industry and must not add extra compliance onto industry.' I'll go on. This is still the NFF, who said that industry is 'fully committed to improving animal welfare on farm and across supply chains in Australia and in our overseas livestock export markets. We are proud that our starting point is world's best practice as international stewards in this area. It is important that we work together to further strengthen the robust regulatory structures that we currently have in place.' That was the NFF.

Now, ensuring that appropriate animal welfare standards are achieved will be possible only once all those who have an interest in the trade take animal welfare seriously. 'Animal welfare' is not a dirty word. It is good for productivity and for Australia's trading reputation. This bill is a step in the right direction. However, more transparency, so we see that the regulator is doing the job it should be doing, will go a very long way.

The minister is refusing to release a number of reports, including the heat stress risk assessment report and the final investigation report into the allegations made in the media that live export workers had been offered money to obtain and leak footage of animal cruelty on export vessels and that whistleblowers had offered to cut off ventilation and switch off exhaust fans to distressed sheep on voyages in order to receive payments. The fact is that over the last six years we've had three ministers. The first set the culture of 'nothing to see here'; you know who that is. Then the second minister, Mr Littleproud, tried to clean up the mess he inherited. Now we have a test for the new Minister for Agriculture: to ensure that the regulator is able to do its job without fear or favour.

As I said before, Labor supports this bill. However, I move the following second reading amendment on sheet No. 8747 standing in my name:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate:

(a) condemns the action of the Coalition government which in 2013 abolished the position of Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports, established by the former Labor government; and

(b) notes that this decision removed an additional layer of accountability, contributing to the loss of public confidence in the regulator."

Can I speak to the amendments now, Madam Deputy President?

Yes.

I got the look, so I thought I'd better check. I'll go to the proposed government and Faruqi amendments, if I can take the opportunity to do that now?

Sure.

Labor will support government amendments (1) and (2). Labor supports these amendments as they essentially clarify what the assistant minister alluded to in his speech when he stated:

The Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Bill 2019 will provide greater assurance in the regulation of live animal exports and broader animal welfare issues.

As I put on the record during the general debate, the bill is a step in the right direction to rebuild confidence, change the culture and ensure another layer of independent assurance over the regulation of Australia's live exports. The current interim inspector-general, Mr Ross Carter, was appointed in March 2019 and has already published his three-year work plan, which demonstrates that he will consider animal welfare as part of his broad remit. The current work program includes reviews into: monitoring and reporting during livestock export voyages; livestock export licensing and permits; the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System; Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock; response to external inquiries, reports, complaints, allegations and incidents; managing risk; approved arrangements; regulatory culture, regulatory capability, skills, resources and technology; and interaction and interface with state and territory animal welfare regulation.

Labor reiterates its disappointment that it has taken this third-term coalition government more than six years to re-establish the inspector-general position, but we look forward to the inspector-general's recommendations as to how the overall regulatory system can be improved. On that, we recommend the bill to the Senate.

I rise to speak to the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Bill 2019 and to indicate at the outset that, while the Greens will be supporting this bill, we do so only because even a little bit of something is better than nothing at all. At the end of the day, this bill, as it stands, is somewhat of a toothless tiger; it doesn't even meet the recommendations of the Moss review—the very advice this government is pretending to be taking. I foreshadow that I will be moving amendments to address some key flaws in this bill.

It has been a few months since the Senate passed a motion calling on the government to release independent observers' reports more transparently and more quickly. I can see that the government has begun to comply with this, with more 2018 reports being released—although I should note that just six reports from 2019 have been completed and released out of the 65 voyages taken to date this year. What is contained in these reports is really quite incredible. The independent observers all use the same words and come to the same conclusion of 'no issues identified'. The words make it seem like there were no issues at all. But when you get to the photos and you see cattle and sheep piled up on top of one another, wading in their own faeces and in flooded pens, you see that things are a bit different. The observers go on to congratulate the exporters on how generous the size of the pens is, when they allow only half of the cows to lie down at any one time. And calves continue to be born on these ships of misery.

Then, of course, you realise that these conditions are business-as-usual for the live-export industry. From reading the reports, there are two particularly sickening voyages I wish to identify to the Senate. I want to highlight a particularly gruesome part of the report on MV Ganado Express. In 2018, while loading MV Ganado Express with cattle in Townsville, three cattle were killed. The independent observer's report states:

There were three mortalities which occurred prior to leaving Australian waters. Two of the cattle were spooked by the feeding process and fractured their leg when it was caught on the pen rails. The cattle were euthanased by the stockperson. These two cattle were in the 500 to 700 kilograms bodyweight range and were euthanised using a captive bolt that did not appear to be powerful enough for the size and breed of the cattle. The stockperson showed experience in technique and placement of the captive bolt, however both cattle required six applications of the captive bolt.

How can you not see this as an issue? Obviously, for this government the terror that these animals feel has no meaning.

Take the report on MV Ocean Ute, which voyaged from Portland in Victoria to Tianjin in China. Over the 22-day voyage, 47 cows died, including from bovine respiratory diseases. So, it's not just heat stress that kills and tortures animals on live-export ships. On this voyage, the temperature decreased to around zero degrees. This is how inhumane live export really is.

Bills like the one we are debating today perpetuate the myth that there is some kind of regulatory failure that can be addressed to stop the cruelty. Of course regulatory failures must be stopped, but the truth is that there is only one thing that can stop the cruelty and that is to ban live export. When the former agriculture minister, Minister Littleproud, announced last year the intention to establish a live-export inspector-general, he said that the live-export industry needs 'a tough cop on the beat'. I'm sorry, but this bill ain't it. The bill doesn't even reference animal welfare and won't allow the inspector-general to investigate individual actions. There is no mention of animal welfare in the entire bill. The whole reason that this bill exists is the Moss review, which was set up to investigate the horrific torture of animals in live exports. I have no confidence that the bill, as introduced by the government, and the inspector-general, as defined in this legislation, will actually improve animal welfare at all.

The first set of amendments I circulated would rectify this. I do understand now that the government has taken up my amendments and they've circulated them as well. If animal welfare is an objective for this government, and Senator Duniam's second reading speech mentioned animal welfare about 10 times, I think, then why not include it in the bill from the very start? However, it is good to see that the government has since taken up my amendments—the Greens' amendments—to insert 'animal welfare' in the objects of the act, and to ensure that live-export officials, in performing functions and in exercising powers, consider the welfare of animals. The amendments will also insert a requirement for the inspector-general to consider the welfare of live export animals in their investigations.

I've also circulated another amendment to this bill which will bring the inspector-general in line with the recommendations of the Review of the Regulatory Capability and Culture of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources in the Regulation of Live Animal Exports conducted by Mr Philip Moss AM, commonly known as the Moss review. The Moss review did call for an inspector-general of live exports who would 'review the performance of functions or exercise of powers by department staff members in the regulation of live animal exports'. This clearly calls for the ability to exercise the review of functions by departmental staff. Yet here we have a bill that explicitly prevents this from happening. Section 10(2) of the bill states:

Subsection (1) does not permit the Inspector-General to review only a single performance of a function, or a single exercise of a power, by a single live-stock export official.

This would actually rule out the inspector-general investigating any individual decision of a livestock export official. This is why I call this bill a toothless tiger—pretending to do something without actually doing it.

I understand that the government has very lazily done a cut-and-paste job from the Biosecurity Act 2015, and in doing so has actually missed the point of this Moss review recommendation. As it stands, the bill doesn't fulfil the recommendations of the Moss review, as the government claims, and my amendment would remove this unnecessary restriction on the inspector-general. Ultimately, we need to end live exports. In the meantime, we should at the very least be doing everything we can to improve animal welfare.

Australia is already recognised as the world leader in animal welfare provisions for live export, and now this government is going even further. Australia is third in the world, behind Canada and France, for live exports by value, and our live export standards are the most stringent in the world. It would be terrific if we had those on the other side putting as much effort into asking our competitors to come up to our standard as they do into berating what is already world's best practice. For instance, Australia is the only country that requires specific animal welfare outcomes for all livestock exports.

The Morrison government's move to further enhance the welfare of live animal exports should be welcomed by all Australians as a positive step towards ensuring the prosperity of cattle producers, improving animal welfare and enhancing the industry's reputation. Adding another layer of regulation is not a good outcome—but it is the only tool in the opposition's toolbox. Instead of encouraging best practice, instead of encouraging an industry that is working hard at every turn to improve its own practices and the practices of other partners in the industry, all we have is an opposition that was ready at a moment's notice to shut down an industry, to make those animals worthless and to have very poor animal welfare outcomes across the far north of Australia, where the vast majority of these animals come from—not to mention the human impact on small businesses, graziers and farmers who were all brought to the edge of mental illness by the overnight shutdown of an industry that is very important to our nation.

This legislation is the sort of practical solution that people have come to expect from the coalition, as opposed to those disastrous actions of Labor, who only do what sounds good rather than what works. I have spoken to graziers who nearly lost everything when live exports were summarily stopped on Labor's watch, and I can assure you the bitterness is still there and will be around for a long time. Unlike Labor and the Greens, the coalition wants regional areas to not just survive but thrive, and exporting our meat animals gives remote and rural Australians the best chance of achieving this. It also gives the importing countries a chance to thrive by ensuring that their people have access to fresh meat and enough protein to satisfy their needs. The damage that we did to our relationships with our trading partners through that overnight shutdown is immeasurable.

But it is not just any meat that our trading partners want. They want Australian meat, because we have the best produce in the world that continually has international industry representatives saying: teach us how you do it. The Beef Australia expo held triennially in Rockhampton, which is the beef capital of Australia, has participants from many countries coming to do business and learn from our best practice. The live export trade was valued at over $1.7 billion in 2017-18 and supports the livelihoods of thousands of people in rural and regional Australia. It is crucial to Australia's economic performance and the ability of graziers to continue making a living that this trade continues.

But let's be clear: no-one, especially the farmers and the graziers, is happy to see footage of animals being mistreated, and anyone who says otherwise merely displays their ignorance of what goes into producing meat for human consumption. The cash-for-footage scandal highlights the incentive that has now been provided for people to mistreat and then film animals. I've seen graziers put themselves at great personal peril and great personal expense to save stock from floods, drought and now fires. I've seen hard men of the land reduced to inconsolable tears at the sight of livestock they've lost. The welfare of the animals that rely on them for food, water and safety is paramount.

That's another reason the Morrison government is investing in the Northern Australia Beef Roads Program—$100 million. But all over Australia the meat industry is investing in animal welfare initiatives. The red meat beef sustainability framework is an example of that. More specific examples are Roma saleyards in South West Queensland, holding itself to the very high standards of low-impact methods to move and weigh cattle, and Dalby saleyards putting the entire saleyard under cover at great expense.

There is a huge amount of research being done on other ways to increase animal welfare, all the way from the moment they're born. But this is not being driven by government; it is being driven by industry. It was the industry, not the government, that made the decision to halt exports during the summer months, and this government's added animal welfare checks are merely improving what is already being done in the meat producing sector. The Australian government does not tolerate cruelty towards animals and is constantly working to improve animal welfare conditions in importing countries. It's working with industry and our trading partners to improve the transportation, handling and slaughter of livestock in overseas markets.

However, our farmers and the Australian public need the assurance that the government is serious about the welfare of livestock exports. This bill will establish an Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports. It will build confidence in this country's animal welfare checks by providing an extra independent layer of accountability. This is a practical measure that balances the needs of animals, the concerns of citizens and the viability of meat processors. It keeps live exports going, it keeps farming families on the land and able to make a decent living and it shows the world that we're serious about leading the way, in partnership with industry, in farming innovation and quality control and that we're serious about the health of our livestock.

But I have to say that I was surprised that a senator from Western Australia would speak to the amendments being proposed by the ALP that are purely cheap political point scoring, looking back, as Labor does, into the past and not into the future. And, of course, the amendments proposed by the Greens are, as usual, not just useless but not practical.

One Nation is a proud supporter of the live animal export industry. We are proud of our farmers and the diligence they display to produce cattle and sheep and to prepare them for export around the globe. They do a great job in an industry that often throws up unpredictable circumstances. They deal with fluctuating weather, fluctuating prices, the difficult process of planning ahead when they face uncertain future demand, the costs and maintenance of farm machinery and staff, media bias and narrow-minded protests.

Our cattle and sheep are of the highest quality—the best in the world—and they are a vital part of Australia's export regime and our economy generally. They're also part of our national character and the Aussie DNA. A One Nation delegation recently visited a pre-export feedlot for sheep in Western Australia. Our party loves to meet people directly, face to face, to learn about the needs in this country, and the visit to the feedlot was one such visit. The delegation was headed by One Nation member of the Western Australian Legislative Council Colin Tincknell, a great representative of the people of Western Australia, along with our other MLC, Robin Scott. I was due to attend but was unable to due to the flu. The reports that came back to me were very encouraging.

I can say without a doubt that the people who deal with our live sheep exports are meticulous along the entire supply chain to ensure that the animals are well cared for. The animals' needs are met in terms of a well-balanced diet. Their health and comfort needs are met in the holding sheds—the sheds are well ventilated, the animals have access to feed, waste is removed promptly, ventilation is superb, they are sheared if the depth of their wool is more than 20 millimetres, and the parasite requirements of the customer countries are met.

Media reports in the past have suggested that our farmers are somehow heartless when it comes to live animal exports. That is an absurd suggestion that defies logic. Our farmers depend on their land and their herds year in and year out. It is in their best interests to manage their properties wisely, to care very humanely for their animals and to ensure that they do all that they can to maintain the high-quality beasts that Australia is known for.

The visit to the pre-export feedlot helped to further highlight the high level of care and treatment given to sheep to ensure stress is reduced, health is maintained and quality remains high. The visited feedlot can house 84,000 sheep in winter and 95,000 in summer, prior to their export to Israel, Jordan and Turkey, which all have specific health protocols that must be met in order for the sheep to be accepted. Harold Sealy of Livestock Shipping Services, who guided our delegation around the feedlot, outlined how meticulous they are in caring for the sheep. The animals are sorted according to weight, which is monitored entirely throughout the trip to the customer. Sheep are very susceptible to stress and can lose weight very easily, so it's a good indicator of how well they are cared for throughout the process. As Mr Sealy outlined:

They come in from the farm, we put them on the vessel and they arrive at their destination at their original weight or a fraction better; it shows that the animals have travelled well and work has been done to eliminate stress.

International competition from other sheep exporters means that Australian sheep must be of the highest quality to ensure acceptance. It's ordinary supply and demand. Quality products attract the interests of customers, and that's what our Australian farmers give them. As Mr Sealy made clear:

Without us delivering an article to the customer, we don't have an income, so we take great care of our animals, as do our farmers, and it's insulting to say we don't care about our animals.

One of our biggest selling points is we are Australia—we have great biosecurity and we have a very healthy animal, and the health of that animal is one of the reasons they want to have that animal.

We have live sheep and live animal exports because a lot of these countries, such as Indonesia, have large populations. They can't take processed meat, because they don't have refrigeration for it. They need to slaughter on a needs basis to feed the populace. It's quite interesting.

I, like most Australians, do care about the health and wellbeing of the animals and that they are treated fairly. We all saw the report about the mistreatment of sheep on that vessel. That begs the question: was it a set-up to destroy live sheep and cattle exports? I say to the Greens or anyone else who is protesting and wants to stop live exports because of the treatment of the sheep and cattle: let's start looking in our own backyard, at our slaughterhouses and how they slaughter animals here. The RSPCA have complained about this. People are slaughtering cattle in Australia by merely slitting their throats, without stunning them first. If you're really concerned about the wellbeing of these animals and how they are slaughtered, we need to start cleaning up our own backyard and look at how we slaughter animals.

Stopping the export business would be detrimental to a lot of the farming sector. It is a great resource, especially for Western Australia and the Northern Territory. We cannot lose this export business. If we shut it down in any way whatsoever, these countries will go elsewhere looking for the product that they need. It is best to ensure that there is a very, very high standard in the live export of animals from this country, to ensure that we do not lose this income source that we have and to ensure that we protect and look after our farmers whose income is purely based on live exports. We have to get over our emotions with this, let our heads rule our hearts with regard to live exports and ensure that we get it right and are known for our good quality. We can do that. We have done it. It is happening. I will not stand back and see our farming sector ridiculed and criticised, when people are doing the right thing. This is purely based on emotion, people wanting to shut down our live exports.

I rise to make a contribution on the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Bill 2019, and I thank all senators who have spoken before me. This is an important bill for my home state of Western Australia, because it puts in place another one of the foundation stones, another one of the girders, that allow for this sustainable industry to continue and to keep on improving. As Senator Reynolds, who is in the chamber, knows only too well, this is a vital component of agriculture in our home state of Western Australia—particularly the sheep industry, although the cattle industry also have live exports of their product from Western Australia. But it is a very significant part of our sheep industry in Western Australia.

I have risen to speak on this topic a number of times in this place, and I think in every contribution I have made the point that we do not just export animals; we export animal welfare standards. When we engage with our trading partners overseas through the live trade, we export our standards to those countries. That also has a downside. It means that, when we withdraw from a market, when we are not able to fulfil a particular market opportunity, the live exports come from elsewhere—countries with standards that are not comparable. I will highlight that recently the extended northern summer ban meant that some 80,000 head of sheep from South Africa were transported into Kuwait. That's a wonderful opportunity for the South African farmers, but the fact is that South Africa do not impose on their agricultural industries the kinds of requirements that we impose on ours. They do not have the equivalent of the ESCAS, which means that, when we send our stock overseas, we are not just sending an animal; we are sending our animal welfare standards. This is something that everyone in Australia must know.

As I've said, we as a country, particularly in this area, lead the world in animal welfare standards. The ESCAS, the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, which is funded by Australian producers, ensures that Australian standards for animal welfare and animal treatment are adhered to right up until slaughter. That means that all animals that go through an ESCAS certified facility in a foreign country actually benefit from those improved animal welfare standards that Australia has developed and helped other countries adopt.

Can the industry get better, and has it got better? Absolutely. We have seen, since the resumption of the trade, some rather outstanding results in animal welfare, with very low rates of mortality. These are rates of mortality that farmers would be very happy to have in their paddocks. We have seen that, by the trade embracing things such as reduced stocking density, improved reporting requirements, improved standards for the vessels and the three-month self-imposed moratorium on shipments to the Middle East during the Northern Hemisphere summer, all these things are coming together and ensuring a sustainable, high-quality industry continues long into the future.

There is an economic component to this. Of course there is. The live export trade was worth around $500 million to the Western Australian economy and $1.7 billion to the national economy in 2017-18. It supports around 10,000 jobs. Around 6,000 of those are in my home state of WA. With 6,000 jobs, particularly in the rural and regional area of Western Australia, it's a very significant employer.

Now is a critical time. It is a critical time for us. It is a critical time for our trading partners. Our trading partners want to know that our industry in Western Australia and the rest of Australia can supply their needs on a regular basis to their requirements and to continue a very long-established trade. So, as I've said, this is one of the foundation stones. This is one of the building blocks upon which a highly sustainable industry can continue to exist and, in fact, can continue to improve.

The role of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports came out of the Moss review. It was a key recommendation there. It's been modelled on the existing Inspector-General of Biosecurity. The role is pretty straightforward. It's to continually review the performance, functions and exercise of powers by livestock export officials such as veterinarians, authorised officers and the secretary of the department. It's about providing accountability and assurance for the regulator and on the systems and practices that are in place. It's about continuous improvement. It's about making sure that our animal export industry continues to achieve the high standards that over the past 12 months it has clearly demonstrated it can achieve. It's an industry that deserves an opportunity to continue this good work, continue to improve itself and continue to show to the Australian people that it's a very important part of our agricultural sector.

I just want to acknowledge a couple of people. One is our good colleague from the other place Rick Wilson, the member for O'Connor. A significant proportion of live exports come out of Rick's seat of O'Connor. Rick has been tireless in advocating on behalf of the live animal export industry out of O'Connor. The seats of Melissa Price and Nola Marino are also impacted, but the vast majority of sheep production in Western Australia is in the seat of O'Connor. Obviously, there are smaller numbers that come out of the eastern states and South Australia, but this is a highly localised problem. It creates some issues, I guess, in selling the benefits of an industry when it does only come from one relatively small—I'm sure Rick would disagree with me about 'small'!—part of Australia.

I think it's also important to know that those who have held the portfolio area, Minister Littleproud and now Minister McKenzie, have played key roles in ensuring that the industry was given that opportunity to undertake some continuous improvement to get the ships moving again, to get the sheep going back to our trading partners again and to get the trade back up and running on a sustainable footing that's well geared now to last into the long term.

Finally I just wish to say that, whilst this decision is certainly well above my pay grade, I think that an ideal candidate for the first inspector-general would be a former member of this place, Chris Back. I think everyone acknowledged, when he left this place and there were many kind words spoken about former Senator Back, that he was a very fair hand. Senator Wong described him as 'dignified, even-handed, calm and fair'. She said of Chris:

Those of us on this side of the chamber have appreciated that greatly and respected your work greatly. We are going to be suggesting that we bring you back for training of chairs in the weeks to come.

Senator Siewert said:

We both have a love of agriculture and want to see agriculture succeed, particularly in our home state of Western Australia. We have a lot in common, working on the same issues, and we want to see more people make agriculture their profession, because there are very serious issues in this country in that area.

I think the very high regard that Senator Back was held in would serve him in great stead if he were considered for the role. I certainly think that would be a be a very good outcome, because of both his previous knowledge and service of this place and his great love of agriculture, and livestock in particular.

As I've said, the industry has done a lot to improve the outcomes on board those vessels. The last year of livestock transportation has seen some 714,000 sheep loaded through the port of Fremantle at a mortality rate of 0.26 per cent. This is, by any historical measure, an absolutely outstanding badge of pride for the industry. The industry can keep doing better. It knows it can. The Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports will work with the industry and assist the industry in making sure it can be the best it possibly can be in the years to come, hopefully for many, many years to come.

Madam Acting Deputy President, I want to take a point of order, on clarity. I'm a great big supporter, and a friend, of former Senator Back, but do I take it that Mr Carter shouldn't get comfortable in his new role?

I'm not sure that was a point of order.

It's above my pay grade!

We might move to Senator McMahon to bring the Senate back into an orderly state.

) ( ): This is not my first speech. My pathway to this place is one that many may consider unconventional. In this instance, I suggest that that pathway sees me uniquely positioned to speak on this matter with uncommon authority. As a veterinary surgeon with more than 30 years experience in the Northern Territory, a very large portion of which has been spent working in the pastoral and livestock industries and with live exporters, I consider I'm uniquely placed.

I've worked for a large number of primary producers and exporters in the live export industry, in the pre-export inspection of stock, performing importing countries' protocols, supervising loading of stock and accompanying live export vessels at sea. I consider myself to have excellent firsthand experience in this sector. It is with this experience that I speak in support of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Bill 2019, which will deliver a critical component to our plan for best practice in our livestock export industry, a component that will provide greater assurance in the regulation of live animal exports and lead to greater assurance of good husbandry and welfare. With the establishment of the position of Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports, not only can we ensure animal welfare standards are being met or exceeded, but we can also ensure the quality of our export products are of an ever-increasing standard.

It has been my experience, almost without exception, that livestock producers care a great deal about the health and welfare of their stock. This is also true of most exporters. If they have no other reason to care, there is certainly a big money incentive. Stock that die, are sick, are injured or that fail to gain weight represent loss of profits on a journey. Consistent weight gain on a voyage is what they strive to achieve, and this is only possible with good welfare. Sick or distressed animals do not gain weight.

With my personal history in mind, you'll understand my disbelief and distress when I saw a video of the appalling conditions on board a live sheep export boat in 2018. It is with great relief that I also witnessed our government moving swiftly to investigate and to implement a range of changes to ensure the welfare of all exported livestock is improved. Whilst producers and exporters are generally very good, it behoves us to expose and weed out the cowboys.

Australia's live export trade is valued at well in excess of $1.7 billion, representing one of our most significant industries. This industry also delivers thousands of jobs to people who want to work—the hardworking, quiet Australians who spoke so loudly on 18 May this year. This government listened to the quiet Australians who want jobs and security. We are committed not just to maintaining a sustainable, well-regulated livestock export sector but to improving it where possible and to growing job opportunities.

The inspector-general will provide improved assurance as to the proper regulation of the industry and will therefore support its sustainability, ensuring jobs and prosperity for our nation. With this bill and the implementation of the role of inspector-general, we introduce an independent layer of accountability, providing the assurances necessary to promote even greater confidence in our live export trade for producers, foreign customers, governments and the Australian public.

While improving the government's regulation of livestock, this bill provides assurance to our trading partners that we are committed to the livestock export trade and that we mean business when it comes to protecting animal welfare. We also demonstrate to our trading partners that we have a reliable framework in place. We must also look internally, within our own shores, and consider the impacts on our farmers and primary producers. These hardworking Australians contend daily with often harsh lands, continually managing the planning of futures that may or may not include an abundance of rain and feed for stock. We have an obligation to those hardworking Australians to ensure they reap the rewards of their efforts and that this government acts to ensure there is security for these jobs to remain and flourish.

With the establishment of an inspector-general position, we'll deliver to our live export industry the assurances they need to work, plan and invest with confidence—that is, confidence that they can realise an income, a reward, for their hard work; confidence that their government has a plan for ensuring their product is treated with the same attentive care they apply to their livestock; and confidence that their government is listening to their needs.

The people of the Northern Territory, probably more than most other jurisdictions, felt the effects of the Labor government's live export ban. It devastated the Northern Territory and it had a great flow-on effect not only on the producers and the exporters but also on the small businesses and the people in communities. It also led to poor welfare outcomes and the death of huge numbers of livestock.

Our government has already implemented regulation that ensures improved outcomes for animal welfare, and ultimately this bill will drive a positive change in the livestock export industry for Australia that will also see better outcomes for industry and for all Australians. I commend this bill to the Senate.

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to speak in favour of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Bill 2019. While I speak in favour of this bill, I want to explain two core contradictions that this bill highlights. But first I will give an overview. This bill provides for the office of an inspector-general of live cattle exports. The purpose is to provide certainty that the welfare of the animals is being respected while at the same time ensuring the commercial viability of the cattle export trade.

Animal welfare is crucial to farmers because farmers care for their animals. That's why farmers have poured tens of millions of dollars into educating people who handle their cattle overseas. I am following, in the speaking order, a vet who said that core to the farming business in cattle and sheep is weight and that farm animals lose weight under stress. It is in the farmer's financial interest and their own moral and ethical interests to look after animals. That's why farmers care for animals. That's why farmers have poured tens of millions of dollars into educating foreigners on how to handle Australian cattle overseas.

I can think of people that I've met in Central Queensland and the Darling Downs like Bryce Camm—bright, experienced, knowledgeable, committed. He points out things like export competitors and the sophistication of farming these days. It is not just a simple matter of putting a few cattle on a boat; it is a very scientific business. I'm thinking of Linda Hewitt in Central Queensland—energetic, savvy, dedicated and, again, knowledgeable. She is similarly concerned about government interference in the business.

Importantly, this bill is not just about farm products, farm animals; it is about confidence in the cattle industry. With that confidence, graziers invest. With that confidence, graziers employ. With that confidence, graziers across our country can earn export earnings. That wealth flows through to the benefit of our nation. Here are some background facts. The live cattle trade generates $1.2 billion in export earnings, with $620 million being returned to the local economy. This employment is critical to local economies, from TI and Cooktown in the north to Thargomindah and Cunnamulla in the south-west. This employment is critical to local economies, particularly in the Northern Territory and the northern parts of Western Australia and Queensland. It's important right across the country—not just in the Territory, as Senator McMahon talked about, but right across the country because of the flow-on effects, which I'll discuss in a minute.

In the Kimberley, for example, 700 local Aboriginals are provided with jobs because of live cattle exports. Even the ABC noted that these job are all these blokes know. Live cattle exports allow Australians to breed tropical, heat-resistant breeds of cattle in northern Australia to be exported to Asia where they are generally grown on locally. A lot of countries to which our live cattle and sheep are exported do not have refrigeration, so people need to buy their food daily. That means we're looking after their needs and the needs of their country. It means the live cattle trade is helping not only our economy but also economies right across Asia and the Middle East. It helps them with employment and also with domestic herd quality. It helps these countries overseas to help themselves.

The graziers and employees, like these Aboriginal stockmen, love these cattle. They respect these cattle because their income comes from the cattle and because they are living creatures as well. The demonisation of the live cattle trade is an insult to good, decent and caring people.

There is another perspective here that I want to add. As Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers, I learned firsthand of the damage that banks and receivers do to so many rural producers. I learned more. I learned of the government tipping farmers over the edge due to government interference in the Murray-Darling Basin, stealing farmers' property rights. The live cattle export ban that flowed right across our country didn't just affect the north; it affected all cattle producers right around the country. Prime Minister Gillard's knee-jerk and capricious reaction in cancelling the live cattle trade after footage of foreign workers abusing our livestock emerged caused terrible losses in the industry. These are now the subject of a $600 million class-action lawsuit. Prime Minister Gillard's reaction was to the ABC's fabrications and sensationalism. It's a pity that our farmers aren't media savvy, because they would have been countering this a long time ago. Yet farmers around this country are waking up. One thing the farmers won't do, though, unlike the Greens and the activists, is tell lies. They're using facts. I want to commend their dedicated families and the communities that were cleaned out by the banks as a result of government facade.

Now we're entering even more-dangerous territory. When a drought hits, it is often necessary to export cattle in this manner to save them from being put down. That option must be available to farmers. Live cattle export is actually an animal welfare benefit. One Nation are committed to ensuring that live cattle, sheep and all animals are treated with the same respect overseas as they are in Australia, and that's why we support this bill. Farmers' livelihoods, as I've said, require care of animals, yet the Green ideology says the reverse. I'll discuss that further, later this afternoon.

I will go further now, though, to say we are committed to ensuring that not only farm animals but farmers and all Australians are treated with respect. Let's consider the Liberal-Labor legacy that's devastating agriculture. Here are just some of the things that I can list. There was the stealing of farmers' property rights in 1996 under a Liberal federal government that did a deal with the Borbidge National Party state government in Queensland. That was done as part of the UN Kyoto protocol. It was based on no data that the UN produced and it was later implemented through the Labor Party in the state of Queensland. This is the Liberal-Labor duopoly.

The lack of investment in water infrastructure is crippling our industry. We can see that now everywhere. A prominent Liberal whom I won't mention but for whom I have some respect was asked by a friend of mine just last week, 'Why didn't the Liberals invest in building dams 10 years ago?' The answer was staggering: 'Because we didn't need them 10 years ago.' What rubbish! We need investment now to protect the future.

I was talking with a farmer in southern Queensland who was talking, in turn, with a Chinese buyer in Japan. That's how the international connections work. He was being told by the Chinaman that the problem with Australian agricultural product is a lack of consistency—not quality, because our quality is better than anywhere else in the world. It's about the consistency of delivery. This drought now stands as a beacon for that. So we need investment in water infrastructure. We need proper allocation of water. Some of the allocation has been affected by the UN's Rio de Janeiro declaration, which was not based on data and which was implemented by the Labor government, followed by Liberal governments. That was from 1992 onwards.

Then we have energy policy. We have a drought. As I have said many times, we have farmers in Central Queensland, southern Queensland and North Queensland not planting fodder in a drought because they can't afford the water prices. We have canefarmers similarly worried about their energy prices affecting their farming. And the energy prices that are crippling our country are due to the UN's Kyoto protocol, the UN's Rio de Janeiro declaration and the UN's Paris agreement—all based on no data, all due to the UN and all implemented by both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. And now we have an insane government action in Queensland, where the state Labor government is putting in severe penalties and restrictions based, again, not on data but on UN protocols and on a consensus statement—not science, a consensus statement. We'll have a cup of tea or a few beers and come up with a consensus statement.

Then we talk about the fishing industry that's been decimated right around our country following the UN Kyoto protocol; and following the Rio de Janeiro declaration in 1992, from the UN again. Forestry is the same: no data to back it up. But now the Queensland Labor government wants to smash the forestry industry in South-East Queensland. They're just the specifics that are hurting agriculture in my state. Then we look at tax. We look at economic mismanagement. We look at budget cycles now becoming ways of getting favours. As a result, we see rural and regional Queensland being smashed.

It's not foreigners doing this. It is decades of the Liberal-Labor duopoly government. We need real action, management and vision for the farmers of Australia. From TI to Thargomindah, from Cooktown to Cunnamulla, rural areas need the support of these restrictions—these artificial, government imposed restrictions—removed.

The live export industry is of critical importance to Australia and particularly to the Northern Territory. The aim of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Bill 2019—to provide an additional, independent layer of accountability and assurance over the regulation of Australia's livestock exports—is important. It is vital that one of the north's most important industries can continue to operate with confidence in regulations, accountability provisions and assurance. We need to restore confidence in the industry and for the industry.

The fact is that this bill should have been legislated six years ago. If the government had legislated the inspector-general bill back in 2013, the regulator may have better understood what they should have considered in terms of animal welfare when issuing export permits. Exporters would not have faced the uncertainty they did last year when a TV program exposed that these considerations were not occurring.

Labor announced in July 2013 it would be appointing an Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports. In what does seem like deja vu, this position would have added another layer of assurance that our regulatory system was delivering the animal welfare outcomes we wanted. The position was to provide confidence that appropriate animal welfare outcomes were being met. It was not about shutting the industry down. The inspector-general position would have made sure the regulatory system was delivering the international animal welfare standards the Australian community expects.

The position was abolished by the former minister for agriculture, the member for New England, who said it was just another layer of bureaucracy, of red tape. Yet here we are with this government presenting this legislation to set up the position of inspector-general. Labor will be supporting the bill, but, as my colleagues have flagged, we would like more transparency, to see that the regulator is doing the job it should be doing. The live export industry is a major industry in the Northern Territory. Our producers support initiatives that will strengthen the integrity of the regulatory system and provide the Australian community with greater assurances that Australian livestock are handled and slaughtered humanely, here or when exported overseas.

The live export of cattle from the Territory was valued at $520 million in 2018, up 33 per cent from 2017. Fifty-seven per cent of the total NT cattle herd is destined to be turned off into the live cattle trade. Darwin is the largest live cattle port in Australia, with more than 400,000 cattle exported in 2018 to South-East Asian markets.

The live cattle trade employs more than 10,000 people through the supply chain across northern Australia. The potential to grow the export of both live cattle trade and water buffalo export trade offers a real opportunity for the Territory, with benefits of more local jobs. In the context of buffalo, it also offers the opportunity to reduce the impact of feral water buffalos on our environment. There are significant opportunities for First Nations people in the Northern Territory to benefit from growth in buffalo exports. Plans to further develop the industry are being developed in south-east Arnhem Land, supported by the Northern Territory government. There is potential to build exports to 30,000 buffalo per annum; in 2017 there were 10,000 buffalo exported. If you've never tried buffalo, I can highly recommend giving it a try—as you should with most things in the Northern Territory!

In terms of the overall live export industry in the Territory, we already supply around a third of live exports into Indonesia, and opportunities are expected to increase as a consequence of the new free trade agreement with Indonesia signed in March this year. The live cattle export trade sustains a raft of industry support services, including veterinary, transport and agency businesses. This is identified across Australia but is particularly important in the vast expanse of northern Australia, where services are separated by distance. Any reduction in the trade would place pressure on the continuation of these services, particularly in remote communities where the live cattle export sector is a key industry offering employment opportunities—particularly, as I said earlier, in First Nations communities.

Animal welfare is, of course, a key issue for our live export industry. I note that the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources has accepted new Australian standards for the export of livestock. One of the recommendations is to lower stocking densities on board export ships. This will lead to new costs. Reports vary, and the extent of the impact is not yet fully known. However, it is estimated that there will be cost implications for margins somewhere between two per cent and 10 per cent, which may be passed on to producers.

The impact of the Australian government ministerial directive that all livestock export shipments require an independent observer on board vessels has also added costs to our exporters. Whilst the Northern Territory livestock export industry remains committed to supporting transparency and improvements to animal welfare, it believes that the extra requirements add an unnecessary and significant regulatory and financial burden on the industry. The financial burden of carrying an IO falls more heavily on small ships, including many of those operating out of Darwin and those used by the main buffalo exporters. However, some of these exporters have been able to gain exemption, as there is insufficient accommodation on their smaller ships to carry an observer. This has addressed some of the strongest complaints, although it does not solve the problem for all exporters.

The current live export cattle price is around $3.05 per kilo. The tightening of supplies has started to push the market higher after months of depressed prices due to dry-condition destocking throughout the north and areas flooded not yet being restocked. There is some optimism that better conditions in recent weeks will encourage producers to restock, which may lead to higher prices later in the year.

Export numbers were strong in 2018. Total live cattle exports through the port of Darwin were 404,401 head, with 271,000—or 67 per cent—Northern Territory cattle. The NT government is committed to seeking better animal welfare outcomes, investing $5 million in live export yards and implementing the Australian animal welfare standards under the Livestock Act and regulations. I note that the live export industry plays a very important role during drought, in southern Australia in particular. As a competitive buyer within the beef supply chain, the live export industry is able to support domestic cattle prices at times when the market is saturated with stock, providing an alternative sales outlet for Australian farmers.

I'd like to finish by stressing that this position of inspector-general of live animal exports must be supported so that the job can be done without fear or favour and, most importantly, assurance and certainty can be provided to the industry, albeit six years too late.

I note, on rising to speak to the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Bill 2019, that this is not my first speech. But this is a matter that is particularly important to farmers across Australia and to regional communities both in my home state of New South Wales and beyond, and I'm pleased to rise to speak to this bill. As has been mentioned, Australia is a world leader in animal health and welfare, and the Liberal-National coalition government is committed to maintaining our high standards and to ensuring our regulations for animal welfare are being met. This commitment is clearly reflected in this bill. On that note, I commend my Nationals colleagues the Hon. David Littleproud MP, in his former position as Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources, and Senator the Hon. Bridget McKenzie, in her capacity now as Minister for Agriculture, for working with the farmers and the industry to improve and strengthen oversight of the live export trade.

Australians were rightly appalled in 2018 when they saw footage of sheep dying on voyages to the Middle East and on the MV Awassi Express in 2017. Many members of the Australian community, particularly the farmers that breed this livestock and others employed in the agricultural industry, were absolutely horrified and sickened by what they saw. Indeed, many wondered why this had not been reported to authorities before and why footage, instead of going to the authorities who could act on it, went instead to a media outlet and an activist organisation. But that is a matter for another debate.

While the community was rightly appalled, so too was the government. Some used that as an opportunity to advocate shutting down the industry—an industry that is worth over $1.7 billion. But this government has instead taken steps to fix the problems affecting the industry and to improve the oversight of the trade. We did not immediately compromise the livelihoods of farmers and businesses throughout rural and regional Australia, as Labor did in 2010 when they shut down the live cattle exports. Instead, this government supports those farmers and exporters who do the right thing and the thousands of flow-on jobs dependent on livestock exports. And we make no apologies for penalising and throwing the book at those who do the wrong thing, like when we cancelled an export licence last year. We do this because we recognise that the live export trade must be conducted properly, sustainably and in a manner consistent with the standards of animal welfare that Australians expect.

The industry must be accountable. That is why, in April 2018, the then minister appointed public sector governance expert Mr Philip Moss AM to conduct a review of the regulatory capability and culture of the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources in the regulation of live animal exports. The government has accepted all recommendations from the Moss review. The position of inspector-general, which will be established by this bill, is part of the government's broader strategy to develop and maintain an effective regulatory culture for the live export sector.

This position, the position of Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports, is modelled on the Inspector-General of Biosecurity, formally established under the Biosecurity Act 2015. Just as the Inspector-General of Biosecurity provides a layer of assurance over Australia's biosecurity risk management systems, so, too, will the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports provide accountability and assurance in relation to Australia's livestock export regulatory systems. They will be able to review the performance of functions and the exercise of powers not only by live export officials but also by the secretary of the department and to make recommendations for overall system improvements. They will be involved in promoting continual improvements in regulatory practice and in improving the performance and culture of the Department of Agriculture in its role as the regulator of Australia's livestock exports, and they will be fully resourced to do it. The creation of this position of inspector-general is in addition to the government's other measures in response to the Moss review.

Animal welfare is at the heart of all regulatory activities relating to animal exports, and it is what farmers expect. Indeed, as has been mentioned by my colleagues today, farmers know that animal welfare is at the forefront of their profit-making enterprises. Without good animal-health-and-welfare practices, both on farm and through the value chain to the end consumer, we will not have a sustainable industry, going forward. I know this, as I once worked for one of Australia's largest beef producers, and they were heavily involved in the live export industry. The department has formed the Animal Welfare Branch to engage with industry for this purpose and to make sure we're meeting the expectations of the public and the producers alike. The Animal Welfare Branch is driving a greater focus on animal welfare, including developing a range of indicators that are based on science and that are focused on the wellbeing of animals, rather than just mortality numbers.

This government has taken a range of actions to protect the welfare of all livestock exported from Australia, be it sheep, cattle, buffalo, camels or goats. The government is committed to continuing livestock exports, which continues to be a legitimate business option for our farmers. But our farmers, and the Australian public more broadly, need greater assurance that the government is protecting animal welfare outcomes for livestock exports and that those exports are conducted properly and sustainably. This bill goes towards providing that assurance. This bill will drive a positive change in the livestock export industry by improving regulatory practice, performance and the culture of the department as the regulator of the industry, and I commend this bill.

The Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Bill 2019 will establish the position of Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports. It will empower the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports to review the performance of functions and exercise of powers by officials in relation to the export of livestock and to make recommendations for improvements. The Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports will promote continual improvements in the regulatory practice, performance and culture of the Department of Agriculture in its role as the independent regulator of livestock exports.

The bill provides an additional independent layer of accountability and assurance in the regulation of livestock exports. The bill will contribute to driving positive change in the livestock export industry—an industry which the government supports as a legitimate business option for farmers. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question negatived.

Original question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I have a few questions for the minister. Minister, the Moss review called for an Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports—one that would:

… review the performance of functions or exercise of powers by department staff members in the regulation of live animal exports.

This clearly calls for the ability to review the exercise of the functions of the department staff. So I want to understand why the government has subclause 10(2) in the bill, which basically would restrict the inspector-general in doing what the Moss review recommended.

Thank you for your question. I'm advised that the section you refer to, on limitations, is simply in regard to ensuring that the inspector-general focuses on the broad overarching assurance of the livestock regulatory process rather than investigations into any specific individual breaches of that framework. The Department of Agriculture is the independent regulator for the livestock industry, so issues that go to specific individual breaches of the framework are investigated by the independent regulator. The role of the inspector-general is to review and provide assurance over the regulation provided by the Department of Agriculture itself.

Would the inspector-general be able to investigate mortality reports that are revised or redrafted to dilute or expunge findings which reflect adversely on the regulatory framework? This is part of what the Moss review highlighted.

Sorry, I'm not the minister responsible for this legislation; I'm standing in today. But, on advice, I am informed that the inspector-general will be able to look at events that go to the reporting of the mortality event through the independent regulator, the Department of Agriculture, that is provided in this bill.

What is the expected cost of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports and who would bear that cost? Would it be government or would it be industry?

The cost is outlined in the legislation explanatory memorandum at $450,000 each year over four years. That cost will of course be absorbed by the department through general revenue.

What is the transition arrangement between the Interim Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports and the inspector-general which will be established by this bill? Will the same investigations continue?

As I'm sure you're aware, the interim inspector-general has been appointed for a period of 12 months. However, if this bill receives royal assent, the minister can appoint an inspector-general straight after that. It is the intention of the government to do so.

In the absence of any further immediate questions I ask you to move your amendments and table your supplementary EM.

by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2) on sheet ZA494 together:

(1) Clause 3, page 2 (line 19), at the end of the clause, add:

; and (c) to ensure that live-stock export officials, in performing functions and exercising powers, consider the welfare of animals in Australia's live-stock exports.

(2) Clause 10, page 7 (after line 2), after subclause (1), insert:

(1A) In conducting a review under subsection (1), the Inspector-General must consider the welfare of animals in relation to Australia's live-stock exports.

There are two amendments. One provides for an explicit mention of animal welfare in this bill, and the other amendment inserts a subclause into clause 10 that will provide that the matters the inspector-general must consider in the conduct of review include the welfare of animals in relation to the export of livestock.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I invite you to table the supplementary explanatory memorandum.

I also table a supplementary explanatory memorandum to those amendments.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: The question is that the amendments moved by the government be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

I won't be moving Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 8736, because the government has now moved amendments identical to those, but I do move amendment (3) on sheet 8736, because the bill as presented by the government unnecessarily restricts the ability of the Inspector-General. We would like subclause 10(2) to be removed completely because, as I said earlier, the subclause does restrict the inspector-general from investigating individual cases. I think this is quite a ridiculous limitation and one that is wholly unnecessary. We know that there are serious problems with the way exports of live animals are carried out and regulated, and there are serious issues with the lack of oversight. This bill as it stands won't really allow the inspector-general to investigate individual actions. This oversight is absolutely necessary, given that we know what the Moss review said about the department and its limitations, and this amendment will ensure that that's not the case. So I do urge senators to support this. The Greens oppose subclause 10(2) in the following terms:

(3) Subclause 10(2), page 7 (lines 3 to 12), to be opposed.

Labor opposes the proposal to remove subclause 10(2) on page 7, lines 3 to 12. The subclause provides further clarification about the role and responsibilities of the inspector-general, and it is important to ensure that there is no confusion about the position.

The government too indicates its opposition to this amendment, as I outlined to Senator Faruqi in response to questions. This subclause is purely there to clarify and to ensure that the separate role of the Department of Agriculture as a regulator of individual breaches is clear, relative to the role of the inspector-general, which is to oversight the overall framework.

The question is that subclause 10(2) stand as printed.

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Australians expect fair, clean and safe sport. No nations and no sports are immune from integrity threats. Labor is committed to appropriate responses to the real threats facing Australian sporting integrity. We must address these threats because, when the integrity of sport is weakened, it impacts the value of sport to our nation. It can have a negative impact on interest in sport and, in turn, on participation and the health and social benefits that come with it.

It can also have a detrimental impact on the value of elite sport to our economy if attendance and audiences are reduced due to lack of faith in the integrity of elite competitions. Threats to the integrity of sports in Australia evolve, and so must our response to them. The Review of Australia's Sports Integrity Arrangements, the Wood review, was broad and complex, returning 53 recommendations that sit across several portfolios and agencies. The government response to the review included the planned establishment of the National Sports Tribunal, built under Labor's establishment of the National Integrity of Sport Unit in 2012 and strengthened by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority powers in 2013.

Examples of threats to Australia's sporting integrity include the manipulation of competitions through match fixing, spot betting, inside information and more; doping, including the use of substances that are not only prohibited but in many cases potentially dangerous to athletes' health; involvement in activities that threaten the integrity of Australian sport by organised crime; and other matters, including but not limited to corrupt or unethical behaviour by people involved in sport. The Wood Review of Australia's Sports Integrity Arrangements was extensive, considered submissions from a broad range of stakeholders and involved consultation with the sector. Nearly a quarter of the review's 52 recommendations relate to the establishment and operation of the National Sports Tribunal. Chapter 5 of the comprehensive review report deals with the proposed National Sports Tribunal in detail.

The proposed tribunal would have private arbitration powers and would also be able to engage mediation, conciliation and other dispute-resolution strategies for the prompt and cost-effective resolution of cases brought before it. It would have access to a panel of experts who are experienced in sports law or who have a background that qualifies them through practical experience to determine sporting issues. The proposed tribunal would have three divisions: anti-doping, general and appeals. The anti-doping division is intended to operate an opt-out system, with anti-doping rule-violation matters subject to first instance dispute resolution to be heard by the division, with the exception of the ADRV matters in sport, which operate their own internal tribunal. Similarly, appeals of the first instance divisions would be heard by the proposed tribunal's appeals division. Again, that is with the exception of a small number of professional sports which operate internal appeals tribunals.

Labor is aware that some stakeholders held concerns with certain details of the National Sports Tribunal Bill 2019. These concerns broadly related to issues with the way in which the bill might impact on the rights of individuals involved in matters being heard by the tribunal. Those issues were reflected to a large degree in concerns raised by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. The committee raised concerns in relation to clause 69 of the National Sports Tribunal Bill 2019, which would provide protection and immunity to members of the tribunal, along with barristers, solicitors and witnesses appearing before the tribunal, that would be the same as the protection and the immunity provided to a Justice of the High Court or barristers, solicitors and witnesses before the High Court. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in the Scrutiny Digest 2 2019 reported that:

… if a bill seeks to provide immunity from liability, particularly where such immunity could affect individual rights, this should be soundly justified.

The committee noted:

The explanatory memorandum provides no explanation as to why it is necessary that the Tribunal have the same level of protection or immunity as proceedings in the High Court, nor does it provide any similar examples from other Commonwealth legislation.

In response to those concerns, the government in July provided updated explanatory materials and outlined several instances in which existing Commonwealth legislation gives equivalent protections and immunities to non-judicial bodies as well as the barristers, solicitors and witnesses appearing before them. These examples include section 60 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, which confers the same respective protections and immunities on members of the AAT; a barrister, a solicitor or another person appearing before the AAT on behalf of a party; and a person summonsed to attend or appear before the AAT as a witness.

Section 167 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 confers the same respective protections and immunities on a member of the Veterans' Review Board, be they '…a person representing a party at a hearing of the review before the board' or 'a person summonsed to attend' to appear 'before the board as a witness'.

Section 171 of the Copyright Act 1968 confers the same respective protections and immunities on a member of the Copyright Tribunal of Australia or 'a barrister, solicitor, or other person appearing before the tribunal on behalf of a party' and 'a person summonsed to appear before the tribunal as a witness'.

Section 584B of the Fair Work Act 2009 confers the same protections and immunities on persons undertaking the management of complaints against a member of the Fair Work Commission, as well as witnesses and relevant legal representatives.

Stakeholders also raised concerns with the opposition about the protections against civil liability, an issue highlighted by the scrutiny committee in relation to clause 71 of the National Sports Tribunal Bill 2019. That clause provides that:

… no civil liability will arise from any action taken by the CEO, a person assisting the CEO or a person engaged as a consultant or expert witness, in good faith in the performance, or purported performance, of any function of the CEO or in the exercise, or purported exercise, of any power of the CEO. This therefore removes any common law right to bring an action to enforce legal rights (for example, a claim of defamation), unless it can be demonstrated that lack of good faith is shown.

The scrutiny committee noted:

… that in the context of judicial review, bad faith is said to imply a lack of an honest or genuine attempt to undertake the task and that it will involve a personal attack on the honesty of the decision-maker.

The committee comments go on to point out that:

… the courts have taken the position that bad faith can only be shown in very limited circumstances. In this instance, the explanatory memorandum provides no explanation for this provision, merely restating the terms of the provision.

The Australian Athletes' Alliance is particularly concerned about an aspect of the bill, because it would, and I quote from submission they provided to the opposition, 'remove the right of an athlete who suffered losses as a result of sports negligence to carry out anti-doping functions from seeking damages through civil action'. Labor sought further explanation and clarification around these concerns from the minister. The government has stated that the broad civil liability protections afforded by this bill are necessary because:

… in particularly contentious disputes, a person should not be able to take collateral proceedings against the CEO and others, either to delay the Tribunal’s consideration of a dispute, or as an attempt to reopen a dispute that was arbitrated by the Tribunal.

The government has provided examples of similar protections in other Commonwealth legislations, including section 110Q of the Defence Act 1903, which confers similar—

Debate interrupted.

I advise the Senate that Senator McKenzie will be absent from question time today for personal reasons. In Senator McKenzie's absence, Senator Canavan will represent the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management.

My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Cormann. In dismissing questions about the record low wage growth Australians are experiencing, the minister could only refer to the Labor Party 20 times. Not once did the minister outline any economic plan to reverse record low wage growth. Is the minister in denial about record low wage growth, or does the government just not care about Australians who are working harder but going backwards?

Firstly, I completely reject the premise of the question. The only people in the Senate that are in complete denial are the Australian Labor Party. They are in complete denial about the—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order! Senator Watt, before I take your point of order, can I ask senators if we can at least make the first minute of question time before I have to call senators to order so I can hear the minister's answer. Senator Watt, on a point of order.

I simply want to point out that it took the minister 15 seconds to get to Labor.

That is not a point of order, Senator Watt.

Senator Wong interjecting—

I'll take the interjection from you, Senator Wong. In this case, the question referenced the minister's answer yesterday and a claim about the number of times he mentioned another party. It is directly relevant for the minister to be able to address that claim in answering this question. Senator Cormann.

Thank you very much, Mr President. I would just remind the Australian people that in 2013, on coming into government, we inherited a weakening economy, rising unemployment—with the unemployment rate headed past 6¼ per cent—and indeed a rapidly deteriorating budget position. We were able to turn that situation around. Let me just say that the increasing trajectory of unemployment we inherited from Labor was a key ingredient for a softening in wages growth when we came into government. And since then, as a result of our policies, as a result of our plan, we've been able to create more jobs: 1.4 million more new jobs and an unemployment rate down to 5.2 per cent.

Senator Watt, on a point of order.

It is on relevance. The question was simply whether the minister was in denial about record low wage growth or whether he doesn't care, and he clearly hasn't chosen one of those two options.

No, Senator Watt. Please. I provide some liberality when it comes to people raising points of order, but I expect an attempt to be made that it's a point of order. That was part of the question. The minister is entitled to be directly relevant.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senators on my left. While I'm ruling, it might help with questions. Ministers answering questions are entitled to be directly relevant to any part of the question. In this case, the minister is. Senator Cormann.

Thank you very much, Mr President. As I said in my opening remarks, the only political party in complete denial is the Australian Labor Party, because they are in complete denial about the judgement of the Australian people about who had the better plan for our economy. They chose our plan for lower taxes, pro-growth, pro-business, pro-jobs, pro-opportunity, pro-aspiration and they voted against your socialist agenda, which the Australian people understand would have made the economy weaker and would have made all Australians poorer. And the sooner you actually accept that fact, the sooner you accept the verdict of the Australian people, the better for you and the better for the Australian people. Now let me talk about wages—

Senator Wong, on a point of order.

Direct relevance. Do you care about the low wage growth Australians are struggling with?

Senator Wong, I asked—

Why don't you have the guts to answer that question?

Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Is there more on the point of order, Senator Wong?

Yes, it's on the point of order. I will resume my seat, but question time is becoming a mockery if all he as the Leader of the Government in the Senate can do is talk about the Australian Labor Party. They should be governing.

On the point of order, I remind senators on my left that a minister can be directly relevant to any part of the question and, in this case, given the question, the minister is being directly relevant. There is a time for debating questions after question time and there are other opportunities in this place.

There are 1.4 million new jobs under us. The unemployment rate, which was headed past 6¼ per cent under Labor, is down to 5.2 per cent, and wages growth is stronger than it has been since 2013-14, the last financial year that Labor delivered a budget.

Senator Watt, a supplementary question?

I note that, so far, Senator Cormann is up to mentioning Labor seven times. Despite Senator Cormann dismissing concerns about the floundering economy under his government's leadership, Senator Payne characterised wage growth under the coalition as 'very subdued'. Is Senator Payne correct?

The first thing I would say is that the only thing that is floundering is Labor's socialist policy agenda. That is the only thing that is floundering.

Mr President—

Senator Wong, can I anticipate your point of order on direct relevance? The minister is allowed to finish a sentence and include a comment in a sentence. We are seven seconds into the answer. I'll let the minister continue.

As Senator Payne and I pointed out yesterday, real wages growth is running above inflation—2.3 per cent of wages growth in the context of 1.6 per cent inflation. It is the strongest wages growth since 2013-14.

A point of order, Senator Wong?

The point of order is on direct relevance. The minister, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, can choose to back his minister or not. She said 'very subdued'; does he agree?

That is the specific wording of the question, Senator Wong. The minister talking about the subject matter of the question, that being wage growth, does qualify in my definition of being directly relevant to the question.

I again remind the Senate and the Australian people that Labor, after six years of bad government, left behind rising unemployment. We've turned that situation around. We've increased employment growth, with 1.4 million new jobs. The unemployment rate is down to 5.2 per cent, which is an important ingredient in stronger wages growth in the future. Indeed, wages growth in 2018-19, at 2.3 per cent, is the strongest it has been. Let me say, we're doing even better. We are delivering income tax cuts to the Australian people. Income tax relief and increases—

They're not wages.

He says they're not wages. What matters to the Australian people is what ends up in their pockets. (Time expired)

Senator Watt, a final supplementary question?

Given the minister has admitted that low wage growth is 'a deliberate design feature', isn't the coalition's only economic plan to keep wages low?

That is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. When we came into government, we inherited rising unemployment. The point I made at the time is that, under Hawke and Keating, it used to be something that the Labor Party believed in too that it is actually desirable to keep unemployment lower by allowing wages to adjust in the context of prevailing economic conditions. That is what happened after Labor let the unemployment rate go up and up.

But let me tell you this: wages growth under us is stronger than it has been at any time since 2013-14, which was the last financial year Labor delivered a budget. It's the strongest it has been. It is running above inflation. We would like it to be even stronger, and that will only happen as a result of our plan to build a stronger economy and create more jobs. When even old socialists like the member for Port Adelaide are criticising the Labor Party for having gone too far to the left, the Australian people know that the Labor Party has a problem.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Cash. Today is World Suicide Prevention Day. Can the minister please update the Senate about how the government is investing in improving the mental health of all Australians and preventing suicide?

I thank Senator Van for the question on what I think we all agree is an incredibly serious issue. As Senator Van said, today is World Suicide Prevention Day. This is one of those issues where, in this place, we are all united in our determination to see the scourge of suicide on our community ended.

Suicide is the leading cause of death for Australians between the ages of 15 and 44. Regrettably, in 2017, more than 3,100 Australians died by suicide. Suicide Prevention Australia released research in June this year, and it shows that suicide can have a large ripple effect throughout the community, with 56 per cent of Australians personally knowing someone who has died by suicide, including 61 per cent in rural and regional communities. These figures are of deep concern, and the government is committed to reversing this trend. Every life is important, and we must do what we can to prevent suicide.

The government has adopted a 'towards zero' target. We believe that a target of zero suicides is the only acceptable target.

We have appointed Christine Morgan as Australia's first National Suicide Prevention Adviser to the Prime Minister. She will work with the government on our towards-zero target and culture. Over the next 15 months, Christine, supported by a national suicide prevention task force, will be working to better coordinate efforts in health, finance, social services, employment and education, and deliver a whole-of-government response on suicide and its impacts. This is a serious issue, and the Morrison government, led by our Prime Minister, is committed to doing everything we can to reduce suicide.

Order, Senator Cash. Senator Van, a supplementary question?

Minister, what additional measures is the government taking to improve suicide prevention in Australia?

Thank you again for the question, Senator Van. In the recent budget, we announced a $503 million youth and Indigenous mental health and suicide prevention package. We're investing $375 million to expand the headspace network. Twenty of the 30 new headspace sites will be in rural and regional Australia, ensuring that those in need have better access to services. We've committed $34 million to strengthening Indigenous youth suicide prevention, including support to ensure our healthcare system delivers culturally appropriate care and services, recognising the value of community, cultural artistic traditions and protective social factors. We're also investing $15 million in the establishment of a real-time suicide and self-harm monitoring system, to enable governments and communities to respond rapidly in the areas of high incidence.

Senator Van, a final supplementary question?

Could the minister provide an example of the sorts of programs the government is funding to address this very serious issue?

Thank you—and, yes, I can. An example of one program benefiting from the government's record investment is batyr. Batyr was actually launched in 2011 after the founder of the organisation, Sebastian Robertson, experienced the frustration and isolation of living silently with mental ill-health whilst at university. Sebastian recognised the need to have open, honest conversations about mental health with young people, and founded the organisation, naming it after Batyr, the talking elephant from Kazakhstan. Batyr is all about confronting the elephant in the room, and that is suicide. Batyr will receive a $2.8 million boost from the Morrison government to expand its interactive school based programs through a new digital storytelling platform. This is a serious issue, and the government will work towards a zero—

Order, Senator Cash. Senator McAllister.

My question is to the Minister for Women, Senator Payne. Yesterday in question time the Treasurer said: 'The gender pay gap has closed.' Is the Treasurer correct?

I thank Senator McAllister for her question. I think anyone with a basic appreciation of the trajectory of the gender pay gap understands—and I'll explain this for those opposite—that the gender pay gap, whilst still too wide, is absolutely heading in the right direction. The latest figures of the gender pay gap show that it has fallen to 14 per cent, which is a record low. Indeed, it's fallen by 3.2 percentage points since November of 2013.

It was only last year that, for the first time, the government produced a Women's Economic Security Statement, of which we were very proud, led by my former colleague the then Minister for Women, the Hon. Kelly O'Dwyer. That statement contained a range of initiatives to further close the gender pay gap by boosting women's earning potential. It provided $8.6 million in additional funding to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to make workplace gender reporting easier.

Order! Senator McAllister on a point of order?

My point of order is on relevance. I was asking whether or not the minister considers that the Treasurer's remarks yesterday were correct, and she has not answered that question.

You reminded the minister of that part of the question. With respect, I cannot instruct a minister how to answer a question as long as the minister is being directly relevant. In my view, discussing the issues of the gender pay gap, which you referenced in your question and which the minister is discussing in some detail, is directly relevant. But you've reminded the minister of the part of the question that you wish highlighted.

Thank you very much, Mr President, and I want to reinforce the statements I've made about the Women's Economic Security Statement, because what the statement contained—as I advised the chamber, but those opposite are apparently disinterested—was a range of initiatives to further close the gender pay gap by boosting women's earning potential.

Order! Senator Wong on a point of order?

The point of order is direct relevance. We're not disinterested in women's issues. We had a Women's Budget Statement, which you stole. We are interested in you being relevant to the question. Could the minister respond to the question, please.

As I said, Senator Wong, I think I cannot instruct a minister how to answer a question. In this case, it was a very tightly worded question. I am listening very carefully to the minister, and the minister has, as far as I've heard, for 1½ minutes spoken about the very issue raised in the question, that being the gender pay gap. I cannot instruct a minister to provide an answer that a question asker would prefer. I have to keep them directly relevant. In my view, the minister is being directly relevant.

Thank you very much, Mr President. I know those opposite don't want to hear about the successes that the government has had in ensuring that the trajectory of the gender pay gap is in a downward direction. Let me reiterate that it has fallen by 3.2 percentage points since November 2013. That means that under this government it has fallen by 3.2 percentage points.

Order! Senator Wong on a point of order?

Seven seconds. I wonder if the minister could answer the question as to whether the Treasurer was correct when he said, 'The gender pay gap has closed.'

Senator Payne has completed her answer. Senator McAllister, a supplementary question?

Senator Payne, how much less do Australian women earn on average per week than men?

They both earn more than they ever did before.

They do indeed; the finance minister's quite right. They earn $1,100 more now than they did before thanks to the initiatives of this government, which were fought tooth and nail by those opposite. Indeed, since the coalition came to office, increases in the minimum wage have never dropped below inflation. When Labor was last in office, those on the minimum wage were hit by real wage cuts in three out of six years. The real wage cuts under those opposite—

Order! Senator Payne, please resume your seat. Senator McAllister, can I hear the point of order first?

My point of order is direct relevance. It's a tightly worded question that goes to how much less Australian women earn on average per week than men.

On the point of order, this is a very tightly worded question that essentially seeks a factual answer. I will ask the minister, who has been given half a minute to address broader issues, to turn to the specific nature of the question.

I was actually turning to the specific nature of the question, because, of course, the minimum wage reflects payments across all—

Mr President, a point of order.

Senator Wong, I need the minister to be able to finish a sentence before I can make a ruling on direct relevance.

It must have been a very bad caucus meeting this morning; you're very grumpy.

It was a very good one, actually. Mr President, the minister is actually being utterly disrespectful to the warning you just gave her, and you should call her to order.

I wouldn't characterise my—

Mr President?

Senator Cormann, on the point of order?

Senator Wong should apologise for that reflection on Senator Payne just now. Senator Payne is answering in a way that is directly relevant and courteous—as she always does—not only to Senator Wong but also to the Senate. I would ask that you require Senator Wong to withdraw that imputation on a senator in this chamber.

I didn't hear an imputation. I will say to Senator Wong: I would appreciate it if you didn't characterise my rulings with terms like 'warning'. I would not characterise what I just said to Senator Payne as a warning. However, I will ask ministers, when they are asked for factual answers—

Senator Cormann interjecting—

Sorry, Senator Cormann, you're asking for something to be withdrawn?

Senator Wong knows precisely the imputation that she has made in relation to Senator Payne, and I would ask you to consider the Hansardhopefully the interjection was picked up—and come back to the chamber, because there has now been a barrage of disorderly interjecting on a continuous basis over the last 20 minutes. Quite frankly, I think what is starting to become unbecoming is the level of disorderly interjections coming from the other side.

I will say we—yes, Senator Wong?

Thank you, Mr President. If the President wishes to look at the HansardI'll always abide by the ruling you make, Mr President. So I'm happy for you to do so and I'll respond accordingly. I would make the point, for the benefit of the Leader of the Government in the Senate and perhaps for the chamber, that in large part the reason that you are seeing interjections is that senators on this side do not believe that ministers are answering questions, and I think that is objectively demonstrable. Question time is for a government to be held to account. The opposition is entitled to ask questions. I think that the Australian public and the Westminster system expect answers. Ministers are not answering questions, and you are accordingly seeing a response.

I'll take Senator Cormann before I make some rulings and observations.

Firstly, rulings in relation to what is consistent with standing orders in terms of ministerial answers are a matter for the President, not for the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate—with the greatest of respect to my friend and colleague Senator Wong. Secondly, when there are clearly partisan political questions being asked, the Labor Party should not be surprised when they invite a somewhat more political answer than would otherwise be the case.

I think it's got to the point where we're 30-all between you and Senator Cormann, Senator Wong. I would just like to make some—

Mr President?

Senator Wong.

I appreciate your patience. The last comment that was made by the Leader of the Government in the Senate was that questions invited political answers. This, as you pointed out, is an entirely factual question about an amount, which the minister could have googled in the time that we've been arguing about the point of order.

So we have made some observations both generally and specifically. I will start generally. Senator Wong, complaints from the opposition regarding governments and question time are not unique to either side of the chamber. While it has been noisy in the last two days, since we resumed from the winter break, I haven't detected a noticeable difference in question time, other than the amount of noise. When I come to Senator Cormann's point about the claimed observation he wanted withdrawn, I didn't hear it. I'll look at Hansard and I'll approach senators. If there is something recorded that Senator Cormann may have heard—I'll see what I can find out.

On other questions today, there have been more-broadly-worded introductions to questions. This has, in my view, allowed ministers to be directly relevant to the question and to provide some of the comments that you've highlighted, Senator Wong, which you don't think are appropriate but I think are directly relevant. The way I have interpreted and recorded this particular question is that it was seeking a fact from a minister. To be directly relevant to a question like that, one must be speaking about the fact. One does have the right, as a minister, to provide some context around that, which is why answers are not just 10 seconds long; they can be a minute long. So I'll ask the minister and remind the minister of the specific fact sought by Senator McAllister in asking the question. Senator Payne.

Thank you very much, Mr President, and, if I had been allowed to finish my response, I was going to observe that the gender pay gap can be influenced by a number of factors, and currently all industries continue to have a gender pay gap in favour of men. What WGEA assesses, in terms of full-time average weekly earnings, is that FTAWE for women currently is $1,484.50 and for men is $1,726.30. (Time expired)

Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question?

Data from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency reveals that the full-time total remuneration gap is 21.3 per cent, meaning that men working full time earn nearly $25,717 a year more than a woman working full time. Does the minister share the Treasurer's view that women earning $25,000 less than men reflects a pay gap that has closed?

I know that all members of this government are focused on ensuring that the gender pay gap is closing and is heading in the trajectory that I've described before, which is a 3.2 per cent closing since we were elected in 2013. That is in marked contrast to the efforts of those opposite. And, importantly, what we do in working with WGEA and working within government initiatives is to introduce new opportunities for women to engage in the workforce and new opportunities for women to advance in the workforce in a real and serious way, unlike those opposite.

My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia who today is representing the minister for natural disaster and emergency management. In April this year, 23 chiefs of emergency services representing every state and territory pleaded with the federal government to act on the climate breakdown because they're no longer equipped to defend Australia against the escalated risk of these climate related disasters. Minister, your government has ignored them. Your government has called their concerns 'irrelevant'. Your government has made the risks that they are confronting worse by mining more coal, oil and gas. Minister, will you now apologise to the people of Queensland who have lost their homes in these devastating, unprecedented near-winter bushfires, and will you apologise to the emergency service workers who put their lives at risk to protect them?

Government senators interjecting—

I'll ask for order on my right during the question being asked.

I thank Senator Di Natale for his question. There are quite a few premises in that question that I fundamentally disagree with. The first and most important point to make is that the government is taking action to reduce Australia's carbon emissions and doing so in cooperation with the rest of the world. The best way we can respond, of course, to issues around climate change is to do so in unison and cooperation with the rest of the world, which we are doing.

A second point to make about Senator Di Natale's question and contributions today is how insensitive it is for him to be going out like this in such an inciteful and combustible fashion while people are still defending their homes. There is not an opportunity that Senator Di Natale misses to embarrass himself on these issues. He constantly uses people's tragedy and people's difficulty in tough circumstances to further his own political cause. He mentioned a number of groups in his question. Rather than paraphrasing others, I think it is better to directly quote from some. I will quote from a New South Wales government department of environment investigation on the link between climate change and bushfire risk. This is what the New South Wales government bureaucrats say, in a much more sensible way than Senator Di Natale does:

There is considerable uncertainty concerning the impacts of climate change on bushfire risk.

I won't be able to quote it all, but the report continues:

Summarising this research to determine the overall influence of climate change on bushfire risk in NSW is difficult. There is a clear need to integrate many diverse strands of evidence, including many interactions and feedbacks. However, broadly speaking the potential for significant increases in bushfire risk appears greater than the potential for equivalent decreases.

That is a sensible summary of the evidence in this field and that is how we should approach these complex and difficult issues that impact people's lives—not the narrow, base political exercise that the Greens seem to exercise in every one of these debates. It is not the right approach when dealing with these issues. The government is making a sensible decision to respond to climate change and, of course, to protect people's homes.

Senator Di Natale, a supplementary question?

Minister, one of the things that this delegation of 23 emergency service chiefs was requesting was a meeting with the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister meet with this delegation or does he agree with Minister Littleproud that their concerns are 'irrelevant'?

What I know the Prime Minister and the government are focused on doing is making sure we make sensible decisions in this area, which I outlined in the first question. I'm not aware of the delegation specifically, but that's obviously a question that Senator Di Natale can put to others in this place. I know that the focus of the government—and the minister, in this case—has been on providing what is relevant at the moment: emergency relief to people in these circumstances. What we need to focus on in the future too is making sure—

Senator Di Natale, on a point of order?

A point of order on relevance—it's a very narrow question: will the Prime Minister meet with these emergency services chiefs? Will the Prime Minister meet them or will he dismiss their concerns as 'irrelevant'? It's a very straightforward question. He can take it on notice if he doesn't know the answer.

You're quite right to highlight the second part of the question. I'm listening carefully to the minister. You've reminded him of the nature of your question.

What's important now is that we also focus on ways to make sure that risk is reduced for people, including because of greater bushfire risks. I refer the chamber to a report by the inspector-general of Queensland on Queensland's fires recently. He has made a recommendation saying that, given the increasing risk of intense fires, the framework of legislation relating to vegetation management should be reassessed. That is something that the Greens oppose. They are not allowing farmers and local landholders to reduce their risk of bushfires. (Time expired)

Senator Di Natale, a final supplementary question?

I'll ask the minister a simple question that I asked of Minister McKenzie yesterday, and I'd like the minister's opinion on it. Do you agree with the simple proposition that the single biggest cause of climate change is the mining and burning of coal, and that climate change will increase the frequency and severity of bushfires? It's a very narrow question—no mealy-mouthed response. I'm asking whether you agree with that simple and straightforward proposition.

I don't agree with many parts of what Senator Di Natale is saying. What we support on this side of the chamber are sensible responses to climate change that include support for the high-quality coal and gas that we produce in this country. It is through the high-quality production of energy that we will respond to climate change and reduce global emissions. The Greens only want to shut down, only want to campaign against, coalmines in this country. That's their focus. They focus on shutting down jobs in this nation, not the rest of the world. I reject the way Senator Di Natale characterises these debates, because we should continue to support the clean, environmentally sustainable mining practices in this country and support those resources that we supply to the rest of the world. That is what we are doing to make sure that the whole world responds to climate change. The approach of the Greens would be counterproductive in that effort, because it would force production onto countries that do not have the same environmental standards. Our approach is much more sensible and, more importantly, has been vindicated by the Australian people. (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, Senator Birmingham. Can the minister please update the Senate on the importance of the stability and certainty in the government's trade policy, which is creating more exporting businesses and jobs?

I thank Senator Bragg for his question and his passionate advocacy on behalf of Australian businesses and, in particular, exporters. I'm very pleased to inform the Senate that the recent ABS data shows that, over the last year, more than 1,000 additional Australian businesses became exporting businesses of merchandise goods from Australia. That takes the number of Australian businesses exporting to the world to more than 53,000. It is in fact a growth of some 8,200 over the period since our government came to office. That's an 18½ per cent increase in the number of exporting businesses projecting from Australia out to the world, and seizing opportunities.

Although Senator Bragg hails from our largest state, the most significant proportionate increases, pleasingly, come from our smallest states. Tasmania led, with a 17 per cent increase in the number of exporting businesses, and South Australia had close to a 16 per cent increase. The majority of these businesses are small and medium-sized businesses that are getting out into the world and selling Australian goods to the world. In doing so, they're of course supporting Australian jobs. One in five Australian jobs are now trade dependent, and it's estimated that, over the last five years, 240,000 additional jobs that are trade related have been created in Australia. That's because we have more businesses exporting and more businesses out there growing the value of those exports.

In the month of July, Australia posted another record level of exports both for goods, at $34.2 billion, and for services, at $8.4 billion. We also posted our second-highest ever trade surplus as a nation. That's trade surpluses in 27 out of the last 29 months for Australia, or 19 straight monthly trade surpluses now, and a trade surplus for the 2018-19 financial year of $50 billion—all of it fuelled very much by export growth that is creating more opportunities right across Australia.

Senator Bragg, a supplementary question?

Will the minister please inform the Senate about how trade is helping build a strong economy which provides the essential services we all rely upon?

Indeed, that type of growth in exports which I was speaking about before isn't something we celebrate just for a statistical trade surplus; we celebrate it because the fuelling of record exports is growing Australian businesses. Those businesses are able to employ more Australians. They pay more tax. They fund the services that we rely upon. They help strengthen our budget position. They reduce the reliance of Australians on welfare, because of the job creation activities that are undertaken. Let's take Bega Cheese, a business in rural New South Wales that I was pleased to visit with Senator Bragg recently, benefiting from Australian free trade agreements, or others, like Stormtech, based in South Nowra, who said very clearly that Australia's FTAs provide them with countless benefits and opportunities to distribute their products on the international stage. They are part of so many businesses exporting so much more right across our region thanks to the network of trade agreements that our government has negotiated, creating more opportunities for more businesses to walk through that door and export more Australian goods to the world.

Senator Bragg, a final supplementary question?

Minister, how will our upcoming free trade agreements, such as those with Indonesia and Hong Kong, ensure stability and certainty for exporters and service providers and help Australians into jobs?

The growth and success we have seen is partly because of the network of trade agreements, but this government is not resting on its laurels; it's looking to expand that network. Critically, before the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Treaties at present are our proposed agreements with Indonesia and with Hong Kong. Under our proposed Indonesian agreement, over 99 per cent of Australia's goods exports will enter Indonesia duty free or under preferential arrangements, and the evidence to JSCOT has widely welcomed that. The National Farmers Federation described it as providing greater certainty for agricultural exporters. The dairy industry said that the Indonesia agreement is worth about $6½ million per annum just on existing exports. That's before they seek to grow the market. The grains industry said it was equivalent to more than 12,000 individual truckloads of Australian grain, which in dollar terms is a new grain feed quota worth over $125 million to Australian farmers. These are real, tangible benefits to our farmers and businesses, and our government is determined to keep opening and creating those opportunities for them.

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs. The Department of Home Affairs invited Paladin, a company registered to a beach shack on Kangaroo Island, to be the sole tenderer for garrison and security services at Manus Island. The $532 million Paladin contract is the second largest in the Department of Home Affairs. A senior Home Affairs official recently told Senate estimates in February that the department was 'quite happy' with the services provided by Paladin. Does the minister agree that the government is 'quite happy' with the services provided by Paladin?

I thank Senator Keneally for the question, even though yesterday, in answer to a question from this side of the chamber, 'What is the greatest threat to border protection in Australia?' my response was 'the shadow minister sitting opposite'. Yesterday in response to a question asked by Senator Hanson I explained to the Senate that, as you would now know, on 30 August 2019 at the request of the PNG Immigration and Citizenship Authority the contract for Paladin Holdings was terminated for convenience with an effective end date of 30 November 2019. I also have provided further information in terms of what the department actually does, in terms of the performance management of the contract, to ensure delivery of services on behalf of the PNG ICA. The information is that the active management of the performance management framework and the identification and rectification of service failures demonstrate sound contract and fiscal management and ensure services are maintained at required levels.

Senator Keneally, a supplementary question?

Documents recently tabled in the Senate show that Paladin service failures occurred over 1,000 times in 18 months and included such poor maintenance that a Home Affairs official actually fell through rotting floorboards during a prearranged inspection. Is the minister quite happy with 1,000 instances of performance failures in just 18 months—a rate of almost two a day?

Senator Keneally, as I said in my answer to your previous question the department operates a rigorous performance management framework to ensure delivery of services on behalf of the PNG ICA. The active management of the performance management framework and the identification and rectification—

Order! Senator Keneally, on a point of order?

On direct relevance. Twice now I have asked the minister specifically if the minister agrees that the government is quite happy with the services. She has repeated the answer she gave to the first question. I ask you to direct her to the question.

Senator Keneally, I was listening to the minister. That was the conclusion of your question. I think the minister was being directly relevant to the earlier part of your question, about the performance of the contract you were quoting, but I will continue to listen very carefully.

As I was saying, the performance management framework and the identification and rectification of service failures demonstrate sound contract and fiscal management and ensure services are maintained at required levels. Higher levels of abatements during the initial period of contracts are not unexpected, and Paladin demonstrated continuous improvement in meeting service standards during the course of the contract through transition and normal operations. The abatements, I'm instructed, often related to relatively minor administrative failures.

Senator Keneally, a final supplementary question?

Australian workers and small-business owners are paying Paladin $20 million a month through their taxes, under the direction of the Minister for Home Affairs, as a result of this contract being awarded without a competitive tender. Can you provide one example of how the minister is quite happy with the services Paladin has provided?

I refer Senator Keneally to the answers I gave to both her initial question and her supplementary question, because they actually did provide that example.

My question is to the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Senator Canavan. Can the minister please explain how important stability and certainty is in Australia's resources sector and how Australia has registered its first account surplus in more than 40 years?

I thank Senator Davey for her question and recognise her longstanding support for our country's fantastic resources sector. Senator Davey is right to highlight the fact that, over the last week or so, Australia has achieved its first current account surplus in, as she says, 44 years—the last time a current account surplus was achieved here in Australia was in 1975—and the resources sector played a big role in achieving that. Just a few years ago our resource sector exports were below $180 billion. At the time there were people out there saying, 'This is the end,' and those opposite were saying: 'We don't need resources anymore. They're not important for our economy anymore.' Well, in the space of just a couple of years, our exports of resources and energy last financial year hit nearly $280 billion—so up nearly $100 billion in the space of just a couple of years. Given our current account surplus had just ticked over zero, that contribution was quite significant.

To run through what has happened in the last few years: our iron ore exports were below $50 billion a few years ago; they're up to almost hitting $70 billion in the last financial year. Our coal exports were at $35 billion a few years ago; they're now at $65 billion. Our gas exports have quadrupled in volume since we've had $200 billion of investment in our gas sector, and we now export $50 billion worth of gas. Just those top three—of gas, coal and iron ore—account for more of our exports combined than all other goods exports as a total. It's a huge contribution to our economy.

I know that Senator Davey knows very well how important it is that government support the resources sector, like the coal sector in her state. I visited some coalmines in the Hunter Valley with her in the last few weeks to reiterate that support. It's why we oppose the agenda of the Greens, who want to shut all this down and take away all this wealth from our country. And then what are we going to do? We're not going to have jobs and we are going to be much poorer for it. (Time expired)

Senator Davey, a supplementary question?

Can the minister explain the growth markets and opportunities for Australian resources and how the Liberals and Nationals in government are pursuing those opportunities?

Our growth in resource exports has largely been on the back of economic growth in our region—and long may that continue. We have successfully attracted investment from Japan, Korea and China. We should take pride in what we as a country provide to those countries in helping those nations develop their economies and take hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. Hopefully we will continue to be able to do that. Hopefully economic growth does continue in our region, but we can't control that completely.

We know that India, for example, is the fastest-growing major country in the world at the moment. It has enormous prospects to continue to grow and develop, but there remain nearly 170 million people in India without access to electricity. I hope that our great coalmining sector can play a role in helping bring electricity, for the first time, to people in our region. One of the biggest things you can do to help people's health outcomes and educational outcomes is let them have access to electricity. India also has an enormous need to build apartments and housing. Our coking coal will be needed for that. I visited India in the last couple of weeks to stress those opportunities, to attract those investments and to create jobs here in Australia.

Senator Davey, a final supplementary question?

Finally, Minister, what are the global prospects for Australia's coal industry and what are the impediments standing in the way of the continued growth?

There continues to be very strong demand for our high-quality coal. That will likely continue given the fact that it is of high-energy content and generally of low ash, which is suiting the needs of countries in our region who want to improve environmental outcomes in their region, including around air quality—not just on climate change. So that demand will continue. The IEA, the International Energy Agency, predicts that demand will increase by over 400 million tonnes in this region in the next couple of decades—a huge opportunity for our country.

What we need, though, is certainty and stability in decision-making. We have an absurd situation at the moment where a coalmine in Queensland—the New Acland stage 3 mine, the New Hope mine—is being held up by the Queensland government. It's approvals are being held up because there's a court case going on, being brought by green activists. It's part of their playbook, and the Queensland government is enabling their playbook at the moment by saying, 'We can't make a decision because there's a court case going on.' There is no legal impediment standing in the way of the Queensland government making this decision. People are losing their jobs right now because the Labor Party, who might have been talking the talk since the election, are still walking the walk with the Australian Greens. (Time expired)

My question is for the Minister for Families and Social Services, Minister Ruston. There are a quarter of a million people on Newstart who have been stuck on the payment for a year and are looking for a job. I've heard from some of them. They're the ones going to job interviews on foot because they can't afford the bus ticket. They turn up to every interview in the same shirt because they can't afford a new one. They're doing the right thing. They're having a go. They're trying to find work, and Newstart's payment rate is making it harder, not easier. How is that fair? Is that deliberate? Will the government consider raising the rate of Newstart to help people get off welfare and into a job?

I thank Senator Lambie for her question. Quite clearly, the responsibility of the government when it comes to people who do not have a job is not just to provide them with the safety net payment to assist them during that time; it's much more important that we also create jobs. This government has a very strong track record of job creation. Over 1.4 million jobs have been created in the time since we have been in government and we have a plan to create more.

More importantly, Senator Lambie, we also believe in the creation of pathways, so that people who haven't got work can be connected to the jobs that are available, while also understanding that there are significant and different barriers to employment. Many people face different types of barriers. Some people face barriers because they're younger and don't have experience. Some people face barriers because of their mental health condition. Some people face barriers as older Australians, and they find themselves with some particularly unique barriers to employment. This government is absolutely committed to working on programs to break down those barriers so that we can assist people in getting into jobs.

There are a couple of examples that this chamber may be interested in. A couple of weeks ago, I attended headspace in northern Adelaide, a fantastic group of people working with young people who present with mental health issues that are barriers to them being able to get work. I spoke to three fantastic young people, all of whom had presented to headspace because they had either depression or anxiety issues. Of the three young people I spoke to, I'm very pleased to announce to the chamber that the first one is in full-time work; the second one is in part-time work and studying; and the third one, who had had significant anxiety issues, said that he was really excited because the following week he was actually feeling prepared and strong enough to attend his first job interview.

Senator Lambie, a supplementary question?

It sounds like I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for you guys to raise the rate of Newstart, then. But why not raise the threshold of income that a Newstart recipient can earn before their payments start being cut? At the moment, someone on Newstart can earn only around $50 a week before their payments are reduced. If the best form of welfare is a job, why punish people on welfare who work anything more than three hours a week?

I thank Senator Lambie for her follow-up question. One of the things that the research has shown is that people who work for a few hours a week are much more likely to be able to go on and get a job. So we would certainly be encouraging people to work. But, through the initiatives and the programs that we're putting in place, we are also providing funding for assistance to break down those barriers. Some of those things may be as simple as providing people with assistance to write their CV, possibly providing assistance with how to dress to go to an interview, providing assistance with how to present at an interview and, in cases where they haven't got the resources, also funding them to be able to buy the appropriate clothes to attend an interview. One of the things that we are absolutely focused on is making sure that there are a series of protections and programs that are wrapped around people who genuinely want to get a job who find themselves in the difficult situation where they don't have a job.

Senator Lambie, a final supplementary question?

Your government argued for lower taxes because a 37 per cent tax rate was discouraging people from work. Over 100,000 recipients lose part of their payment because they're working a few hours a week. And they're not losing 30c in the dollar, are they? No, they're losing between 50c and 60c. How is it fair that Newstart recipients pay a higher effective tax rate than anyone else in the country? Doesn't that discourage work too? It's quite simple. What is it going to cost you people to let them work another few hours a week before it hits their payments? Absolutely nothing. (Time expired)

I thank Senator Lambie for her follow-up question. Obviously this government doesn't see that the reduction in payment is a tax in the same way as you would determine that somebody who is on an actual wage or salary would pay tax. However, I would say that I can give you an absolute commitment that this government is entirely focused on making sure that anybody who hasn't got a job and wants a job will be assisted in getting into work. It is the responsibility of—

Senator Lambie, on a point of order?

Mr President, I simply would like to know if the government would look at letting them work more hours before their payments are hit. It's simple: would you at least consider it?

Again I remind senators that, if they stand on a point of order, they must actually make a point of order, not simply restate the question or ask for a preferred answer.

Whilst I'm not in a position to respond directly to the question that has been asked by Senator Lambie, the one thing I can assure this chamber is that this government is open to all suggestions of how we can assist people in getting out of the state of unemployment into employment. So I'm more than happy to talk to Senator Lambie or anybody opposite or anybody else in this place— (Time expired)

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Senator Birmingham. I refer to his repeated assurances to the Senate that 'Minister Taylor has always declared his interest'. Does the minister stand by that statement? If so, can the minister advise when Minister Taylor disclosed his interest in Jam Land Pty Ltd to the department which reports to him and is responsible for investigating that company for allegedly poisoning hectares of critically endangered grasslands?

I thank Senator Wong for her question. Mr Taylor has—as he has made clear on repeated occasions now, and as I and others have made clear—in accordance with the rules of the parliament made all necessary disclosures in relation to his interests and those interests have been well known. This has been well versed and well travelled. Indeed, his department, which Senator Wong referred to in her question, has made it very clear that their understanding is that the approaches taken have all been completely appropriate and completely in accordance with the expectations of disclosure of the parliament and the ministerial standards.

I again refer to this minister's answer on 24 July in response to a question from me: 'Minister Taylor has always declared his interests.' Can the minister explain why an FOI decision by the Department of the Environment and Energy found no documents—I repeat, no documents—relating to any declaration of interest by Minister Taylor in Jam Land Pty Ltd?

As Senator Wong, who has been in this place for a long time, should know, declarations are made to the parliament, to the House of Representatives. As Senator Wong, who was a cabinet minister during the six years of the Rudd and Gillard governments—I hate to have to remind her of those governments—would know, the minister makes declarations to the Prime Minister. Minister Taylor has made all of those declarations to the parliament and to the Prime Minister in accordance with parliamentary rules and the ministerial standards of accountability, exactly as you would expect. Those documents are held by the relevant departments. Indeed, in relation to the minister's disclosures to the parliament, they are entirely on the public record. They don't have to be FOI-ed from the department of environment; they are published by the House of Representatives.

I again remind this minister of his answer to this chamber: 'Minister Taylor has always declared his interests.' That was his unqualified answer to this chamber. Can the minister confirm that the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction has never declared his interest in Jam Land to the department? Can the minister explain why he believes that is appropriate?

As we have outlined on numerous occasions in this place, Mr Taylor has disclosed his shareholdings in his family company, as he is required to. He has disclosed his partnerships to the parliament, as he is required to. He has disclosed his interests in all of the matters that are expected by the parliament—very clearly. Senator Wong's question implies that these disclosures should go down multiple tiers or layers in the terms of the interests of entities that the minister has already disclosed his interest in.

Senator Wong, on a point of order?

The point of order is direct relevance. It is not about subsidiary entities; it is about conflicts of interest. That's what the disclosure is about.

As his department has made clear, they were well aware of any of these issues in terms of dealings that have been had with the minister. They have acted in accordance with that. Issues of compliance have not been raised by the minister, nor with the minister. I know many of these similar questions have been asked of the minister in the House of Representatives just recently. As he's rightly pointed out, all he has done is sought to stand up for farmers in his electorate, and Labor are targeting him—

Order, Senator Birmingham. The time for the answer has expired.

My question is to the Minister for Defence, Senator Reynolds. Can the minister please update the Senate on Australia's cooperation with Papua New Guinea, our closest neighbour, and how it is improving stability in our region?

I thank Senator Scarr for that question. PNG is a country that I, like Senator Payne and many others in this chamber, have a deep respect and affinity for. I'm very proud to report to this chamber that Australia's defence partnership with Papua New Guinea is longstanding, deep and built on shared history and friendship—and I think, as Senator Payne would agree, on rugby league. My recent five-day visit to PNG last month for the 27th ministerial forum really reinforced the strength of our maritime, air, infrastructure and people-to-people links. It also coincided with the 40th anniversary of our Defence Cooperation Program—Australia's largest, at $42 million annually. It was wonderful to see the breadth and depth of the relationships that extend between our two forces. In Wewak, I opened Camp Key, a new PNGDF training facility at Moem Barracks, funded through the DCP. It was built by ADF and PNGDF soldiers working side by side under Exercise Puk Puk. I also saw strong people-to-people links on display at Wewak, with fully integrated ADF and PNGDF platoons working side by side, fully integrated, to develop their skills and their joint capabilities as part of Exercise Wantok Warrior.

Minister Soloma and I saw our air relationship in action when we travelled to his home town of Okapa in the DCP-funded PNGDF helicopter. Wonderfully, it was flown by army lieutenant Joshua Pondros, a pilot who completed his flying qualifications through the DCP.

I am confident that, as partners, we are working together, defence force by defence force, to support Papua New Guinea's sovereign priorities in the areas of nation-building infrastructure towards a resilient and sovereign Papua New Guinea. Together we are investing in the PNG of tomorrow to support a sovereign capability. (Time expired)

Senator Scarr, a supplementary question?

Can the minister outline to the Senate Australia's maritime partnership with Papua New Guinea?

I thank the senator for that question, and yes I can. During the visit, I saw that, as maritime nations and near neighbours, Australia is working with PNG to address our shared maritime security challenges. During this visit, I travelled to Lombrum Naval Base on Manus Island, where Minister Soloma and I opened a new wharf facility that was funded through the DCP.

It was a joyous occasion, where I learned that my Manusian dancing style is probably not quite up to scratch! But it was a joyous occasion. This wharf will enable the PNGDF to berth and maintain its new Guardian class patrol boats and also enhance its capability to protect its borders and its maritime resources. Our increased cooperation in Manus is a natural extension of our assistance and work together under our Pacific Maritime Security Program, a 30-year program to build Papua New Guineans' maritime capability.

Senator Scarr, a final supplementary question?

Can the minister update the Senate on any other recent Defence engagement activities in the Pacific?

Yes I can. During this visit to the region I also spent time in the Solomon Islands, where I was able to witness firsthand the deep defence engagement between our two nations. I was so proud to observe the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force and the Australian Defence Force working together, side by side, to conduct Exercise Coastwatchers in the Western and Choiseul provinces of Solomon Islands. This important activity is now in its third year, and it develops our forces' ability to plan, conduct and support remote policing and law enforcement activities and also, importantly, to exercise humanitarian assistance and disaster relief responses. This year's exercise was specifically focused on strengthening the Solomon Islands' ability to police remote areas of its exclusive economic zone, a high priority for the Solomon Islands' government and one that Australia was incredibly proud to support. I thank all of our men and women in uniform, both in PNG and in the Solomon Islands, doing the wonderful work that they are doing.

Order, Senator Reynolds. Senator Cormann.

Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Cormann) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Payne) to questions without notice asked by Senators McAllister and Watt today relating to the rising cost of living and the economy.

This government is a little bit like the dog that caught the car, isn't it. They went barking and snapping through the election campaign, barking about the Labor Party—and then they won. And, as it turned out, there was absolutely nothing in the bottom drawer. They have captured the government benches, but they have absolutely no idea what to do about the circumstances facing our country. Arguably, there is nothing more important, more critical or more urgent than a national government-led response to the economic circumstances that are facing us. You'd think that would be the priority, coming into this week of parliamentary sittings. But is that what Mr Morrison told us he was interested in? No. Mr Morrison has boasted on this occasion, as he has done on every occasion since he took government, that he is coming into this parliament to set tests for Labor, to play silly games and to construct bills that create wedges for other parliamentarians.

What a sensible, responsible, grown-up government would do is come into this chamber and this parliament with a plan and a serious response to the challenges that face us, because there are very serious economic challenges facing us. But, sadly, there is nothing on offer from the government benches. Economic growth is the slowest it has been in the 10 years since the GFC, wages are stagnant and 1.8 million Australians are out of work or looking for more work. Household debt is high. Living standards are going backwards. We have seen the first per capita income recession in over a decade. Productivity has declined every quarter for the last four quarters.

There is a lot to do, a lot before us, and it is not as though solutions are not on offer. The Reserve Bank governor has been particularly engaged in putting forward his views about what needs to happen. He's urging the government to take action—to bring forward expenditure on infrastructure—and still Mr Morrison fails to act. Seven times since the election in May, the Reserve Bank has called on the government to fast-track infrastructure spending to stimulate the economy—17 times in the last two years. You'd think that would be a wake-up call, wouldn't you? You'd think that would be a message that something needs to be done. But right now the government are sitting on their hands.

Let's be clear about what the Reserve Bank are saying. They are saying that, with interest rates at very, very low levels—a third of what they were during the GFC—the capacity for monetary policy to respond to the conditions is very constrained. Government needs to step in. That is the message that the Reserve Bank is sending the government, and so it might have been the subject for a serious response. It might have been the subject for a parliamentary response, but that's not what we've got. All we've got is endless political game playing.

I guess that's what you get when you elect an adman as Prime Minister. You don't get someone engaged in serious policy problems. You don't get grown-up government. You just get a silly campaign. Unfortunately for all the Australians out there who are doing it tough, who find themselves struggling to pay bills and wondering if they're going to have a job or wondering how to get more work, they'll find no answers whatsoever from the people on the other side of this chamber.

Master Builders Australia were out there today. In the last little while, the excuse offered by the government for why they can't do anything to bring forward infrastructure funding is that there are constraints. Well, they've absolutely belled the cat on that one, haven't they, because Master Builders Australia have made it very clear that, yes, there are some constraints—constraints in Sydney and Melbourne. But in a range of other sectors there is plenty of capacity and there is the opportunity to stimulate the economy in our regions—in places other than Melbourne and Sydney. For a government that prides itself on its work in, and likes to talk a big game about, the regions, it is incredible that that advice from Masters Builders Australia isn't being heeded. It's the same advice, incidentally, that the government has heard from the RBA—that there is room to stimulate the economy.

Why won't they act? It's because they have no plan. They have no vision. They are stuck with an economic textbook somebody gave them in 1980, and they don't have the imagination to adapt themselves to current circumstances. They're playing political games instead of dealing with the very real economic challenges that face us now. (Time expired)

It is terrific news to hear that those on the other side know that there are other regions apart from Sydney and Melbourne—very exciting news! The Australian people, when we went to the last election—the one on 18 May, where they made a very clear decision—decided that they wanted no part of the economic management that was put forward by the Labor opposition. They made it very clear that they did not want hundreds of millions of dollars in new taxes. They made it very clear that they did not want an economy based around unachievable renewable energy targets. They made it very clear that they did not want the economy smashed and jobs snatched from Australians by the opposition's plan. What they did want was a sensible, practical economic plan, which was presented by Morrison and this government. What they got is a government that has provided certainty and stability.

They got a government that does have a plan—a plan that was taken to the Australian people, a plan that was put forward in the budget earlier this year and a plan that foresaw that Australia did have challenges that it was going to face, and the government was steadfastly getting on with implementing that plan. The proof of that plan and that it is moving forward is the Australian people's acceptance and understanding that there are challenges ahead, and that we have just seen that the Australian economy has completed its 28th consecutive year of economic growth—a record that is unmatched by any other developed economy. The proof is on the scoreboard; we just have to look at those numbers to understand that this is an economy that has survived despite economic headwinds. It is a reminder that it is important that we continue to talk positively and support those businesses who are out employing Australians, who are providing real jobs, who are providing the taxes and who are providing the services that we so enjoy. It is important to talk up that resilience and to repudiate all of those who've sought to talk it down.

In the June quarter, real GDP grew by 0.5 per cent to be 1.4 per cent higher through the year. In year-average terms, real GDP grew by 1.9 per cent in 2018-19. It is slightly below the budget forecast of 2¼ per cent, but that is also in year-average terms. It is important that we remember that it is Australians who build the economy. It is Australian businesses that employ people. Labor lacks flexibility and lacks understanding of the risks that Australians make in operating these businesses and employing people. These Australians need to be recognised and need to be supported, and their decision to support the Morrison government is one that should not be disregarded. The Morrison government had a clear plan to take to the economy—one that we're delivering. As I said before, it is about certainty, it is about stability and it is about having a plan in the face of a challenging world environment, but one that we knew was coming, with a plan that we are clearly working towards.

This contrast is between a stable, united government getting on with the job with a clear plan delivering on promises that were made and a Labor Party that is conflicted on policy and tarnished by scandal. It's about certainty versus uncertainty—stability and predictability versus chaos and confusion. Labor just doesn't seem to know what it stands for or who's side they are on, which means you don't know what you'll get from one week to the next on tax, on the budget, on border protection, on union power and on work over welfare. Labor can't tell you what they believe or whose side they're on. There is no certainty and there is no consistency.

It's interesting to note that Senator McDonald couldn't even finish her five minutes of allotted time right through. I listened to that contribution and I thought: Well, hang on a second: you're in government! We're asking you a legitimate question, which is asked by a lot of commentators in the economic space.

You're looking at an economy which is faltering. You're looking at an economy that's got some positivity in the minerals sector, which has been buoyant and which has kept the place afloat. If that doesn't continue, what are your plans? Their plans are that somehow or other it's the fault of the Labor Party's policy. You've been in government for six years; have a look down the bloody path. Where are you going economically? A legitimate question was asked, I think last night, of the Prime Minister: 'Are you actually compounding the problem here by chasing a surplus in a stagnating and flat economy? Are you actually going to drive a bit of a recessionary impact by chasing a surplus at all costs?'

We all know a surplus in a rising economy is the Holy Grail. Every household knows that. If you have more coming in and you put a bit aside for a rainy day, that's the Holy Grail. If you have less coming in and you have to buy less or do less to put a bit aside, that's not the Holy Grail. In an economy as large as Australia's and with the impact that this government has on the economy's spending, if you're chasing a surplus at all costs so that you can tick a box saying, 'I wanted a surplus,' and it is actually impacting negatively on the economy, that's dumb.

Senator McDonald hinted at chaotic policies on this side. I don't think we have to go back too far to see the chaos that the Morrison-Abbott government was creating in the community; it was rampant right across. It's true you won an election on 19 May, but don't blame us for your lack of activity in the economy. We are the opposition. We're asking legitimate questions. What are your plans? What are your plans for stagnant wage growth? What are your plans for declining new car sales? What are your plans for declining activity in the building sector? What are your plans right across the whole economy?

It's true that we've had 28-plus years of uninterrupted economic growth, and some commentators would argue that a lot of that is attributable to our reasonably high levels of immigration. Immigrants come to this country and contribute effectively from day one. They build stuff. They buy stuff. They are very beneficial to the economy. This government is looking at lower forecasts for immigration. So you have a fixation with a surplus at all costs, declining economic indicators across many facets of the economy—buoyed only by the mining sector—and a projected lowering of the immigration levels. All of these could well create the circumstances where, unfortunately, we go into a recession—two quarters of negative growth.

Our indicators are not that high at the moment. We're not going that well. When we ask legitimate questions about what this government's plan is, their plan is, 'Well, if you lot were in power, it'd be worse.' I have to say that that's not a plan. Is that the plan that you're going to take to people when they're thrown out of a job? If 750 people lose their job at Virgin or if other companies start laying off people, the plan the government has is, 'Well, don't worry, because if the Labor Party were in power you'd be hurting more.' You've been there for six years. You have another three years to go. What is your plan if this economy tanks, nosedives? Are you going to remain fixated on having a surplus at all costs and punish everybody who falls down in the economy, with no plans of floating a bit or putting a bit of expenditure here or there?

Infrastructure is the classic place to stimulate a flat economy. You have no plans to increase that. 'Oh, we're doing well on that. We're doing well here.' There are plenty of independent economic commentators saying that there are enough warning signals here—flat, declining wage growth; new car sales are down; the building sector is down. Around you, there are enough signs to say that you should have a fiscal plan. When we and other commentators ask, 'What are you doing?' you should have a competent answer, not say, 'You lot were going to be worse.' (Time expired)

I will acknowledge that Senator Gallacher is the first one from those opposite who actually acknowledges the fact that there was an election a few short weeks ago and that the Australian people spoke. The Australian people spoke extraordinarily decisively on the two competing economic policies up for grabs. They had a policy of the politics of envy—big government, socialism—from those opposite, and from this government they had a very clear plan for keeping the Australian economy strong and resilient in the face of some serious international economic headwinds. The only people in denial in this place are those opposite. They're in denial about what happened a few short weeks ago, when the Australian people spoke. The verdict of the Australian people was very clear. We took a plan to the election, a plan that—as I read out in this place yesterday from a media release from the Treasurer, Mr Frydenberg—outlined the economic headwinds that Australia faced. It was a media release, from before the last election, that set out this government's plan to address those issues, to keep those 28 years of economic growth on track, for the future, to see our economy keep growing, to lower taxes, to keep funding those essential services that Australians require, to keep people in jobs, to grow jobs. It was a comprehensive economic plan from this government.

What do we hear from those opposite? We hear about floundering. We hear about faltering. We hear about stagnation. But, more than anything else, we hear them falling back into that sad, old pattern of the politics of envy, where they always go when they're in trouble. It's the politics of envy. This government is delivering. It's delivering on the $100 billion infrastructure plan over the next 10 years. There are a record high number of people in jobs. Unemployment rose in the latest quarter, in May of this year, by 42,300 to a record high of 12,868,000-plus jobs. Do those opposite ever talk about jobs? Of course they don't.

Jobs growth is fundamental. It's about reducing the number of those on welfare. We want to have fewer people on welfare and more people in work, which is exactly what this government has been delivering over the last six years. We took to the Australian people a very clear plan for keeping on delivering those new jobs into the Australian economy and continuing to see fewer people need the support of government via income support. There are 230,000 fewer people dependent on income support than four years ago. That is an outstanding result. That is 230,000 individuals—hundreds of thousands of families—who have moved from the welfare system into work and who are now playing an active role in the Australian economy. The full-time unemployment category now accounts for almost 74 per cent of the employment growth over the last year. We're putting people into full-time jobs. Business is giving people the opportunity to gain access to those full-time jobs, which is the best thing that an economy can give to someone—to get them out of the welfare system, to get them out of dependency on government assistance and get them into a job.

As seen recently in the HILDA Survey, mean disposable household income rose to $55,200 in 2017, up from $54,680 in 2016. In fact, it's the largest increase in mean disposable household income since 2013. Wages are growing at the highest rate since December 2014, at 2.4 per cent. Inflation is currently 1.3 per cent. We've seen that private sector wages are growing at their fastest pace in four years. So, once again, we see those opposite falling back into a level of confusion, of floundering, of faltering themselves, as they don't know where to go following their election defeat. They fall back into the politics of envy. They deny the verdict of the Australian people a few short weeks ago.

One of the things I've noticed over the course of the last couple of months—I've been in the Senate for just a few moments, really—is the refusal of those opposite to acknowledge the basic facts in the Australian economy, a refusal to engage with the real issues. As I said yesterday, that really is a precondition for being effective: acknowledge what the problem is, work out what the sources of the problem are and then act.

The truth is, wage growth is at its lowest level in recorded history. Since wage growth has been measured, we haven't had a period where it's grown so little. In fact, we've achieved a small economic miracle in the Australian context. We've got skills shortages and low wage growth. We've got unemployment hovering, stubbornly, between five and six per cent, skills shortages and low wage growth, all at the same time. That isn't supposed to be a feature of a modern economy, but I think it's becoming the new normal under the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government. It shouldn't occur.

Profits have been rising around 4.5 per cent over the course of the last quarter, but wages have grown at half or 25 per cent of the rate of profit growth over the last couple of years. It is true that profit growth is more volatile, and you can't look at quarter-by-quarter measures of firm profitability. And it is important that Australian firms remain profitable over a sustained period of time. But what's happened, clearly, over the course of the last period is the wage-profit share—the wages share of the economy—has declined year on year on year. There are serious consequences for our economy and for our democracy if that continues to occur.

As I said before, skill shortages and unemployment remaining where it is are the conditions where the economy and workers ought to be banking wage increases. It's the right time in the economic cycle for workers' wages to rise and for people to build a decent standard of living. We are missing an opportunity to build incomes and the wealth of ordinary Australians because of the government's wilful blindness on these questions. There is no wages policy. In fact, the only alternative that's been offered is that the current settings are a deliberate design feature to keep wages low. Despite the Leader of the House's denials, you'd have to say that that is the logic of the industrial relations system from 1996 to 2019, with hyper-regulation of collective bargaining and denying people the capacity to effectively bargain and to lift their wages.

We are operating in an environment where every economic indicator is pointing in the wrong direction, with vehicle sales down, retail turnover down, labour productivity down, household debt up and GDP growth decreasing year on year. In fact, some economists say that we're in a per capita recession. Apparently that is cause for celebration on the other side. Job ads are down, household income is down, underemployment is up, the long-term unemployment rate over the course of the last few years is tracking up and electricity prices across the National Electricity Market are tracking up 158 per cent. These are all domestic factors that the government has some control over, that the government should have a policy to deal with. The government's only plan is politics and to point the finger at global economic headwinds.

I appreciate that there is not a yachting analogy that the crowd opposite wouldn't love to get hold of, but it's not an excuse for economic failure. It is not an excuse for a policy agenda that has run out of steam. It is time that the government turned up to the parliament with a plan that is about the economy and jobs and not just about politics. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia (Senator Canavan) to a question without notice asked by the Leader of the Australian Greens (Senator Di Natale) today relating to climate change.

The head of the Tasmanian Fire Union said there are no climate deniers on the end of a fire hose. Senator Di Natale asked a very clear question today. He asked why the Prime Minister and the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia wouldn't meet with the 23 chiefs of emergency services, representing every state and territory in this country, who wanted to talk to the Prime Minister about acting on climate change.

Have no doubt: the catastrophe, the tragedy, that we are seeing unfolding in Queensland, as we have seen in other states around this beautiful country in recent years, is a climate crisis. It is climate catastrophe. This is what the future of a warming planet looks like—increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events, hotter temperatures, more drought, more dry lightning strikes, more cyclones, more hurricanes, more variability in our weather and more extremes.

We saw the biggest hurricane ever recorded in the Bahamas just a week ago, after an exceptionally devastating cyclone, or hurricane, season in the US last year. We have seen unprecedented global marine heatwaves right around the world. No-one is denying anymore, except maybe a few cynical climate deniers in the Liberal Party and National Party, that half the Great Barrier Reef has bleached and perished. I recently surfed coral reefs in the Maldives, where the locals were telling us that 90 per cent of their reefs died from the same heatwaves. Indeed, UNESCO's 28 World Heritage listed coral reefs around the world are, in many cases, worse than the Great Barrier Reef. This is climate crisis. This is climate catastrophe.

I ask those in the chamber today: if we can't talk about climate change and these climate catastrophes right now while they're happening and how we are going to act to prevent them from happening in the future, then when? When can we discuss this? When can we have a mature debate about the facts before us? If we can't listen to the frontline personnel, the brave Australian men and women who go and fight these fires, the professionals, the unions, the volunteer firefighters—in fact, our Prime Minister won't even meet with them to discuss action on climate—then what hope do we have? Why is it that we are sticking our heads in the sand in the place where the levers are pulled and the decisions are made?

I am going to start using the words 'climate criminals' from here on in, because I have no doubt that future generations will look at decision-makers who stuck their heads in the sand or deliberately overlooked taking effective action on climate change because it wasn't in their political interest to do so as criminals. I'm going to start calling you climate criminals, because that's what you are. When we see tragic loss of life, loss of property and the tragic loss of entire ecosystems because of inaction, there's no other way to describe that except as criminality. I have no doubt that future generations are going to look back on those who stood in the way of action as criminals—not those brave souls out there who have joined groups like the Extinction Rebellion, who are protesting and taking action for their future because they have no other alternative because this place and this government have not listened. Those schoolkids, their parents, all the bank employees and others are about to strike on 20 September because they care about an increasing frequency of catastrophic events like those we've seen in Queensland. They are the ones who are sending us a message, and we should be listening. At a time of crisis, we must confront it. We must talk about climate change and how we're going to take effective action.

Question agreed to.

In relation to notice of motion No. 95, the Minister for Agriculture has publicly released the biosecurity imports levy report following the opposition giving notice of an order for the production of documents for the report. Accordingly, I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 95 standing in the name of Senator Sterle for today.

It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 10 August 2019, of the Hon. Dr Alexander James 'Jim' Forbes, CMG, MC, a former minister and member of the House of Representatives for the division of Barker, South Australia, from 1956 to 1975.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate records its deep regret at the death, on 10 August 2019, of the Honourable Dr Alexander (Jim) Forbes CMG, MC, former Member of the House of Representatives and former Minister, places on record its appreciation for his service to the Parliament and the nation, and tenders its sympathy to his family in their bereavement.

With the passing of Dr Jim Forbes, Australia has lost the last surviving Liberal minister in the Menzies government. The Liberal Party has lost a true great, and our nation has farewelled a war veteran whose service to the nation continued long after he left the battlefield. His wife, Margaret, and their five children, Sarah, Emma, Alexander, David and Anna, have laid to rest a loving, caring and remarkable husband, father and man. We share in their loss and mourn with them.

In politics, people come and go. Governments come and go. But Jim was different. He spanned the decades. His political career was one of longevity, spanning the terms of five prime ministers. But his endurance was not confined to political life; aged 95 at the time of his passing, Jim outlived almost all of his contemporaries. In this place today, we remember, celebrate and are grateful for Jim's life of service.

Jim was born in Hobart on 16 December 1923. He was educated at Knox Grammar School in Sydney and at St Peter's College in Adelaide. At the age of 16 Jim enlisted and attended the Royal Military College at Duntroon. He graduated the day before his 19th birthday and went on to serve in the Second World War with the 2nd Australian Mountain Battery. He was deployed to New Guinea, Bougainville, Japan and Germany. A dedicated and courageous soldier, Jim was awarded the Military Cross in 1945 for his gallant and distinguished service in the South West Pacific. Exceptional military courage ran in the family; Jim's father received a Military Cross during the First World War, and his brother Patrick was later awarded the medal during the Korean War.

After his discharge from the Army in 1947 Jim studied an arts degree at the University of Adelaide and later earned a PhD in political science at the University of Oxford. He married Margaret Blackburn at Oxford in 1952 and returned to Adelaide to tutor in politics. He and Margaret had five children together.

Jim's interest in politics had come to the fore in 1948. He was elected president of the Mount Lofty branch of the Liberal and Country League in South Australia and was the founding president of the Adelaide University Liberal Union. In 1956 Jim won the Barker by-election in South Australia and held the seat until his retirement in 1975. In parliament he was forthright in his views and became a member of the 'Oxbridge group', the name given by journalists to a set of outspoken Liberal backbenchers who had studied at Oxford and Cambridge.

During an official visit to Indonesia, Malaya and the Cocos Islands in 1959, Jim got to know Prime Minister Robert Menzies well. Menzies admired that Jim had graduated from the Royal Military College and served overseas. After the 1963 election Jim was elevated to the ministry as Minister for the Army and, very briefly, Minister for the Navy in the Menzies government. He advocated for a selective national service scheme at a time when the Army was under-resourced. The Menzies government argued the scheme was in the national interest, and the law passed. Jim later recalled the system not being very popular, but he believed it was a fair system and was prepared to take responsibility for it. Jim had seen active service as a teenager, holding out the Japanese in dense jungle in New Guinea, and was well qualified to make that judgement. That is what is part of being a political leader—making judgements and decisions you know may not be popular right now but are in the best interests of your country. That takes courage, and Jim had courage in spades. In sending troops to Vietnam, Jim demonstrated that Australia was a dependable ally and helped strengthen our alliance with the United States. Our relationship with the US remains just as important today.

When Harold Holt succeeded Menzies as Prime Minister in 1966, Jim became health minister. He felt the new portfolio enabled him to really be a politician. Jim believed wealth should not define a person's health, so he introduced a new national health scheme that prioritised medical services for those on low incomes. As the Minister for Immigration in William McMahon's government, Jim oversaw the continued dismantling of the White Australia policy, helping to create the diverse, multicultural society Australia is today. He was a principled member of parliament who cared for his nation and always strived to advance our society and our interests. Jim retired in 1975, but he was never far removed from politics after leaving parliament. In 1979 he was elected South Australian state president of the Liberal Party, and he became the party's federal president in 1982. During his time in parliament, Jim served with distinction, as he had done during his time in the armed forces. The former member for Barker was made a Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George in recognition of his service to the parliament, and in 2001 he received a Centenary Medal.

To Margaret and his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren: thank you for sharing Jim with our nation. On behalf of the Australian government and the Senate, and in tribute to a remarkable man whose life was one of distinguished service in uniform and in parliament, we offer you our sincerest condolences. Rest in peace, Jim Forbes.

I rise on behalf of the opposition to express our condolences following the passing of the Hon. Dr Alexander James Forbes CMG MC, known as Jim Forbes, former member of the House of Representatives and minister, at the age of 95. As I begin, I wish to convey the opposition's condolences to his family and friends. In particular, I extend our sympathies to his wife, Margaret, and his four surviving children, nine grandchildren and three great-grandchildren.

The death of Jim Forbes marks the passing of a significant era in Australian politics. Dr Forbes was the last living former minister to have served under Prime Minister Robert Menzies. Having completed military service during World War II and worked as a university lecturer, Dr Forbes entered politics and would go on to serve under Prime Ministers Harold Holt, John McEwen, John Gorton and William McMahon. His portfolio responsibilities extended to defence, health and immigration, and he later became the federal president of the Liberal Party, the last South Australian to have held that position.

Born in Hobart in 1923, as a young man Jim Forbes found himself in the middle of World War II. He graduated from the Royal Military College, Duntroon, in 1942 and went on to serve for the remainder of the war primarily in the Pacific theatres but also in Germany and London. For gallantry and service in the South-West Pacific, he received the Military Cross. When the war concluded, he did not continue to serve in a full-time capacity but remained as a reserve officer until 1956. In addition to this, he completed a Bachelor of Arts with Honours in history and politics at the University of Adelaide and doctoral studies at Oxford, and until his election he was a university lecturer in politics at the University of Adelaide. Coincidentally, also at Oxford at that time were a future prime minister, Malcolm Fraser, and a future deputy prime minister, Jim Cairns. This background served him well for the career change that was soon to come.

After an unsuccessful tilt at Kingston in 1955, in 1956 Jim Forbes was elected the member for Barker, which at that time covered not only the south-east of South Australia, as it does today, but also the hills and coastal plains south of Adelaide, and Kangaroo Island. He took over from one of the great characters of Australian politics, Archie Cameron.

In making his first speech in 1957, Dr Forbes was accorded the honour of moving the address-in-reply to the speech of the Governor-General. Unsurprisingly, he praised the content of the speech, setting out as it did the Menzies government's priorities for the new term of office. He spoke of the 'undertones of idealism and faith in the future', which he felt were 'essential to constructive and effective performance'. A topic he particularly dwelt on was the need for increased development of Australia's productive resources, consistent with the broader postwar development that was occurring across the nation. In his own electorate, primary production was significant in agriculture, viticulture and aquaculture. He proudly cited growth in the sheep population—to 13½ million, double the number a decade prior—and in forestry as prime examples of the growth in the rural economy that had been, as he saw it, fostered by the policies of the Menzies government, accompanied by developments in agricultural science.

At the 1961 election, an election advertisement touted his credentials as 'a servant of his constituents' but also as a person of influence in the parliament by virtue of his membership on committees including defence, wool, food and agriculture. It also noted he was chosen as the sole member of parliament to accompany Prime Minister Menzies on an official visit to Indonesia and Malaya in 1959.

Jim Forbes had a high opinion of Menzies, and this was something he said only grew the more he got to know him. Menzies obviously had a high opinion of Dr Forbes as well, something that did not diminish through the close contact they had, and soon he was in consideration for promotion. Today, an expectant parliamentarian might find out about a prospective ministerial appointment through speculation on social media. And, whilst there was plenty of speculation surrounding the announcement of the Menzies ministry in 1963, Dr Forbes had only one recourse: to wait by the telephone. Fortunately, Menzies did call, and Dr Forbes was informed he was to be Minister for the Army, Minister for the Navy and Minister assisting the Treasurer. The Army and Navy portfolios were particularly well chosen for the former serviceman and recipient of the Military Cross.

With Australian involvement in Vietnam increasing, Dr Forbes took on these Defence portfolio ministries at a challenging time. Significant amongst his responsibilities was to facilitate the reintroduction of national service, including the infamous 'birthday ballot'. In 1965, he moved further amendments to defence legislation, which removed the limitation on serving overseas for persons called up for compulsory service in wartime. This meant a liability for overseas service would be mandatory for all persons called up in wartime, and, accompanied by an increasing commitment to the conflict in Vietnam, this significantly altered the character of national service.

In an interview 50 years later, in 2014, just after his 90th birthday, Dr Forbes continued to affirm that decision, convinced it was the right one for the nation at that time. He also argued it was a fairer system than what existed elsewhere—for example, in the United States. He believed their system enabled the sons of people of wealth and influence to dodge the draft. National service was abolished by the Whitlam government when it came to power in 1972. During his tenure, Dr Forbes also oversaw the introduction of a scheme to give soldiers the ability to have trades training recognised outside of the Army.

When Harold Holt took over from Menzies in 1966, Jim Forbes was given the health portfolio. He continued to hold this portfolio under John Gorton, whom he admired for his leadership and compared favourably with both his predecessor and successor. He was especially engaged in the Commonwealth's scientific and research work in the health portfolio. Dr Forbes was ahead of his time in trying, on multiple occasions, to alert Australians to the dangers of smoking, including through educational films, restrictions on advertising and warnings on packets. In his 2014 interview, he lamented that the government ceded vital ground on health policy by allowing the gap between medical benefits and costs to grow too wide, paving the way for—as he saw it—public support for the introduction of Medibank, the forerunner of Medicare, by the Whitlam government. The policy solutions he proposed came too late to address the shifting tide of public opinion in this area.

William McMahon appointed Jim Forbes to be immigration minister when he took over from Gorton in 1971, and Dr Forbes retained this portfolio until the Whitlam government came to power in 1972. Dr Forbes had a highly unfavourable opinion of McMahon, something that he remarked put him in step with the majority of Australians at the time. He felt that had he not been the sole minister from South Australia McMahon would have quickly bundled him out, recalling constant arguments with his prime minister. One of these arguments centred on the decision to deport the entertainer Joe Cocker, following his conviction in Adelaide for drug offences. McMahon thought the government had to take a stand, whilst Dr Forbes later said that he 'didn't mind one way or the other'.

He also oversaw the continued dismantling of the White Australia Policy. On Immigration Sunday in 1972, he spoke about the significant contribution of migrants to Australia's postwar economic growth and relative affluence. Reflecting further on this, he also noted the important responsibility that rested on existing citizens to personally extend the hand of welcome to new arrivals. And perhaps it's somewhat appropriate that the Leader of the Government in the Senate and the Leader of the Opposition today are both new arrivals, so to speak, to Australia. He said that Australians should recognise the positive impact that a hand of welcome would have on migrants 'seeking a secure place in a strange environment'. Without helping new settlers to find life in their new country satisfying and rewarding, he said, Australia would not 'attain its proper fulfilment'.

After the Whitlam government was elected, Jim Forbes unsuccessfully stood to be deputy Liberal leader under opposition leader Billy Snedden. He served Snedden as shadow minister for defence and was a strident spokesperson for greater capital expenditure in the portfolio for the Citizen Military Forces and for national servicemen. His unhappiness at the decision to remove Snedden in favour of Malcolm Fraser—possibly with Fraser's destructive role in sparking the end of Gorton's prime ministership still in mind—was a significant factor in his decision not to contest the 1975 election, and he did not offer himself for the shadow ministry following the leadership change.

Jim Forbes had retired at a relatively young age, for parliament, of 52. Despite his frustration with the way in which Snedden had been undermined, after his retirement Dr Forbes continued to serve the Liberal Party, most notably as its president in South Australia from 1979 to 1982 and then as federal president from 1982 to 1985. The instability in leadership that had plagued the Liberals in the late 1960s and early 1970s reared its head again in the 1980s, with infighting between Malcolm Fraser and Andrew Peacock, then Peacock and John Howard, simmering away during his time as president. His frustration with this state of affairs saw him stand down as federal president prior to the conclusion of his term. He also continued to contribute in public service as chairman of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories from 1978 to 1984, maintaining the links with medical science that had been a feature of his time as Minister for Health. He also welcomed the opportunity to rebuild friendships and relationships that had suffered in the 20 years he'd been a member for a large country electorate and, for nearly half that time, a federal minister as well.

Jim Forbes was respected for his long and dedicated service to the nation in uniform and in parliament. He was regarded by his colleagues as a principled representative, and his death closes the door on an unparalleled era in Australian politics. Again, I express the opposition's condolences to his family and friends.

I rise on behalf of the Nationals party to pass on our commiserations and condolences on the passing of the Hon. Jim Forbes, and particularly to pass on our condolences to his family and many children and grandchildren, as well as to members of the Liberal Party. As has been expressed here, Dr Forbes was a remarkable contributor to our nation over decades of service, not just in this parliament but also in wartime. Serving with distinction in the south-west Pacific region in World War II, Doctor Forbes was awarded a Military Cross and also participated in the victory celebrations in London as part of the Australian delegation. After the war, Dr Forbes committed himself to study, first in Adelaide and then overseas at Oxford, eventually returning to take up a lectureship in political science at the University of Adelaide.

When he decided to go into politics, Dr Forbes entered the seat of Barker and succeeded the then member, Archie Cameron. Archie had himself been a leader of the Country Party in previous times, although by that stage Archie had himself left for first the United Australia Party and then the Liberal Party. As has been expressed here by others, Dr Forbes served with distinction as a minister within the Menzies government in the portfolios of Navy, Army, Immigration and Health. He made enormous contributions in all of his portfolios—particularly the establishment of the national health service, a precursor to the broader universal healthcare Australians enjoy today, and his advocacy for the disestablishment of the White Australia policy in the portfolio of Immigration. And he wasn't averse to making controversial decisions from time to time that he thought were right. Senator Keneally mentioned kicking out Joe Cocker, although I think that was because, at the time, the Prime Minister thought that might have been a popular decision. It didn't save him, in any case. Dr Forbes also made a controversial decision to shut the then government-owned Canberra abattoir. That decision caused the resignation of all members of the ACT Advisory Council, at the time. Dr Forbes as Minister for Health also banned the importation of cheese made from unpasteurised milk into our nation—another controversial decision.

He was the last surviving member of the Menzies government, a government that helped build modern Australia. I looked back at his first speech to parliament. He could have taken great pride in the fact that a lot of what he outlined was the focus of that government, and it was achieved in great measure by that government. In his first speech, Dr Forbes said:

Our capacity to import the capital goods we require for development depends upon the export income with which we pay for them, and that income is the most important single factor in our progress.

In the past week, after Dr Forbes's passing, we have for the first time in 44 years as a nation delivered a current account surplus. A lot of that is because we've maintained an open environment for the importation of those capital goods and supported the industries that produce the export income, as Dr Forbes mentioned, that allow for that importation. The result of a current account surplus is the long-term support for development of those income-producing industries that Dr Forbes advocated for in his life and helped deliver as part of the Menzies government.

I would like to, once again, pass on my condolences to his wife, Margaret, and broader family, and, again, pass on the National Party's commiserations to the Liberal Party. Vale, Dr Jim Forbes.

I too join fellow senators in paying tribute to the lifetime of service given by distinguished former South Australian federal Liberal member of parliament Dr Jim Forbes, CMG, MC.

Like so many of his generation, Jim Forbes served our nation during World War II, taking that calling as an officer in the Australian Army, defending our values, liberties and way of life. Dr Forbes was awarded the Military Cross in recognition of his gallantry and service in the south-west Pacific. A graduate of the University of Adelaide, Dr Forbes completed his PhD at Magdalen College, Oxford following the war and prior to his election to the federal parliament. His service to both Australia and our defence forces continued through a long period of parliamentary service, as the member for Barker, from 1956 through until his retirement in 1975. As has been noted before, Dr Forbes served as Minister for the Navy and Minister for the Army in the Menzies government, Minister for Health in the Holt and Gorton governments, and Minister for Immigration in the McMahon government.

Dr Forbes continued his contribution to Australian society following his departure from the parliament, including as chairman of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission. He was elected as president of the South Australian division of the Liberal Party in 1979 and as federal president of the Liberal Party in 1982 and was the last South Australian to have held that position.

Dr Forbes was, as has been noted, the last surviving minister of the Menzies government. As our great party prepares to celebrate its 75th anniversary, the passing of Dr Forbes reminds us of our proud beginnings and our unshakeable commitment to the advancement of Australia. Dr Forbes's family can be proud of his many achievements in his political life—across his ministerial portfolios and throughout his rich lifetime of service not only to the Liberal Party or to South Australia but to our nation overall.

On behalf of the South Australian Liberal family, I extend our sympathies to his wife of 67 years, Margaret, and to his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and our thanks to them for sharing him with a grateful nation and state.

I rise to express my condolences, as we all have, on the passing of Dr Jim Forbes. In talking about his life and his service, I want to celebrate someone I think was a most remarkable Australian. I had the great privilege of being acquainted with Jim through the Liberal Party. I will never forget the first time I met him. I was a newly minted president of the Liberal Party and he was the trustee of the party's assets. He took me aside into a little anteroom and he said, 'Son, never spend money you haven't got.' I took that to heart. It's clear from his political disposition that he strongly believed in that in public and private practice. More importantly, we sprung what I would call a modest friendship. Jim always had a wise set of words and ideas and he was an inspiration. I was fortunate enough to be invited into a small group of which he was a member, and we would meet a few times a year to discuss politics and, I guess, learn from those who had trod the path before.

I have to say that I am a little ashamed that I never quite knew how remarkable Jim Forbes was until I actually attended his funeral a few weeks ago. It was a celebration of a life well lived, and it made me humble in recognising the service that this man had given this country over so many decades. It's not often you hear of people who enlist in a royal military college; go to the second-best school in South Australia, St Peter's College—that's a uniquely South Australian story, Mr President; go and study at Oxford and become a doctor of political science; go into the ministry and serve under a number of prime ministers with great distinction—and have the courage to deport Joe Cocker; and then continue to serve the party, the Liberal Party, and the people of Australia in whatever capacity they can, being so generous in sharing their wisdom, their mentorship, their ideas and their experience with newcomers to the political scene. It makes you recognise that some people really do squeeze the marrow right out of life, and Jim Forbes was one of those people.

I'm humbled to have met him, and I'm greatly appreciative of the time that he was willing to spend with me and with others. I will always remember his advice. I express my condolences to his family and I give thanks for a life very, very well lived.

Question agreed to, honourable senators standing in their places.

I remind senators that the question may be put on any proposal at the request of any senator. There being none, we will proceed.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator Griff for 11 and 12 September for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

by leave—I move:

That leave of absence be granted to Senator McKenzie for today for personal reasons.

Question agreed to.

I table statements relating to the works and I move:

Motion not available at time of publishing.

Question agreed to.

I, and also on behalf of Senator Lines and Senator Brockman, move:

That the Senate—

(a) acknowledges all recent recipients of Australian Bravery Decorations;

(b) notes that the Bravery Medal is awarded for acts of bravery in hazardous circumstances;

(c) recognises the following Western Australian recipients of the Bravery Medal: Mr Leon Corey Brouwer, Mr Jason Troy Shepherd and Mr Andrew Gordon Strunk;

(d) notes that the Commendation for Brave Conduct is awarded for other acts of bravery which are considered worthy of recognition;

(e) recognises the Western Australian recipient of a Commendation for Brave Conduct: Miss Ella Layne Andrews;

(f) notes that the Group Bravery Citation is awarded for a collective act of bravery by a group of persons in extraordinary circumstances that is considered worthy of recognition; and

(g) recognises the following Western Australian recipients of the Group Bravery Citation: Mr Robin John Lee, Mr Jake Wilson Pugh and Mr Ian Trevor Urquhart.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the first week of September was Early Learning Matters Week, which highlights how early childhood education supports the well-being of our children, families and society; and

(b) supports a well-resourced and accessibly early childhood education system with professional pay for staff.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The Morrison government wants every Australian to have access to a quality education. We've provided a record $8.6 billion for child care in this year's budget, rising to $9.5 billion. Our government's childcare policy is supporting families to access child care while they work, learn, volunteer or study. Because of our reforms, out-of-pocket costs for families are down 7.9 per cent. Since 2014 the government has provided $2.8 billion, available to states and territories to support universal access to 15 hours per week of preschool for children in the year before school, including $449½ million to extend arrangements to the end of 2020.

Question agreed to.

At the request of Senator Brown, I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) 25 August marked 50 years since the sinking of the cargo ship MV Noongah,

(ii) the MV Noongah sank in heavy seas off Smokey Cape, South West Rocks, New South Wales in 1969, two days after leaving Newcastle bound for Townsville,

(iii) the wind was blowing in excess of 70 knots (110 km) per hour and the sea at almost 10 metre waves,

(iv) the 26 man crew abandoned ship just 14 minutes after a distress signal was transmitted,

(v) a four day search and rescue was conducted with only 5 survivors and 1 body being pulled from the water,

(vi) the search was one of the largest in Australian maritime history involving five destroyers, three mine sweepers, seven aircraft, two helicopters and Australian-flag and international merchant vessels, and

(vii) this tragedy was marked on its 50th anniversary on 25 August by family members and others at a memorial site at Smokey Cape, New South Wales;

(b) recognises that the anniversary of this tragedy is a reminder of the bravery of Australia's maritime workers and the risks of the work they undertake daily for the benefit of the nation; and

(c) offers its condolences to the families affected by the sinking of the cargo ship MV Noongah and to all people impacted by maritime tragedies.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the CustomsAct1901, and for related purposes. CustomsAmendment(SaferCladding)Bill2019.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

CUSTOMS AMENDMENT (SAFER CLADDING) BILL 2019

SECOND READING SPEECH

I am pleased to reintroduce the Customs Amendment (Safer Cladding) Bill 2019.

The bill amends the Customs Act 1901 to expressly ban the importation of polyethylene core aluminium composite panels and responds in part to a recommendation made by the Senate Economics References Committee in its inquiry into Non-conforming building products.

The cladding issue is a most serious public safety issue and requires urgent action. The issue was first brought to the public's attention on 25 November 2014 when the Lacrosse building in Docklands Melbourne caught fire and more recently on 4 February 2019 when the Neo200 apartment tower in Spencer Street Melbourne also caught fire. Both of these buildings were clad in the same materials.

The Senate inquiry was trigged by the Lacrosse incident. As Senators may recall, the Lacrosse apartment block in Docklands, Melbourne, had the entire exterior of the building clad in polyethylene core aluminium composite panels. This allowed the fast moving fire to race up several floors and it was only through the responsiveness and quick actions of emergency services that no lives were lost.

Evidence given to the inquiry revealed polyethylene aluminium composite panels are so combustible that in the event of a fire, one kilogram of polyethylene will release the same amount of energy as one and a half litres of burning petrol. They are literally like throwing fuel on a fire.

Very little has been done since the 2014 fire, despite the tragic death of more than 70 people in the London Grenfell building fire in 2017 and a further Australian incident at the Neo200 building in February 2019. The Lacrosse and Grenfell incident informed emergency services to act with extreme haste when faced with the Neo200 fire – again their actions prevented any loss of life.

Not to overshadow the safety of life concerns, the cladding issue has now raised a new problem – building surveyors in Victoria are unable to obtain indemnity insurance. In other states the costs for indemnity insurance has increased putting the industry at risk. This will have huge ramifications for the building industry as building permits and occupancy permits all require the signoff of a qualified surveyor. Without insurance a surveyor is unable to be registered by the relevant Building authority.

The Morrison Government needs to act and ban this dangerous product to ensure that the Australian Building industry is not detrimentally affected and Australian's homes are safe and fit for occupation. We cannot under any circumstances, bear the tragedy that occurred in London. We must prevent any risk of that happening here.

A number of building audits have been conducted around the country by State Governments. An audit conducted by the Victorian government discovered 72 properties are at 'extreme risk of fire' and 500 homes are considered 'highest risk of fire' as a result the Cladding Safety Victoria agency will be established to oversee the reparation work over the next 5 years. However, the Morrison Government has refused to contribute any funds to the $600 million cost.

An audit has been done in my home State of South Australia. Disgracefully, the South Australian government has refused to release the list of buildings and homes in the State that contain highly flammable cladding. Accepting there is no greater interest than preservation of life, the decision to not release the information is unconscionable, immoral and wrong and leaves South Australian home owners unaware of the risk they may face in the event of their home catching fire – this will expose State Government to claims of liability.

In light of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, there cannot be legitimate use of polyethylene core aluminium composite panels on any building type. As the committee found there are safe non-flammable and fire retardant alternatives currently available there is no place for polyethylene core aluminium composite panels in the Australian market.

Until the Australian Border Force and suppliers of Aluminium Composite Material are able to determine whether an imported building product will be used in a compliant manner, a ban on importation is necessary to prevent any disasters such as the Grenfell Tower tragedy occurring in Australia.

This issue is of continued concern for all Australian's, not only those who live in high rise apartments but in all types of dwellings. This bill will protect all future Australian home purchasers and give them peace of mind and as such I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate to put safety first and support the bill.

I commend the bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

I move:

(1) That the Senate notes that:

(a) on 12 October 2017, Mr Richard Boyle made a disclosure under the PublicInterestDisclosureAct2013 (PID Act) as a former employee of the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), alleging the ATO:

(i) had instructed employees to issue standard garnishee notices to seize funds from taxpayers' bank accounts without notice or consideration of their personal and business circumstances, and

(ii) in doing so, had required employees to engage in conduct that was unethical, unprofessional and against the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct;

(b) on 27 October 2017, the ATO decided not to further investigate Mr Boyle's disclosure on the basis that the information did not concern serious disclosable conduct as defined in the PID Act; and

(c) subsequent media inquiries found anomalies in the ATO's debt collection practices that appeared consistent with Mr Boyle's disclosure.

(2) That the Senate is of the opinion that examining the ATO's actions in relation to Mr Boyle's disclosure is consistent with the Senate's role in providing oversight of government administration.

(3) That the Senate orders the Commissioner of Taxation to provide all documents relating to the disclosure generated or received by Mr Boyle's supervisor, authorised officer and principal officer (as defined in the PID Act), including but not limited to notes, minutes, memoranda, letters, other external or internal correspondence, emails and/or Microsoft Office Communicator conversations, to the Economics Legislation Committee (the committee) by no later than 5 pm on 16 September 2019.

(4) That the committee, when it has considered the documents, report to the Senate as to whether the ATO's handling of disclosures by whistleblowers warrants further inquiry.

I seek leave to make a very short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

We believe that the public release of information requested within this motion would potentially prejudice future legal proceedings being a fair trial of criminal charges by jury.

Question agreed to.

Before moving this general business notice of motion 101, I inform the chamber that Senator O'Neill will co-sponsor the motion. I, and also on behalf of Senator O'Neill, move:

That the Senate—

(a) acknowledges that today, 10 September 2019, is World Suicide Prevention Day, which this year seeks to 'shine a light' on suicide prevention;

(b) notes that, in 2017, 3,128 people in Australia died from self-harm, which equates to 8.57 deaths per day and a 9.1% increase from the following year;

(c) expresses concern that, in 2016, 47% of all suicides occurred in rural and remote regions, and First Nations peoples had a rate of suicide approximately twice that of non­-Aboriginal people;

(d) acknowledges that the highest risk factor of a future suicide attempt, is a previous attempt;

(e) further acknowledges that working together to prevent suicide, raise awareness and encourage conversations is important, and that:

(i) everyone has a role to play in preventing suicide and the choices we make today can help prevent suicide,

(ii) we can all make a difference in the lives of those who might be struggling by having regular, meaningful conversations about life's ups and downs,

(iii) you do not need to be an expert to reach out – just a good friend and a great listener, and

(iv) you do not need to be a clinician, a GP, or a nurse to check-in with someone you are worried about;

(f) recognises that it is better to reach out than avoid the person for fear of getting the conversation wrong; and

(g) urges all Australians to help shine a light on suicide prevention.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The Australian government has made working towards zero suicides a national priority, and it's committed to working with all communities, jurisdictions and governments to reduce the incidence and impact of suicide in Australia.

Question agreed to.

I wish to inform the chamber that Senator Dodson will also co-sponsor this motion. I, and also on behalf of Senators Steele-John and Dodson, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that new research from Monash University on the health of Disability Support Pension and Newstart Allowance Recipients found:

(i) Disability Support Pension recipients were 18.3 times more likely to rate their health as poor compared to wage earners,

(ii) more than two-thirds (69.1%) of Disability Support Pension recipients reported having mental or behavioural problems compared with 21% of wage earners,

(iii) only 19% of Disability Support Pension recipients reported having seen a psychologist in the preceding 12-month period, and

(iv) Disability Support Pension recipients were at 2 to 3 times the risk of visiting a hospital than wage earners; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) investigate ways to improve the health status of people receiving Disability Support Pension,

(ii) deliver more targeted and effective health services that address the health needs of people on Disability Support Pension, and

(iii) make access to the income support system simpler and less stressful for disabled persons.

Question agreed to.

Before moving this motion, I seek leave to amend the number of houses damaged from 47 to 80 in paragraph (a)(ii).

Leave granted.

I move the motion as amended:

That the Senate—

(a) notes:

(i) that just one week after winter, Queensland is experiencing unprecedented and devastating bushfires and facing what the fire service has described as the most catastrophic bushfire season in recorded history,

(ii) that hundreds of people have been affected by the devastating fires—to date, 80 properties have been reported as damaged or destroyed, including the heritage-listed Bina Burra resort, and prior to these bushfires, a total of 40 properties had been lost to bushfire in Queensland in the previous 130 years,

(iii) the critical role that firefighting and emergency services personnel play in the frontline response to emergencies and climate-related disasters,

(iv) that the Bushfire and Natural Hazard Cooperative Research Centre's latest Seasonal Bushfire Outlook, August 2019, confirmed that Queensland fire seasons have been starting earlier and persisting longer since 1990,

(v) that drought conditions and severe water shortages in the Darling Downs and Granite Belt are expected to make fighting bushfires even more difficult across the summer, and

(vi) that, unless urgent action is taken to reduce harmful emissions and stop further global warming, bushfires, drought, and heatwaves will become more frequent and severe, putting Australian lives and properties at risk; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) urgently take action to address climate change and manage the risk and severity of bushfires,

(ii) invest in community adaptation efforts to build resilience to climate change in moderate and high risk areas, and

(iii) commit to action to progress a rapid and just transition to clean and renewable energy sources to reduce the harmful emissions driving climate change.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Queensland authorities describe the current fires as catastrophic, with many homes destroyed. Drought has worsened and accelerated the fire season. The government is taking action on climate change, including funding climate science, emissions reduction and adaptation strategies. But, more importantly, we are standing shoulder to shoulder with Australians facing this disaster. We're providing, under our disaster recovery funding arrangements, recovery assistance to New South Wales and Queensland for those affected by the fires. The government has committed $130 million to implement the new National Disaster Risk Reduction Framework to help all sectors address disaster risks and deliver improved disaster risk information to communities and organisations.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Labor will not support this motion, which seeks to politicise the emergency in Queensland, where 72 fires are currently burning, destroying homes, belongings, pets and businesses. Brave volunteers, firefighters and emergency services workers are working 24/7 to keep communities safe by putting their lives on the line to protect others. This motion links the ongoing disaster to the broader issue of climate change. Labor have been on the record for more than 14 years arguing for effective action on climate change, and we're up for that debate anytime, but bringing forward motions like this one in the full knowledge that there will be differing views from senators in this place on parts of this motion speaks volumes about the Greens and their tactics. Today is not the day, and the Queensland fires are not the issue, on which to actively seek to divide the Senate. Today we should be standing together and speaking with one voice. To those who are fighting the fires: we thank you. We acknowledge your bravery. Stay safe. To those who are directly affected: we feel your loss and we will work with you to rebuild. (Time expired)

The question is that motion No. 103 be agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) the Bureau of Meteorology has stated that the current drought in the Murray-Darling Basin is the most severe on record and that the climate crisis is a contributing factor,

(ii) drier and warmer conditions are likely for most of mainland Australia during spring,

(iii) the fire season started two months earlier than usual in New South Wales and Queensland with increased fire risk in south-east Australia in the coming months, and

(iv) water storages in the northern Murray-Darling Basin are at 7%; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to protect Australian farmers by taking urgent action to address the climate emergency.

Question agreed to.

I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes a study entitled Lotsoflosswithlittlescrutiny:TheattritionofhabitatcriticalforthreatenedspeciesinAustralia, which was published on 8 September 2019, and found that:

(i) Australia has one of the worst extinction rates of any nation, yet there has been little assessment of the effect of the EnvironmentProtectionandBiodiversityConservationAct1999 (EPBC Act), to prevent species extinction,

(ii) 7.7 million hectares of potential habitat for terrestrial threatened species, terrestrial migratory species, and threatened ecological communities has been cleared between 2000 and 2017,

(iii) of this loss, 7.1 million hectare (93%) was not referred to the Federal Government for assessment,

(iv) this non-compliance means that potential habitat for terrestrial threatened species, terrestrial migratory species, and threatened ecological communities have been lost without assessment, regulation, or enforcement under the EPBC Act,

(v) additionally, when an action has been referred, most habitat loss has been approved, sometimes with conditions, and therefore has resulted in large areas of cumulative habitat loss,

(vi) the EPBC Act is ineffective at protecting potential habitat for terrestrial threatened species, terrestrial migratory species, or threatened ecological communities, and

(vii) without strict, comprehensive application and enforcement, as well as explicit guidance and requirements, policies such as the EPBC Act will remain ineffective at regulating habitat loss and protecting biodiversity;

(b) notes that:

(i) last week, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) revealed that the Federal Government authorised the clearing of north Queensland woodland, despite its own environment department finding it was likely to destroy habitat critical to the vulnerable greater glider – former Deputy Prime Minister Mr Joyce had written to the former Minister for the Environment and Energy, Mr Frydenberg, asking for no unnecessary intervention under the EPBC Act in relation to the land clearing,

(ii) GuardianAustralia recently revealed that a company part-owned by Mr Angus Taylor, MP and his brother were under investigation by the Department of the Environment and Energy for alleged unlawful destruction of critically-endangered grasslands when Minister Taylor met with departmental staff, including a compliance officer investigating the clearing allegations, and he also approached the former Minister for the Environment and Energy, Mr Frydenberg, about amending the critically-endangered listing of the grassland species, and

(iii) the ABC revealed last year that the former Minister for the Environment and Energy, Mr Frydenberg, ignored advice from his own Department that he should reject an application for the Toondah Harbour apartment and marina proposal in Queensland because of the damage it would do to an internationally protected wetland, home to critically-endangered migratory shorebirds, instead allowing the project to progress to the next stage of assessment; and

(c) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) implement the study's recommendations, including that when scientifically determinable, critical habitat is demarcated for listed species and communities, which provides absolute protection that is enforced, monitored, and investigated by the regulator,

(ii) ensure that the current review of the EPBC Act address its fundamental failure to actually protect the environment, biodiversity and conservation, and

(iii) audit all decisions made by Mr Frydenberg in his capacity as the Minister for the Environment and Energy, as they relate to land clearing and critical habitat destruction.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

The EPBC Act provides a robust framework to protect the environment against actions that have a significant impact on matters of national environmental significance, including on listed threatened species and ecological communities. This includes protecting critical habit for endangered species and ecological communities. Land-clearing actions must comply with the strict requirements of the EPBC Act in relation to environmental impact. This motion is nothing more than a political stunt. Government decisions are always made in accordance with the act.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Labor will not be supporting this motion from the Greens today. The motion is long, detailed and raises some complex issues. The issues raised in this motion warrant substantive debate in a way that allows all senators to participate if they choose. Placing this motion in formal business does not allow for this debate. If the Greens were to bring this back as an MPI or in general business then Labor would actively engage in that debate.

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson-Young be agreed to.

I ask that general business notice of motion No. 98 standing in my name and the name of Senator Faruqi for today relating to Kashmir be taken as a formal motion.

Is there any objection to this motion being taken as formal?

Yes.

There is, Senator Di Natale. Formality has been denied.

I seek leave to make a one-minute statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

I have to say that it is deeply disappointing that once again the government has refused to consider an important foreign policy motion. In the last few weeks, my office and my colleagues' offices have received many emails from Australians living in fear for their loved ones in Kashmir. People are unable to be contacted, and, of course, while we've been on our winter break, the Indian government has drastically eroded Kashmiris' rights to self-determination. To quell dissent and to keep news away from the outside world, it has instigated a phone and internet blackout, it has detained political leaders and it has flooded Kashmir with troops.

This government should take a stand. It should make it absolutely clear and unequivocal to the Indian government that its actions are dangerous and counterproductive, and it should support the right of all Kashmiris to determine their own futures.

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Labor is concerned about the current situation in Kashmir, particularly following the Indian government's decision to revoke articles 35A and 370 of the Indian constitution that confer special protective status on the state of Jammu and Kashmir. We call on all parties to refrain from actions that may lead to further escalation or could affect the status of Jammu and Kashmir. We endorse the UN Secretary-General's statement recalling the 1972 Simla agreement, which states that 'the final status of Jammu and Kashmir is to be settled by peaceful means'. We understand the concerns of the community here in Australia who are unable to contact family and friends, and we urge the full restoration of communications in the Kashmir Valley. Labor will continue to monitor developments in the region.

I inform the Senate that, at 8.30 this morning, 10 proposals were received in accordance with standing order 75. The question of which proposal would be submitted to the Senate was determined by lot. As a result, I inform the Senate the following letter has been received from Senator Waters:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

We are facing an existential climate crisis that threatens human civilisation and the government needs to act, starting by supporting the global climate strike on 20 September."

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

On Friday 20 September, millions of people right across the world will be striking together in solidarity to demand a safe and stable climate. Many of them will be school students and their brothers, their sisters, their mums, their dads and their grandparents; there will be tradies and CEOs; there will be young people and old people, and all shades in between—all demanding an end to fossil fuels, and climate justice. I hope my two kids are with me when I march, because, when I took on this job, in my first speech I made it clear to them that I was doing it for their generation so that their generation could enjoy all of the wonderful, precious biodiversity that we coexist with on this fragile little blue planet of ours: the temperate rainforests, the wild rivers and forests and the precious biodiversity that they support. So in every major city right across the world people will be gathering to demand a secure future for themselves. It is going to be the biggest get-together on any single issue that the world has seen. And it has got to be, because we are in the biggest single crisis that humanity has ever confronted.

At a time of great despair comes great hope. Watching the next generation mobilise and become active gives me hope. What an inspiration to see their passion and their activism to build a better world—a passion that is not clouded by cynicism or compromise; a passion that is dedicated to the pursuit of truth. We are in a parliament where so many people are doing things for themselves, for their political donors or for political expediency. And it is young people today who are showing us what it means to act in pursuit of something that makes the world a better and fairer place.

We are on track for our generation to be the first in human history to hand on worse living conditions—a planet in great disrepair. That is what we are on track for: worse living conditions than we enjoyed. And that's why we'll be standing with the climate strikers in their demands: for no new coal, oil or gas projects, because we don't have a moment to lose; for 100 per cent renewable energy generation and exports by 2030; and for funding for a just transition and job creation for all fossil fuel workers, because action on climate change is justice. We'll be campaigning for the hundreds of thousands of new jobs, long-term jobs, for communities, to build a sustainable future for everyone. We'll be standing with those brave people who understand, right now, that we do not have a moment to lose.

I have to say it's pretty galling as a Tasmanian to be lectured by the Greens about an existential crisis and the need to act urgently on climate change today, while, at the same time, this same party is actively campaigning against a massive renewable energy development in my home state. Tasmania, of course, is the nation's leader when it comes to renewable energy. For decades, our primary energy source has been the clean, reliable, renewable hydro energy from our hydro-electric dams. It was these very dams that the Greens, who have raised this matter of public urgency today, opposed the construction of. Indeed, Bob Brown famously said that Tasmania shouldn't be building dams; we should be building—wait for it—coal-fired power stations. And now what's the latest thing that Bob Brown and the Greens are opposed to in Tasmania? A wind farm!

This is not just any wind farm, but the largest wind farm in the Southern Hemisphere. This wind farm, at Robbins Island in the far north-west corner of our state, would create major employment in the north-west of Tasmania and complement the abundance of baseload hydro-energy generation in Australia, to lower electricity prices and increase energy security. Perhaps counterintuitively, given their constant rhetoric on climate change, like what we are discussing today, the Greens at both a state and federal level have fallen in behind their former leader and confirmed they also don't support the Robbins Island wind farm.

Why don't they support $1.6 billion in renewable energy in a project in regional Tasmania? I will quote Bob Brown directly. Dr Brown said that the Robbins Island plan was, visually, a step too far:

Mariners will see this hairbrush of tall towers from 50 kms out to sea and elevated landlubbers will see it, like it or not, from great distances on land. Its eye-catchiness will divert from every coastal scene on the western Bass Strait coastline.

Just so I've got my head straight on this, what we are discussing here today in this matter of urgency brought on by the Greens is an existential crisis which we must deal with urgently—unless, of course, the solution is something that might ruin the view. I have never heard such contradiction and hypocrisy in my life.

The Greens are virtually salivating over the prospect of campaigning against and trying to block this project, the Robbins Island wind farm in north-west Tasmania. Bob Brown has indeed described it as 'the next Franklin Dam'. What a great comparison! Forty years ago the Greens campaigned against and stopped a major renewable energy and job creation project in Tasmania. Four decades later they're setting up to do it all again.

This motion says:

… the government needs to act, starting by supporting the global climate strike on 20 September 2019.

Here's an idea: how about we act by supporting a $1.6 billion renewable energy project?

Is there anything that sums up the Greens better than preferring to mount a public protest rather than supporting a $1.6 billion project designed to tackle exactly the problem they're claiming today to be so concerned about? Actually, I can do one better: despite the existential crisis of climate change, in the last quarter of this year alone Greens members and senators spent more than $66,000 on domestic flights. The Leader of the Greens took 29 flights and spent almost $19,300 on Comcars. There was an additional $158,000 in travel for Greens staffers. So while climate change might be an existential crisis, it shouldn't get in the way of Greens members flying and driving around as much as they like.

The coalition government has a strong track record of meeting and beating our emissions targets while keeping our economy strong. We are on track to overachieve on our 2020 target of 367 million tonnes. This is a turnaround from the emissions debt we inherited when we took office. Through our $3½ billion Climate Solutions Package, we've mapped out, down to the last tonne, how we are going to meet the 328 tonnes of abatement needed to meet our Paris target. We have laid out how we will deliver our 2030 target 11 years ahead of time to the last tonne. Central to this is our $3½ billion Climate Solutions Package. This package will support farmers, businesses and the Indigenous community to reduce greenhouse gases through the Climate Solutions Fund, building on the success of the ERF which has purchased 192 million tonnes of emissions reductions since 2015. We're bringing new electricity generation projects online, such as Tasmania's Battery of the Nation and the Snowy 2.0 pumped hydro scheme—projects in my own home state that I'm particularly passionate about and which, of course, link into the Robbins Island wind farm development that I discussed earlier. And we're supporting households and businesses to improve energy efficiency and to lower energy bills.

We're seeing record levels of renewable investment. Last year alone we had more than double the per capita investment of comparable countries like the United Kingdom, Germany and France. Not only are we going to meet our international commitments but we are also making a substantial contribution to reducing global emissions through our export sectors. For example, we are helping to lower emissions elsewhere in the world through our LNG exports. This has been confirmed by key players, including the CEO of Global Shell, who, when asked if Australia was doing enough on emissions reductions, recently said: 'Well, an area where it's definitely doing enough is bringing natural gas to market. I think it is massively helping in that respect.'

The Morrison coalition government is committed to emissions reduction while growing our economy and keeping electricity prices down. Those are the policies we took to the election, and they are the policies we will be delivering upon in this parliament. By contrast, the Labor Party and their good friends the Greens have a plan that will only destroy industry and agriculture and will impose these taxes on hardworking Australians. As I have outlined today, this hypocrisy is unimaginable. We see a party that today has moved a matter of public urgency regarding climate change but is actively opposing any policy initiatives or investment in my own home state of Tasmania which might actually help achieve the outcomes they are talking about.

So I urge my colleagues in the Greens to have a think about their rhetoric and about the policies that we in the government are pursuing nationally, but specifically in my home state of Tasmania. I think if they stop and have a think about these policies, they might consider that this government is not the big scary government that doesn't want to do anything about this important issue. We certainly are committed to doing that and we took that policy to the election, and that was endorsed by the Australian people.

In my state of Tasmania, our plan for Battery of the Nation and Marinus Link was backed by the Tasmanian people. These are projects that Tasmanians are very excited about. As I have outlined today, we have a proud history of renewable energy in Tasmania, dating back to our hydro scheme, and we are looking to diversify that proud history further by branching into wind farms, as we already have done in some areas of the state and as we have proposed to do at Robbins Island and other areas, including through the central highlands of Tasmania. There are future projects that are being examined at the moment that I think will certainly go some way to addressing this existential climate crisis that the Greens are discussing today and that they seem to think is so pressing for us to be debating and addressing.

In summary, the Morrison coalition government, as I have said, are absolutely committed to reducing emissions, and we see the key way of doing this is to simultaneously grow our economy and keep electricity prices down. These don't have to be mutually exclusive. We believe we can do both at once, and that is certainly what we are doing by charging up our energy grid through renewable energy in my own state of Tasmania. Only the coalition government have planned down to the last tonne how we will meet our emissions targets, and we remain confident that we will meet them. For the reasons I have outlined today, I am very confident that the plan that we have set out and that we took to the Australian people will be delivered, and that is what comes from good, responsible government.

I rise to speak on this urgency motion. It would be inappropriate for me to begin to speak on this topic, though, without first acknowledging the catastrophic fires currently burning across regional Queensland. I acknowledge the large number of Queenslanders in the gallery today, eagerly awaiting some first speeches. I want to update them that currently there are more than 70 fires burning across Queensland, from the Gold Coast to Stanthorpe, the Sunshine Coast, Rockhampton, Rockingham, and all the way up to the coast and Lockhart River near Cape York, near Cairns, near my home.

As at 2 pm today, a fast-moving fire is travelling in a north-north-westerly direction from Peregian Beach towards the south end of Lake Weyba. The fire is expected to have significant impact on the community. Evacuation centres are open and people are encouraged to travel north. Conditions are now very dangerous and firefighters may soon be unable to prevent the fire advancing. The fire may pose a threat to lives directly in its path. The loss of property and homes has been significant. So far it has been reported that in Queensland 17 houses have been destroyed and 24 others have received varying degrees of damage. A number of other buildings and commercial properties have also been impacted.

I join with the Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese; and Senator Watt in expressing deep concern for residents affected by the bushfires. I commend the efforts of fire and emergency services personnel and the many volunteers who have assisted in fighting fires in these dangerous conditions. I also commend the residents of bushfire affected regions for their cooperation with authorities.

I want to acknowledge the work of Queensland Minister for Fire and Emergency Services, a fellow Far North Queenslander, Craig Crawford. He is my local member and was in a previous life an ambulance officer, so I know more than most that he does not send emergency services personnel into harm's way without understanding and weighing up the potential risk and consequences. We express our very sincere sympathies to those who have lost their properties and will do what we can to support recovery efforts. I encourage all residents to follow the directions of authorities. We will, as we have done many times before, stand by you in this time of loss, and we will help you rebuild.

Drought, unseasonably high temperatures and high winds have combined to wreak havoc on bushland in Queensland. It is a concern to all that bushfires of this severity are occurring so early in the year, and this should prompt further thought by all in this place. Climate change is affecting the severity of natural disasters in Queensland. I acknowledge the school climate strike on 20 September, and, as I said in my first speech, I encourage young people who care about issues that are important and dear to their heart and who are passionate about making change to use their voice, to stand up and to speak out. But I also want to say this to the young people who care about climate change: it has been incredibly disappointing this week to see the Greens political party seize on the loss of residences in regional Queensland for their own political purposes. It has almost become too predictable. Every time there is a natural disaster in regional Queensland, the first thing that Senator Waters does from her office in Brisbane is jump on Twitter to take advantage of people's losses. Of course she acknowledges their loss first, but it is not too long before she starts to attack. And the leader of the Greens, who lives in Melbourne, has used question time this week to supposedly stand up for regional Queenslanders affected by this tragedy. But we know that these stunts and rants aren't really about helping regional Queensland. It's not about standing up for young people or finding solutions to address climate change. What they seek to do more than anything is to win votes in inner city seats in Melbourne, Sydney and south Brisbane.

But that's the Greens for you. On the outside, they're all rage and principled positions, but on the inside, they're concerned with themselves and protecting their niche self-importance. The Greens don't care about regional Queensland and they don't care about Queenslanders. And they certainly don't care about solving the challenges facing regional Queensland when it comes to climate change. They were in regional Queensland during the federal election. They flew up to Cairns to stand in front of cameras and make nice statements about what they were going to do to help the Cairns economy and the reef, but then they got right back on their plane and left, never to be seen again. They accepted in Leichhardt, at least, the preferences of the member for Leichhardt, Warren Entsch. We all know, of course, that the Greens from southern states—not from Queensland—spent plenty of time in Central Queensland on their convoy. There has never been a more self-serving, disgraceful campaign tactic than driving up to Queensland to tell people that they didn't have the same right to jobs and security as people living in cities.

Honourable senators interjecting—

I'm a young woman—

An incident having occurred in the gallery—

Order! Order!

I'm a young woman, and I care about jobs and I care about climate change. I'm pretty progressive, but I'm—

Honourable senators interjecting—

Order!

But I'm standing on this side of the chamber, while they're sitting there shouting down young women. Senator Chandler and I don't agree on much, but in the eyes of the Greens, we're just the same. I understand that people in Queensland have deep concerns about climate change, about renewable energy and about the ferocity and frequency of natural disasters. But if you want to make change, taking advantage of a natural disaster and sticking your finger in the eye of struggling communities is not the way to do it. To achieve real change you have to bring people with you. You need to bring communities with you. Nothing has been achieved by this form of grandstanding and finger-pointing. If that's how this debate is going to be played out, we won't win and we won't make any changes, because it means that they win. The conservatives and the right-wing think tanks wring their hands with delight every time the Greens come to Queensland.

Regional Queensland jobs rely on the environment and the reef. The Great Barrier Reef contributes $6.4 billion towards the national economy and creates 64,000 jobs. It is the economy in Cairns, although we do have other industries—which I'm happy to speak about at any length, at any opportunity that the Greens would like to submit a motion on jobs in regional Queensland. But in Cairns the reef is central to the success of the city. It is the same for regional towns all the way down the coast and along the reef. That is why it was incredibly disappointing that the long-term outlook for the reef was downgraded from poor to very poor. It was devastating news for the environment and for local business operators that rely on the reef. The Great Barrier Reef outlook report 2019 by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority further highlights that the Morrison government reef policy is in crisis.

Meanwhile, reef envoy and local Leichhardt MP Warren Entsch does not seem to grasp the challenges currently facing the reef, after dismissively telling journalists that we don't need to save the reef. It's clear that Mr Entsch is not equipped to look after Australia's biggest tourism asset, which contributes so much to the Cairns economy. The member for Leichhardt's silence on the report shows that he's a protector of the Great Barrier Reef in name only. It's a fancy title, but he's shown that he's not up to the task of protecting the jobs that rely on the reef. The release of the report is further proof that the Liberal National government has not managed the threats facing the reef, including climate change and coral bleaching. This sort of anti-science, head-in-the-sand dismissiveness from Mr Entsch will hurt Far North Queensland communities and regional economies and impact on long-term job security. The reef is undoubtedly Australia's greatest natural icon, and this government needs to do much more to secure its health for the next generations.

Finally I want to say this: the school climate strike is an important opportunity for young people to raise their voices. Their voices will be heard by those on this side of the chamber, but what we won't do is politicise the very deep, sad, human loss that is occurring in my home state. We won't cop that from anyone. If they want to wedge Labor, they should knock on the Prime Minister's door. Meanwhile we will stand here with regional Queenslanders, hand in hand, to find a solution for the jobs that people rely on.

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Has anyone heard the name Maurice Strong? He's the founder of these useful idiots' campaign. Maurice Strong was the first chairman of the Chicago Climate Exchange, which aimed to corner carbon trading. He is also the grandfather of the climate change claims. Maurice Strong had two self-admitted aims: to destroy western civilisation, to deindustrialise western civilisation; and to put in place an unelected socialist global governance. That's what these useful idiots are doing. Maurice Strong enabled the groundwork to be built in the 1992 Rio de Janeiro conference that he orchestrated. He built a groundswell there, and that led eventually to Paris. Maurice Strong died in exile in China, wanted by US police for his crimes, and he's also connected with the UN Oil-for-Food Program. That is what Maurice Strong's useful idiots are following.

Let's have a look at some facts—wouldn't that be wonderful! These guys think that pictures of colourful reef fish, cyclone devastation in the reef, a smiling dolphin or a colourful turtle is science. These people think that an orchestrated emotional anecdote is science. Never have we seen science from these useful idiots.

Senator Roberts, it's strange coming from me: I know you get animated; I just ask you to choose your language a little bit more carefully.

I'm quoting Lenin: 'useful idiots'. Maybe I'll put Lenin in front.

But you were pointing at your colleagues.

I accept your point. I ask the Greens to think about what happened on the weekend. Annastacia Palaszczuk, along with her experts and advisers, including the head of the Bureau of Meteorology in Queensland, was giving an update on the fire crisis. The Bureau of Meteorology head came on and quite clearly said that the temperatures in the fire zone were not record temperatures, that it was nothing unusual. Annastacia Palaszczuk came on as Premier of Queensland within minutes of that man and said, 'This is due to climate change caused by us.' The distortion and the lies from politicians and some bureaucrats is the real crisis here.

What I ask the Greens to do is to present their evidence—facts, measured data—so that we can fact check it. I will gladly do that. I have publicly challenged Senator Larissa Waters twice to a debate. Both times she ran. I have never seen her move so quickly, because she can't confront a debate. I challenge Senator Di Natale, who dared challenge Senator McKenzie yesterday, to a public debate on the facts, the measured science and the empirical evidence that proves in a logical, causal framework—a scientific framework of cause and effect—that carbon dioxide from human activity is affecting the climate and needs to be cut. I challenge the Greens. Let's see how quickly they respond. Yet the Greens label people on the government side 'climate criminals'. I watched them yesterday do that. They label people liars and murderers for producing coal for producing electricity, which is what runs the place. This is insane, if that's what they're allowed to get away with.

They think that natural variation is an example of change. We see said quite often, 'the biggest flood in 50 years'. What does that tell us? It tells us that, 50 years ago, it was bigger. The warmest temperatures in Australia were recorded in the 1880s and 1890s. They were warmer than today. But don't take my word for it, because I challenged the CSIRO and, in their responses to me, they admitted that they have never said that our carbon dioxide is dangerous. They admitted that they never would say it. This was the CSIRO. They also said that they admitted that today's temperatures are not unprecedented, yet the lies being told by the Greens party and other politicians are inexcusable.

I want to point out that the United Nations has never provided any empirical evidence or logical framework tying our carbon dioxide to climate variability. Have a look. In each of the UN's reports, they have never produced that evidence. (Time expired)

In rising to speak, I again note that this is not my first speech, but I thank the Senate for providing me an opportunity to highlight what the Liberal-National coalition government is doing to meet and beat our emissions target and to protect and preserve Australia's iconic environment. Ladies and gentlemen, this issue is not about fearmongering. We have to get away from the fearmongering, otherwise we turn the community against us. What we have to focus on is taking real action to clean the air we breathe, to clean our oceans and waterways of polluted rubbish and to recycle and reduce waste. That is what we need to focus on.

The government has previously acknowledged that emissions for this year to March 2019 are up by 0.6 per cent, but this increase is more than accounted for by an increase in our LNG production related emissions and LNG exports increase. But I also note that the use of LNG for power production is a far cleaner alternative than coal-fired power stations, and so we should be applauding and supporting our continued export of this alternative power source.

Importantly, emissions without expansion of LNG continue on a downward trajectory and, in each year since 2014, have been lower than they were under the former Labor government. Emissions per person continue to fall, and the emissions intensity of the Australian economy continues to fall. In fact, they are at their lowest levels in nearly three decades. We are on track to overachieve our 2020 emissions reduction target by 367 million tonnes. This is a turnaround from the emissions debt that we inherited in 2013.

This government is tackling climate change and reducing emissions not by shutting down industries, as some in this place would like us to do, and not by axing Australian jobs. Instead, we are doing this while growing our economy and keeping electricity prices down. Through our $3.5 billion Climate Solutions Package, the government have mapped out—down to the last tonne—how we intend to meet our Paris Agreement target. We have laid out how we will deliver our 2030 target 11 years ahead of time. Through this Climate Solutions Package we are also supporting farmers, businesses and Indigenous communities to reduce their greenhouse gases.

We are bringing new electricity generation projects online, such as clean hydro solutions Snowy 2.0 and the Tasmanian Battery of the Nation. We are supporting households and businesses to improve their energy efficiency and lower their energy bills. But we're not stopping there. Our Climate Solutions Package is just one part of the broader strategy to reduce emissions and protect and preserve Australia's iconic environment. The strategy is underpinned by a series of actions that are practical, meaningful and, importantly, can be implemented to achieve a cleaner environment.

Through our $167 million recycling investment plan, we're supporting increased recycling rates, tackling plastic waste and continuing action to halve food waste by 2030. We've established a $100 million Environment Restoration Fund to support major environmental projects that deliver lasting conservation benefits. And we're facilitating a Communities Environment Program, which is providing $150,000 to every federal electorate.

It's pork-barrelling.

It's not pork-barrelling. It is going to every single federal electorate to support the delivery of community-led grassroots environment projects. These are projects identified by the communities as deliverable and things that will make a difference in their regions. While our government is getting on with the job of delivering this practical action, there are some in this place who are instead calling to invoke a so-called climate emergency—to shut down our mining industry and, particularly, our coal export sector, despite the fact that the coal produced in Australia is the cleanest-burning coal in the world.

While the government are working hard to address climate change and while we continue to meet and beat our emissions targets, we will not do so by selling out our jobs and our industries. Mining has for many years been an important industry in my home state of New South Wales, and it continues to this day to be an important industry for the Australian economy and for the rural and regional communities that I am very proud to represent. While only 0.1 per cent of land in New South Wales is used for mining, there are a range of minerals and natural resources—not just coal—including copper, gold, lead, silver, titanium, zircon and zinc. We need to realise that these minerals we mine are exactly what we need to transition to in the future. Without lithium, for example, you can't drive an electric car. And let's not talk about how many minerals go into our phones. We need mining in our country. We need mining for our future.

The mining industry makes a massive economic contribution. In New South Wales alone, mining royalties total $1.8 billion. But the importance of mining is not just about royalties and filling government coffers; it is about the jobs and livelihoods of thousands of workers in New South Wales and beyond, and the thousands of associated businesses that depend on and support the industry. Indeed, mines right across New South Wales, be they in the Hunter Valley, the central west, the far west, New England or the Illawarra, employ close to 25,000 workers. That's just in New South Wales. And they support more than 7,000 businesses.

Those in this industry are repeatedly and consistently looking for ways to innovate. They stay at the forefront of best practice so that they can continue to mine our natural resources in the smartest and most sustainable way possible while they continue to support jobs and businesses and rehabilitate their land, not just in my home state but right across Australia.

Climate change is a global issue, and it requires a global solution. This government is committed to Australia playing its part in that global solution to reduce emissions, and we will continue to do that while growing our economy and keeping our electricity prices down. Unlike some in this place, we will not do this by closing industries on which Australian workers and businesses depend, or by imposing new taxes on hardworking Australians and hardworking Australian businesses. Instead, we will continue to achieve our emissions reduction goals through pursuing practical and meaningful environmental outcomes.

Debate interrupted.

Pursuant to order, I now call Senator Scarr to make his first speech, and I ask that honourable senators observe the usual courtesies.

Mr President, let me paint you a picture. The year is 1990—nearly 30 years ago. We are in the middle of a federal election campaign. Bob Hawke is Prime Minister. Andrew Peacock is the opposition leader. And I'm in the Queensland Young Liberals, manning an information booth on the outskirts of Brisbane.

It was tough going. Whether due to my lack of political sales-craft or otherwise, the Colt from Kooyong was not resonating with the punters. Very few people had taken my material. But I had received many helpful suggestions regarding alternative uses for my brochures, some of which would have been biologically challenging to implement!

Then I see this fellow making a beeline directly towards me. He has a determined look on his face. He is dressed all in black. He's rolling a cigarette in his left hand. I'm not sure what to expect. All of a sudden his face breaks into a magnificent smile and he thrusts his hand out and says: 'Great to see you campaigning out here.' I shake his hand and listen to his story. He had owned a smash repair shop that employed five people. His business was destroyed by catastrophically high interest rates. He lost the lot. Under the financial stress, his marriage broke up. And he was living in a one-bedroom flat trying to rebuild his life.

I cannot remember his name, but I will never forget his story, and I will never forget the lesson I took away that day and which I now bring to this place. The decisions we make here have an impact on people's lives. The decisions we make here matter.

In making those decisions, I will bring my own values and convictions. Seventy years ago, in 1949, Sir Robert Gordon Menzies voiced the perfect articulation of my values. I cannot better it. At the height of an election campaign which would determine this country's future, whether it would go down the path of socialism or the path of liberalism, Menzies said:

The real freedoms are to worship, to think, to speak, to choose, to be ambitious, to be independent, to be industrious, to acquire skill, to seek reward. These are the real freedoms, for these are of the essence of the nature of man.

Those words are just as relevant today as they were in 1949. Speaking them now inspires me just as much as when I first read them.

There are people in the gallery here today who came to this country to escape persecution for their beliefs, religion or ethnicity. One is a survivor of genocide. Another lost close schoolfriends when his place of worship was attacked in his country of birth. My friends came to this country so that they could enjoy those great freedoms of the individual—freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.

I believe that each individual has a private domain of belief and thought where the state has no right to intrude. As Menzies said, it goes to the very essence of what it means to be a freethinking individual—an individual who is sovereign over their own thoughts, beliefs and conscience. But today, from a cultural perspective, there is a growing level of intolerance to the expression of certain opinions, beliefs and thoughts.

Sometimes it reminds me of a story told by Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his searing indictment of the Soviet Union, The Gulag Archipelago. There is a regional meeting of the Communist Party. A party official pays homage to Stalin, and the attendees all stand and start applauding in furious acclamation. Very soon, they start to tire, but then the question becomes: who will be the first to stop clapping? They start to look anxiously at each other. What are they to do, for now the commissars are watching and waiting? One brave, independent soul stops clapping and sits down. The balance of the audience give a collective sigh of relief and collapse into their chairs. Sure enough, the first to stop clapping is hauled out by the commissars, never to be seen again.

There must always be a place in our society for the first to stop clapping, for the person who decides not to clap at all, for the iconoclast, for the sceptic and for the courageous one who, in a crowd of conformity, points their finger and shouts, 'The emperor has no clothes.' Whether it is the maintenance of free speech on our university campuses or respecting the conscience of medical practitioners with deep religious faith, I will always be a fierce defender of the right of the individual to express their views, to hear other people's opinions and to be sovereign over their own beliefs, thoughts and conscience.

There is a link between the freedoms of the individual and economic freedom. You cannot have one without the other. In 2015 the Liberal National Party debated its values. One contribution I made was adopted: we should strive for a society which provides opportunity for all and support for those in need. The freedoms which Menzies referred to in 1949—to be ambitious, to be independent, to be industrious, to acquire skill and to seek reward—are about opportunity: the opportunity to seek reward for effort. Through that process, the resources are generated to enable society to support those in need.

When I say 'society', I do not just mean government. I do not believe that raising taxes and greater bureaucracy are the way to support those in need. Sometimes, even the best intended policies hurt those they seek to help. Good intentions alone do not make good policy. The best support ever known to humankind for each and every one of us is a loving and stable family unit. The government can never replace the family, nor should it. Our society is at its best when we all come together—families, charities, community groups, churches and all levels of government all coming together to support those in need. We saw it when north-west Queensland and Townsville were hit by devastating floods. We're seeing it now as people in my home state battle bushfires and deal with the aftermath. As Australians, we reach out to our mates and help them. That is who we are. I do not see our country as a power struggle between the haves and the have-nots. I do not see life as a zero-sum game where one person's achievement must come at another person's expense. The ideology of class warfare is a dismal and desolate one. It does not accord with my lived experience.

There is no greater force to lift people out of poverty than free enterprise. I've seen this firsthand in my own working life. Prior to entering politics, I served for 12 years as a general counsel in a mid-tier copper- and gold-mining company called PanAust. Many of my old workmates are here tonight. Last year we celebrated the 10th anniversary of the opening of the Phu Kham copper-gold mine in Laos. The anniversary was a cause for reflection. The benefits of the Phu Kham mine were many: thousands of people were lifted out of poverty; world-leading apprenticeship training was provided to young people, giving them skills they will have for the rest of their lives; microfinance programs enabled villagers, particularly women, to establish cottage industries so they could bring their children in from the fields and send them to school; and the Lao government received millions of dollars of royalties and tax revenues to provide services to its people.

How did this Australian company build a mine to the highest safety, environmental and operating standards in one of the poorest countries in the world? The government did not do it; the private sector did it. Thousands of shareholders invested their capital through the Australian stock market. Hundreds of millions of dollars were invested. Only after employees and suppliers were paid, and only after the government received royalties and taxes, did the shareholders receive a return. That creative and entrepreneurial process operating across international borders lifted thousands of people out of poverty and provided them with the skills for the rest of their lives. This is no trickle-down theory. This is the power of free enterprise. It is time for the capitalists to rise up and defend capitalism. Free enterprise lifts people out of poverty.

One of the driving reasons I sought election to this place was to make it easier, not harder, for Australians to pursue opportunity and create wealth through their own initiative, their own enterprise and their own spirit. In that regard, the decisions we make here matter. Whenever legislation comes before the Senate, I will ask: Will it make it easier or harder for one of the over 430,000 small businesses in Queensland to hire an extra young person? Will it make it easier or harder for our primary producers to work the land and access the water they need at an affordable price? Will it make it easier or harder for our refineries in Townsville and smelters in Gladstone to compete on the international market? Will it decrease their electricity and gas prices or make it impossible for them to stay open? Will it make it easier or harder for the people in regional Queensland to access the same opportunities as those living in the big cities?

We should never forget that the most important people in any development decision, be it a dam, a mine or a road, are members of the local community. Whether it is an Indigenous community on the Cape, a coalmining town like Moranbah in Central Queensland, or Stanthorpe, on the Granite Belt—where they're doing it mighty tough at the moment—the most important people to consider are the locals, not the NGOs who are funded from New York or London and not the activists who seek to impose their will on communities hundreds of miles from where the activists live. Whether it is a village in Laos or a town in Queensland, it is the local communities who matter. Their futures, the future of their towns, their communities and their children, should not be held to ransom.

I applaud the referral to the Productivity Commission by the federal Treasurer of the process to approve major projects in this country. It should not take 10 years to approve a major project, whether it be the Roy Hill mine in Western Australia or the Carmichael mine in Queensland. We are better than that. We must be better than that.

In pursuing the opportunities we have, we must always have an outward-looking perspective. We are a trading nation. My career prior to politics took me all over the world. It has given me a perspective of Australia's place in the world. After I graduated from the University of Queensland, I worked for a law firm called Allens. Many former colleagues are here tonight. Working at the firm gave me the opportunity to live and work in Papua New Guinea between 1999 and 2001. When many of my friends were going to work in London, Hong Kong or Singapore, I thought there had to be something in going to work somewhere totally different. I was right.

I have lots of memories of my time in PNG which will stay with me always, but the most abiding memory is how close Papua New Guineans feel to Australia. It is a special bond. Yet so many Australians know so little about this country of over eight million people—our closest neighbour, with its more than 800 languages. The government's Pacific Step Up initiative and the Comprehensive Strategic Economic Partnership with PNG will take Australia's relationship with PNG to the level it deserves. It is visionary.

The decisions we make here matter, not just to us but also to our Pacific family. When dealing with our Pacific family it is not just the decisions that matter but also the implementation. I applaud the goodwill extended by our Prime Minister in hosting the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea as the first guest of government in this term of parliament. The goodwill generated by that decision cannot be underestimated. It is an unequivocal expression of the importance of the partnership. And we should remember that it is a partnership, a partnership between two sovereign nations which are both parliamentary democracies with independent judiciaries and governed by the rule of law.

Our children need to learn more about PNG. Why does it barely rate a mention in our school curricula? Consider PNG's fascinating history, the cultures of its multiplicity of ethnic groups, the history of colonisation, the passing of administrative control to Australia after World War I, the bonds forged between our two peoples on the Kokoda Track during World War II and then the journey to independence in 1975. Our children should learn this story and come to feel as close to PNG as Papua New Guineans feel to Australia.

Cairns has a key role to play in the partnership. In some respects, it is almost like a southern suburb of Port Moresby. More than 10,000 Papua New Guineans live in the Cairns region, along with many Australians who have a connection with PNG. From health and education to promoting business links and trade, Cairns is perfectly placed to support our Pacific Step Up and partnership with PNG. It would provide an ideal location for the Office of the Pacific to administer Australia's Pacific Engagement Strategy.

Cairns could also be a key partner in the introduction of a Papua New Guinea team to the National Rugby League. Those who are not fans of the greatest game of all and those who have not lived in PNG will find it hard to imagine how much Papua New Guineans love their rugby league. I can remember my first State of Origin series in Port Moresby, with all the small buses, the PMVs, transporting people around Moresby dressed in their Maroons or Blues colours. I would ask my PNG mates, 'How did you come to support one side or the other?' and they would give me this passionate explanation as to the origin of their loyalty. I was thrilled to be at Lang Park last year to see the PNG Hunters win the Queensland Cup. It was a storming, Queensland-like State of Origin last-minute finish. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to see a PNG team in an NRL grand final—except, perhaps, seeing that grand final played in Brisbane. Sport brings people together, and Papua New Guineans and Australians love their sport. It is part of our bond.

I only have the opportunity to give this speech because of the support and encouragement I've received from countless people. To the Queensland voters who elected me and those who had a different view, it will always be about you and never about me. To all of the members of the LNP, thank you for your tremendous support and commitment. You seek nothing more than a better Australia. It is your values that I'll fight for every day. To Senator Susan McDonald, Senator Gerard Rennick, Amanda Camm and Nicole Tobin, you are not just fellow candidates; you became friends. To Barry O'Sullivan and Ian Macdonald, whose terms as Queensland senators expired on 30 June, I acknowledge and pay tribute to your service. To Olivia Roberts, Clinton Pattison, Robert Shearman, Russel Bauer and Frank Beveridge, who stood in Queensland seats where the going was tough for both sides, you are the heroes of the Australian democracy. You are the ones who put your hands up to make sure that people have choice. To Brad Carswell, who served as a Senate candidate prior to being called to higher duty in the seat of Lilley, how could I forget you! Brad, you never cease to put a smile on my face. To my fellow Queensland LNP senators and MPs, thanks for your support. In particular, thanks to Senator Matt Canavan for the outstanding leadership you showed during the campaign in regional Queensland. In fact, to all the senators here today, and the Clerk and the staff, thanks for making me feel welcome. To the campaign team, under Lincoln Folo, and all the other LNP headquarters staff, under the leadership of Michael O'Dwyer, you are outstanding.

To my father, David Scarr, and my mother, Diane Berry, thank you for your values and for your love and support, especially when I needed it most. I also remember your parents, my beloved grandparents. Mum cannot be here today due to ill health, but I know Mum is watching, surrounded by the love of her husband, Graham, my Aunty Janice and cousins Cherry and Cathie Northam. To my sister, Karen Radford, you are the kindest person I know. Thanks to my nephew, Harrison, for helping on election day. Mate, I'm going to give you a harder booth next time. My parents made many sacrifices so that I could attend Ipswich Grammar School—a fine institution. There were a number of teachers who had a major influence on me, including Ted Ryan, Bruce Prasser, Jim Crichton and Igor Lapa, a man who came to this country at the age of 12, a refugee from Stalin's Soviet Union. He could not speak a word of English and he served that school for over 40 years. He was as much a part of that school as the very bricks and mortar. To my beautiful wife, Louise, what can I say to pay justice to what you mean to me? I could not have undertaken this journey but for your unconditional love, wise counsel and support. Anything positive I contribute in this place is as much Louise's achievement as it is mine.

When I look up at the gallery, I see many people from every part of my life. I see a previous leader of the government in the Senate, the Hon. George Brandis. I see the best man from my wedding, Michael Lee, who worked side by side with me on election day. I see Louise's sister, Genevieve Mortiss. I never tire of bragging that I have a sister-in-law with a PhD in pure mathematics. Thanks also to Peter and Don Mortiss for their encouragement. I see Nat Hutton, my scrutineer in my preselection. There is nothing like acting as a scrutineer in a preselection to nail your political colours to the mast. Thanks, mate. I see people who have provided encouragement, support and inspiration to me along the journey to this place. There are too many to name, but please know how much you mean to me.

Mr President, let us reflect on what is truly special about Australia. We have the richness of 60,000 years of living history and culture. One of my boyhood heroes was Neville Bonner, the first Indigenous representative to sit in this parliament, as a Queensland Liberal senator. In 2003, I wrote a submission to the Australian Electoral Commission calling for a seat to be named in his honour. It was. Now, in 2019, we have our first Indigenous Minister for Indigenous Australians. We have come a long way, and we should reflect on that as we continue walking our path together.

Let us reflect on the fact that leading the government and the opposition in this chamber today are two Australians who were born overseas and have risen to two of the highest leadership positions in this land. Where else in the world could this happen? I am truly blessed that my experiences have brought into my life people from different backgrounds and cultures. In the gallery today are friends who have come to Australia from all over the world—the United Kingdom, Greece, Rwanda, South Sudan, China, India, Pakistan and Samoa—together with friends whose families have been here in Australia for generation after generation, all coming together in this beautiful, unique country we call home.

Let me close with the words of the great Australian poet and bush balladeer Banjo Patterson, written in honour of the Anzacs in 1915:

And with Australia's flag shall fly

A spray of wattle bough

To symbolise our unity

We are all Australians now.

Mr President and fellow senators, I rise to celebrate my predecessors and colleagues by echoing all who have risen in this chamber to give their first speech, and say it is an honour to be elected to the Senate and to the 46th Parliament. My favourite saying in politics has always been 'the world is run by those who stand up'. So I can say that, after deciding it was my time to stand up for what I believe in, I'm thrilled to now stand in this place—an honour that I will not take for granted.

My aim today is to share a little bit about my background, but only a little, because I'd prefer to focus on what I see is a great challenge before us in this place, and that is to defend democracy. I see this as a challenge with five fundamental arguments underlining it. Firstly, democracy works. Although it does not entitle individuals to everything they want, it does entitle everyone to a voice. Secondly, governing is not easy. It is about making choices—some harder than others, but all to improve the lives of Australians. Thirdly, countries work better when people run their own lives. This means creating opportunities for all Australians, not telling them how to live their lives. Next is the concept that happy lives are based on the love of family and the dignity of work. Finally, good government means pragmatic decisions based on values. But I will come back to these points.

I am fortunate that I don't have a log cabin story. My childhood was ideal, and I wish all children had experienced the same childhood I had. I will work hard in this place to do what I can to make this a reality for more children. While my childhood was rich in love, it was by no means financially privileged. My parents, Allan and Pam, who are in the gallery today, had a small business which did eventually flourish. This instilled in me an admiration for hard work, discipline, resilience and the will to have a go. I hope that I have displayed those traits throughout my life and that I bring them to this place. It also ignited a passion for small business; I ran my own firm for 15 years prior to coming here. I understand the challenges that small businesses face, and I will work hard to get them a fairer go.

My life has always been full of the most wonderful women. My sisters, Kristine, Lisa and Madeleine, and my niece, Lucia, have given me so much joy, and I love them all. Speaking of wonderful women, I'd like to acknowledge the love and support of my life partner, Nerilee, and thank her for standing beside me on this new journey. She has made incredible sacrifices for us, and I want her to know how much I appreciate them and her. She is one of Australia's most talented corporate women and I admire how she has never let gender get in the way of her success, even whilst working in a traditionally male-dominated industry. While this place will call me away from home, I want her to know that, while we're apart, she's never out of my thoughts or my heart. I also welcome her parents, Colin and Donelle Rockman, here today.

Now to my earlier point about the challenge ahead. As a society we are able to happily disagree on many things—music, art, even football—without the divisiveness that political disagreement brings about. I am at a loss to understand why politics, of all things, divides us more than virtually anything else. I am a passionate Collingwood supporter, and even this doesn't produce the vitriol that politics seems to. I am sure all in this place will join with me when I say, 'Go Pies!'

Following the recent election, much has been written of the loss of faith in politics and politicians. It has even been suggested that democracy is failing. What a sad state of affairs it would be if that declaration were true. The death of democracy could only mean one of two scenarios: the rise of autocracy with a reincarnation of totalitarianism via the rebirth of socialism, or, I guess, a return to an oligarchy—but I am quite sure Her Majesty would have sent us a note first! Clearly, those decrying the death of democracy are pursuing an agenda—an agenda built off the politics of fear and envy. They base this prognosis on their view that not everyone is getting everything that they want, and, they argue, the extension of that is 'your vote doesn't count', and thus they propose that democracy is dead. This line of attack is as illogical as it is illegitimate.

Democracy does not owe anyone anything except a chance to have their say. Government can never give everyone everything they want. That doesn't mean either government or democracy is failing. As Sir Robert Menzies said:

… democracy's true glory is not the achievement of a uniform mediocrity or of a spirit of dependence upon Government, but the encouragement of talent and initiative, the elevation of the individual, the giving of opportunity to all who have the inherent quality to seize it.

It is up to those of us who believe in democracy to make the case for it and to fight to defend it. Fighting for democracy here in Australia is easy because the proof, the undeniable truth, that it works is everywhere around us, particularly in this place. The harder task is for us to explain how democracy works—and, although it provides a framework to help address problems, it can't fix every problem.

Democracy is given expression here in this place; it is what we call 'government'. It is why we parliamentarians are here: to govern. However, I don't think I am overstating things when I say that governing is not easy. Governing is about making choices. These choices are often complex, with multiple stakeholders, each with competing priorities and interests. Often there is no right answer, but an answer must be found nonetheless. The decisions we make in this place do affect people's lives, but hopefully for the better more often than for the lesser. But we can't resile from the fact that some decisions may have negative consequences for a few. It is a fine balance that involves making hard decisions. So I reiterate: governing is never easy.

If you only take your news and views from Facebook and Twitter, it seems impossible to see life other than simplistic and binary—that is, 'You're either with me or you're against me.' You see the politics of fear and favour. When someone sees a post that moves them emotionally, it is easy to take a false view that government is failing them. But solving every problem isn't the job of government, and it can never be the job of government. Our job is to look at the bigger picture on how Australians' lives can be improved as a nation. We create legislation, regulation, penalisation and incentivisation to provide citizens with a framework within which to conduct their lives.

Our role is not to run their lives for them, nor even to tell them how to do so. Our purpose is to create the best set of circumstances, given known resources and constraints, and to encourage people to do the best that they can within that framework. How we come to these decisions cannot come from knowing all the answers, because we simply don't have all the answers. We can ask questions, we can research, we can run inquiries and we can consult, but we are not all-knowing—even if the members in the other place may tell you different.

Our decisions have to come from deeper places than that, for these tough decisions need deeper guidance. That guidance can only come from the underpinning values we hold and believe in. For me, they are Liberal Party values, through and through. They are built on the fundamental principles of primacy of the individual, opportunity for all, reward for effort, but also, equally, the virtue of personal responsibility. I believe in free markets and freedom of speech but, most importantly, in my view, getting government out of people's lives.

I believe that the simplest way that government can improve people's lives is by creating the opportunity to work. I was fortunate enough to be in the gallery to hear my friend and now colleague Senator Paterson give his first speech, and he talked about the concept of 'the dignity of work' and the benefit it provides to people above and beyond simply a wage. It was a notion that really resonated with me because it reinforced my belief that a job is far more than just an economic transaction. A job provides far more than a salary; it gives people acknowledgment of their unique contribution to our great nation. With that comes a sense of belonging to something larger and a sense of pride. Also, in return, it makes Australia a more productive country, where each and every individual's contribution is valued and recognised beyond a cost-benefit analysis. That is the dignity of work.

Our government, especially our Prime Minister, has made it clear that 'the best form of welfare is a job'. This goes beyond a mere slogan; it has truth in meaning. The word 'welfare' itself has more than one meaning. Yes, It can mean a handout, and that rightly remains a responsibility of government for those who require that financial support. Providing a handout does not diminish the people who require it. We should not, and never will, leave these people behind. But the definition that is more important to Australians is that 'welfare' also means wellbeing, health, happiness, safety and security. That is why we believe that a job is indeed the best form of welfare, as it provides these things and is not merely a monetary contribution. Government must do as much as possible to ensure there are as few roadblocks as possible to people being able to work.

It is clear that good governments recognise that there is a direct correlation between good economic management and national wellbeing. It is inarguable that Australians are happier and healthier when their aspirations are allowed to flourish and they can put their innate productivity to good use. This must never be understated by governments and must never, ever be undermined.

I believe each and every individual has something to bring to the table in a fair and functioning society. Our role is to reflect their values. These 'quiet Australians', as aptly put by our Prime Minister on election night, are the bedrock of our society and have always been. In previous times they have also been known as Menzies's forgotten people and Howard's battlers. Governments can and must be doing more to recognise and support these people through good policy initiatives. The passing of our government's tax cut package during my first week in parliament is a tangible, responsive and responsible example of how the coalition government is helping to look after these quiet Australians and reward their hard work—by allowing them to keep more of what they earn.

Every generation has shaped the country as it stands today, and every generation has faced its own unique social, moral and economic challenges. Quiet Australians look to good government to address these challenges on their behalf.

It is my belief that good government is not born of values and beliefs alone, nor is it achieved by merely following the political manoeuvres of governments past. What inevitably defines a government's legacy is found in its ability to command a modern agenda, infused by values that meet the ever-changing needs of Australians. Good government is decisions born of values mixed with pragmatism.

As Liberals we often stand up and commend the legacies of successful past governments and of great leaders of history, including Prime Ministers Menzies and Howard, the fathers of our great party. However, what is often left out of their legacies was their commitment to political pragmatism over blindly adhering to the tenets of ideology. What made these governments successful was that they acted in the nation's interest, with flexibility and with vision, as social and political climates dictated.

Good governments must be flexible and open to adapting to the needs of a growing society while still holding true to the underpinning values that unite us. This ensures an unwavering consistency of our core values, despite changing times and social attitudes. It is also the reason that I stand on this side of the chamber with the Liberal Party—its fundamental faith in human nature and the individual. The rational individual's capacity to build a life of aspiration and betterment should be fostered and supported by governments, not controlled by it. It is also one of the many reasons the Liberal Party encompasses and accommodates the ideological differences of conservatives, classic liberals and libertarians—because what unites us is far more powerful than what divides us. It is the balance of these three political schools of thought that allows for a diversity of responses and ideas.

We historically, along with our coalition partners, are the party of good government. I say this proudly and biasedly, because we on this side get the balance right. In the face of radical reform without rationality, the electorate demonstrates a prevailing common sense. Reform may be bold but only when necessity calls for it. Reform for reform's sake is never good government. Being a conservative is not saying no to all change; it's saying yes to the right change at the right time for the right reasons. That timing and those reasons are only determined by the Australian people. Good governments do not seek to impose, to thrust, public policy on Australians in order to effect social change. Society shapes governments; governments should not shape society.

Mr President, as you well understand, democracy is utterly dependent on having parliament operate at its absolute best. That is not achieved when we fight amongst ourselves, as this is when people feel most that democracy is failing them. Whilst there is a necessary role for robust Senates to keep governments in check, they should not be used as a tool of obstruction. Overly hostile Senates have only proved themselves to be working against the principles of good government. I believe more can be achieved through tactful and prudent negotiation between senators. I look forward to working with all members of this chamber in order to ensure that the upper house remains the robust chamber of scrutiny while also staying true to the principles of state representation and advocacy. As my friend former senator Mitch Fifield said in his valedictory speech only a few weeks ago, 'My approach in this place has never been partisanship for the sake of partisanship.' I will honour his virtues here by taking a similar approach and seek to highlight important philosophical differences while not being gratuitously partisan.

In concluding, when I look to my admired political figures, I see a common theme that underpins their roles as elected officials—that is, their commitment to serve the public. I was chosen democratically to represent the values of the Liberal Party. I thank my preselectors for placing their trust in me, and I thank my Victorian parliamentary colleagues, led by the Hon. Josh Frydenberg. However, first and foremost, I'm a servant to the people. I was elected by the people of Victoria. My loyalty is thus first and foremost to them, and I thank them for electing me. I restate my commitment to represent all Victorians and all Australians, to listen to ideas from all sides of the political divide and to ensure that we're creating a vision of unity and aspiration for all members of society. Democracy demands nothing less, and my electors deserve nothing less. I thank the Senate for its indulgence.

I now call Senator Rennick to make his first speech. Again I ask honourable senators to extend the usual courtesies to him.

Mr President, I would like to acknowledge my colleagues in the chamber and special guests in the gallery who are here today. I would also like to thank the people of Queensland and the LNP for the faith they have placed in me to represent them over the next six years.

Self-belief is the conviction that leads to achievement. It is the optimism that inspires hard work, that turns adversity into opportunity and convict colonies into countries. From humble beginnings modern Australia has overcome immense challenges to become one of the world's great liberal democracies. Few countries epitomise the power of self-belief and the ethos of 'a fair go' better than Australia, a country that remains a beacon to those fleeing persecution and those who seek a better life for themselves and their children. Gratitude towards our forefathers who built this nation and in doing so gave us so many opportunities is what drives me to see this country continue to provide opportunities for our children. It is that aim that brings me here today.

Of all the issues faced by Australia, few are more damaging to our country than the fiscal imbalance and ambiguous responsibilities between state and federal governments. You've really got to ask why Australia, a country of 25 million people, has nine growing health bureaucracies while maternity wards are being closed in my home state of Queensland.

Our Constitution was designed to hold government to account by the people, yet 120 years of compromise has rendered it ineffective. It is time for COAG to hold a constitutional convention to clearly define and separate these responsibilities, with proposed changes put to a referendum. The blame game needs to end. Australians deserve accountability.

People pay taxes in return for essential services, not more regulation. They expect governments to build infrastructure, not sell it. Despite this, governments have privatised much of the infrastructure that delivers those services. At the same time, they have marched into the family home, the bedroom and the classroom, telling people how to live their lives, parents how to raise their children and owners how to run their businesses. The jackboot of bureaucracy is suffocating everyday choices, the very thing liberal democratic governments are meant to defend. Is it any wonder that people are cynical about governments when they walk away from providing services while imposing more regulation? Australians smell a rat when it comes to asset sales. At almost every opportunity, they have rejected it. Foreign owners, superannuation funds and corporations aren't elected, so how are they held accountable to the Australian people if they fail to provide essential services? They aren't. As such, privatisation undermines accountability, the bedrock of democracy.

The sale of critical assets to offshore entities also undermines our security and sovereignty. Just look at the Darwin Port, neoliberal economics at its finest. It seems ludicrous that Australian super funds invest $580 billion in offshore equities and bonds, yet critical national infrastructure has to rely on foreign capital for funding. This is a classic case of ideology gone mad. Our founding fathers Barton, Deacon, Isaacs and Higgins—all members of the Protectionist Party—would be turning in their graves. My forefathers left Ireland during the great famine, when powerful foreign landlords exported wheat rather than selling it to feed the starving population. National interest should always take precedence over vested interests.

Most infrastructure assets are monopolies that aren't subject to competitive market forces that drive efficient outcomes. Australia's high energy prices are one example of what happens when a market is artificially manipulated to achieve a predetermined aim. Only six per cent of superannuation is invested in infrastructure. This needs to increase.

Today, more than ever, governments need to build income-generating infrastructure such as dams, power stations, rail and ports. Just as Governor Macquarie funded an ambitious building program through the issue of the holey dollar, a government owned infrastructure bank should be created to do the same. Funding could come from infrastructure bonds and superannuation. These measures would provide essential services, employment and fixed income for retirees. It is a much better option than interest rate manipulation, which has only punished savers and prospective homebuyers. If dairy farmers can't set the price of milk to earn a fair return on their efforts, then why does the RBA, an unelected body, get to fix the price of money on behalf of the money markets? Why is there one rule for one industry and not the other?

Australia is endowed with vast natural wealth, yet until the last quarter it has run current account deficits for the best part of 50 years. In the last financial year, despite a trade surplus of $50 billion, Australia plunged further into debt, with a current account deficit of $12 billion due to capital profits paid to offshore entities. Because of the tax treaties, most of these profits are taxed at around 10 per cent or less, while profits retained in Australia are taxed at 30 per cent. Our own taxation system acts as a reverse tariff on entities domiciled here in Australia, sending profits and business offshore because of the regulatory and taxation burden placed on them. The solution to this is to ensure that the withholding tax rate on profits transferred offshore is the same as the tax rate on profits retained in Australia. Given there is $2.8 trillion in super, tax concessions for foreign investors need to stop. Australia has no shortage of capital. Increasing withholding tax revenue could fund cuts in both payroll tax and income tax. This would give workers more money in their pockets, increase business turnover and boost productivity. It's a win-win.

Ultimately, markets are a mechanism for buying and selling goods, not for producing them. The mechanism for that is the Australian people. When the convicts got off the boat, all they had was their will to survive. There were no financial instruments, regulations, scoping studies or subsidies in sight. Our prosperity has come from the hands of our carpenters and mechanics, the minds of our scientists and engineers, the hearts of our teachers and nurses and, most importantly, the persistence and innovation of small business owners. Yet today financial rewards go to the paper shufflers—bureaucrats who impose red tape, lawyers who argue semantics, fund managers who trade financial instruments and universities who sell degrees.

A true market economy is a system in which individuals own most of the resources and control their use through voluntary decisions. It is a system in which the government plays a small role as regulator. This is no longer the case in Australia, where combined government spending accounts for around 37 per cent of GDP. Our remaining GDP is becoming more concentrated between a handful of oligarchs and superannuation funds where there is very little competition or innovation. Australia will not continue to prosper while such a power imbalance continues. Innovation and productivity are driven from the ground up by individuals' hard work, not top-down by vested interests shuffling paper. As Adam Smith said:

The directors of … companies … being the managers … of other people's money … it cannot well be expected that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which … partners … watch over their own … Negligence … must always prevail …

While economic growth is important, it should not come at a cost to our quality of life. It is time immigration levels were reduced so communities can deal with infrastructure, the environment and skills shortages. Despite almost a doubling of the population in the last 30 years, state governments have built very few base-load power stations or dams. They need to address declining services to everyday Australians before the population increases any further.

The greatest threat to our environment is not carbon dioxide but unsustainable immigration. As the son of a farmer, I was taught from a young age about carrying capacity and never to overstock your paddocks. Yet immigration is doing just that, causing major city congestion and overdevelopment on our city fringes. Meanwhile, regional communities are struggling as opportunities, from the lack of infrastructure, go begging. While I agree with the government's wind-back of permanent visa places to 160,000 annually, the almost two million temporary visa holders living in Australia should also be reduced.

Skills based training through TAFE should take precedence over non-vocational university studies. Too many young people are graduating from university with massive debts but no employment prospects, while business import labour to fill skills shortages. The government's incentive payment schemes for apprenticeships are a step in the right direction. Sending everybody to university has not resulted in a well-educated population. It has resulted in worthless degrees, dumbed-down standards and vast amounts of student debt. It is a sad indictment of our education system that Australia, a First World country, has to import skilled labour, especially doctors, from developing countries.

There are over 600,000 foreign students studying in Australia, who use infrastructure funded by the taxpayer. They can also work up to 20 hours per week, competing with unemployed Australians looking for work. It is time universities, and not the taxpayer, funded the economic cost of hosting them. Universities should also underwrite student loans, which total over $60 billion. Why should the taxpayer underwrite this without a guarantee from universities that their graduates will get a job and repay their debts?

Almost 20 years ago, I finished a seven-year journey around the world that took me to most corners of the globe. The Elamite tells in Iran, and the Aleppo souk and Palmyra ruins in Syria were some of the more spectacular places I saw. It would be almost impossible for me to travel to those places today, which is a shame. As the birthplace of writing, irrigation, astronomy, algebra and our major religions, the Middle East is the cradle of our civilisation.

All war is a failure of diplomacy. The current military intervention in the Middle East has lasted almost as long as World War I, World War II and the Vietnam War combined. It has gone on for too long and needs to end. Bin Laden is dead, Saddam is dead and there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. ISIS will only be defeated when the world calls out the Milo Minderbinder who is funding them. As Eisenhower said:

No nation's security and wellbeing can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow nations.

Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible. Twenty-first century foreign affairs have been characterised by belligerent rhetoric and an unwillingness to seek peace through diplomatic channels. This needs to change. Sound diplomacy and strength of position is the foundation of peace.

Of all the foreign policy achievements in my lifetime, none was more inspirational than Reagan and Gorbachev in ending the Cold War. Their willingness to work together is the example that world leaders should follow today. As Reagan said:

People want to raise their children in a world without fear and without war. They want to have some of the good things over and above bare subsistence that make life worth living. They want to work at some trade that gives them a sense of worth. Their common interests cross all borders.

Australia needs to continue the good work the government is doing by building alliances with our Indo-Pacific neighbours. We are only as strong as we are united and as weak as we are divided. We also need to strengthen our defences here in Australia, using superior technology that will protect Australians and not line the pockets of vested interests.

The undeniable truth I learnt from my travels is that we're all the same. We all want a roof over our head, food in our stomach and a better life for our children. What binds us together is much more than what drives us apart. We must promote a unified Australia, rather than ideologies that seek to divide us. To rephrase Reagan, our common interests cross all identities. Cicero once stated: 'Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all others.'

There are so many people I have to thank for being here today, but first I would like to acknowledge a special place—my home town of Chinchilla. As a small agricultural town of around 6,000 people on the Darling Downs, it has played a major role in the development of the gas export industry in Queensland. Despite this, there has been a gradual erosion of essential services to it and many other small towns in Queensland. Worst of all was the loss of its maternity ward. When I grew up, Chinchilla had at least three midwives, one of whom was my mother. Despite a much larger economy today, it has none. The people of Chinchilla deserve better.

A rural upbringing has given me a deep appreciation of the land, its people and the challenges they face. I will stand up for our regions to ensure that they receive their fair share of government funding and services. Their contribution to this country has been the foundation of our success.

I would not be standing here today if it wasn't for the support and hard work of the party members. The LNP, as a volunteer organisation, only survives thanks to the tremendous hard work of its grassroots members. When the media ask, 'Who is the "base" of the party?' the answer is simple. It is the members and volunteers, who give up so much time and effort to run election campaigns, organise meetings, write up the minutes and keep the books. Without volunteers, the party and our communities go nowhere. They represent the silent majority who are proud of their country and their way of life. Thank you for your support.

Special thanks to my fellow Senate candidates Paul Scarr, Susan McDonald, Amanda Camm and Nicole Tobin, and to my fellow LNP Queensland colleagues for their invaluable advice and support. I also acknowledge all the candidates who ran in the federal election for having a go. Our democracy is only as strong as the courage of the people who are prepared to stand up for what they believe in.

To my mates here today, thanks for taking the mick! God forbid we ever take ourselves too seriously!

To my elder siblings, Michelle, Jim and Caroline, thanks for guiding your little brother here today. I know mum would be proud of us all.

To my in-laws, Robyn and Darcy, thank you for all of your support and help over the years.

To Dad, you've been my political mentor throughout my life, and your values and views I will carry with me in this chamber.

To Mum, I wish you could be here. Your unconditional love has, without a doubt, made me the person that I am today.

Family and self-reliance are values I hold strong. The family unit is the foundation of a stable society. As a father of three, I believe in the saying, 'It is not what you do for your children, but rather what you teach them to do for themselves.' We need to teach our children that with self-belief comes self-reliance.

That same attitude is one all Australians should adopt. We should not take our success for granted. To remain self-reliant, Australian control of our infrastructure, defence and natural wealth is vital. How can we teach our children to be self-reliant when we've left them with nothing in the cupboard for them to rely on?

For the last four years, I have had the pleasure of staying home and raising my young children. So I know how important it is that parents are with their children at such a young age. There is no greater bond than that between the parent and the child, and it is one that governments should seek to preserve. There is no substitute for mum and dad.

This brings me to my two great loves, my wife and children. Lauren, you are a wonderful mother and a fantastic wife. I couldn't ask for anything more. To my children, Sean, James and Scarlett, staying home to help raise you for the last four years has been the greatest pleasure of my life. And, while I will miss you, always know that, just as I have found strength and support from my family and friends, you will too. We live in a great country that with self-belief and hard work will reward your efforts.

In the words of Henry David Thoreau:

… if one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavours to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected … He will … pass an invisible boundary … solitude will not be solitude, nor poverty, nor weakness. If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them.

To that end, I look forward to serving the Australian people to help nurture their aspirations so they too can build their castles in the air. Thank you, Mr President.

Tonight we are discussing the urgency motion put forward by the Greens and, indeed, I'm lending my voice to call on the government to act on the climate crisis that's clearly evident across the globe and here in Australia. It's not good enough in our nation that Minister Taylor and the Prime Minister simply continue to espouse rhetoric and do nothing about Australia's increasing carbon emissions. It seems pretty extraordinary to me that, somewhere in the Liberal Party's talking points about meeting commitments and emissions going down, they're actually not looking at their own data and their own statistics from their own agencies.

Even when our Pacific neighbours have called on the Australian government to take action on climate change, Minister Angus Taylor and Prime Minister Morrison have dismissed, denied and ignored the fact that there is indeed a climate emergency. As the motion says, we are facing an existential climate crisis. The word 'existential' might, for many, conjure up French philosophy, but when we are talking about our very existence on our planet it is clear the Liberal Party has not faced up, in any sense of the phrase, to the link between the policy settings of this nation and the future of our planet.

We have in the Morrison government an existential crisis of policies. I would add, though, that this existential crisis extends to the nature of debate in this place—and I look back at the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme being rejected in this place by the Greens. It is a deep shame that we have an existential policy crisis that rolls on and on and on. Meanwhile, there are global hurricanes and there are fires in Queensland.

We have to come to grips with our policy settings as a nation, as we are one of the most carbon-intensive economies in the world—if not the most carbon intensive. But, with this government, we have seen so many ways to bury your head in the sand. The Liberal-National policy department did their best work in coming up with their strategies on dealing with climate change: bury your head in the sand; do nothing; nothing to see here. The government's ERF policies and the savings that they've made—handing over vast buckets of money to make those savings—do nothing to curtail and set targets on industry carbon emissions. Nothing to see here!

So, as well as a policy vacuum that's been frustrating our Pacific neighbours and doing nothing about climate change, we have the government's record before us where, since 2014 and the Abbott years, carbon emissions have been continuously rising. After coming down by more than 10 per cent during the last Labor government—the government that actually had a climate policy, and we did—the government's projections show that the Liberals and the Nationals will miss the 2020 Kyoto commitment of a five per cent cut on 2000 levels. That does not sound to me like—as the government has characterised it—'meeting that commitment in a canter'. I say to the government: if it was that easy to do it in a canter, and we are facing climate change risks, why would you simply do it in a canter? Why aren't you doing it at a gallop and setting some ambition for our economy to make a contribution to cutting global emissions and actually driving innovation in the Australian economy? No Australian would be surprised by the figures on climate change. (Time expired)

I rise to speak to this matter of utmost urgency. The climate collapse our world is experiencing is a threat like no other. The Australian government's inaction in the face of this is nothing short of criminal. A little more than a week into spring, unprecedented fires are raging in New South Wales and Queensland, destroying our rainforests, habitats and homes. Inaction on this climate crisis has put one million of the world's species at risk of extinction. In Australia, the Murray-Darling is close to the brink of collapse.

Australians are extremely concerned about the droughts, the floods, the extinctions and the water shortages caused by climate change, and most people think that governments are just not doing enough to combat global warming. Emergency crews across the country are crying for help, calling these severe events an 'omen of things to come', and they are dead right. Every moment this government refuses to take this crisis seriously is a moment where it is putting us all at extreme risk.

The recent IPCC report on climate change and land use confirmed what we already know—that the impacts of climate meltdown are already affecting Australia, and this will only get worse. Even as we feel these effects, we know other countries across the globe—the Pacific and the global south–are already suffering immensely. And they will be hit even harder, creating generations of climate refugees. The UN Human Rights Council says the world has never seen a threat to human rights of this scope.

The imperative of profit-making, sadly, has driven our planet and society to the edge of its exploitation of the environment and workers—and it must be abandoned. We cannot sustain a society predicated on planet-killing economic growth. We must build a socially and environmentally just world. We demand an end to new coal, oil and gas. Let's transform our approach to land use in industrial agribusiness. Let's invest in caring green jobs and 100 per cent renewable energy, and let's provide a just transition for workers to a post-carbon economy. This is well within our reach.

I'm proud to say that I will be marching with the millions of students and workers across the globe who are going on strike, on 20 September, to send a strong message to the lazy, coal-loving climate-denying politicians who are doing everything they can to block real action on climate change. The message is simple: the climate crisis is happening and we demand action.

Only the most extreme climate denialist in this government could say that we do not face a significant existential problem based on climate change. There is no doubt that the climate change we are experiencing in Australia and across the world is something that requires immediate, strong action from government. In fact, we are seeing such action from many places around the world. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that from our government here in Australia. Instead, we have a government that remains committed to dismissing, denying and ignoring the severe climate change that we see all around us.

The Prime Minister, the Minister for Energy, Mr Taylor, and the coalition as a whole cannot continue to hide from their own data. The facts are that under this government carbon emissions continue to rise, contributing to the climate change that we see all around us. According to this government's own latest accounts, through the Department of the Environment and Energy, in the year to March 2019 Australia's carbon emissions rose by 0.6 per cent. It's no surprise given that this government's only plan is to waste an additional $2 billion on top of the $2.55 billion already allocated on former Prime Minister Tony Abbott's failed climate policy.

Australians have come to expect this from a government that is not serious about taking real action on climate change. The record of the Liberals and Nationals on climate speaks for itself. Carbon emissions have been continuously rising since 2014, after coming down by more than 10 per cent during the last federal Labor government. The government's own projections show the Liberals will miss the 2020 Kyoto commitment of a five per cent cut on 2000 levels. The government's own projections also show that emissions will keep rising all the way to 2030, missing their already inadequate 2030 target by a huge margin.

So after six years in government the Liberals and Nationals have failed to deliver credible and effective climate change policy, have consistently undermined the transition to clean energy, have avoided implementing any credible policies to cut pollution in the industry, energy, transport or agriculture sectors, and have repeatedly dismissed domestic and international concerns about their lack of credible climate policies and ambition. This government's fundamental problem is that it is increasingly dominated by climate sceptics, who remain unconvinced that climate change is happening and caused by our own actions as humans. Even today we've had another government minister, being interviewed by the media, not wanting to talk about and not wanting to accept that climate change is caused by the activities of humans. While ever this government is dominated by climate sceptics, we will not see the action that is urgently required by our country and by the world as a whole to deal with climate change.

It is deeply unfortunate that, on the government side of this chamber, this debate is being increasingly hijacked by extremists who deny the existence of climate change let alone the need to act. On the other hand, we see the serial stunt makers from the Greens. I've said before in this chamber that all we ever see from the Greens—

Senator McKim interjecting—

Here they go, winding up again with all their usual claptrap—the stunts from the Greens that we see over and over again. The Greens would have you believe that they have a monopoly on caring about climate change. We see their social media, we see their rallies, we see their antics and we see their advertisements as they try to prove themselves time and time again as the pious, sanctimonious protectors of the world that they like to position themselves as. The reality is actually quite different. There are many people in this chamber and, I dare say, even people in the government ranks who believe that climate change is a problem and that we need action. That's exactly why Labor went to the last federal election with a comprehensive plan to deal with climate change and to drive major reductions in Australia's emissions through a range of policies in almost every sector of the economy.

So don't believe the Greens when they want to position themselves as the only people who care about climate change. We're all sick of seeing the pious antics of these people who never actually have to face up to any of the communities who would be required to change their behaviour. I've never seen any of you out in Moranbah, in Rockhampton, in Middlemount or in any of those communities who face change. It's about time you started facing up to people. (Time expired)

The selfishness, the ignorance and the cowardice that has been displayed tonight in this chamber by the major parties contributing to this debate have disgraced this place. Here is the truth of the moment. We are 10 days out from winter, yet communities across New South Wales and Queensland are burning. And, with each lost house, with each destroyed habitat, there is yet more truth. There is yet more urgency given to the realisation that climate change is putting at risk everything that we care about—our communities, our precious places, our very future. The smouldering remains of the family homes call us to urgent action, yet all we have seen is bickering. All we have seen is the same rehearsed talking points, and we know why. We know why the major parties won't act. It's because you are in the pockets of the coal barons and the gas merchants who are profiting from this destruction. You are bought and paid for. Your silence is their price.

Climate change affects all of us. It will take all of us to stop it. Now is the moment for radical, transformative, collective community action, and, on 20 September this year, young people will once again lead that effort. They will once again lead the Australian community out onto the streets to strike for climate justice, to strike a blow against the Adani coalmine, that disgrace upon the Australian landscape, to strike for 100 per cent renewable energy and to close every coalmine and say, 'No more in this nation.' Together we can and will stop climate change. Together we can and will make its perpetrators pay and create a community where everyone has what they need to live a good life. Together the Australian community will show that it is so much more than the craven cowards that sit in this place. (Time expired)

I rise to speak about the fact that we are in a climate emergency and this parliament, this government, is doing absolutely bugger all about it except denying that we have a problem and debating whether or not climate change is even human induced. We're back to the 1980s, yet the science has moved on, clearly, and this mob just cannot get the memo. Areas of my state that have never burned before are on fire.

That's not true. That is so not true.

I will take the interjection from Senator McGrath, who happens to be one of the strongest climate dinosaurs on that side of the chamber and who could do well to look at the history of bushfires in Queensland. We just had to create a new category for bushfires, 'catastrophic'. It got used last November. It's now being used again.

Laugh if you will. I can see the Liberal and Labor parties exchanging some hand signals and some giggles between each other. Well, the joke's on you, folks, because the community understand the need for climate action and they don't think it's fair that you both take dirty money from the polluters while their homes are burning. We've had 80 homes damaged now, with 17 completely lost, in areas where we have not seen burning before. We are now at these historic catastrophic levels, and still you take the money. Five million dollars over the last four years is all that it's taken to buy your complicity and your shoddy climate policy. Give the money back. Listen to the scientists rather than defunding them. Create those almost 50,000 renewable energy jobs that, in Queensland alone, could be created with a transition to 100 per cent renewables. Rather than criminalising protesters, demonising them and threatening to go back to the Joh era as my home state of Queensland's Labor administration is now doing, why don't you actually listen to them, address the problem and stop being so cosy with Adani that you're just falling over yourselves to give them free water, a royalty holiday, free money for their railway infrastructure and, of course, tax cuts to boot? Why don't you take a stand and start representing the people rather than your big coal industry donors? It is absolutely disgusting, and history will judge you all very poorly.

I particularly want to take issue with this one hour of parliamentary time being described as a stunt. Folks, we are here to do a job for the community. If you think that parliament is a stunt, why don't you just leave and go and work for the mining companies like all of your predecessors have? You'd do a far better job there than here.

The first job of people in this place is to tell the truth, to be honest about reality, to be honest about the breakdown of our climate and to be honest about the extinction crisis that we have caused and that we are living through. That's what we owe the people of Australia, whom we represent in here; that's what we owe the people of the world; and that is what we owe people who are yet to be born, who will suffer the fullest brunt of our greed and our cowardice. We have to tell the truth. So here are a few truths. We are facing an existential threat. Our pursuit of greed and profit has led us to a place where the ecosystem that sustains not only our life but all life on earth is teetering on the brink. While, around the world, the Arctic is burning, the Amazon is burning, the glaciers are melting, the tundra is melting and the feedback loops are kicking in, here in Australia the major parties have been bought, lock, stock and smoking barrel by their political masters, the big polluting corporations that fill their coffers—big coal, big oil, big gas and big forestry. They are playing the music that the major party senators in this chamber are dancing to the tune of.

It's very easy with this reality and with this truth-telling to get despondent, but there actually is still hope. That hope is embodied more strongly than anywhere else by the young people who are standing up, who are refusing to stay silent, who are refusing to be bought out and who are organising, mobilising and standing up and saying, 'Now we must strike for climate action.' Well, good on them! Power to their arms. I've got a lot more respect for them than I do for any major party senator who sits in this chamber. I say to them that I'll be with them on 20 September. The Australian Greens will stand with them on 20 September.

The question is that the urgency motion be agreed to.

I seek leave to table a document.

Leave is not given, Senator Faruqi. If you can just give a brief outline of what the document is and circulate it—yes, Minister?

We haven't seen this document.

Yes, you have.

Well, I haven't, and the leader hasn't.

The whip has.

Until we know what it is, the usual courtesies—

We have shown you—

Senator Siewert, unless you're calling a point of order, people are trying to sort the matter out. The government has indicated it wants to see the document.

If it assists, perhaps Senator Faruqi might just be clear about what document she seeks to table. Then we'll be able to make an informed decision.

I did ask that, and that was overridden. People wanted to see the document. Senator Faruqi, could you give just a brief outline of what the document is.

Sure. As Senator Siewert pointed out before, the document has been given to the government. It is a non-conforming petition relating to the climate emergency.

If it is the non-conforming petition relating to climate change then leave is granted.

I table a non-conforming petition, signed by 125,000 people, relating to the climate emergency, and I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave is granted for one minute.

Australians are extremely concerned about the droughts, the floods, the extinctions and the water shortages caused by climate change. Fires are raging in New South Wales and Queensland, our rainforests are burning, one million of the world's species are at risk of extinction and our Murray-Darling Basin is on the brink of collapse. Emergency crews across the country are crying out for help, calling these severe events an omen of things to come. Communities are pleading for action. By not acting, this coal-loving, climate-change-denying government is putting us all at risk. Declare a climate emergency now. Act like our country is on fire, because it literally is.

I present the second report of 2019 of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, Referrals made July 2019.

I table a document relating to the order for the production of documents concerning a government response to the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on PFAS contamination.

I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill, and 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 implements a measure announced in the 2018-19 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook to confirm that Australian pensions are only being paid to overseas pensioners who are still alive.

Australia is a multicultural country, with around a third of Australians born overseas and over half of Australians with at least one parent born overseas. The government recognises that many people wish to return to their country of birth or to be with family and friends. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect a large number of Australian pensioners to retire overseas. In fact, Australia pays a pension to approximately 96,000 Australian pensioners who live overseas.

It is a long standing policy of successive Australian governments to recognise that Australian pension recipients have contributed to Australia and are not required to remain in Australia to participate economically and socially. Australia has international social security agreements with 31 countries that allow people who have lived part of their working life in Australia to claim an Australian pension while living overseas.

The effect of this bill is that, from 1 September 2019, pensioners aged 80 years and over and residing permanently overseas will need to complete and return a proof of life certificate to continue receiving their pension overseas. This will confirm that Australian pensions are only being paid to pensioners who are still alive.

The government estimates that approximately 25,000 pensioners who are aged 80 and over and live overseas will be required to provide proof of life. Limiting this process to pensioners aged 80 and over will minimise the administrative burden on pensioners, while helping to ensure that Australian pensions are only being paid to pensioners who are still alive.

This measure is expected to modify the behaviour of Australian pensioners and their families living overseas over time by reminding them of their reporting responsibilities. It is possible that there may be some misunderstanding by pensioners and their families overseas that Australian pensions may be bequeathed to, or inherited by, partners or family. Many overseas pension or national insurance schemes contain survivor or revisionary provisions that may be payable to partners or family.

This misunderstanding can be compounded when a person is concurrently receiving pensions from Australia and another country, and the other pension remains payable to a widow or widower under the laws of that other country. As overseas pensioners rarely contact the Australian government after leaving the country, the proof of life process will help to establish more regular contact with this group, and may lead to an increase in voluntary reporting.

The introduction of the proof of life process brings Australia in line with current international practice. Many other countries have regular assurance processes for people living overseas and receiving a pension from that country. For example, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy all have processes to verify that a pensioner living overseas is still alive, including a requirement to complete a proof of life certificate.

The measure proposed in this bill would require Age Pension, Disability Support Pension, Widow B Pension and Carer Payment recipients who are aged 80 and over and permanently living overseas to complete a proof of life certificate every two years to continue receiving their payment. If a pensioner does not return their completed proof of life certificate after 13 weeks, their payment will be suspended. If the pensioner does not provide the certificate after a further 13 weeks, making 26 weeks in total, their payment will be cancelled.

The measure includes safeguards to reinstate a living pensioner's payment if they are suspended or cancelled. If the pensioner makes contact with the Department of Human Services and provides a completed proof of life certificate, the Secretary of the Department of Social Services or an appropriate delegate will have the discretion to reinstate the payment. A pensioner who has their payment reinstated will be paid any arrears to which they are entitled. This process will make sure only people entitled to an Australian pension continue to receive it, while minimising the impact on pensioners who do the right thing.

To help protect against fraud, there is a requirement that the certificates are verified. Pensioners will have a range of options available to have their certificate verified. These may include, but are not limited to, a judge or magistrate of a law court, a medical doctor who is registered or licensed to practice in that country, or an Australian official at an embassy, consulate or high commission. This will provide overseas pensioners with multiple options for verifying their proof of life certificates, making this process as easy and practical as possible.

This government is committed to maintaining a welfare system that is fair and sustainable. The measure introduced in this Bill strengthens the integrity of the welfare system by making sure that Australian pensions are only being paid to pensioners who are still alive.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.

As I was saying earlier, the government has provided examples of similar protections in other Commonwealth legislation, including in section 110Q of the Defence Act 1903. It confers similar protections on the Inspector-General of the ADF and a person acting under the authority of the Inspector-General of the ADF. Section 74T of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 also confers similar protections on the Commonwealth, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, and ACMA officials in respect of the exercise of functions associated with the maintenance of the Register Of Foreign Owners Of Media Assets.

I'd like to speak, briefly, in anticipation of a second reading amendment circulated by Senator Rice. Labor recognises that sport can play an important role in social inclusion and believes all Australians should have access to opportunities to participate in sport and physical activity, and enjoy their benefits. We believe sport should be inclusive of culturally and linguistically diverse Australians and inclusive of those Australians who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex.

These bills, however, establish a national sports tribunal, an organisation that will not have a role in developing policy or determining the rules under which sports operate. The tribunal's function will be to arbitrate, by the agreement of the parties, disputes arising under the existing rules of a sporting body. The tribunal will not have the authority to change or enable changes to any rules that might impact on transgender, intersex or gender-diverse Australians. As such, the opposition will also be opposing this amendment, because these bills are not the right vehicle for furthering measures to prevent discrimination.

Having said that, I note that these bills establish the tribunal as a pilot for the next two years. Labor will monitor the establishment of the tribunal and its internal rules and procedures very closely, to ensure that it treats all parties in disputes appropriately under the rules of the relevant sport.

We support the key objectives of this bill. We understand the need for it to be progressed to avoid leaving Australian sport exposed to integrity threats, and we will support the bill in this place today. We will monitor the establishment of the tribunal closely. We will seek to ensure that the rules and procedures put in place once the tribunal is established are designed to appropriately consider the rights of individuals. Labor will also keep a close eye on the tribunal's operations in relation to matters that have the potential to impact on individual athletes' rights. Labor will also continue to engage with key stakeholders on the tribunal and with the government's broader implementation of its response to the Wood review recommendations. We will continue to work with the sports sector and agencies to provide strong, appropriate protections to the integrity and the reputation of sport in Australia. The opposition supports this bill.

It has been said that sport is the window into a country's soul. When we think of ourselves as Australians, we often think of ourselves as a sporting nation and, through that window, we can see a lot to be proud of. Fourteen million of us participate in sport annually, and 1.8 million of us volunteer each year in a whole range of different ways, whether it is in football, soccer, netball, cricket, rugby league, rugby union, basketball, swimming, athletics, tennis—the list goes on.

People who participate in sport benefit directly. There are benefits for physical health, and for mental health—which is so important, as we note World Suicide Prevention Day today. Sport gives us fresh air, the chance to work with others as a team and the elation of overcoming challenges. And sport can be a way of bringing people together. When people show up to play a game of sport together, they connect, and our communities are that little bit stronger.

Sport is so important in Australia, and that's why fairness and integrity in sport are critical. I want to talk a little bit about the importance of sport in Australia and in our society, to underline why fairness and integrity are so important.

Ten years after the terrible fires of Black Saturday, what did the Whittlesea and Kinglake communities do to note the anniversary? They played a game of footy. One of the organisers of that game spoke about what community teams meant: 'We really supported Kinglake, and our football ground was a hub of activity and a staging area for a number of weeks and months afterwards. We just wanted to bring the two clubs and the two communities back together.'

Sport can bring us together as a country. We're now celebrating as a country that the Ashes are coming back home. When the Socceroos and the Matildas compete, people around the country stay up until all hours of the night to watch and cheer them on. And every four years we cheer together, as an Australian makes it up onto an Olympic podium.

Sports can even strengthen our international relationships. The Lowy Institute wrote a report specifically on the potential of Rugby League to connect Australia and Papua New Guinea, a key bilateral relationship. They said:

Sport is an area with great power to connect people and rugby league is the sport with the strongest existing links across PNG and Australia.

It's also a sport with great potential to build new interest in PNG amongst Australians who may not have an existing connection to PNG but are passionate about Rugby League.

But if sport is a window into a country's soul, it can also show us the negative side of Australia. Adam Goodes was named Australian of the Year in 2014, but the racist attacks that he was subject to are a blight on the sport and show us something about Australia that isn't easy to confront. They show how much further we still have to go in addressing the longstanding injustices that modern Australia has not fully acknowledged or dealt with. I would like to quote a part of the AFL's response to two recent documentaries:

Adam, who represents so much that is good and unique about our game, was subject to treatment that drove him from football. The game did not do enough to stand with him and call it out.

We apologise unreservedly for our failures during this period.

An apology is an important step, but it's only one of many steps that are needed to ensure that sport in Australia can represent the vision of ourselves that we want to believe in so that, when we look through that window of sport, we can see a vision of Australia that we want to believe in, not one that we are ashamed of. That's why it's so important to ensure that we have integrity in sport. We hope that these bills will contribute to stronger integrity in Australian sport.

These bills follow from processes that have been underway for years. When the Essendon doping incident occurred, Senator Richard Di Natale spoke about the need for a system that did not just focus on the players but also took into account other individuals and organisations involved in doping violations. The value of sport for individuals and communities is undermined when people do the wrong thing. As fans, we watch the best athletes because we want to see who has the most skill, not who has the best pharmacist. This is something that the Greens have been speaking up about for many years.

In 2017, the government commissioned the Wood Review of Australia's Sports Integrity Arrangements. The Wood review took place over a year, with input from over 40 stakeholder meetings and 30 written submissions. In its final report, the Wood review identified multiple challenges in sport, including the commercialisation of sport, rapid growth in sports wagering and doping scandals. The National Sports Tribunal is being established as part of the government's response to the Wood review to strengthen the integrity of Australia's sports. When introducing the bill in the other place, the government described the establishment of the National Sports Tribunal as a pilot. The two pilot years are an opportunity to see how the tribunal will operate and how it ensures that the rights of athletes are protected. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO, International Convention against Doping in Sport, to which Australia is a signatory, requires that athletes receive a fair hearing, so it's important that we closely monitor how the tribunal protects athletes' rights during this pilot.

If sport is a window into the nation, it can also show us the progress we're making. The AFL Women's competition is an exciting development, going from 10 teams in 2019 to 14 in 2020. Now, when a young girl takes her footy down to the park for a kick, she can imagine herself being Erin Phillips winning best on ground, Tayla Harris taking the mark of the year or Ashley Sharp kicking the goal of the year. Personally, I'm proud to be a foundation member of the Western Bulldogs' women's competition and to have seen for myself how important it has been for increasing participation in sport amongst girls and young women and how it's attracted a whole new cohort of people to engage with and get involved with both elite and local football.

But sport can also show us the distance we have to go in achieving our vision of a fair Australia. If we want to be a nation that celebrates and includes everyone, then everyone should be able to participate in sport, including trans, gender diverse and intersex people. Tragically, surveys suggest that almost 40 per cent of LGBTIQ+ people who participate in sports have felt unsafe or vulnerable in a sporting environment, and many more choose to not participate, because they don't feel safe.

Everyone deserves to be able participate to safely in sports, and we should support them to do so. Bouquets to the AFL for bringing the women's league into existence, but brickbats to them for how they have managed the inclusion of transgender athletes. The way they dealt with Hannah Mouncey in her attempts to be included in the AFLW draft was nothing short of reprehensible, and she eventually withdrew from the 2019 draft, arguing that the AFL had treated her 'like shit', 'with every effort made to wear me down to the point where I couldn't continue'. The AFL policy requires that trans women maintain a maximum set level of testosterone for at least two years on the basis that higher levels of testosterone can result in a competitive advantage for trans or non-binary athletes, but the AFL also require trans women to submit data on a series of tests which they believe further determine their competitive advantage. This includes the person's height, weight, bench press, 20-metre sprint, vertical jump, GPS and two-kilometre run data. If the prospective player exceeds recorded AFLW averages on these measures, even if their testosterone levels are below the stated requirement, then the AFLW reserve the right to deny their nomination. In doing so, they will explicitly keep players like Hannah out of the league because she's too strong.

Hannah's example gives some insight into the challenges faced by transgender athletes, but I want to also talk about the challenges that intersex athletes face, because they are equally large. We've all heard of South Africa's incredible athlete Caster Semenya. In her own words, 'I am a woman, and I am fast.' But, sadly, it hasn't been that simple for Caster. She's faced a long battle just to participate in the competitions that she excels in. She's had to battle rules issued by the International Association of Athletics Federations which require some female runners whose bodies produce high levels of testosterone to take medication to lower those levels. These rules seem to be a direct effort to target Semenya, who is believed to have a condition that produces high testosterone. Semenya appealed against the new regulations earlier this year, but the Court of Arbitration for Sport ruled against her. Intersex Human Rights Australia, in reflecting on this Court of Arbitration for Sport ruling, stated:

Caster Semenya is a Black South African cisgender woman, born with a variation of sex characteristics, seeking to compete in the sex category she was assigned at birth.

…   …   …

The decision is more of the same old story: discrimination, forced medical intervention, and decision-making despite a lack of evidence.

Inclusion is powerful, and it's necessary. We see its power when women's sport is championed and supported. I've seen it firsthand at events organised by Proud 2 Play, including their recent lawn bowls event in Melbourne to celebrate Wear It Purple Day. Proud 2 Play work to ensure that all LGBTI+ people feel safe and confident to lead happy and active lifestyles in welcoming and inclusive environments.

Coming back to the AFL—it is finals season after all—they know that, with regard to trans players, they've got to lift their game. They issued a joint statement with Proud 2 Play earlier this year in response to a transphobic video that featured former Footy Showpresenter Sam Newman. The statement says:

The AFL is proud to work with the LGBTI+ community to ensure our sport is welcoming and inclusive, and these comments are damaging to young trans people, and the broader LGBTI+ community.

It's in this context that our second reading amendment was formulated. It's in this context that we are calling upon the National Sports Tribunal, when it's established, to consult with intersex-led organisations and with transgender and gender-diverse organisations; to adopt policies that reflect the 2016 guidance by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and the Darlington Statement 2017; and to ensure access to sport at all levels of competition by all intersex people, including all cisgender intersex women being permitted to compete as women without restrictions or discriminatory medical investigations.

The Greens support this bill. We support the establishment of the National Sports Tribunal as set out in the bill, but its work must be grounded in values of inclusion and equality. That is why we're calling upon the Senate to support our second reading amendment that is aimed at ensuring that that's the case. I move the second reading amendment on sheet 8744:

At the end of the motion, add:

", but the Senate:

(a) recognises that all people have fundamental human rights and are entitled to equal protection of the law without any discrimination, including on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status; and

(b) calls on the National Sports Tribunal, when established, to:

  (i) consult with intersex-led organisations, and with transgender and gender diverse organisations;

  (ii) adopt policies that reflect the 2016 guidance by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and the Darlington Statement 2017; and

  (iii) ensure access to sport at all levels of competition by all intersex persons, including all cisgender intersex women being permitted to compete as women, without restrictions or discriminatory medical investigations."

How timely that this bill is being debated in this chamber only days after the Australian cricket team retained the Ashes as a result of Australia destroying the English team at Old Trafford, winning by 185 runs and so capably led by Tasmania's Tim Paine. It is not only our men's cricket team that has been dominating the world. Last week our Australian women's cricket team, the Southern Stars, won their one-day international series against the West Indies, with Alyssa Healy smashing 100 runs off just 94 balls. And of course Australia's own tennis ace Ash Barty is world No. 1—what more do we need to say? We are a proud sporting nation, but we also value fair and honest competition. I rise today not only to congratulate Australia for being the best sporting nation in the world but to add my contribution on this bill, the National Sports Tribunal Bill 2019.

As the member for Bennelong, Mr Alexander, who knows a thing or two about being a world-class athlete, made note of in his contribution to this bill in the other chamber:

Tribunals are never popular but they are necessary for Australians to have faith in the teams and individuals who represent us.

This bill seeks to establish a national sports tribunal which will offer a cost-effective, transparent, timely and independent dispute resolution function for athletes and sporting bodies. Around the world and, unfortunately, including here in Australia we have seen the results when athletes and sportspeople decide not to play by the rules. Whether it be in cricket, AFL, swimming or weightlifting, just to name a few sports—and the list, unfortunately, goes on—there have been athletes making poor choices to cheat, break the rules or be involved in taking performance-enhancing drugs. When this does happen it not only ruins the reputation of those sportspeople involved and damages the individual sports codes but has the unintended consequence of also ruining the reputation of our country, our great sporting nation. These incidences shape the country. They make national news headlines and often consume the country for days. Those water tank and smoko discussions can last for hours.

The National Sports Tribunal will create a consistent dispute resolution process and allow Australia to maintain our status as the best sporting nation in the world. Currently, some sports have their disputes handled by the individual sports tribunals regulated by the governing bodies for their individual sports. However, not all sports have the capability to run their own internal tribunals. Currently, their only option for anti-doping disputes is the Swiss Court of Arbitration for Sport. This option can be a very lengthy and expensive process for all involved. The National Sports Tribunal will hear anti-doping matters in compliance with the World Anti-Doping Code and other sports related disputes, such as player selection and sport code of conduct matters.

It is proposed that the National Sports Tribunal will comprise three divisions: an anti-doping division, a general division and an appeals division. The anti-doping division, as the name suggests, will hear the anti-doping rule violation disputes. The general division will hear other types of disputes which arise under the rules or policies of a sport, including in relation to code of conduct breaches and disciplinary matters, selection disputes, member protection issues and the like. The appeals division will, again, as the name suggests, deal with appeals from both the anti-doping division and the general division. It will also consider appeals from internal sport-run tribunals in relation to anti-doping rule violation disputes and general disputes. Depending on the nature of the issue, disputes may be heard through a variety of resolution methods, including arbitration, conciliation and mediation.

The creation of a national sports tribunal is one of the key recommendations of the Wood review of Australia's sports integrity arrangements, which was published on 1 August 2018. As I'm sure you would be aware, Mr Acting Deputy President Fawcett, the Wood review is the most comprehensive examination of the sports integrity arrangements that has ever been undertaken in Australia. The review was conducted in response to the growing global threat to the integrity of sport, recognising that a fair, safe and strong sports sector, free from corruption, is inherently valuable to sports participants, sports organisations and the 14 million Australians who participate in sport annually. The Wood review identified inconsistencies in dispute resolution arrangements across the sports sector and the need for a clear, consistent and cost-effective forum for all sports, including small and emerging sports that do not have their own internal arbitration facilities.

The successful introduction of this bill and the subsequent establishment of the tribunal will see the National Sports Tribunal given powers to inform itself, including the ability to summon witnesses and compel the provision of relevant documents. These powers are not available to private arbitral agencies such as the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland or sports in-house tribunals, and their provision to the National Sports Tribunal will ensure informed decision-making and the provision of natural justice. While the National Sports Tribunal will have the power to compel the attendance of witnesses at hearings and to compel a witness to answer questions, these powers do not abrogate a witness's right to claim the privilege against self-incrimination. The National Sports Tribunal will be one of the few, if not the only, sports dispute resolution bodies worldwide that will have these powers. This will ensure that Australia's sports integrity is second to none.

Our athletes not only represent us as Australians on the international stage but inspire our nation. They inspire our kids to play sport and they inspire people to get out there and be active. Participating in sport is more than just having fun. As we all know—and there is substantial evidence to support the knowledge—regular participation in sport and physical activity increases health outcomes and makes us a healthier nation.

During his contribution to the debate on this bill in the other place, the member for Shortland stated:

Australians quite rightly expect sport to be fair, clean and safe. No nation and no sport are immune from integrity threats that can put at risk these expectations.

I agree wholeheartedly with him. As Australians, we are proud of our sporting culture, and we all want to know that our athletes are fair, clean and safe and that they are participating and operating within the requirements and legislation of their sporting codes. The creation of the National Sports Tribunal will help to keep honesty and integrity in our sport. I commend these bills to the Senate.

I rise tonight to speak on the two proposed pieces of legislation before the chamber, the National Sports Tribunal Bill 2019 and the National Sports Tribunal (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2019. The creation of a national tribunal to resolve sporting disputes was a key recommendation of the Review of Australia's Sports Integrity Arrangements. The Wood review is both detailed and extensive. It is nearly 300 pages long and contains 52 recommendations. Its work builds on Labor's establishment of the National Integrity of Sport Unit back in 2012 and Labor's strengthening of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority's power in 2013. Protecting Australia's sports integrity is an issue that has had bipartisan support over many years. I am pleased to say that this practice of bipartisanship continues today, as Labor lends its support to the establishment of a national sports tribunal through these bills.

As a proud sporting nation, Australia expects sport that is fair, clean and safe. For many Australians, sport is an integral part of their way of life. Whether it's taking the kids to school or club sport or supporting our local and national teams from the stands or from the comfort of our living rooms, there's great value in all of those connections to sport. They enable us to spend time with our family and friends and they strengthen communities by bringing people together. There is also no ignoring the health benefits of keeping active through sporting and, of course, the economic benefits of being the world's sporting capital.

In my own life, I've experienced firsthand the joy of cheering on the Magpies at the MCG in the company of my friends, my family and, of course, the Collingwood cheer squad. Now is an ideal time—with your indulgence, Mr Acting Deputy President—to put on the record my support. And I'm sure if Senator Van were here, we would be wishing Collingwood Football Club all the very best in the lead-up to the 2019 AFL grand final. Regardless of your stripe or your code, there's clearly a lot at stake and a lot for us to protect—

I rise this evening to speak about my home state of Tasmania—the place I call home and the place I always love to return to after a sitting week here in Canberra. Tasmania is a small island, comprising only one per cent of our country's total land mass, but the island has some very distinct advantages. Tasmania has some of the cleanest air and water in the world. Consequently, agriculture is a major employer in Tasmania and, as a sector, makes the largest contribution to the state's economy. Because of its unique exposure to a vast maritime climate, bordering the Southern Ocean, Tasmania experiences over 13 per cent of Australia's total rainfall run-off, being twice as much as the Murray-Darling Basin.

Significant water-saturated clouds storming across the Southern Ocean from the west unleash themselves as they strike Tasmania's western mountains. Tasmania's west coast mountains are directly in the path of the roaring forties. These westerlies flow around the world via South America and arrive back in Tasmania full of rain-bearing clouds. We are fortunate in Tasmania that there is always a potential for significant rainfall just around the corner. The key now is to harness this rainfall run-off, developing systems to capture and store that water before it runs off into the sea. It's very encouraging to see that Tasmania's past and present governments, as well as farmers, are supporting a public-private partnership where the public sector assists farmers to establish various water capture schemes and their associated delivery systems. Farmers meet part of that cost as well as the ongoing charges for using the water: our food bowl in the making. No individual farmer can afford the total cost, but, under the partnership, large-scale, multiuser irrigation capture, storage and delivery schemes are viable.

What does this mean for Tasmania's farmers and our economy? Creating and expanding water capture, storage and irrigation systems for primary production facilitates greater potential of Tasmania's food production and helps diversity and transformation from traditional pursuits, such as forestry. Food production is always a higher-value opportunity. Each of the public-private partnership schemes seek to provide 95 per cent reliability of water supply to farmers—a level of water security previously never achieved in Australia. Tasmania already has a temperate climate and fertile soils, and, because it is an island, Tasmania has the biosecurity benefits of isolation. These factors alone, allied with Tasmania's skilled and increasingly creative farmers, have proven food processing and transport systems will facilitate a massive 'food bowl' industry in our state. Our freight equalisation scheme for eligible freight across Bass Strait to the mainland and beyond will give our Tasmanian brand increased credibility and strength both nationally and internationally. Our state also has the capacity to supply fresh product into the Northern Hemisphere in its off-season.

When you mix its clean air and water and the nutritional values of its rich soil, Tasmania has the capacity to produce the freshest, tastiest and healthiest fruit and vegetables in the world. Fruit and vegetable exports alone from Tasmania have increased by $15 million to $79 million in the past year, and this is set to increase exponentially in the future. Benefits are most certainly noticeable with increased primary production, employment and associated flow-on benefits to supporting industries, as well as Tasmania's rural and regional communities. Through the Tasmanian Institute of Agriculture and the University of Tasmania, our state is further establishing expanded domestic and international markets with a sound research and development strategy.

Labor was the initial proponent of Tasmania's irrigation scheme back in 2008, so I'm proud that the current governments at state and federal level have supported Labor's vision for irrigation agriculture in Tasmania over time. With the progression of the remaining seven tranche schemes, Tasmania is well on the way to achieve so much more into the future in the primary production arena. It is also very clear that, with increased availability and reliability of irrigation for Tasmania's farmers, the opportunities to further our state's economy will have benefits for all Tasmania.

This week, Threatened Species Week, I want to remind my colleagues in the chamber that ocean species are disappearing faster than those on land. Often when we talk about threatened species we forget about our oceans, the biodiversity in our oceans and the threat of the loss of that biodiversity not just to the ecosystems themselves but also to the human communities that rely on the oceans for their future. Marine animals are far more vulnerable to extinction than their earthbound counterparts, and this was shown recently in a groundbreaking study in the journal Nature. They have fewer ways to seek refuge from warming. Ocean-dwelling species are disappearing from their habitats at at least twice the rate of species on land.

It's well worth thinking about Australia's iconic creatures. It was great to go down today to the courtyard, something which has become a bit of a ritual in this building, Australia's Parliament House, and have your photo taken with an iconic, furry and cute endangered species. But we often don't talk about a whole range of threatened habitats and other threatened species that don't get that attention.

As someone who advocates for the oceans—indeed, I have the oceans portfolio for the Australian Greens—I want to make it really clear that we need to spend a lot more time in this place focusing on the impacts that we're having on our oceans: marine invertebrates, marine turtles, migratory birds, seals and sea lions, sharks—especially grey nurse sharks, hammerhead sharks, whale sharks and white sharks—sawfish, whales, and, of course, habitats, as we've seen in Tasmania with the loss of our giant kelp forests, an ecosystem that had been in place for over 10,000 years from the north-east tip of Tasmania, off Mount William National Park, all the way to the south-west of Tasmania and, in its own way, an ecosystem as important to the Tasmanian coastline, Tasmanian biodiversity and Tasmanian communities as the Great Barrier Reef is to Queensland.

Let's not forget about the Great Barrier Reef—without a doubt the most iconic reef on the planet and one of the 28 listed UNESCO reefs. We know it has suffered terrible—almost catastrophic—decline, especially in the last decade, from warming. For those who understand why the reef is so important, it's very simple: the reef provides physical structures that provide protection from predators. As this report in the journal Natureshows, it's because marine creatures have nowhere to go and nowhere to hide, unlike their land counterparts, that we have such a loss of biodiversity in the oceans. So, if we lose a structure like the Great Barrier Reef, those marine animals, very simply, lose their protection. Of course, I've been there and dived on the Great Barrier Reef. I've seen the plate corals and the stag corals and the death of those corals. That is variable and patchy, but, as those structures decline, so will the biodiversity. Of course, there will be impacts on commercial species.

I want, in the little time that I have left, to single out two particular species of sharks: the scalloped hammerheads and the great white sharks. Recently, a report commissioned by the Australian Marine Conservation Society—AMCS—and Humane Society International called for Australia's independent Threatened Species Scientific Committee to reconsider its recommendation for scalloped hammerheads under the EPBC Act. In 2018, the scientific committee advised that scalloped hammerhead sharks qualified to be listed as endangered but recommended a lesser conservation-dependent listing based on steps that the Northern Territory and Queensland governments could take. HSI had previously nominated this species for an endangered listing. It turns out the majority of those steps haven't been taken by the Northern Territory and Queensland governments.

It is very important that these kinds of species don't escape our attention in an important week like Threatened Species Week and that we don't just pay lip-service to this issue. It is without a doubt a crisis. We have an extinction crisis. I very much look forward to the continuation of the Senate inquiry into the extinction crisis in Australia and why we need to change our nature laws to provide adequate protection for our environment and our wildlife.

There's a very important debate going on right now in the Western Australian parliament, and that's the debate around the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill, VAD for short. It has enormous public support. Newspapers and other groups are reporting 88 per cent of Western Australians want to see voluntary assisted dying introduced into the laws of our state. The issue is being widely discussed across Western Australia. A long-running parliamentary inquiry has been chaired by Amber-Jade Sanderson, the member for Morley, and most MPs have held well-attended forums across their electorates. MPs will exercise a conscience vote.

The opposition to this bill is very loud, but it is also very small. There is small but vocal opposition to the bill. It's not a debate about competing ideologies, which we do often have in the parliament, but there are a handful of people with strong desires who are trying to impose their ideology on ordinary Western Australians who so deeply want to see voluntary assisted dying legislated in WA.

Last week, along with hundreds of Western Australians, I attended the Dying with Dignity, Go Gentle rally at Parliament House. We stood in the rain and heard the most personal and heartfelt stories. People told of their loved ones' deaths and the impacts it had on them and their family and friends. These were not the dignified deaths that those who oppose this bill speak about. The stories I heard were of people losing their dignity—loss of control over their bodies, behaviour change, physical violence and intense suffering as painkillers failed to stop the loved one's pain and suffering.

A palliative care doctor said, 'The dying are witnesses to their family's pain, just as the families are witnesses to theirs.' On the weekend, I watched the video The Broken Hearted. It's available on the Go Gentle website. It is heartbreaking. Ordinary Western Australians are having to come to terms with terminal illness, the impact on family and friends and the trauma of dying. Make no mistake, 'trauma', 'traumatised' and 'torture' are all words used in this video, as family members describe the last stages of their loved ones' lives, whether that be years, months or weeks.

I just want to quote from a couple of the submissions received. The first one is from someone who talks about her best friend: 'Her quality of live was nil. She was fully alert and conscious but trapped in the prison of a non-functioning body. The last week of her life was a horror I will never forget. My dear friend's eyes were full of fear and terror. We requested more morphine for her and the nursing staff agreed she needed it, but, by the time permission was given by the palliative care doctor, hours would pass. She did not seem to get enough of the morphine to calm her.' Here is one other quote from a woman whose husband died in terrible pain: 'He was in so much pain by this point, even powerful painkillers like oxycodone didn't relieve his suffering. He was skeletally thin and couldn't eat or go to the toilet. He said he could not go on anymore and wanted to die. He called for a priest. He had renewed his interest in Catholicism in the previous years but had no qualms about choosing to die. He would have taken a pill if one had been available.' And, yes, most people applauded the palliative care that was available, and applauded the nurses who cared for them, but simply said that, at the end of life, the painkillers were not enough.

As a Western Australian, I am asking the small number who are opposed to the Voluntary Assisted Dying Bill—who include some Labor MPs and other MPs across the parliament—to listen and to act on the wishes of ordinary Australians, not because of ideology but because ordinary Australians clearly want to be able to choose the time of their death, to have a peaceful death, to plan their death and to be in a peaceful place surrounded by those who love them. Let's give those Western Australians this choice.

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to discuss tonight nine heroes and a marvellous team—a very large team—in North Queensland. But first I want to mention a second team: the Queensland girls soccer team that won the national championship last week. Let's get back to the nine heroes and the team of 28,000 people in North Queensland.

Last week, I was in Townsville listening to farmers at a rally they had called because they've had enough. They were farmers from not just North Queensland but right along the east coast of Queensland. I was also supporting Peter Ridd, the academic who has stood his ground and has been ordered to be reinstated after being wrongfully dismissed for standing up and speaking on behalf of science. He's now working with the farmers, making sure that they have a fair go.

In listening to the farmers there, I also met up with a few people who held a rally after the farmers' rally. They were advocating for a North Queensland separation—a new state of North Queensland. They are separatists. Their big beef was that they lacked funding in North Queensland. They see money being spent by Canberra elsewhere in the state, especially in South-East Queensland. They see the state Labor government in Queensland funding most of its dreams, and the Greens' dreams, in and near Brisbane. Queensland has become Brisbane-centric, and yet we see the regions as being the producers.

In Townsville in May, I listened to a group of mayors from north-west Queensland. They are getting serious and wanting to push their region's case, so please listen to these figures, this data. North Queensland is an area of 306,000 square kilometres. It's the size of Victoria and Tasmania combined. It has a resident population of 29,000 people. That's the team of champions I'm talking about, and here's why: their contribution to the national economy per person is $176,000. The rest of the state in Queensland is $66,000. So they're punching three times what the rest of Queensland is, and that's very high compared to the rest of Australia—again, three times. They have council-controlled roads of 11,000 kilometres compared to state-controlled roads of just 4,000 kilometres, they have a gross regional product of $5.1 billion and they have around 900,000 tourists to outback Queensland each year. So North Queensland are contributing enormously, but they're being shafted when it comes to funding.

With fewer than a thousand workers and only 11,000 rateable properties, the nine councils in north-west Queensland have to manage $2.63 billion in assets and almost 11,000 kilometres of road, water and sewage treatment plants across 17 different communities, as well as a number of childcare centres, regional airports and community services, all while having an annual operating expenditure of only $177 million. That is unfair treatment.

As a senator for Queensland, though, I cannot support the separation of North Queensland. I'm a senator for Queensland for the people of Queensland. The north-west mayors are not arguing for a separation; the north-west mayors are arguing for a fair go. What I said to the separatists in Townsville last week was that getting a separate state would simply hide the problem, because the real problem—as Richard Court, the former Premier of Western Australia, pointed out during his premiership—is that we are destroying competitive federalism in this country. In 1994, when Richard Court wrote his book, more than 50 per cent of state funding was controlled by the federal government. In 2017, when I listened to the people in south-western Queensland in Balonne, 73 per cent of the shire's funding came from the federal government. The real solution is to get back to our Constitution. To put the federal government back in its box, restore the Constitution.

What North Queensland and north-west Queensland need are real solutions. They name them. I don't have the time to go through them now. We need to fix the root cause, get money allocated fairly, get power back to the states and fund the councils. One Nation will continue to listen to, speak up for, support and push for the people of north-west Queensland and North Queensland.

There's some commentary about this government having no agenda, but let me tell you that this is not true. The coalition has at least one thing on its agenda, and that is to punish, stigmatise and demonise people who are accessing our social safety net. This government has a clear agenda, which is to pursue and think up new ways to spend millions of dollars to punish people on income support in cruel and, I believe, twisted ways, to keep them living in poverty and to put more barriers in their way. This is not an approach based on evidence; it is all ideology.

Look at the government's ideological opposition to increasing Newstart and their ideological commitment to rolling out the cashless debit card, income management and drug testing. It's ideological because the decision to not increase Newstart and instead roll out income management flies in the face of all the evidence. Then they spin myths to justify their cruel approach. They make up reasons for why they need to introduce punitive measures and not increase Newstart. They fudge the facts and statistics, and they blatantly do not tell the truth. The most recent push to drug-test people trying to access income support is a deliberate distraction from the overwhelming voices calling for a raise in the rate of Newstart. For goodness sake, just raise the rate!

There is a viciousness in the government's approach. It entrenches the vicious cycle of poverty. This is not compassion. It is a contempt for those who need to access the income support system. Do they think that people want to live in poverty? The reality is that circumstances can change for anyone at any time. Anyone can fall on hard times. And the marker of a civilised society is how we look after our most vulnerable and disadvantaged and those who are just plain doing it tough. Somebody may have lost their job and, given the current job market, can't find another one. They may have had to quit work to care for a family member, got sick or faced other barriers to employment. But, because of this government, many people in these circumstances are condemned to live in the poverty of Newstart.

It is the government that helps create poverty. Every decision, every policy and every vote is a choice. It's a choice to not increase Newstart but to give tax cuts to the wealthy. This is the government that governs for the wealthy mining companies and big businesses. They are the ones that get a go. Everybody else, not so much. A report released yesterday from Monash University shows that Newstart recipients are six times more likely to face poor health outcomes and suffer an increased prevalence of disease in multiple categories. Living on Newstart is making people sick, and it makes me sick that this government will do nothing about it. More than two-thirds of recipients of the disability support pension and nearly half of people on Newstart have reported having mental health and behavioural problems.

The government make much of their commitment to addressing mental health issues—and I, for one, really appreciate that—but their policies are impacting on people's mental health. Their approach to our social safety net is to punish people on income support and push them further into poverty, causing stress and anxiety. One might say that this is cognitive dissonance, but it's just plain hypocrisy. In a wealthy country like Australia, we really need to ask ourselves why we are failing so spectacularly in delivering a social safety net that actually genuinely supports people and consider the impact it is having on our community's economic equality, mental health and quality of life.

The number of people on Newstart seeking homelessness services has risen by 75 per cent over the past six years. This spike has easily outpaced the growth in the number of Newstart recipients, which has not risen as much as that. So, in other words, you have people who are struggling to survive on Newstart increasingly becoming homeless. This government needs to look at what it is doing to the members of our community. It needs to raise the rate and take a supportive approach, not a punitive approach. (Time expired)

I rise to speak about the insurance crisis in North Queensland which has been unfolding over the past six years of this government. For six years, this government has said that they will fix this crisis, yet insurance prices keep going up. Insurance costs in northern Queensland are so high that many people are choosing not to get insurance, families and investors can't buy homes, and businesses are choosing not to invest. This crisis is hurting hip pockets and costing Queensland jobs.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has released two reports which look at the northern Australian insurance industry, one back in 2018 and one a few months ago. With these two reports combined, the government now has in front of it 28 recommendations aimed at making insurance in northern Australia fairer and more transparent, which the ACCC has said should be immediately adopted. The ACCC has urged the government to act quickly on this crisis. The inquiry found that insurance premiums rose 130 per cent in northern Australia over the past decade, compared to just over 50 per cent in the rest of the country. In North Queensland, insurance premiums are almost double the national average. But it's not just the skyrocketing costs of insurance. Eighty-two per cent of those surveyed by the ACCC experienced some level of underinsurance. Many of these recommendations could be easily implemented, including establishing a national home insurance comparison website, standardising definitions of prescribed events and applying unfair contract protections to insurance.

For the past month, I've been out in regional Queensland, talking to people about this crisis and learning about the very real impact this is having on people in communities. Together with shadow assistant financial services minister Matt Thistlethwaite, we have held community forums on this issue in Townsville and Cairns. At these forums, attendees told us of their despair at having their premiums rise by up to 500 per cent, despite being loyal customers of the insurers for more than 40 years. Others told of how they've reluctantly exposed themselves to massively increased excess payments in an effort to reduce skyrocketing premiums.

Just today, my office received correspondence from a couple living in Townsville who were evacuated from their home in February after devastating floods and still cannot return. They have found themselves uninsured, caught between the definitions of 'stormwater' and 'floodwater'. On one hand, they have a hydrology report that says the damages to their homes were caused by stormwater, but the insurance company has determined that the damages were caused by floodwater, leaving them uninsured. Sadly, this is an incredibly common story.

The government is fully aware of this crisis—and that is their description of this situation, not mine. In 2015, over four years ago, the member for Leichhardt, Warren Entsch, described the insurance situation in northern Australia as a 'crisis'. He promised to fix it then, but he hasn't. Recently, Minister Cormann told the Townsville Bulletin that he was assessing the situation and talking to stakeholders, despite being in receipt of this damning ACCC report. Minister Cormann said that he would continue to work directly with insurance companies. The government should be listening to people living in regional Queensland, to the mums and dads struggling to pay their renewal notices, not just talking to insurance companies. With the wet season approaching, people living in Far North Queensland can't wait any longer for Minister Cormann and Mr Entsch to take action.

The government is dragging its heels in terms of implementing these sensible reforms. The government appears just as reluctant to stand up to the multinational insurance industry as it was with the banks. So today I have launched a campaign calling on the government to take action on northern Queensland insurance. I am asking people to share their stories. I am also asking people to sign a petition to tell this government that they want the ACCC recommendations implemented immediately.

The Liberal-National government won't take action on insurance in North Queensland, but Labor will. And we will, as we have done so many times before, drag the government kicking and screaming to do the right thing and stand up for families and small-business owners. (Time expired)

Imagine seven million people in a landlocked valley confined to their homes, their phones dead and their internet blocked. They're up against the nationalist government of a mighty power, its army, and its media. Imagine that, and you get a small sense of the crushing injustice of the situation in Kashmir—the crushing helplessness; the frightening reality that is everyday life for Kashmiris.

It is now over a month since the Indian government unilaterally revoked Kashmir's autonomy and plunged Jammu and Kashmir into complete darkness, blocking all access to the outside world. Indian Prime Minister Modi's intervention goes against India's own constitutional guarantee and promises to the people of Kashmir. It's a travesty. Come October, Jammu and Kashmir are set to come under the control of the government in New Delhi—and the people of Kashmir have had no say. They have a right to determine their future. They have an absolute right to self-determination.

Let's be clear: the Kashmiris have never submitted to Indian sovereignty. The government of India has effectively instituted a mass detention of Kashmiris by rushing in troops to join the half a million already stationed there. Some media outlets would have you believe that everything is fine. But, if everything is fine, why is Kashmir crawling with troops and subjected to one of the strictest curfews the valley has ever seen? Why have thousands of Kashmiris been detained? Sadly, this is not new to Kashmiris, who have lived under oppression for decades and who now live in fear. It should frighten all of us when one of the world's largest democracies is prepared to suppress all dissent from minorities.

Crucially, under the nationalist BJP government, the dissolution of Kashmir as a state means the rights that empowered autonomy of the Kashmiri legislature in administrative matters, including defining permanent residents who could buy property and work in the region, are gone. This poses a grave threat to Kashmiris, the only Muslim majority state in India. Indian author and activist Arundhati Roy writes:

The new territories are open for business. Already India's richest industrialist, Mukesh Ambani, of Reliance Industries, has promised several 'announcements'. What this might mean to the fragile Himalayan ecology of Ladakh and Kashmir, the land of vast glaciers, high-altitude lakes and five major rivers, barely bears consideration. '[B]eing open for business,' it must be clarified, can also include Israeli-style settlements and Tibet-style population transfers.

The settler-colonial attitude of India towards Kashmir has drawn many to comparisons with Falasteen—or Palestine, as it's known in English.

Nationalist politicians from the far right in India have been encouraging their followers to buy land and settle in Kashmir. In a despicable display of misogyny, some have been encouraging men to 'bring Kashmiri girls home'. It is Kashmiri women who have borne the brunt of this violence, including sexual violence, in the valley. It is Kashmiri women who have suffered under the repressive, colonial-style, military regime that has been imposed on the region. It is Kashmiri women who have lost their sons, brothers, fathers and husbands to militancy and violence.

Kashmir has been a flashpoint for Pakistan and India since the British drew arbitrary borders before they were finally forced out of their colonial hold over South Asia. An entire generation of young Kashmiris has grown up knowing nothing but this conflict. Amnesty International reports that there have been more than 50,000 lives lost since 1989. The UN last year pointed to decades of staggering unpunished human rights abuses. Recent reporting shows an ongoing lockdown, violence against civilians and growing unrest.

Too rarely do we hear the voices of Kashmiris. They were not allowed to determine their fate when the British drew the borders, and they have not been allowed to do so since. Self-interest and nationalistic rhetoric will never deliver justice to the people of Kashmir, who have suffered long enough. Self-determination by the Kashmiri people is the only answer.

I urge the Australian government to speak out and call on the Indian government to withdraw their troops, to end this mass lockdown and to respect the human rights of the people of Kashmir and their right to self-determination.

It is with great personal sadness that I rise tonight to note the passing of Launceston businessman and Rotary stalwart Lewis 'Lew' Pretorius on 10 August this year at the age of 77. Lew will be sorely missed by his family, his extended family and his large circle of friends.

Lew Pretorius gave 50 years service to Apex and Rotary clubs and served in leadership positions at the club, region, state, national and international level. He was made a member of the Order of Australia in 2013 for 'significant service to the community of Tasmania and to Rotary International'.

Lew was born in South Africa in 1942 and emigrated to Australia in 1964. For a brief period he lived in Sydney, where he met and married his beautiful wife, Jan. The couple moved to Tasmania in 1966, where Lew was naturalised and worked initially with George Harvey Electrics before establishing the hardware manufacturer's agent business L. & J. Pretorius in 1977.

Lew's long and distinguished dedication to community service began in 1967, when he joined the Tamar Apex club in Launceston and became involved in numerous service and fundraising activities. He was club president from 1974 to 1975. Lew developed the Apex club's connection with the Japan-Australia Youth Fellowship Association and World Youth Visit Exchange Association. He initiated the club's involvement in Launceston's annual children's Christmas parade and established the Christmas tree of joy, later carried on by the ABC. He also introduced the club to hosting Rotary Youth Exchange students, and he and Jan hosted three students during his time in Apex. Lew was honoured with life membership of Apex in November 1982 and became district governor in 1977-78.

In 1983 Lew reached the maximum age for Apex membership, so he then joined Rotary. It was through Rotary that I first became acquainted with Lew and Jan and their family. Lew served for many years on the board of the Rotary Club of Central Launceston in a variety of roles, again active in general club service and fundraising activities. He was club president in 1998-99, and Lew and Jan and their family continued to host youth exchange students.

Lew was the district secretary of Rotary District 9830 in 1990-91 and was on the district committee for group study exchange in 1989-90. From 1994, he was on the Rotary Foundation Committee, serving as chairman from 2003 to 2006 and was group study team leader to Japan in 1997. He was district governor from 2001 to 2002, a period when Rotary membership in the district increased to 1,516, and he was the first Tasmanian district governor to appoint female assistant governors.

Following his term as Rotary district governor, Lew continued to serve Rotary in Tasmania, within Australia and overseas through his Rotary International activities. Some of the successful projects he was involved in include boiling water wells in India; food producing, water wells and educational projects in the Philippines; an eye project in Nepal; and housing, hospital and school refurbishment projects in Fiji. He also assisted clubs throughout Tasmania between 2004 and 2012 to successfully apply for grants for a wide range of community projects.

During the period 2004 to 2012, Lew held numerous Rotary national zone positions, including operations director of Rotary Oceania Medical Aid for Children, ROMAC, which facilitated bringing children to Australia for corrective surgery which could not be performed in their own countries. Children brought in during this period were from Cambodia, Vietnam, Timor-Leste, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and China. Lew and Jan personally hosted a young Vietnamese girl and her mother in Launceston during and subsequent to her surgery.

Lew was the southern regional project coordinator for Rotary Australia World Community Service, or RAWCS, which sent teams to the Solomon Islands, PNG, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Malawi, Cambodia, Nepal, China, Kenya, Tanzania, India, Vietnam, East Timor and the Philippines; he was well travelled! Rotary International bestowed the following awards on Lew for outstanding service: the Rotary Foundation Citation for Meritorious Service, in November 2006; the Rotary International Service Above Self Award, in March 2009; and the Paul Harris Fellowship on three occasions.

It seems hard to believe, but Lew and Jan also found time to raise a family, run a successful business and contribute to their community in many other ways. Lew assisted with fundraising for cerebral palsy in Tasmania and coached primary and secondary school soccer at Norwood Primary and Scotch Oakburn College. He was a board member of Eskleigh Homes and a provider of accommodation for adults with multiple disabilities and served as chairman from 1986 to 1988. He was involved in the Variety Club's TasBash from 1993 to 2000, initially as a participant and later as part of the volunteer staff. And, as well as mentoring young businesspeople, he was a member of the Launceston Chamber of Commerce.

Lew had a caring and considerate nature. Nothing was ever too much trouble for him. During my time as president of the Rotary Club of Central Launceston in 2014-15, Lew was always the first to check on me to make sure that everything was going okay, not just with my Rotary activities but also with my work, life and health in general. He was the first to offer assistance when needed and was always available with advice and suggestions for the club. His corporate knowledge of anything Rotary International was impressive, and his nomination on two occasions to the District Council on Legislation saw him present proposals to the Rotary International Council on Legislation in Chicago, in the US.

Both Lew and Jan thrived on their interaction with the Rotary youth exchange students they hosted, counselled or simply supported through the club. Each and every one of those students would have stories to tell of the wonderful meals they enjoyed, the adventures they had and the fond memories they made when staying with Lew and Jan, especially when they visited their beachside holiday home at The Gardens on the east coast of Tasmania. A magical place at the end of the highway, the shack they purchased in 1975 holds many special memories for their family, their extended family and their friends. In fact, when I caught up with one of our youth exchange students from Sweden recently, shortly after hearing of Lew's passing, the first thing she mentioned was how much she had loved spending time with Lew and Jan at The Gardens.

In a sign of our strong Rotary family, Lew's son David is the current president of the Rotary Club of Central Launceston. I send my thoughts and thanks to him, his brother Ivan and their families for sharing their father with us. It was a pleasure to have known such a wonderful man. Lewis Pretorius—a life well lived. Rest in peace, Lew.

Before I start my speech tonight, can I also, as a past Rotarian, add my condolences and thank Senator Askew for that lovely speech about Lew Pretorius.

Two years ago I campaigned successfully to save Palliative Care Tasmania from closure. After that campaign had concluded, I had hoped not to have to plead once again for their continued survival. Yet that is precisely what I'm doing in tonight's adjournment debate, because neither the state nor the federal government will provide funding certainty to this wonderful organisation. In 2012 the organisation received funding under the Better Access to Palliative Care Program. That funding was due to end in June 2016, but Palliative Care Tasmania managed to extend their life by using some unspent funds and by cutting back on offices, staff and other expenses until they were running on the smell of an oily rag.

I started campaigning to save Palliative Care Tasmania a few months before their funding agreement ended. I organised a petition, which received over 1,000 signatures. I wrote to the Minister for Health and I delivered several speeches in this place. It took another year of campaigning for Palliative Care Tasmania to receive the funding that eventually saved them—another $1.5 million over three years. This funding was an eleventh-hour reprieve. The new three-year funding agreement is due to expire in June next year, so Palliative Care Tasmania has once again had to go cap in hand to both the state and federal governments to seek further funding.

I really don't care whether they're funded by the state or the federal government, or even both, but somebody needs to step up to the plate. It is inconceivable that neither government can come up with a sum of money that is a drop in the ocean for them and that, to this day, has been delivering enormous benefits for the Tasmanian community. At the moment the state and federal governments are simply passing the buck to each other. When Palliative Care Tasmania go to the federal government, they are told, 'Talk to the Tasmanian government.' When they go to the Tasmanian government, they are told, 'Talk to the feds.'

I've long been on the record as saying that palliative care across Australia does not receive the funding it needs—not just the peak bodies but the other services as well. This is evident when 70 per cent of Australians express a preference to die in their own home, yet the overwhelming majority of Australians die in hospital or residential aged care. It is evident when very few Australians are making advanced care directives or having conversations with their loved ones about their end-of-life-care wishes. It's evident when the Hodgman government have failed to deliver on the dedicated palliative care beds they promised two years ago to residents of the north-west coast of Tasmania.

I have highlighted in a previous speech to this place the importance of Palliative Care Tasmania to the aged-care sector. But I will repeat the quote I gave in that speech from Darren Mathewson, the then CEO of Aged and Community Services Tasmania:

The aged care industry needs ongoing support in this area of core business to ensure our workforce is adequately skilled and supported and we are building capability across the industry.

It's a little-understood fact that palliative care is not just end-of-life care; it is care for people with life-limiting illnesses. And it is so much more than just health care; it's not just beds and nurses and equipment. Palliative care is a form of care that provides for physical, emotional, social and spiritual needs. The medical issues, such as management of pain and other symptoms, are important, but there are so many other aspects of care for people with life-limiting illnesses. It can include issues like where a patient wants to spend their final days, and under what circumstances they would want to refuse medical intervention to not prolong life. It can incorporate services such as grief counselling, and assistance to observe certain cultural or religious practices. It can link to services and support for family members. That's why the work of the peak body is so important. It promotes awareness in the community of the need for people to make plans in advance of having a life-limiting illness. It encourages care providers to consider all aspects of palliative care, and it promotes best practice in palliative care.

We need the Tasmanian and Australian governments to appreciate how broad palliative care is and to see beyond just the medical aspects of it. It makes no sense whatsoever for Palliative Care Tasmania's funding to run out. It's outrageous that Palliative Care Tasmania has not once but twice faced an uncertain future. Dealing with this uncertainty is such a shameful waste of time and resources. Without certainty, it's impossible for them to undertake any long-term planning and it's also extremely stressful for the staff. If those staff go looking for other work and secure it, their skills are lost to Palliative Care Tasmania, even if the organisation's funding gets extended. The peak bodies for palliative care in other states and the ACT are funded. Why should Tasmania be any different?

Palliative Care Tasmania is of enormous value to the sector and the wider community. This is an organisation which is punching well above its weight. For example, one of their core programs is community education on palliative care, death, dying, grief and bereavement. This community education program was started as a component of the Better Access to Palliative Care Program and they were given a target to deliver this education to 1,000 Tasmanians. Instead of reaching 1,000 Tasmanians, they reached 15,000 by the time their funding had almost run out. To date, they have delivered the community education to around 25,000 people—in other words, around one in 20 Tasmanians have been reached by this program. This education has formed the basis of palliative care professional development for a number of workers in the sector, including workers in aged care.

Palliative Care Tasmania also completed a project where they consulted with service organisations and the Tasmanian community to develop a set of principles for palliative care practice. These principles, known as the Tasmanian Palliative Care Community Charter, are now embedded into the practice of many organisations. We know that some groups have unique cultural perspectives on palliative care, and the consultation included a number of cultural and social groups, including members of the Tasmanian Aboriginal community.

Palliative Care Tasmania also provides a wealth of information and resources on topics such as advanced care planning and dealing with grief and loss. They organised the Tasmanian Palliative Care Awards, which celebrate excellence in palliative care, and in November this year they are hosting the 2019 Tasmanian Palliative Care Conference in Hobart. This conference will feature a variety of local, national and international speakers. It will bring together the leaders in palliative care from across the state for a discussion on the future of the sector and how they can work together to ensure the best possible services for Tasmanians with life-limiting illness. In the last year alone Palliative Care Tasmania has had 80 strategic meetings with politicians, stakeholders and advisory groups, amongst others. They wrote a comprehensive submission for the aged care royal commission and they successfully lobbied the Tasmanian government for an after-hours palliative care phone support service in the south of the state.

It would be almost impossible for me to cover the full breadth and depth of the work this organisation does. They are truly amazing, particularly considering they receive core funding of only $500,000 a year. It's a pity that the state and federal governments refuse to release the independent evaluation of the Better Access to Palliative Care Program, because I'm in no doubt that Palliative Care Tasmania would come up smelling of roses in that review. Then again, we don't necessarily need the evaluation to tell us what a great job Palliative Care Tasmania is doing. Ask anyone who has dealt with them—any individual who has needed their services or has attended one of their events or education sessions, or any service provider in the sector who has sought advice or whose staff have received training from them.

If Palliative Care Tasmania loses its funding, there are only two possible alternatives: either the services they provide will no longer be available to the sector, which would be a huge loss, or they would have to be provided by the Tasmanian Health Service at much greater cost to the taxpayer. Not only would it cost more for these services to be provided by the THS, but they would have to spend years developing the knowledge, the expertise, the resources and the contacts, particularly the contacts in rural and regional areas of Tasmania, that Palliative Care Tasmania currently possesses. All these valuable assets would be lost should Palliative Care Tasmania be forced to close their doors.

The Hodgman government should not let this happen. The Morrison government should not let this happen. I will do everything in my power to ensure that Palliative Care Tasmania is provided with funding certainty and a sustainable future.

When Budi Sudarto came to Australia, he thought this to be a country that provided social and cultural protection for LGBTIQ people. Sadly, in recent times he's realised that this sense of safety is fragile. 'I'm scared,' he said to a room of MPs. Budi is queer. He's also Muslim. He shared his reflections on the current debate around religious freedom and the impact it will have on him and others like him, and he shared this heartbreaking realisation: 'In the next six months, I might not be safe.' Budi was speaking at the Parliamentary Friends of LGBTIQ Australians event last night about the government's draft religious discrimination bill. He and five other queer and trans people of faith shared their personal stories and discussed the complexities of the bill and its potential impacts.

The voices of queer and trans people of faith need to be heard and taken seriously now, more than ever, as the Morrison government forges ahead with its so-called religious freedom agenda. We must remember that this bill hasn't happened in a vacuum. Its beginnings can be traced back to the marriage equality debate. Make no mistake: it's the latest attempt by the government to curtail the rights of LGBTIQ+ communities. We must not be fooled by the coalition's attempt to make this bill seem uncontroversial, likening it to other federal antidiscrimination law. It's not comparable. This bill is unprecedented in its overriding of Tasmanian and Commonwealth laws and its privileging of some rights over others. It weakens the Sex Discrimination Act and the Racial Discrimination Act and explicitly undermines the protections of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act. It will expose people to being humiliated and intimidated in a way that is currently unlawful.

The conservative forces within and surrounding the coalition government have been unrelenting in their attempts to pit LGBTIQ+ people and people of faith against each other. It has become a tale of God versus the gays. But the speakers at the event last night told a different story, a story that all of us in this place need to hear right now. We were encouraged to come together in our diversity and were told of the importance of ensuring that we were protecting the rights of all people. We were reminded that those few, powerful conservative voices, however loud, do not speak for all people of faith; they are pushing a prejudiced agenda under the guise of religion.

It's vital that any bill that comes to this parliament ensures that all Australians are treated equally. That's why the Greens oppose this bill in its current form. Yes, we need to protect people of faith, but we must do it in a way that doesn't give special legal privileges to prejudice. I'd like to personally thank Nurul, Jo, Neha, Chris, Nathan and Budi for speaking at our event with such conviction, strength and integrity. These are the voices we need to amplify. These are the stories we need to hear. I'm going to finish with another quote from Budi, and I encourage all senators and MPs to hear his message loud and clear:

I hope all of us will realise we cannot legitimise hate. One of the most beautiful things about being human is our ability to connect, to love, to establish understanding and respect, because we all belong to the human race. We must embrace the thing that makes us human—our humanity.

It was raining on Sunday afternoon in Toolangi in Victoria's Central Highlands, but we couldn't feel bad about the rain. The mountain ash forests of the region only grow as they do—towers of strength, inspirational giants—with the rain they get. My wife, Penny, and I walked the short distance from the car to the CJ Dennis Hall to squeeze our way in and join a crowd of hundreds of people spilling out the doors. We were there to celebrate the life of Dave Blair and to mourn him, faced with his tragic, untimely death as a result of an accident while skiing in remote country.

Dave lived life to the full. He gave of himself, he revelled in the company of his family and friends and he loved nature. He immersed himself in nature in his work and through walking, cross-country skiing, rock-climbing and bike-riding. He loved spending time with his kids in nature and taking his Scout group out to explore and appreciate nature. He was an amazing, inspirational Scout leader. As his mother, Margaret, said to me over a cup of tea after the service, Dave was lucky in that he was able to work doing what he loved. Dave was a forest scientist. He had only fairly recently completed his PhD while simultaneously working for the Australian National University. Both his studies and his work were focused on the ecology of the mountain ash forests of central Victoria—that critically endangered ecosystem.

One of the last times I saw Dave was in November last year, when he and Professor David Lindenmayer were the expert ecologists who led a site visit to these forests for our Senate Environment and Communications References Committee inquiry into our animal extinction crisis. Dave showed us around the forest he loved so much, showed us his worksites where he measured, observed and helped build our understanding of these forests. Observing how the forests have been recovering from the Black Saturday bushfires had been a particular focus of his work, seeing and recording the damage done to these forest ecosystems from intensive, damaging logging.

Our Senate committee benefited from his time, his expertise and his passion. As chair of this inquiry I express my gratitude on behalf of all of us. I knew Dave as a gentle, selfless person, someone who was deeply passionate about the health of the vast, interconnected web of life on our planet, someone who knew that science can both show the threats that life is under and show the way forward. But we have to listen and act on what the science is telling us, rather than ignoring it because of powerful vested interests.

I want to finish by quoting some of the speech given by Dave's wife, Sera, at the memorial service on Sunday. I hope I can get through it. Sera said that she wanted to try to share the formula she thought Dave used to have such a happy and valuable life:

Be kind. Dave truly was an all-round nice guy.

Work hard. Participate fully in your life.

Take on the hills, don't just stick to the flats because they are easier.

Stand up for what you believe in.

Use your voice.

Head for the top of the mountain but enjoy the effort of getting there and the route along the way.

Be part of nature. Learn about it, be in awe of it, spend time really in it.

Get into the wilderness. Full your lungs with fresh air and take in the view.

Have fun! Never grow up entirely.

Get dirty. Build a massive rope swing and give yourself a thrill.

Stay fit and healthy. Keep moving. Dig lots of holes.

See the world. Embrace diversity. Empathise with people less fortunate than yourself.

Get to know people from all walks of life.

Get involved in your community. Pitch in.

Create opportunities for everyone to thrive.

Love your work. Do something that makes you proud.

Surround yourself with people who help you grow and succeed.

Get up early and make the most of each day.

Love your children.

Spend as much time with them as you can.

Teach them to look after themselves and to be good people.

Encourage them, cuddle them, make them feel safe and supported always.

Find someone to share your life with who helps you to grow, who supports your passions and who lets you be you.

Bring them cups of tea and pancakes in bed.

Find happiness in making others happy.

Don't wait. Make things happen.

All my love to Sera; Sera and Dave's sons, Jasper and Leo; Dave's parents, Margaret and Andrew; his wider family; and the many, many people whose lives were touched and influenced by David Blair and who are grieving for his loss.

I would just like to share with the Senate an editorial that I wrote in the Sunday Territorian of 4 August 2019, and I take note of all the Australians who suffer from polycystic kidney disease, or PKD, and also give tribute to the PKD foundation and to the DonateLife foundation as well.

TODAY is the final day of Donate Life Week, a campaign urging Australians to register to become organ and tissue donors, and encourage friends and family to do the same.

For many readers, this week may be the first time you have thought about donating an organ, or considered discussing the issue with loved ones.

In the Northern Territory in 2018, fewer than 13 per cent of people were registered on the Australian Organ Donor register. For me, it is an issue I am acutely aware of and live with every day.

This week in the Senate—

this was in August—

I intended to speak about kidney disease and the high need for organ transplants in the NT. As a federal senator for the Northern Territory, I know I am in a privileged position to be able to draw attention to issues which might not otherwise receive the attention they deserve. It's why I do this job: to help make a difference.

Instead, I write this from a hospital bed in Canberra as I recover from a flare-up of my own kidney disease that has left me in pain.

The disease I live with is polycystic kidney disease or PKD, a lifelong genetic disease that worsens over time as fluid-filled cysts form and enlarge both kidneys. There is no cure.

The discomfort and often pain that comes with PKD is frequent for me. But I believe I can be a voice for other sufferers of kidney disease and in particular, Territorians desperately needing organ donations.

The ultimate destination for PKD is renal dialysis or a kidney transplant, so campaigns like Donate Life are immensely important and immensely personal to me.

Registering to become an organ donor makes a huge difference to the lives of patients and their families. It is an extraordinary act of generosity to give the gift of life—

often to someone you have never met. I know it is something which would never be taken for granted by recipients.

Like many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, I have seen multiple family members affected by renal disease end up on dialysis far from home.

My beautiful mum struggled most of her adult life with kidney disease, as well as other health complications like rheumatic heart disease and lupus. She died after several years of dialysis treatment, her chances of a kidney transplant pretty much zero.

Esteemed kidney specialist Dr Paul Lawton—

mum's clinician—

now with the Menzies School of Health Research, monitored Mum's condition in her final years of life as she endured renal treatment far from home in Darwin.

Dr Lawton now monitors mine. He also works with the clinician who first identified my PKD while I was working as a journalist for NITV/SBS in Sydney—

prior to my becoming a senator.

My youngest brother, just 40 years old, has had to move from Borroloola to Darwin for three months to begin dialysis.

His adult daughters are learning how to do haemodialysis to assist him when he returns home. His wife drives the nearly 1000km every weekend to see him and then returns to her job—

in aged care—

in Borroloola.

Once he is able to return home, my brother will be in a fortunate position in comparison to many. Nationally, only 12 per cent of indigenous people on dialysis get treatment at home, compared to 21 per cent of non-indigenous people.

Many indigenous people from remote communities will end up on dialysis in Darwin or Alice Springs—far from family, community and homelands.

Treatment is required for at least four hours, three days a week for the rest of their life. Making a return journey home for the weekend is unlikely, and the chances of maintaining a job impossible. Because of this, people requiring dialysis might ultimately make the tough decision to quit treatment and return home to live their final days on country.

For those of us who've lived with the trauma of seeing family members on dialysis and then passing away from complications of kidney disease and dialysis far from home, it's incredibly challenging and a heart-wrenching personal problem.

Indigenous Australians nationally are seven times more likely than non-indigenous to need dialysis or a transplant.

Of the 750-800 patients on dialysis in the Northern Territory, roughly 90 per cent are indigenous and of those, three-quarters come from remote communities.

It is a disease rooted in poverty, often starting before birth, with nutrition issues in the mother affecting kidney development in utero. The lack of affordable nutritious food in remote communities, poor education on healthy living, overcrowding and poor health hardware such as running water for bathing are all factors leading to kidney disease.

Yet of the more than 1000 Australians who receive a new kidney each year, fewer than 40 are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. The number of indigenous people getting transplants should be much higher.

I would like to express our heartfelt thank you to those people, and their families who have donated kidneys and changed the lives of people needing a transplant.

My family's story is just one story. I'm sure readers know of hundreds of Territory families doing similar trips to Darwin, Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek in preparation for renal treatment.

This weekend is the 11th anniversary of my mum's death. I'm proud to say I've inherited her resilience and determination to do the best I can for others who also suffer from renal disease.

Please, talk to your families, especially during Donate Life Week. Register at donatelife.gov.au. And support organisations like Herd of Hope, who support patients in rural and regional Australia in areas requiring organ donation.

I just want to say that there are 25,000 Australians who suffer from PKD. There is no cure. There is not enough research on and understanding of this wretched disease which impacts people in many different ways, with impacts on their kidneys and on blood pressure. Just to get to ordinary, day-to-day events requires a great deal of management.

I do have to say that there are terrific people at the Menzies School of Health Research, and nephrologists around the country who do amazing work. I just want to say thank you to each of you, and especially to the board of PKD Australia; you are doing everything you can to create greater awareness. But it does need so much more.

Just recently, 4 September was PKD Awareness Day. Again, I think it's just another wretched part of the disease that impacts Australians that we just have to put so much more energy and research into, and I certainly am enormously grateful to those people who do work in that area.

People would be aware that the Queensland sugar industry is on its knees, yet the Queensland government is doing little to assist. In fact, it is contributing to the problem. The cost of electricity for irrigators in Queensland has risen by approximately 130 per cent over the past 10 years, and with some irrigation tariffs due to be phased out next year there will no longer be any tariff designed to meet the requirements of irrigators and their farming practices. It is anticipated that some irrigators will incur further increases in the cost of electricity by as much as 50 per cent when charged on standard tariffs. It's a kick in the guts to farmers and households to learn that Energex and Ergon ran a combined profit of $1.62 billion over a 12-month period.

Another issue is the rising cost of water because of increased electricity charges, which is another issue the sugar industry is facing. The Environmental Protection (Great Barrier Reef Protection Measures) and Other. Legislation Amendment Act 2019 will impose even more significant costs on producers within the Great Barrier Reef catchment at a time when farmers need more research and development.

The Queensland sugar industry contributes approximately $2.2 billion to the Queensland economy, and given the dire state of the Queensland sugar industry I would like the Queensland government to explain the actions of its Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, which has misled and mishandled a high-tech value-add project for the sugar industry called PlantZap. PlantZap would have been produced in commercial quantities in Australia and globally. This would have provided our canegrowers with another source of income and positioned Queensland, and Australia, at the forefront of technology by providing a solution to the global obesity health crisis. PlantZap is a technology process that extracts the minerals contained in sugarcane juice that is normally found in molasses by altering part of the refining process. These changes to the refining process produce significant cost savings for the refiner and also produce unique and highly valuable new cane products. By reducing sugar by up to 50 per cent and salt by up to 25 per cent in refining end products, but without impacting on taste, PlantZap potentially opened up global commercial opportunities that would have provided our canegrowers with a vast new source of income and positioned Queensland at the forefront of technology by providing a revolutionary way for the global food and beverage industry and manufacturers to address the world's global obesity health crisis.

A Swiss-Australian Queensland based consortium called NNP AG was appointed exclusively by DAF in August 2010 to commercialise the PlantZap project—both the technology and the product. I want to ask the Queensland government why NNP was handed a project that wasn't commercially ready at the time of their appointment in August 2010 by DAF, or DEEDI, as it was known at the time. NNP was misled by DAF, who did not observe proper business protocols and who have been proven to have been commercially dishonest. I note that NNP spent sufficient funds and resources on testing, production and development of global markets over this 10-year period. I also note the Queensland government did not provide any funding or support to NNP to ensure that the first PlantZap commercial extraction plant was based in Queensland. This meant that NNP had to approach overseas sugar mills, because without the support of the Queensland government there were few opportunities to secure the support of the local sugar industry.

Many of the large, global, multinational companies looking to invest in NNP and PlantZap were adamant that the Queensland government had to back and support the first PlantZap extraction plant in Queensland to showcase the technology and product as a vote of confidence in their own innovation/invention. In 2016, the Queensland government Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, DAF, tried to terminate NNP's agreement, based on legal technicalities; however, DAF backed down, and a new arrangement was entered into where the parties agreed NNP would acquire the government's IP for a significant sum of money. NNP had multibillion dollar groups wanting to do that deal, but they required more time to complete the due diligence. NNP asked for an extension to the cut-off of 31 July 2018 to secure funding, but DAF would not agree and terminated NNP's licence in August 2018. NNP had invested in excess of A$20 million over almost 10 years and had taken a research project to the point of being commercially ready without receiving a single dollar in return from the Queensland government. But DAF suddenly decided to take ownership of their work and investment, and threw NNP into the gutter.

NNP has developed a relationship with some of the major cane growers in Queensland, and it has substantial offshore support for the project if the Queensland government agrees to fund the first PlantZap extraction facility in Queensland. This would help the growers and the Queensland sugar industry, and, indeed, inject much-needed funds into the Queensland government.

I would like the Queensland government to explain why they have allowed this situation to develop and what they are planning to do to compensate this company and ensure a lifeline for the Queensland sugar growers. I would also like to know why I, a senator for Queensland, was asked to sign a confidentiality agreement with the Queensland agriculture minister after I requested a meeting to question their dealings with NNP. Why were DAF, and the Queensland Labor government, not prepared to undergo scrutiny?

The questions I want to ask DAF and the Queensland government are: why have they squandered a multibillion dollar project that could have transformed our ailing sugar industry and produced an entire new industry from sugar based products, and why did DAF fail to tell NNP that it had already supported another technology when NNP entered into agreements with DAF that undermined NNP's ability to acquire the promised rights to PlantZap?

NNP was to receive rights to PlantZap technology, including in the biggest global food market, the USA, in return for a substantial investment of more than $20 million over a 10-year period. It had taken this research project to the point of being commercially ready for major international sugar and food based corporations—without receiving a dollar from the Queensland government. But, in 2017, the US Patent Office rejected DAF's PlantZap patent application, because it referred to the earlier technology that DAF had assisted in developing. Yet DAF had failed to reveal that it had had previous dealings with another company, which had already registered the US patent. After the DAF patent fiasco was identified, DAF terminated all its agreements with NNP. In doing, so it destroyed the investment made by NNP, in good faith; denied the cane growers of Queensland a much-needed boost to their incomes; and forfeited a highly valuable commercial opportunity for Queensland, potentially with a value in the billions of dollars.

The work and investment of NNP for the benefit of Queensland is not, however, lost, if it is allowed to build upon the knowledge and relationships it has developed over 10 years. NNP retains a strong rapport with some of the major cane growers in Queensland, and it has substantial offshore support for the project if the Queensland government is willing to fund the first PlantZap extraction plant in Queensland.

I would like the Queensland government to explain why they have allowed this situation to develop and, in particular, why DAF failed to disclose its prior involvement in competing technology to NNP; what compensation claims the Queensland government expects to face in light of these events; whether the Queensland government has considered mitigating its potential loss from those NNP claims; and how will it ensure that the vast work done by NNP delivers value to Queensland and, in particular, to the sugar industry in future. I call on the Queensland agriculture minister to answer the question as to why I had to sign a confidentiality agreement before I had a meeting with him to discuss these issues with him. I have not signed that agreement, because I do not believe I should have to sign a confidentiality agreement. These are questions that need to be asked of the Palaszczuk Labor government in Queensland and of the agriculture minister, who have done the wrong thing by NNP and the people of Queensland.

Today is the Health Services Union's second annual Thank You for Working in Aged Care Day, a day to give thanks to and recognise the invaluable work of almost 200,000 people who work in the aged-care sector across Australia. Caring for our older Australians is difficult, critically important and often undervalued work. Our aged-care workers are some of the most generous, patient, thoughtful and skilled workers we have.

Last week, I met with Marion and Michelle, two aged-care workers from Western Sydney who provide home and residential care. Workers like Marion and Michelle actually represent the typical union member. The average union member is now a woman over the age of 40 who works in aged care. While this government demonises unions, they forgot to mention that it is workers like Michelle and Marion who will suffer if their union is fighting ongoing deregistration not because the union has broken the law but because powerful interests will bury them in red tape if the ensuring integrity bill is passed. It'll be ordinary people who will not have a union to fight against wage theft and unfair conditions if its officials are buried in red tape and cannot fight for their members.

This is what is at stake under the punitive so-called ensuring integrity bill that the heartless government wants to inflict on us all. That is why it is important that the stories of aged-care workers like Michelle and Marion be told. They told me over coffee and sandwiches about the beautiful relationships they have built with residents they care for every day, like the resident who enjoys going through the washing basket because it makes them feel like they are out shopping for clothes. They described the passion that drove them into their profession. Their eyes lit up when they described coming home knowing they had made a difference to their residents and their families. Too often, aged-care work goes unacknowledged, so today I want to thank Marion, Michelle and all those working in aged care for their commitment to not just older Australians but all of us.

But not everything is right in the aged-care sector. Michelle and Marion told me of the toll their work takes on them. Marion described the acute physical, mental and emotional demands they meet every day—about coming to work when it sometimes means facing violence and threats of abuse; about what can happen when overworked, understaffed carers understandably struggle to provide the care and dignity their patients deserve; about aged-care workers being responsible for 10 or more patients at a time, moving from crisis to crisis. The burden on these workers is often unimaginable. As they so plainly put to me, the empathy is there but, sadly, the funding is not. Aged-care workers like Marion and Michelle are only provided funding for the face-to-face time with patients, nothing for the necessary tasks of training or preparation. This means they must put in hours and hours of unpaid work to ensure quality of care.

They also told me of their fears. They are worried that aged care has become just a job and not a career and that the low rates of pay and lack of support and training will never attract and retain a highly qualified workforce for the future. Marion told me that her son was shocked to learn how much pay she actually received. Her son is 23 and works in a distribution centre, but, even with his mum's experience and skill, she is paid 50 per cent less than he is. But this doesn't have to be the case, and nor should it be.

As our population ages and more people move into assisted living, with a range of very different care and support needs, Australia must invest in the skills and wellbeing of our aged-care workforce. If we do not, the outlook for all of us is grim. It is hardworking staff at these centres who are leading the way in this fight, calling for the funding necessary to provide quality care to our loved ones as they get older.

We've all been horrified at the stories coming out of the royal commission into aged care—overworked staff left to care for more than 25 people at a time, unable to provide the dignity and decency that older Australians deserve. If we want an aged-care sector that we have no hesitation in sending our family members to, or even ourselves, we need to lift rates of pay, and increase staffing levels and training. There are also the simple things that will mean a world of difference to the quality of care, like the quality of food. A 2017 study found that an average of just $6 per day had been budgeted for food for aged-care residents—less than we spend in our prisons.

Australia needs a sustainable and appropriately funded national aged-care system that guarantees world-leading care for older Australians, a system that pays decent wages—reflecting the skill and care of workers in the aged-care sector and that values their daily contribution to patients, their families and the community. This is why we give thanks to our aged-care workers on this day. Aged care is in all our futures. It's up to us all to make it better.

I rise to speak on a national extracurricular education program called Subs in Schools. Last Friday, I had the pleasure of participating in the South Australian state finals of the Subs in Schools program. As a former Navy submariner, I was keen to be involved. It was kind of a 'boys and their toys' thing for me. Whilst I was aware of these in-school STEM programs, I must confess I was not fully prepared for what I saw and learned on the day. As a first point of learning for me as a senator, there were more girls in the SA program than there were boys. So it's not 'boys and their toys'; it's 'girls and their toys', and that was just fantastic to see.

There were 19 teams from primary schools and high schools, private and public, and they had designed and built small and large remotely operated vehicles and submarines which they had put through a series of in-water tests. I got the chance to witness some of these young innovators presenting their solutions and the processes they had gone through, and then I got to speak to a number of them directly. I was so very impressed with these students—ranging from primary school students all the way up to high school students. Starting at 11 years old, they were keen, eager and enthusiastic. Every one of them that I spoke to elaborated on how participation in this program had helped guide their thinking on what they'd like to do for their future. What I saw was engineers, project managers, graphic designers and marketeers wrapped up in the bodies of children.

These kids were so impressive, and I want to give some of them a bit of a shout-out here in the Senate chamber tonight. There was Clare Green, Polly Turner, Kiely Copeland and Zoe Leppa from Trinity Gardens Primary School's Aukai team. There was Georgia Ventura, Madeline Eime, Ivy Pyman and Caitlyn Pannell from Trinity Gardens Primary School's Vanguard team. The older kids included Saxon Schapel, Maya Dangal and Katherine Yoo from Marryatville High School and their Marryatville Subs team. All of the students participating were representatives of the physical embodiment of our capability and enthusiastic next generation. Even those who didn't win a prize were winners. I felt personally proud of all of the kids there, but, I can tell you, I wasn't as proud as the parents who were looking on as the children received their prizes. Through their participation in this program, the students had to learn and undertake all aspects of these projects—design, prototyping, testing, documenting, project management and marketing, with the older groups also having responsibility for fundraising. To give some perspective, the Australian team that went on to win the F1 in Schools program raised $65,000.

Re-Engineering Australia, or REA, the foundation behind these programs, surveys many of the teachers and students participating in the program. Some salient points from the most recent round: 61 per cent of students said they would consider a career in defence related industries; 71 per cent would recommend to their peers that they consider a career in defence or defence industries; 94 per cent believed that STEM is interesting; 83 per cent thought that STEM was fun; and 86 per cent felt good when they were doing their projects. I think this shows an obvious success. Students thinking STEM was fun and feeling good whilst they were doing their jobs are great outcomes for their own personal development, let alone the positive impact it's likely to have on their desire to be more involved in STEM, and how it's likely to influence their thinking about their future careers. As a South Australian, I was also proud to discover that the level of participation in the Subs in Schools program in my state has driven the need to establish an assessment stage in the form of a state final. South Australia is one of only two states that have had to do this. Across Australia, 600,000 students have been directly mentored through REA's various in-school STEM programs, with many more benefiting indirectly.

This program is clearly helping to stimulate interest in STEM subjects. The students are learning that STEM does not mean more maths, more science and more coding; rather, it's about application and what you do with what you learn. I doubt there's a student in Australia that hasn't sat in the classroom and thought, 'When am I ever going to use this?' These programs are helping to answer that question and broaden their horizons, opening their eyes to things they had previously never considered. Whilst I was there specifically for the Subs in Schools program, Dr Michael Myers, the executive chairman of the REA Foundation, provided me with an overview of all the STEM programs, including F1 in Schools, as previously mentioned; Land Rover 4x4 in Schools; and the new one, Space in Schools, which is just getting underway.

As an ex-submariner, I obviously have an affinity for the Subs in Schools program. However, with the combination of my natural interest and being a senator for South Australia, the home of the Australian Space Agency, I confess to also being interested in the Space in Schools program, and I look forward to seeing that program evolve. Since the commencement of the REA program in 1988, the cumulative corporate contribution of the various REA programs is approaching $37 million. Government grants or sponsorships over the same period total about $6 million, less than 14 per cent of the total cumulative program contributions. This point is not intended to be a negative—in fact, quite the opposite. The corporate world can see the benefits of supporting these programs. And, in my view, this participation and support is a fundamental part of the success of the programs. But this doesn't mean that the government couldn't increase the contribution. I'll come back to that shortly.

Whilst the Subs in Schools program is still very much an Australian program, there are more than 40 countries participating in the F1 in Schools program. In 2006 an Australian team won the first championship for Australia. Since then, Australian teams have collected another six championships. On the international stage, Australia has made a name for itself as a high achiever, with other teams always keen to see what the Australian teams are up to.

Returning to subs, however, South Australia is the build location of our future frigates and submarines. I can see Senator Smith over there, so I'll also say that it's the permanent place for our full cycle dockings, too. We will need a talented workforce if we are to be successful in the naval shipbuilding program, and these kids are part of that talented workforce. We have a duty to foster these sorts of programs. We need to do this for the students, but we also need to do this for industry and for our nation.

It is in that light that I suggest that the Commonwealth, particularly the defence department, might want to supercharge this program. Subs in Schools is a great program, and I encourage senators to pay a visit to a program running in their state. It's about enhancing STEM. It's about flourishing youth. It's about giving our kids an opportunity to get their hands into a project, to use technology in a productive way and to learn what happens when you go through design, prototyping and testing stages. This program, Subs in Schools, and its related programs are about setting up our nation for the future.

Senate adjourned at 20:55