The SPEAKER ( Hon. Tony Smith ) took the chair at 09:30, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.
CONDOLENCES
Godschalx, Mr Jason (JJ)
The SPEAKER (09:31): It's with much sadness that I inform the House of the sudden passing last Friday of Jason Godschalx, known to most as JJ. A highly regarded and long-serving member of the Department of Parliamentary Services, Jason commenced work at Old Parliament House as a 16-year-old apprentice painter in 1985. JJ dedicated his adult life to the maintenance of this building. He took great pride in his work and was very much looking forward to the opening of this 46th Parliament. A bright and affable member of the fabrics team—and I can personally attest to this—JJ was known and liked by so many people who work in this building. He'll be sadly missed. I extend our sincere condolences to his family, friends and colleagues. On indulgence, I call the member for Rankin, who knew him as well.
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (09:32): on indulgence—Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I know that it's a special thing to recognise Jason Godschalx in this way and I appreciate that you are doing that. JJ was a mate of mine. He was a mate of Barb Pini, my colleague; Rob Carn, from the House of Reps; members of your own office, Mr Speaker; and probably many of us here were proud to call JJ a mate—I see the Treasurer nodding. No doubt he knew a number of us. No doubt he met a number of us in all that time since he became an apprentice painter in the old building in 1985. I know that the colleagues of his, so many of them who are in the gallery today, will miss him dearly, just like all of us who were mates with JJ will miss him very dearly.
JJ was a really tough guy. When he wasn't working here, he was frequently working as a bouncer at a number of the bars around Canberra. I confess that I knew him here and I also knew him in some of those places! I'd see him here in the day in his high-vis and then I'd see him at night in another uniform. He was a really tough guy, but he was so kind, very selfless. He would do anything for you. He did so much for so many people here. I can only imagine, for Mel and Karla and Casandra and his broader family, and his family here in the parliament as well, just how much you are grieving and hurting now.
To lose someone at 50 without any warning is a brutal thing. I'm so pleased you are marking it in this way, Mr Speaker. I know he was looking forward—starting to plan retirement and all of that sort of thing. They'd bought a little property outside of Canberra, a little farm. I know that he liked to spend his weekends there when he wasn't doing odd jobs for other people, such was his nature. He won't get the opportunity to retire at this farm, but he won't be forgotten in this place.
REGISTER OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS
The SPEAKER (09:34): In accordance with resolution 3 of the House of Representatives, relating to the registration of members' interests, I have appointed Ms Claressa Surtees, Deputy Clerk of the House of Representatives, as Registrar of Members' Interests in this 46th Parliament.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
Mr Thompson, for the committee elected to prepare an address-in-reply to the speech of His Excellency the Governor-General, presented the proposed address, which was read by the Clerk. The proposed address read as follows:
May it please Your Excellency:
We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament.
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (09:35): I move:
That the Address be agreed to.
It is a tremendous honour to stand before the 46th Parliament as a representative for the people of Herbert—Townsville—to speak for the first time in this chamber. I would like to start by acknowledging our current and former Defence Force members, our brothers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice on operations in service to this nation and our many veterans who have succumbed to their war within back here on home soil.
I stand before you humbled and proud to be the elected member through a democratic process that I love and have defended. The people of Herbert have put their faith in me, and I'm determined not to let them down. That is my one-year-old baby girl, Astin. And I am happy she is making noise, because that's why we are in this place: because we want a better Australia for our future generations.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
Mr THOMPSON: This responsibility and honour is the same sense of duty I felt as an infantry soldier in the Australian Defence Force. My core values are protecting the Australian way of life, freedom of speech, family and reward for effort—values that I do my best to live by every day.
The powerful electorate of Herbert—the heart of Townsville—is 941 square kilometres which incorporates the iconic Mount Stuart and Castle Hill and takes in the beautiful Magnetic Island. Any local will tell you it's a hidden gem we're lucky to have on our doorstep. An iconic part of Herbert is the Aboriginal community located on Great Palm Island. Palm Island is home to the traditional owners the Manbarra people and Bwgcolman people and their descendants. I would like to acknowledge those people in this place today. It is my commitment to ensure that Palm Island, which is a part of the electorate of Herbert, will have a strong voice here in Canberra.
Palm Island is close to my heart—the birthplace of my mother-in-law, Florence Burns. Flo; my wife, Jenna; and my beautiful daughter, Astin, are all Aboriginal women who are here in the gallery today. As I stand and look at these three remarkable humans, I have no doubt that, as three generations of Aboriginal women, their rights have improved dramatically over the decades. But we must not forget there is still a lot of work to be done in recognising and valuing our First Nations people and their culture. I'm honoured to be a member of the House Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs and I'll be working to make a meaningful and positive contribution.
I've had some extremely proud moments in my life, which include being the youngest member of this House of the 46th Parliament of Australia, being the 2018 Queensland Young Australian of the Year and serving our wonderful nation as an infantry soldier. However, no title or award compares or comes close to my greatest achievement: being called Dad. Whilst I acknowledge I will spend time away from my family to be in this House, it is because of the strength and support of my wife and my family that I stand before you representing the people of Herbert.
Herbert is, in my view, the best electorate in this nation. It has a heart like no other. We have the World Heritage listed Great Barrier Reef—the world's largest coral reef system—on our doorstep. I stand proudly in this House today as a member of a government which is making record investment in ensuring this incredible natural wonder remains healthy for generations to come.
Herbert also has both copper and zinc refineries, a strong fishing industry and a strong desire to grow its tourism offering. The port of Townsville is northern Australia's largest general cargo and container port, and a direct transport link to many important global markets. The port is Australia's leading exporter of zinc, lead, sugar, fertiliser and molasses. With upgrades and new builds underway, trade is expected to treble over the next 30 years. I commend the CEO, Ranee Crosby, on her incredible efforts in driving the success of the port over many years.
Townsville is proudly home to James Cook University, which is placed No. 1 in the world for marine biology, and is ranked in the top two per cent of universities in the Academic Ranking of World Universities. Other leading institutions include the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and the Australian Institute of Marine Science, and our educational learning centres such as Reef HQ and the Museum of Tropical Queensland.
Townsville is also the largest garrison city. I'd like to acknowledge the Royal Australian Air Force's presence at Garbutt and, of course—a place I know well—Lavarack Barracks. Townsville became my home in 2006 when I was posted to the 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment. I deployed to East Timor in 2007, and in 2009, at the age of 21, I deployed to Afghanistan.
Whilst deployed to Afghanistan, on 18 July 2009 a warrior was killed in action. His name is Ben Ranaudo, and I honour him in this House. My good friend Paul Warren lost his leg in the same blast, and, I honour his service and sacrifice in this House today. It's a day I'll never forget. It was a sickening feeling, hearing over the radio that an improvised explosive device had detonated and that an Australian was killed and another was critically wounded. After we sent our brother home via ramp ceremony in Tarin Kowt, we kept Ben in our hearts and Paul's recovery in our thoughts, but it was back to the patrol base, because our deployment was far from over.
Improvised explosive devices were the weapon of choice used by insurgents. We had many near misses, and only on limited occasions did we get to do our role: seek out and close with the enemy. On 19 October 2009, my life changed forever. Whilst on a combined Australian and Afghan National Army dismounted patrol, I was wounded in action by an improvised explosive device. As a result of the blast, I sustained severe injuries and was medically evacuated back to Australia. As well as the obvious physical injuries from the blast, I also suffered a traumatic brain injury and several other life-changing conditions.
On deployment to Afghanistan, I've had friends be killed in action, lose limbs and be critically injured. Many have also suffered from lifelong psychological invisible wounds from their deployment. I, like many others, went through a very dark and terrible place after war. My post-traumatic growth came from the strength of my wife, Jenna, who encouraged me to find meaningful engagement, which was then followed by employment. Having meaning and accountability changed how I thought and acted and gave purpose to a life which at that point had been written off.
Not all the brothers I served with came out the other side. Today is the anniversary of when I buried a close friend who died by suicide. His name was Jesse Bird, and I honour him in this place today. I have buried too many of my mates, mothers have buried too many of their sons, wives have buried too many of their husbands and fathers, and a nation has buried too many of its veterans. Mental illness and suicide prevention is our responsibility; we are all responsible. Suicide is not just a veteran issue and not just a Defence Force issue; it's a societal problem. We can and must do more. There is nothing more precious than life and living your life well. With difficult topics, there can be an 'out of mind, out of sight' mentality. I will ensure that in this place we will never forget that there is always more we can do to help.
As I stand before you, I confess: I'm no saint. I've made mistakes and done and said things in my past that I'm not proud of. The harsh lessons that I've learnt from those dark times equip me to better serve the people of Herbert.
I'm the eldest of three children raised by a single mother, who shaped the man I am today. I acknowledge and thank her in this House today. We did it tough growing up, which cemented my ethos that with hard work and determination we can achieve great things. This has echoed with my siblings—my sister, Stephanie Thompson, a nurse, and my brother, Timothy Thompson, a property consultant. We worked hard and fought for everything we achieved. I hope to be a role model for people who didn't have the best shoes growing up, who watched other families go on holidays, who learnt the hard way that we're not all born equal, not all the same. But it's my belief that with hard work, determination and a fighting spirit we can have equal opportunity. 'A fair go for those who have a go' couldn't be a more relevant statement to how we were raised. I work every day to be a better man than I was yesterday, and it is a spirit which I vow to bring with me to this place each and every day as I give the people of Herbert a voice.
Earlier this year, Townsville suffered a devastating natural disaster—a flood event like no other. Tens of thousands of people have been impacted. The night the text warnings started to come in about the release of water from the dam was truly terrifying. No-one knew what to expect, and there really was a feeling for many people that the world we knew was coming to an end. Whole suburbs went under water. Many people are still displaced. Others are living in damaged homes and are trying to battle on. Through the devastation I saw our community come together—the military, emergency services and hundreds of people on boats rescuing others from their flood engulfed streets; shopping centres doubling as recovery centres; and normal, everyday people opening up their homes to strangers who had lost everything. Tragic stories of people who had lost everything were quickly followed by selfless acts of the community supporting one another. Our tragedy has brought our community closer than ever. The resilience of our region is remarkable. The number of ordinary people doing extraordinary things to help others will never be forgotten. It makes me so proud to say I'm from Townsville.
Our city has done it tough, and we need to be at the forefront of projects and economic drivers. But we are a proud bunch: we don't want a handout; we want a hand up. I want to see the Herbert electorate prosper again, to be a region where there is opportunity and reward for effort and a city in which we can have great confidence in the future. Water security, affordable electricity and job creation are critical pieces of the economic puzzle and must be treated as such. Small and medium businesses are the engine room of the local economy, and I want Townsville businesses to have confidence to take risk, be rewarded and drive our local economy for years to come. Herbert has high unemployment, a topic often thrown around like a political football. The time is now, when we make strong leadership decisions and back projects that will create jobs for years to come.
I'm proud to say I back the resource sector. I'm from a part of the country where coal isn't a dirty word and we support opening up the Galilee Basin and welcome the jobs that will come with it. Our community will not be told what projects we can support, what jobs we can have and what industries we can work in by people lacking any sort of local knowledge and understanding.
I believe Townsville has the potential to be Australia's northern defence deep-maintenance, sustainment and logistics hub. There is enormous untapped potential in our region. Townsville is the key economic hub for Northern Australia and an industry powerhouse. Backing projects like the Townsville port widening project and the Australia-Singapore Military Training Initiative, which create job opportunities and stimulate economic growth is what I will do every day.
Tourism has been on the backburner for far too long in Townsville. That's why I backed the Museum of Underwater Art, which is the first of its kind in the Southern Hemisphere. We're also funding a zip-line down Castle Hill and providing a NAIF loan for the upgrade of the Townsville airport, which will see more flights to Townsville and more people travelling to the beautiful north to experience the magnificent wonders of our region.
A strong north means a strong nation, and to have a strong north we must get back to nation-building projects that have clear long-term economic value. The coalition support of the Hells Gate Dam is a no-brainer. The large-scale agricultural development will have long-term benefits for our farmers, our exports and our industry more broadly.
To the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison: I thank you for your leadership, guidance and a helpful ear during the campaign. I also thank Mrs Morrison, who spent considerable time with my wife and daughter. We both appreciated it. I have had a lot of support from colleagues but extensive support from the Minister for Home Affairs, Peter Dutton, and the Minister for Resources and Northern Australia, Matt Canavan. I appreciate the time they have invested in me. I would like to thank the LNP and its members, who have shown great faith in me.
On a more personal note, I have tremendous people in my life. First and foremost is the mother of my beautiful daughter, Jenna Thompson. She is a woman who, at the age of 21, nursed me back to health and literally saved my life. Jenna, you are an incredible woman who I love and adore and you are the driving force behind any success I have. My one-year-old daughter, Astin, can brighten up the most challenging days. Her first word was 'Dad', a moment that still brings a tear to my eye. Her laugh, cheeky smile and beautiful personality are what I look forward to at the end of a long day. Having my daughter here today fills my heart with pride and love.
On my campaign manager and close friend, Casie Scott, I would not be standing in this place without her help and guidance. Casie is a truly remarkable, selfless person. During a political campaign, there's often a saying that every campaign needs a 'blank'. In my case, everyone needs a Michael Brennan, an Anthony Meixner, a Dino da Bella, a Laura Sinclair and a Marie McMullen. These volunteers gave up hours upon hours of their time to help letterbox, doorknock, fundraise, man stalls, set up, pack down and just be involved. Our grassroots volunteers are why we were successful in Herbert. Regardless of what colour shirt you wear, everyone in this House is lucky to have people who are passionate enough about the future of our nation that they stump up for us time and time again.
I have had so much support through our country from all walks of life but especially from the defence and veteran community, and I cannot thank them enough. As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I'll continue to put a spotlight on veterans' issues in the hope of driving better outcomes.
In closing, my focus is to represent the people of Herbert with passion and integrity. I make this pledge to the people of Townsville: I will be your voice in Canberra every single day of the week. I will choose you, the people of Townsville, first. That means people before politics. I will back projects that create jobs and economic drivers for our region to ensure we have a bright and prosperous future for our children. I will listen to you, the people of Townsville, and will work hard to find solutions to your problems. I will never think I'm above you, the people who have put their faith and trust in me and given me the great privilege of standing in this House today. Integrity is everything, and I promise I will not forget that. Thank you.
Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (09:56): I second the motion.
The SPEAKER: I remind the House that this is the honourable member's first speech, and I ask the House to extend to her the usual courtesies.
Mrs ARCHER: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Prime Minister for the privilege of participating in the address-in-reply here today, and I commend the member for Herbert on his very moving first speech. I also acknowledge that the very first duty of our new Governor-General was the opening of this 46th Parliament of Australia. I wish General and Mrs Hurley the very best as they embark on their official duties. I also congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your re-election to the chair. The commentary from both sides of this chamber reflects the high regard in which you are held.
Like all members elected to this place, I am tremendously humbled by the faith shown in me by the people of my electorate of Bass, and I will do my utmost as their member of parliament to repay the trust that they have shown. I hope that my address today will highlight the many reasons why I wish to serve as a genuine and authentic representative for the community of Northern Tasmania. If there was one disappointment in my election to the nation's parliament, it is that I had to relinquish my role as mayor of the municipality of George Town and as a member of that council. Many members on all sides of this chamber first had the experience of being elected to local government and, in many ways, it is the tier of government that is closest to the people. I believe it provides valuable experience to those who go on to other elected office.
Among the highlights of George Town, the town centre of the municipality, is the Bass and Flinders Centre. It is a remarkable interpretive centre and very popular with visitors. The centre jointly honours the remarkable lives of Matthew Flinders and George Bass and includes a replica of their sloop, the Norfolk, which they used to circumnavigate what was then Van Diemen's Land in 1798. George Bass, for whom the electorate was named, was a naval surgeon and amateur botanist. It was his study of the plants in Tasmania that convinced him it was separated from the mainland. After the Norfolk crew proved that to be the case and returned to Sydney, Flinders successfully petitioned Governor Hunter that the passage of water be named Bass Strait.
I am proud to be the first Liberal woman to represent the electorate of Bass. I am only the second Liberal woman to represent a House of Representatives seat in Tasmania, after the remarkable Dame Enid Lyons, who was, of course, the first ever woman elected to this House. May I say it is appropriate, too, that George Bass was a surgeon, because I believe that will serve as a reminder to me of how vital the provision of health services are in Northern Tasmania. Bass, like the rest of Tasmania, is facing the enormous challenges of a rapidly ageing population and the pressure that inevitably brings to health professionals and providers. I am in awe of the contribution that the staff of the Launceston General Hospital make every day—and 24 hours of every day—as do their colleagues at the private hospitals in Launceston, St Vincent's and St Luke's, and the nursing homes, noting that I have a particular affinity with the excellent work that staff do for the residents at Ainslie House at Low Head near George Town.
The Launceston General Hospital has built up a strong reputation over more than a century. One of the developments over the last 20 years or so has been the advent of the Clifford Craig medical research foundation at the hospital. It has been strongly supported by Northern Tasmanians and has supported groundbreaking research, especially in areas of aged care and age related disease such as dementia. It will be my hope as the member for Bass to work hand in hand with the Tasmanian Liberal government and the new state health minister, Sarah Courtney, who is also a state member for Bass, to fully support those who work in the health sector. Tackling the challenges of an ageing demographic is one area of priority.
Another area of priority is the exciting prospect of the development of the Inveresk campus of the University of Tasmania. This is one of the most significant public infrastructure developments Launceston has seen in decades and heralds exciting possibilities in linking town and gown. Whilst it has taken some time to reach this stage, it is so important to get this project right for the future. We all know that universities are vital places for learning and allowing people to attain qualifications and skills, but what is often underestimated is just how significant a university campus can be to the economy of a regional centre. My colleagues from Armidale and Townsville and other places will know exactly what I mean. I see very positive signs from the university's plans, coupled with the city deal that the federal government has initiated, for new and sustainable long-term jobs in Northern Tasmania.
When my predecessor, Ross Hart, spoke about the outcome of the election on 18 May, he ruefully said that he had become one of what he called a long line of distinguished members for Bass who have served only one term. It is certainly true that Bass has been somewhat volatile in the last 20 or so years. In fact, the last members for Bass to have any longevity were Kevin Newman, a minister in the Fraser government, and his immediate predecessor, Lance Barnard, the Deputy Prime Minister in the Whitlam government, and of course more recently Warwick Smith, a minister in John Howard's government. The most recent Liberal member for Bass, Andrew Nikolic, was a strong representative for Bass and the first in my view to fight seriously for funds to improve the Tamar River. He worked hard on the issue with the then environment minister, the member for Flinders, and I look forward to continuing that work because, whilst there has been improvement, there is still much to be done. Without care of our waterways, as we all know, we significantly degrade our local environment, limit our agricultural growth capacity and ignore the opportunities for tourism and recreation.
The recent changes in the electoral boundaries of Bass brought both sides of the Tamar River into the one electoral division, and I would like to commend the Australian Electoral Commission for making this change, because it more properly reflects the communities of interest of the Tamar Valley. The other facet of this change is that it will allow me in this place to promote the burgeoning tourism attractions of the entire Tamar Valley. Many honourable members will be aware of the many excellent vineyards on both sides of the river and the north-east hinterlands, but fewer may know of initiatives such as the annual Tamar Valley Writers Festival, which has quickly become one of the largest writers festivals outside any Australian capital city, attracting world-famous authors and booksellers and book lovers and encouraging people to read and enjoy the world of literature.
Northern Tasmania is a fantastic place to live, and I am excited by the opportunity to grow the population as more and more people discover our enviable lifestyle. We have important manufacturing and forest industries, established farming areas, a growing food and wine scene and an expanding tourism industry spurred on by arts, sports and adventure tourism experiences like the world-famous mountain biking trails of Derby. Increasingly, Northern Tasmania is becoming a centre for innovation, collaboration and entrepreneurship. Launceston is being transformed as the city embraces its heritage and future alike, with the Launceston City Deal driving that transformation. Our community has witnessed a re-imagining of the waterfront through the North Bank and seaport precincts, urban development and pedestrian and cycle pathways. If I were to borrow a now familiar phrase, 'How good is Northern Tasmania?'
I am so proud to be standing here as the voice for northern Tasmanians. I worked very hard to make sure that my campaign for election was about understanding the needs, ambitions and aspirations of our community in Launceston and right out into the regional heartland of Bass—from Winnaleah to Whitemark, Riverside to Ringarooma and everywhere in between. I am proud of my record of standing up for the Tasmanian way of life, and I'm so motivated by the opportunities that lay before us. As a government we want to create stronger employment opportunities for our region, expanding quality infrastructure and securing more investment in health and education.
Those who know me will attest that I am far more interested in hearing other people's stories than in telling my own. I think, in large part, it is because I find my own childhood story painful and difficult to tell—and never more so than today in this place. I am reminded, though, that my presence here is not about me and my story; it is about hearing and reflecting the stories of the people in my electorate.
I come from humble beginnings, like many who have stood here before me, growing up in a working-class suburb of Launceston, and many of my childhood memories are not so happy. Like many other Australians, I have faced the challenges of living with childhood trauma, and that is a priority for me to address in my time in this place. Childhood trauma has far-reaching consequences for individuals and for our society, including significant mental health challenges. In recent years, with the help of some wonderful doctors and support services, I have finally found better ways to cope, to build resilience and strength—obviously!
I share a small part of this deeply personal story today because I believe we must do more as a society to keep our children and families safe. I am proud to stand as a member of this government that has committed to do more to address the scourge of family, domestic and sexual violence. Further, I commend the Prime Minister for his leadership and determination to prioritise mental health care for all Australians. I will do my utmost to prioritise and support those aims.
As an adult, I have struggled at times to find my way in the world and, indeed, my place in it. I worked in a variety of mostly casual administrative and hospitality jobs for many years before returning to university study. It was there, at the University of Tasmania, that I first discovered an interest in politics, attaining a Bachelor of Arts with majors in English and political science, and later a Graduate Certificate in International Politics. Not too long after that I met my now husband, Winston, and moved from Launceston to join him on his family farm just outside George Town, where we live now with our five children and a few beef cattle and sheep.
Shortly after moving to George Town, away from my friends and in an unfamiliar town, my husband suggested that I might consider standing as a candidate in the next council elections as a way of getting to know some new people! It was, indeed, a great way to meet people, and I was fortunate to be elected to the position of councillor in 2009, deputy mayor in 2011 and mayor in both 2014 and 2018.
During those years, the council underwent some very challenging times and has seen some significant change, but I am confident that I leave the council in good stead—financially sustainable and with improved governance and workplace culture. The area has a very bright future ahead and I look forward to continuing to contribute, albeit in a different capacity. Importantly, I think local government provides accessibility and, consequently, accountability to those we represent, and I intend to continue to have that relationship with my constituents in Bass.
It's very interesting to reflect on some of the election results in the seat of Bass. There is no doubt that I entered the campaign very much as the underdog. But as the campaign progressed it became evident that there was a disconnect between what we were seeing and hearing in the media and what constituents were telling us on the ground. Some of the biggest swings towards the Liberal Party were in polling booth in Launceston's northern and eastern suburbs, areas where Labor has traditionally polled strongly. Rocherlea, for example, had a greater than 15 per cent swing against Labor after preferences, and there were strong swings in Waverley and Ravenswood as well. Much has been said about Labor losing touch with their traditional base. That is a matter for others to decide, but the strong message for me is that the Liberal Party has reconnected with our own base—the everyday, quiet Australians making their way in the world, taking personal responsibility, working hard, raising families, aspiring to live their best lives.
I want to reflect on the role that the Prime Minister played in supporting our campaign in Bass, which I think is reflective of the leadership style that has united our party and resonated with those quiet Australians. The Prime Minister visited Bass many times during the campaign and, along with Mrs Morrison, spent much time simply talking with people, listening to their stories and engaging with genuine warmth and sincerity. He was equally as comfortable with business and community leaders as he was enjoying a game of pool and a parmie at the Sporties Hotel and, most memorably, at a visit to the Bridgenorth football club that was the home of the Parrots—
Mr Morrison: And J Rod.
Mrs ARCHER: And J Rod. Elections being what they are, we were there to announce a funding commitment for the upgrade of facilities, but the evening turned into so much more than that. Some national commentators called it the turning point of the campaign as it entered the final few days to 18 May. There was a wonderful energy at the club that night, and the Prime Minister and Mrs Morrison were generous with both their time and enthusiasm—indeed, right up until election day, with a surprise visit to Bass on the morning of the polls, which, as it happened, was also my birthday. I take this opportunity to thank the Morrisons for all of their support. It was an attitude displayed by all of the ministers who visited Bass throughout the campaign—genuine, authentic and engaged with the local issues. I thank all of my colleagues in this place for their support and encouragement and for the very warm welcome you have shown me as well.
I would like to acknowledge publicly the work of my predecessor, Ross Hart. Ross is a decent man, a caring and hardworking person with a strong history of community service. Despite the unenviable position of serving his electorate in opposition, I know he worked very hard in his time in office and advocated strongly for his constituents, and I wish Ross every success and happiness in his future endeavours.
Marginal seats speak for the nation and ensure elected members aren't complacent or take their communities for granted. I understand the importance of always listening, finding out exactly what concerns the people of Bass and taking those issues up with ministers and into our party room.
Finally today, I wish to pay tribute to all of those who have helped me on my journey to this place. There are so many people who contributed to the campaign, and it is not possible to thank them all by name here today. But to the Liberal Party state president, Geoff Page, and the members for putting their faith in me, for the fundraisers and the signs and the manning of polling booths, letterboxing and waving signs on the side of the road, I am so grateful for all of your support. For my campaign team, solidly led by state director Sam McQuestin, I am forever in your debt for the support and care you showed me throughout the campaign and for believing in me. A special mention to Ben Jacobson, who is here today, who stood on pre-poll every single day with such good-natured spirit. To Nick Pedley and Nick Carswell, who were always there to help, and Alastair Pullen for his willingness to letterbox in all weather. To Charles Headlam, Jorden Gunton and Simon Wood, who worked tirelessly every day and can always make me laugh, and Bec and Pete De Jong for the help and for the comfy shoes. A special mention to my little friend, Clancy Lilywhite; you are a shining star. My deepest thanks must also go to Tim Robertson, who has understood me from the start and who always has my back.
I would like to make special mention of Liberal stalwart Dorothy Dehays, who has given me the great compliment of travelling to Canberra for my first speech. Dorothy has been a constant source of advice and encouragement, with her many years of campaign experience from the days of Warwick Smith and all of the campaigns since. She is a tireless worker, and I have valued her input enormously.
Thank you to the entire Tasmanian Senate team for their unwavering support and encouragement, and a particular thank you to my fellow northern Tasmanian, Senator Askew. Of course to my friend and colleague, the newest member for Braddon, I look forward to continuing to work closely with you all for the benefit of Tasmania. Likewise, to the Tasmanian state Liberal team: thank you all for your support, encouragement and well wishes. My special thanks to ministers Peter Gutwin, Michael Ferguson, Guy Barnett and to Premier Will Hodgman for your extra campaign efforts and your friendship.
In conclusion, I would like to thank my family—my mother, Marion, sister, Jessica, and brother, Gerald—my extended family and friends, and especially my dear, lifelong friends Sarah Lillywhite and Evelyn Archer. Most importantly of all, I thank my incredible husband, Winston, who always loves and supports me no matter what. To my darling children, Luke, Lauren, Edith, Molly and James: you are my whole world. I love you very much. Thank you.
Debate adjourned.
Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an hour of the day for a later hour.
BUSINESS
Standing Orders
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:17): I move:
That standing order nos. 1, 2, 8, 13, 39, 41, 54, 105, 122, 123, 131, 143, 190, 204, 205, 205a and 222 be amended, as follows:
1 Maximum speaking times
The maximum time limits that apply to debates, speeches and statements are as follows.
subject |
time (max) |
Bills—Main Appropriation—second reading |
|
Mover |
no limit |
Leader of Opposition or Member representing |
no limit |
Minister at conclusion of debate |
15 mins |
Any other Member |
15 mins |
Bills—Other Government—second reading |
|
Mover |
30 mins |
Leader of Opposition or Member representing |
30 mins |
Minister at conclusion of debate |
15 mins |
Any other Member |
15 mins |
Bills—Private Members ' —second reading |
|
Mover |
|
At time of presentation |
10 mins |
In continuation, on resumption of debate (if required by mover) |
5 mins |
Any other Member |
15 mins or lesser time determined by the Selection Committee |
(standing order 222) |
|
Bills—All—second reading |
|
Any other Member not specified above |
15 mins or lesser time determined by the Selection Committee |
(standing order 222) |
|
Dissent motion |
|
Whole debate |
30 mins |
Mover |
10 mins |
Seconder |
5 mins |
Member first speaking against the motion |
10 mins |
Any other Member |
5 mins |
(standing order 87) |
|
Other statements—by leave of the House |
|
(e.g. ministerial statements and responses to them, committee reports) |
|
Member |
no limit |
Leader of Opposition, or Member representing, responding to ministerial statement |
equal time to ministerial statement |
(standing order 63a) |
|
2 Definitions
The following meanings apply throughout these standing orders.
…
count out is the adjournment of the House because of the lack of a quorum of Members (currently 31 Members).
…
document means a paper or any record of information, and includes :
(i) anything on which there is writing;
(ii) anything on which there are marks, figures, symbols or perforations having a meaning for persons qualified to interpret them;
(iii) anything from which sounds, images or writings can be reproduced with or without the aid of anything else; or
(iv) a map, plan, drawing or photograph.
…
quorum of the House is at least one-fifth of the whole number of Members of the House (currently 31 Members).
8 First meeting for new session following prorogation other than for a new Parliament
On the first meeting of a second or subsequent session of Parliament, instead of the procedure set down in standing order 4, the procedure shall be as follows:
(a) Members shall assemble in the House at the time appointed by the Governor-General in the Proclamation calling Parliament together.
(b) The Clerk shall read the Proclamation to Members.
(c) The Speaker shall make an acknowledgement of country and read Prayers.
(d) Members shall wait for a message from the Governor-General stating the time when he or she will declare the causes for the calling together of Parliament.
(e) Subsequent procedure shall follow standing orders 5-7.
13 When Deputy Speaker and Second Deputy Speaker elected
(a) The Deputy Speaker and Second Deputy Speaker shall be elected at the beginning of each Parliament, or at any time the respective office becomes vacant. Whenever the two offices are vacant at the same time, elections for both offices shall be conducted together.
(b) The Speaker shall conduct the elections under standing order 14, and may not vote in an ordinary ballot.
(c) If a government Member is elected as Deputy Speaker, only a non-government Member may be elected as Second Deputy Speaker. If a non-government Member is elected as Deputy Speaker, only a government Member may be elected as Second Deputy Speaker.
(d) A Member shall propose the nomination of a Member to the vacant office by moving, without notice, that such Member 'be elected Deputy Speaker (or Second Deputy Speaker)'.
39 Announcements concerning inquiries and presentation of reports
(a) The Chair and/or deputy Chair of a committee may make a statement to inform the House of matters relating to an inquiry during the periods for committee and delegation business on Mondays (standing order 34). The Selection Committee shall recommend time limits for such statements.
(b) Members may present reports of committees or delegations:
(i) as determined by the Selection Committee, during the periods for committee and delegation business on Mondays in the House and Federation Chamber (standing orders 34 and 192); or
(ii) in the House at any time when other business is not before the House.
(c) Members may make statements in relation to these reports:
(i) during the periods for committee and delegation business on Mondays in the House and Federation Chamber (standing orders 34 and 192); the Selection Committee shall determine time limits for statements, of not more than 10 minutes for each Member; or
(ii) in the House at any other time, by leave.
(d) The Member presenting a report may move without notice, a specific motion in relation to the report. Debate on the question shall be adjourned to a future day and the resumption of the debate may be referred to the Federation Chamber.
(e) Unless otherwise ordered, a committee report presented in accordance with this standing order shall be made a Parliamentary Paper.
41 (a) In the periods set for committee and delegation business and private Members' business under standing orders 34 and 192, private Members' notices and orders of the day shall be considered in the order shown on the Notice Paper. When the time set by standing orders 34 or 192 or determined by the Selection Committee ends, the Speaker shall interrupt proceedings and the matter shall be listed on the Notice Paper for the next sitting.
Private Members ' bills—priority
(b) The Selection Committee, in making determinations:
(i) shall give priority to private Members' notices of intention to present bills over other notices and orders of the day; and
(ii) shall set the order in which the bills are to be presented.
First and second reading
(c) Subject to this standing order, the first and second reading shall proceed in accordance with standing orders 141 and 142. The Member who has presented the bill may speak to the second reading for no longer than 10 minutes at the time of presentation and 5 minutes, in continuation, on resumption of the debate (if required by the mover). The Selection Committee may determine times for consideration of the remainder of the second reading debate.
Priority following second reading
(d) If the motion for the second reading is agreed to by the House, further consideration of the bill shall be accorded priority over other private Members' business and the Selection Committee may determine times for consideration of the remaining stages.
Alternation of notices
(e) Subject to paragraph (b)(i), the Selection Committee shall provide for the consideration of private Members' notices to alternate between those of government and non-government Members.
Participation of Speaker and Deputy Speaker
(f) The Speaker and Deputy Speaker may participate in private Members' business.
54 Bells at start of meeting of the House
At each sitting the bells shall be rung for five minutes before the appointed meeting time, calling Members to the meeting. The Speaker shall take the Chair and, if a quorum of 31 Members is present, commence the meeting as provided by standing order 38 (acknowledgement of country and prayers). If a quorum is not present standing order 57(count out) shall apply.
105 Replies to written questions
(a) A Minister's written reply to a question must be delivered to the Clerk. The Clerk shall provide a copy of the reply to the Member who asked the question, and the question and reply shall be published.
(b) If a reply has not been received 60 days after a question first appeared on the Notice Paper, the Member who asked the question may, at the conclusion of Question Time, ask the Speaker to write to the Minister concerned, seeking reasons for the delay in answering.
122 Question put on proposed amendments
(a) The Speaker shall put the question on a proposed amendment—
That the amendment be agreed to.
123 Restrictions on amendments to be moved
(a) A proposed amendment must not be inconsistent with a previous decision on the question.
(b) An amendment may not be moved to an earlier part of the question:
(i) after a later part has been amended, or
(ii) after an amendment to a later part has been proposed and the proposal has not, by leave, been withdrawn.
(c) Each proposed amendment shall be disposed of before another amendment to the original question can be moved.
131 Successive divisions
(a) If a division is called following a division and there is no intervening debate, the Speaker may appoint tellers immediately and order the bells to be rung for one minute.
(b) If there is a successive division, Members who wish to vote in the same way as in the previous division must remain seated until the result of the division is announced. The tellers may record each Member's vote as being the same as it was in the previous division unless a Member reports to them. A Member must report to the tellers if he or she:
(i) wishes to vote differently to his or her vote in the previous division; or
(ii) voted in the previous division and does not wish to vote in the current division; or
(iii) did not vote in the previous division and wishes to vote in the current division.
(c) The vote shall be counted as in standing order 130 if:
(i) in the Speaker's opinion most Members wish to vote differently to their votes in the previous division; or
(ii) any confusion or error occurs in the count by the tellers.
143 Bill referred to Federation Chamber or committee
After the first reading but before the question on the motion for the second reading is put:
(a) a motion may be moved without notice to refer a bill to the Federation Chamber for further consideration as provided by standing order 183; or
(b) a motion may be moved without notice or a determination may be made by the Selection Committee as provided by standing order 222 to refer a bill to a committee for an advisory report. The motion or determination may specify a date by which the committee is to report to the House. After an advisory report has been presented to the House, the bill may then be referred to the Federation Chamber under paragraph (a).
(c) If, having considered a bill referred to it for an advisory report, a committee finds no issues requiring a formal report, the Chair or deputy Chair may make a statement to the House to that effect. The statement, with the presentation of the relevant minutes of proceedings, discharges the committee's obligation to report on the bill.
190 General rules for suspensions and adjournments of the Federation Chamber
The following general rules apply to meetings of the Federation Chamber:
(a) The Deputy Speaker must suspend proceedings in the Federation Chamber to enable Members to attend divisions in the House.
(b) If a quorum is not present the Deputy Speaker must immediately suspend proceedings until a stated time, or adjourn the Federation Chamber.
(c) If, at the time of the adjournment of the House, the Federation Chamber has not been adjourned, the Federation Chamber stands automatically adjourned, with the Deputy Speaker interrupting business before the Federation Chamber if it is meeting.
(d) The Federation Chamber need not adjourn between items of business, nor during a suspension of the House.
(e) The Federation Chamber shall stand adjourned on completion of all matters referred to it, or may be adjourned on motion moved without notice by any Member—
That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn.
(f) No amendment may be moved to the question.
204 Rules for the form and content of petitions
(a) A petition must:
(i) be addressed to the House of Representatives;
(ii) refer to a matter on which the House has the power to act;
(iii) state the reasons for petitioning the House; and
(iv) contain a request for action by the House.
(b) The terms of the petition must not contain any alterations and must not exceed 250 words. The terms must be placed at the top of the first page of the petition and the request of the petition must be at the top of every other page. The terms of an e-petition must be available through the House website.
(c) The terms of the petition must not be illegal or promote illegal acts. The language used must be moderate.
(d) An e-petition must be in English. A paper petition must be in English or be accompanied by a translation certified to be correct. The person certifying the translation must place his or her name and address on the translation.
(e) No letters, affidavits or other documents should be attached to the petition. Any such attachments will be removed before presentation to the House.
(f) A petition must not include any Universal Resource Locators (URLs) or reference to specific web links.
(g) A petition from a corporation must be made under its common seal. Otherwise it will be received as the petition of the individuals who signed it.
205 Rules for signatures—paper petitions
(a) Every petition must contain the signature and full name and address of a principal petitioner on the first page of the petition. The principal petitioner must be either a resident or citizen of Australia.
(b) All the signatures on a paper petition must meet the following requirements:
(i) Each signatory to a petition must confirm they are either a resident or citizen of Australia.
(ii) Each signature must be made by the person signing in his or her own handwriting. Only a petitioner incapable of signing may ask another person to sign on his or her behalf.
(iii) Signatures must not be copied, pasted or transferred on to the petition or placed on a blank page on the reverse of a sheet containing the terms of the petition.
(c) A Member must not be a principal petitioner or signatory to a paper petition.
(d) Any signatures that do not comply with (b) or (c) above will be excluded from the petition presented to the House without invalidating the petition.
205a Rules for e-petitions
(a) A principal petitioner for an e-petition must provide the petitioner's full name and address. The principal petitioner must be either a resident or citizen of Australia.
(b) The posted period for an e-petition is to be four weeks from the date of publication on the House website.
(c) Once published on the House website the terms of an e-petition cannot be altered.
(d) Once the posted period for an e-petition has elapsed, the petition shall be presented to the House in accordance with standing order 207.
(e) Each signatory to an e-petition must confirm they are either a resident or citizen of Australia.
(f) Names must not be copied, pasted or transferred on to an e-petition.
(g) A Member must not be a principal petitioner or signatory to an e-petition.
(h) The name of any signatory that does not comply with (e), (f) or (g) above will be excluded from the petition presented to the House without invalidating the petition.
222 Selection Committee
(a) A Selection Committee shall be appointed to:
(i) arrange the timetable and order of committee and delegation business and private Members' business for each sitting Monday in accordance with standing orders 39 to 41;
(ii) select private Members' notices and other items of private Members' and committee and delegation business for referral to the Federation Chamber, or for return to the House; and
(iii) select bills that the committee regards as controversial or as requiring further consultation or debate for referral to the relevant standing or joint committee in accordance with standing order 143.
(b) The committee shall consist of 12 members: the Speaker, or in the absence of the Speaker the Deputy Speaker, the Chief Government Whip or his or her nominee, the Chief Opposition Whip or his or her nominee, five government Members, three opposition Members and one non‑aligned Member. The Chief Nationals Whip shall be a member of the committee. The Speaker shall be the Chair of the committee. A quorum shall be three members of the committee.
(c) For committee and delegation business and private Members' business, the committee may determine the order of consideration of the matters, and the times allotted for debate on each item and for each Member speaking.
(d) In relation to committee and delegation business and private Members' business the committee must report its determinations to the House in time for its decisions to be published on the Notice Paper of the sitting Thursday before the Monday being considered. In relation to bills the committee must report its determinations as soon as practical in respect of each bill or each group of bills.
(e) Reports of the committee under paragraph (d) shall be treated as having been adopted when they are presented. Reports shall be published in Hansard.
(f) A referral by determination of the Selection Committee pursuant to paragraph (a)(ii) or (a)(iii), once the determination has been reported to the House, is deemed to be a referral by the House.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (10:18): I want to thank the Leader of the House for the discussion that's gone on in the lead-up to these standing order changes. They've been agreed. There are some that go to the direct, smooth running of the House and some of them which deal with the change of the number of members from 150 to 151 and some consequential changes there. There's nothing controversial, but the opposition is grateful for the consultation that's happened in the lead-up to this.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:18): I thank the member for Watson for the discussions that we've had. As he notes, the changes are largely procedural. They largely emanate from an interim and final committee report on the issue—for instance, changing quorum to 31, amongst other matters—and no doubt the standing orders will be a matter for ongoing discussion between the member for Watson and me over the course of this parliament.
Question agreed to.
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION
Qualifications of Members
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:19): I move:
That in relation to the resolution passed by the House on 4 April, 2019, relating to Members' qualifications:
(1) until such time as the Committee of Privileges and Members' Interests is established and provides otherwise, the procedures for maintaining the Register of Members' qualifications referred to in paragraph (1) of that resolution, and the form or forms referred to in paragraph (8) of that resolution, shall be as prescribed by the Registrar of Members' Interests following consultation with the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business;
(2) the resolution supersedes the resolution adopted on 4 December 2017 relating to a Citizenship Register, which shall no longer have continuing effect; and
(3) the Registrar shall remove information from the published copy of the Citizenship Register which relates to any Member who has ceased or ceases to hold office as a Member of the House of Representatives.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Selection Committee
Meeting
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:19): I move:
That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent:
(1) the Selection Committee:
(a) meeting on or after today, if necessary by teleconference, to determine the order of consideration of matters and the times allotted for debate on each item and for each Member speaking, for private Members' business and committee and delegation business, for Monday 22 July 2019;
(b) communicating its determinations to Members prior to that Monday; and
(c) reporting its determinations to the House following Prayers on Monday 22 July 2019;
(2) the Selection Committee's determinations being shown in the Notice Paper for that Monday under 'Business Accorded Priority' for the House and Federation Chamber; and
(3) in the absence of a fully constituted Selection Committee, the arrangements for private Members' business for Monday 22 July 2019 provided for in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this resolution being determined by the Speaker, Chief Government Whip and Chief Opposition Whip and reports of such determinations being treated as having been adopted by the House when they are presented.
Question agreed to.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security
Appointment
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ) (10:20): I have received advice from the Honourable Prime Minister nominating members to be members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:20):
by leave—I move:
That in accordance with the provisions of the Intelligence Services Act 2001, Mr Hastie, Mr Leeser, Mr T. R. Wilson, Mr Byrne, Mr Dreyfus and Dr M. J. Kelly be appointed members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.
Question agreed to.
Corporations and Financial Services Committee
Appointment
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:21): I move:
That:
(1) in accordance with section 242 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001, matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services shall be as follows:
(a) the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(b) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(c) the committee elect a:
(i) Government member as its chair; and
(ii) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(d) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(e) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote;
(f) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(g) the committee:
(i) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(ii) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(h) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(i) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(j) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(k) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(i) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(ii) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(iii) sit in public or in private;
(iv) report from time to time; and
(v) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(l) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on Corporations and Financial Services and Corporations and Securities appointed during previous Parliaments; and
(m) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(2) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
Appointment
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:21):
I move:
That:
(1) in accordance with section 6 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights shall be as follows:
(a) the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or by any minority group or independent Member, Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(b) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(c) the committee elect a:
(i) Government member as its chair; and
(ii) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(d) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(e) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote;
(f) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(g) the committee:
(i) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(ii) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(h) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(i) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(j) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(k) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(i) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(ii) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(iii) sit in public or in private;
(iv) report from time to time; and
(v) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(l) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on Human Rights appointed during the previous Parliaments;
(m) the committee may appoint counsel to advise the committee with the approval of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives; and
(n) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(2) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
Law Enforcement Committee
Appointment
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:22): I move:
That:
(1) in accordance with section 5 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement Act 2010, matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement shall be as follows:
(a) the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(b) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(c) the committee elect a:
(i) Government member as its chair; and
(ii) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(d) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(e) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote;
(f) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(g) the committee:
(i) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(ii) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(h) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(i) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(j) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(k) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(i) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(ii) conduct proceedings in any place it sees fit;
(iii) sit in public or in private;
(iv) report from time to time; and
(v) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(l) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on the National Crime Authority, the Australian Crime Commission, and Law Enforcement appointed during previous Parliaments;
(m) in carrying out its duties, the committee or any subcommittee ensure that the operational methods and results of investigations of law enforcement agencies, as far as possible, be protected from disclosure where that would be against the public interest; and
(n) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(2) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity
Appointment
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:22): I move:
That:
(1) in accordance with sections 213 and 214 of the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006, matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity shall be as follows:
(a) the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(b) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(c) the committee elect a:
(i) Government member as its chair; and
(ii) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(d) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(e) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote;
(f) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(g) the committee:
(i) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(ii) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(h) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(i) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(j) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(k) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(i) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(ii) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(iii) sit it public or in private;
(iv) report from time to time; and
(v) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(l) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity appointed during previous Parliaments;
(m) in carrying out its duties, the committee or any subcommittee ensure that the operational methods and results of investigations of law enforcement agencies, as far as possible, be protected from disclosure where that would be against the public interest; and
(n) he provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(2) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
Electoral Matters Committee
Appointment
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:22): I move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to electoral laws and practices and their administration as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament or a Minister;
(2) annual reports of government departments and authorities and reports of the Auditor-General presented to the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make and reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that:
(a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and
(b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that department or authority is presented to the House;
(3) the committee consist of 10 members, three Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and one Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(4) for the purposes.
(a) shall be taken to be a member of the committee for the purposes.
(b) may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee and have all rights of a committee member except that a participating member may not vote on any question before the committee;
(5) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(6) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(7) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(8) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(9) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote;
(10) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(11) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(12) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(13) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(14) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(16) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of:
(a) submissions lodged with the Clerk of the Senate in response to public advertisements placed in accordance with the resolution of the Senate of 26 November 1981 relating to a proposed Joint Select Committee on the Electoral System; and
(b) the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on Electoral Reform and Electoral Matters appointed during previous Parliaments;
(17) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(18) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee
Appointment
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:23): I move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to foreign affairs, defence and trade as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament or a Minister;
(2) annual reports of government departments and authorities and reports of the Auditor-General presented to the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make and reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that:
(a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and
(b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that department or authority is presented to the House;
(3) the committee consist of 32 members, 12 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 8 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 5 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 5 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 2 Senators to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(4) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(5) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(6) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(7) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(9) six members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(10) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine;
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only; and
(c) appoint the deputy chair of each subcommittee who shall act as chair of the subcommittee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee and who shall have a casting vote only;
(11) in addition to the members appointed pursuant to paragraph (10), the chair and deputy chair of the committee be ex officio members of each subcommittee appointed;
(12) at any time when the chair and deputy chair of a subcommittee are not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(13) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(14) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time;
(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives; and
(f) conduct meetings for the purpose of private briefings at any time;
(16) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on Foreign Affairs and Defence, and Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, appointed during previous Parliaments;
(17) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(18) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
Library - Standing Committee
Appointment
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:23): I move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library be appointed to:
(a) consider and report to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives on any matters relating to the Parliamentary Library referred to it by the President or the Speaker;
(b) provide advice to the President and the Speaker on matters relating to the Parliamentary Library;
(c) provide advice to the President and the Speaker on an annual resource agreement between the Parliamentary Librarian and the Secretary of the Department of Parliamentary Services; and
(d) receive advice and reports, including an annual report, directly from the Parliamentary Librarian on matters relating to the Parliamentary Library;
(2) the Committee consist of 13 members, 4 Members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 3 Members of the House of Representatives nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 3 Senators nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(3) every nomination:
(a) of a member of the committee shall be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives; and
(b) from a minority group in the Senate or an independent Senator shall be determined by agreement between them, and, in the absence of agreement duly notified to the President, any question of the representation on the committee shall be determined by the Senate;
(4) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(5) the committee elect two of its members to be joint chairs, one being a Senator or Member, on an alternating basis each Parliament, who is a member of the government parties and one being a Senator or Member, on an alternating basis each Parliament, who is a member of the non-government parties, provided that the joint chairs may not be members of the same House;
(6) the joint chair nominated by the government parties shall chair meetings of the committee, and the joint chair nominated by the non-government parties shall take the chair whenever the other joint chair is not present;
(7) each of the joint chairs shall have a deliberative vote only, regardless of who is chairing the meeting;
(8) when votes on a question before the committee are equally divided, the question shall be resolved in the negative;
(9) three members of the committee shall constitute a quorum of the committee, but in a deliberative meeting a quorum shall include one member of each House of the government parties and one member of either House of the non-government parties;
(10) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees, consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to consider; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee, who shall have a deliberative vote only;
(11) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(12) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee;
(13) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee, but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(14) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) sit in public or private;
(b) report from time to time; and
(c) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(15) the President and the Speaker may attend any meeting of the committee or a subcommittee as they see fit, but shall not be members of the committee or subcommittee and may not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(16) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the former Joint Committees on the Parliamentary Library appointed during previous Parliaments;
(17) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(18) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
Joint Standing Committee on Migration
Appointment
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:23): I move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on Migration be appointed to inquire into and report on:
(a) regulations made or proposed to be made under the Migration Act 1958;
(b) proposed changes to the Migration Act 1958 and any related acts; and
(c) such other matters relating to migration as may be referred to it by the Minister responsible for the administration of the Migration Act 1958, another Minister or either House of the Parliament;
(2) annual reports of government departments and authorities and reports of the Auditor-General presented to the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make and reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that:
(a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and
(b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that department or authority is presented to the House;
(3) the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(4) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(5) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(6) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(7) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(9) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(10) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(11) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(12) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(13) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(14) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committees on Migration Regulations and the Joint Standing Committees on Migration appointed during previous Parliaments;
(16) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(17) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
National Broadband Network - Joint Standing
Appointment
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:24): I move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network be appointed to inquire into and report on the rollout of the national broadband network;
(2) until the national broadband network is declared built and fully operational, the committee report to each House of the Parliament annually on:
(a) rollout progress with particular regard to the NBN Co Limited Statement of Expectations issued by Shareholder Ministers on 24 August 2016;
(b) utilisation of the national broadband network in connected localities in both metropolitan and regional areas, and the identification of opportunities to enhance economic and social benefits;
(c) Australia’s comparative global position with regard to residential broadband infrastructure; particularly relative to other large, developed economies;
(d) national broadband network activation rates, user demand, usage patterns and trends, and any identified impediments to the take-up of national broadband network services;
(e) any market, industry, or regulatory characteristics that may impede the efficient and cost-effective rollout of the national broadband network; and
(f) any other matter pertaining to the national broadband network rollout that the committee considers relevant;
(3) the Committee consist of 17 members, 4 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 4 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips, and 1 non-aligned Member, 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate; and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(4) participating members:
(a) may be appointed to the committee on the nomination in the:
(i) House of Representatives, of the Government or Opposition Whip or Whips, or any minority group or independent member; and
(ii) Senate, of the Leader of the Government or Opposition, or any minority group or independent senator;
(b) shall be taken to be a member of the committee for the purpose of forming a quorum; and
(c) may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of a member of the committee, except that a participating member may not vote on any question before the committee;
(5) the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy;
(6) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(7) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(8) the committee elect:
(a) a Government member as its chair; and
(b) an Opposition member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(9) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(10) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(11) five members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one Opposition member of either House;
(12) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider, provided that each subcommittee shall include at least one Government member of either House and one Opposition member of either House; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(13) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(14) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purposes.
(15) the committee and any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(16) the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes.
(17) the committee has power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Committee on the National Broadband Network appointed during a previous Parliament;
(18) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(19) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
Joint Standing Committee on National Capital and External Territories
Appointment
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:24): I move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories be appointed to inquire into and report on:
(a) matters coming within the terms of section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974 as may be referred to it by:
(i) either House of the Parliament; or
(ii) the Minister responsible for administering the Parliament Act 1974; or
(iii) the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(b) such other matters relating to the parliamentary zone as may be referred to it by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(c) such amendments to the National Capital Plan as are referred to it by a Minister responsible for administering the Australian Capital Territory (Planning and Land Management) Act 1988;
(d) such other matters relating to the National Capital as may be referred to it by:
(i) either House of the Parliament; or
(ii) the Minister responsible for administering the Australian Capital Territory (Self‑Government) Act 1988; and
(e) such matters relating to Australia’s territories as may be referred to it by:
(i) either House of the Parliament; or
(ii) the Minister responsible for the administration of the Territory of Cocos (Keeling) Islands; the Territory of Christmas Island; the Coral Sea Islands Territory; the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands; the Australian Antarctic Territory, and the Territory of Heard Island and McDonald Islands, and of Commonwealth responsibilities on Norfolk Island.
(2) annual reports of government departments and authorities and reports of the Auditor-General presented to the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make and reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that:
(a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and
(b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that Department or authority is presented to the House;
(3) the committee consist of 12 members, the Deputy Speaker, three Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, two Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, the Deputy President and Chair of Committees, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, two Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and one Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(4) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(5) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(6) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(7) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote;
(9) three members of the committee (of whom one is the Deputy President or the Deputy Speaker when matters affecting the parliamentary zone are under consideration) constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(10) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(11) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(12) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(13) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(14) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Standing Committees on the National Capital and External Territories, the Joint Committees on the Australian Capital Territory, the Joint Standing Committees on the New Parliament House, the Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Zone and the Joint Committee on the National Capital appointed during previous Parliaments and of the House of Representatives and Senate Standing Committees on Transport, Communications and Infrastructure when sitting as a joint committee on matters relating to the Australian Capital Territory;
(16) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(17) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
National Disability Insurance Scheme Committee
Appointment
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:25): I move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme be appointed to inquire into and report on:
(a) the implementation, performance and governance of the National Disability Insurance Scheme;
(b) the administration and expenditure of the National Disability Insurance Scheme; and
(c) such other matters in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament;
(2) as soon as practicable after 30 June each year, the committee present an annual report to the Parliament on the activities of the committee during the year, in addition to reporting on any other matters it considers relevant;
(3) the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(4) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(5) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(6) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(7) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote;
(9) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(10) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(11) each subcommittee shall have at least one Government member of either House and one non‑Government member of either House;
(12) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(13) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall comprise one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(14) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and sit during any adjournment of the House of Representatives and the Senate;
(16) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the former Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and the former Joint Select Committee on DisabilityCare Australia appointed during previous parliaments;
(17) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(18) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
Northern Australia Committee
Appointment
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:25): I move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to the development of Northern Australia as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament or a Minister;
(2) annual reports of government departments and authorities and reports of the Auditor-General presented to the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make and reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that:
(a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and
(b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that department or authority is presented to the House;
(3) the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(4) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(5) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(6) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(7) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote;
(9) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(10) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(11) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(12) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(13) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(14) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(15) the committee or any subcommittee has power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia appointed during the previous Parliament;
(16) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(17) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth
Appointment
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:26): I move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth be appointed to inquire into and report on such matters relating to measures to further boost Australia’s trade and investment performance as may be referred to it by either House of the Parliament or a Minister;
(2) annual reports of government departments and authorities and reports of the Auditor-General presented to the House shall stand referred to the committee for any inquiry the committee may wish to make and reports shall stand referred to the committee in accordance with a schedule tabled by the Speaker to record the areas of responsibility of each committee, provided that:
(a) any question concerning responsibility for a report or a part of a report shall be determined by the Speaker; and
(b) the period during which an inquiry concerning an annual report may be commenced by a committee shall end on the day on which the next annual report of that department or authority is presented to the House;
(3) the committee consist of 10 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 2 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(4) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(5) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(6) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(7) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(8) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote;
(9) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(10) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(11) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee, the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(12) two members of a subcommittee constitute a quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(13) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(14) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(15) the committee or any subcommittee has power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Select Committee on Trade and Investment Growth appointed during the previous Parliament;
(16) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(17) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
Joint Standing Committee on Treaties
Appointment
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:26): I'm sure it'll come as no surprise to you that I move:
That:
(1) a Joint Standing Committee on Treaties be appointed to inquire into and report on:
(a) matters arising from treaties and related National Interest Analyses and proposed treaty actions and related Explanatory Statements presented or deemed to be presented to the Parliament; and
(b) any question relating to a treaty or other international instrument, whether or not negotiated to completion, referred to the committee by:
(i) either House of the Parliament; or
(ii) a Minister; and
(c) such other matters as may be referred to the committee by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and on such conditions as the Minister may prescribe;
(2) the committee consist of 16 members, 6 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips or by any minority group or independent Member, 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 3 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or independent Senator;
(3) every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives;
(4) the members of the committee hold office as a joint standing committee until the House of Representatives is dissolved or expires by effluxion of time;
(5) the committee elect a:
(a) Government member as its chair; and
(b) non-Government member as its deputy chair who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee;
(6) at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chair at that meeting;
(7) in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, shall have a casting vote;
(8) three members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(9) the committee:
(a) have power to appoint not more than three subcommittees each consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine; and
(b) appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only;
(10) in addition to the members appointed pursuant to paragraph (9), the chair and deputy chair of the committee be ex officio members of each subcommittee appointed;
(11) at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;
(12) two members of a subcommittee constitute the quorum of that subcommittee, provided that in a deliberative meeting the quorum shall include one Government member of either House and one non-Government member of either House;
(13) members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;
(14) the committee or any subcommittee have power to:
(a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced;
(b) conduct proceedings at any place it sees fit;
(c) sit in public or in private;
(d) report from time to time; and
(e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate and the House of Representatives;
(15) the committee or any subcommittee have power to consider and make use of the evidence and records of the Joint Standing Committees on Treaties appointed during previous Parliaments;
(16) the provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders; and
(17) a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly.
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ) (10:26): I have received advice from the Chief Government Whip that members have been nominated to be members of certain committees.
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:26):
I ask leave the House to move a motion for the appointment of members to certain committees.
Mr Burke: I understand that just under half of these are excellent appointments and will grant leave.
Mr PORTER: I move:
That Members be appointed as members of certain committees in accordance with the following list:
Standing Committee on Agriculture and Water Resources—Mr O’Dowd, Mr Pearce, Mr Thompson, Dr Webster and Mr R. J. Wilson.
Standing Committee on Appropriations and Administration—Mr Alexander, Mr K. J. Andrews, Mr Connelly and Mr van Manen.
Standing Committee on Communications and the Arts—Dr Allen, Ms Bell, Mr Drum, Dr Webster and Dr Gillespie.
Standing Committee on Economics—Mrs Archer, Mr Falinski, Mr C. Kelly, Mr Laming, Mr Ted O’Brien and Mr T. R. Wilson.
Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training—Ms Bell, Ms Hammond, Mr Hastie, Mr Joyce, Mr Young and Mr Laming.
Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy—Mrs Archer, Mr R. J. Wilson, Mr Zimmerman, Dr Gillespie and Mr Ted O’Brien.
Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Sport—Mrs Archer, Ms Bell, Dr Martin, Mrs Wicks and Mr Zimmerman.
House Committee—Mr Drum, Ms Flint and Mr van Manen.
Standing Committee on Indigenous Affairs—Mr Entsch, Ms Hammond, Mr Thompson, Mr Young and Mr Leeser.
Standing Committee on Industry, Innovation, Science and Resources—Dr Allen, Mr Conaghan, Mr C. Kelly, Mr Sharma and Mr Joyce.
Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport and Cities—Mr Connelly, Mrs McIntosh, Mr Ted O’Brien, Mr van Manen, Dr Webster and Mr Alexander.
Standing Committee on Petitions—Mrs Archer, Ms Liu, Mr Simmonds, Mr Stevens and Mr L. S. O’Brien.
Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests—Mr K. J. Andrews, Mr Goodenough, Mr L. S. O’Brien, Mr Zimmerman and Mr Broadbent.
Standing Committee on Procedure—Mr Goodenough, Ms Liu, Mr Simmonds and Mr Vasta.
Publications Committee—Mr Goodenough, Mr Pearce, Mr Wallace and Mr O’Dowd.
Selection Committee—Ms Flint, Mr O’Dowd, Mr Broadbent and Mr Ramsey.
Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs—Mr Laming, Mr Ramsey, Mr Simmonds, Dr Webster and Mr Wallace.
Standing Committee on Tax and Revenue—Dr McVeigh, Mr Stevens, Mr van Manen, Mr Young and Mr Falinski.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity—Mr Conaghan, Mr Laming and Mr Pasin.
Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings—Mr Christensen, Mr Entsch and Mr Simmonds.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services—Mr Falinski, Ms Hammond and Mr van Manen.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights—Dr Webster, Ms Hammond and Mr Goodenough.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—Mr Leeser, Mr T. R. Wilson and Mr Hastie.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement—Mr Conaghan, Mr L. S. O’Brien and Mr C. Kelly.
Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit—Ms Bell, Dr Gillespie, Mr Vasta, Mr R. J. Wilson, Mr Zimmerman and Mrs Wicks.
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works—Mr Joyce, Mr R. J. Wilson, Dr McVeigh and Mr Goodenough.
Joint Standing Committee on Migration—Mr Alexander, Dr Martin and Mr Leeser.
Joint Standing Committee on the National Broadband Network—Dr Allen, Mr Connelly, Mr Simmonds and Mr Pasin.
Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters—Mr Pasin, Mr Stevens and Mrs Wicks.
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—Mr K. J. Andrews, Mr Connelly, Mr Drum, Mr Hastie, Dr McVeigh, Mr Ted O’Brien, Mr Pasin, Mr Pitt, Mr Sharma, Mr Thompson, Mr Vasta and Mr Wallace.
Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories—Mr Hogan, Mr Pearce, Mr Stevens and Mr Pitt.
Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme—Dr Martin, Mr Wallace and Mr K. J. Andrews.
Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia—Mr Christensen, Mr Thompson and Mr Entsch.
Joint Standing Committee on the Parliamentary Library—Dr Allen, Ms Liu, Mr Pearce and Mr Ramsey.
Joint Standing Committee on Trade and Investment Growth—Dr Allen, Mr Ramsey and Mr Christensen.
Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—Mr Broadbent, Mr Falinski, Ms Flint, Dr McVeigh, Mr T. R. Wilson and Mr Sharma.
Question agreed to.
Membership
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Rob Mitchell ) (10:27): I have received a message from the Senate informing the House of the appointment of senators to certain joint committees. As the list of appointments is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read the list to the House. Details will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
BILLS
Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Porter.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:28): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Criminal Code Amendment (Agricultural Protection) Bill 2019 will amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Criminal Code) to safeguard Australian farmers and primary production businesses from those who incite trespass or other property offences on agricultural land.
Recently and sadly, we have seen a number of incidents of trespass on agricultural properties and businesses.
Farmers are of course a vital part of the Australian community. They deserve to go about their business free from harassment and threats of harm.
This reprehensible conduct was enabled and encouraged by the sharing of personal information online, including personal details of farmers' names, addresses and workplaces.
The government is committed to protecting farmers from the actions of those who disseminate such information with the intention to encourage others to unlawfully trespass, or unlawfully damage property, on agricultural land.
This bill builds on action that government has already taken to protect farmers. Earlier this year, the government prescribed the Aussie Farms website as an organisation under the Privacy Act 1988 (Privacy Act), after it published information about Australian farmers including their names and addresses. This decisive action will expose Aussie Farms to potential penalties of up to $2.1 million if it is found to breach the Privacy Act.
This bill introduces new offences for individuals who use a carriage service, such as the internet, to incite another person to trespass, damage, destroy or steal property on agricultural land.
Incitement of trespass on agricultural land
Trespass onto private property is already criminalised by state and territory legislation, but new laws are needed to strengthen protections for farmers.
Trespass onto agricultural land has the potential to cause food contamination and breach biosecurity protocols. It can also lead to farmers and their families feeling unsafe on their own land.
The bill will address this by creating a new and specific offence for using a carriage service to transmit, make available, publish or otherwise distribute material with the intention to incite another person to trespass on agricultural land.
This offence would require that a person is reckless as to whether the other persons' trespass or related conduct could cause detriment to a primary production business being carried out on the land.
For the purposes of the new offences, 'agricultural land' means land in Australia that is used for a primary production business. For the purposes of this definition, it is immaterial whether the land is also used for residential purposes or for a business that is not a primary production business.
The law would cover dairy and meat farmers, but also other agricultural premises such as abattoirs, meat exporters, fish farms, livestock sale yards, and tree, fruit, vegetable and crop growers.
This offence would apply whether or not actual trespass or detriment results from the incitement. The intention of a person to incite trespass will be based on all the circumstances of a relevant case. For instance, the inclusion of a disclaimer on a website would not of course of itself be conclusive to this point.
A person who is found guilty of this offence could face up to 12 months imprisonment. This will send a very strong message that actions that threaten the safety of our farmers and food systems are simply not acceptable.
Incitement of damage, destruction or theft of property on agricultural land
The bill will also create an aggravated offence for those who use a carriage service to incite more serious forms of harm—property damage and destruction, or theft from agricultural land.
This offence, and the substantial penalty proposed, reflects the gravity of these more serious forms of conduct and the substantial loss of income that could follow.
This second offence will carry a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. For example if an activist posts on social media intending that other people pull down fences on a farm, or steal livestock from a farm, that activist would be subject to the aggravated offence and its higher penalty.
Protections for whistleblowers and journalists
It is of course necessary and appropriate that journalists and those who lawfully disclose animal cruelty or mistreatment or other criminal activity where it might exist are protected under the bill.
For this reason, the bill contains appropriate exemptions for journalists and whistleblowers.
For journalists, the offences would not apply to material relating to a news or current affairs report, where made by a journalist in the public interest in their professional capacity. For example, the bill would provide an exemption for a journalist acting in their professional capacity who publishes a story that listed the locations of farms with 'questionable' farming practices, simply because activists use that information for future trespasses.
The exemption would not protect a journalist suggesting that activists should use the information to facilitate such a farm trespass.
For whistleblowers, the exemption would apply in any circumstances where a law of the Commonwealth, or of a state or territory provides that they would not be subject to any civil or criminal liability for the conduct.
Conclusion
The events of recent months demonstrate that the need for greater deterrents than those which are in the existing legislative framework, and that that framework is not adequately able to deter people from entering agricultural land illegally. Australian farmers have experienced criminal trespass, intimidation and disruption to their businesses and livelihoods.
This bill sends a strong message to anyone who intends to incite trespass on agricultural land or cause damage to property with or without the intention to cause damage to property.
The Morrison government is committed to keeping Australian farmers and their families safe.
This bill will introduce serious criminal penalties to ensure that our farmers and their families are adequately protected.
Debate adjourned.
Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Porter.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:35): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill is designed to protect what is now over $2 billion dollars held for redundancy pay, sick leave and other benefits for workers in many industries. The bill is aimed at ensuring this money is managed responsibly, transparently and in the best interests of workers.
Despite their very large size, these funds are currently not required to comply with even the basic rules of governance that usually apply to such schemes. The Cole Royal Commission in 2003 said the 'repercussions would be enormous should any of these funds diminish or collapse for reasons of mismanagement, misappropriation or abuse.' This concern was repeated by Commissioner Heydon in 2015.
Most of these funds are joint ventures of unions and employer groups, and two royal commissions have warned about clear conflicts of interest that potentially arise. The Heydon Royal Commission, and the Cole Royal Commission before that, found that these funds have funnelled millions of dollars back to the unions and employer groups represented on their boards.
These include payments for services, administration and directors fees, and commissions, however there are also numerous examples of funds simply being transferred to unions and employer associations represented on these funds' boards. As recently as 2017, one fund transferred over $30 million to its sponsoring union and employer association.
Commissioner Heydon recommended that the funds be properly regulated and required to meet basic governance, financial reporting and disclosure standards. In fact, he said there was a 'compelling case' for such reform.
With the passing of this bill, workers' money held by these funds will need to be responsibly invested and transparently managed by properly trained individuals. The funds will need to have at least one independent voting director on their boards. They will have to be run by people of good character. They will have to be managed at arm's length. They will be required to treat union members the same as non-members. They will be required to be open with workers, employers and the regulators about how money is spent.
These are basic standards that should apply to people who manage other people's moneys.
The Registered Organisations Commission will register and monitor the funds and ensure they comply with the law and manage workers' money responsibly.
The funds will still be able to spend money on training and welfare services for workers, such as crisis counselling or health checks. But these payments and donations must be properly approved and disclosed and meet other basic conditions designed to avoid conflicts of interest. These protections are perfectly reasonable, given the funds are spending workers' money.
If workers do not like how a fund manages their money, they will now be able to choose another fund. Organisations will not be able to lock a worker into a fund that benefits the organisation and that might misspend the worker's own money.
In response to concerns from the funds, the government has amended the bill to delay the commencement of the provisions that affect them, to give them sufficient time to adjust to the new regulatory scheme.
In addition to regulating worker entitlement funds, this bill makes a number of other crucial changes to the regulation of registered organisations that were recommended by the Heydon Royal Commission. In total, the bill implements 10 recommendations of the royal commission which are aimed at stopping corruption, coercion and financial mismanagement in registered trade unions and employer groups.
Schedule 1 of the bill introduces a civil penalty for organisations that do not have policies about financial expenditure, and provides that the Registered Organisations Commission can issue model policies that organisations can choose to adopt. To ensure keeping these policies is not a burden, particularly on small organisations with limited resources, the government has amended the bill so that organisations will not need to lodge these policies with the regulator.
Schedule 3 of the bill concerns the 'election funds' that are set up to fund the campaigns of people running for office in what might be a union or employer group. The bill provides that enterprise agreements and employment contracts cannot include terms that require people to contribute to these funds automatically. These contributions should be truly voluntary, not a condition of working for a union or employer group.
Schedule 4 of the bill prohibits people coercing employers to contribute to particular superannuation funds, welfare funds and other worker benefit funds. The royal commission heard cases of union officials placing extraordinary pressure on employers to use particular funds, basically because the union stood to gain from the arrangement in question. There is simply no place for this sort of behaviour, bullying and coercion in the workplace.
Finally, schedule 5 of the bill requires unions and employer groups to disclose any financial benefit they will receive from promoting or arranging an insurance product, welfare fund or other such arrangement. The royal commission found that some unions receive very substantial commissions for promoting particular insurance products, and that these commissions were not disclosed properly, if at all, to employers and workers. Requiring organisations to disclose these benefits will help bring to light any conflicts of interest that might arise.
In short, this bill is about transparency, good governance, and the proper use of worker benefits. It is about exposing conflicts of interest and ensuring that employee benefits are protected and that workers get a good deal from the arrangements other people negotiate on their behalf.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Porter.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (10:41): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill delivers on the government's commitment to ensure, and in some cases restore, integrity to registered organisations and their officers to make sure that they work in their members' best interests.
Unions and employer associations hold a privileged position in the national industrial relations system and the economy more broadly. However, sadly, we have seen some organisations and their officers continuously abuse these privileges, engage in repeated unlawful behaviour, and simply fail to act in the best interests of their members.
As has been repeatedly observed by members of our nation's judiciary, some officers and organisations have proven wholly incapable of addressing their unlawful behaviour. They have nothing but contempt for the law, perversely treating court ordered penalties as simply the cost of their business model.
Aside from the obvious undesirability of repeated lawbreaking, this sort of conduct also manifests in costly delays to key infrastructure projects that should be benefiting the community, like schools, roads and hospitals. Frankly, taxpayers deserve better.
The 2015 trade union royal commission heard countless examples of officers breaching their duties, engaging in blackmail, extortion, coercion and secondary boycott conduct, abusing their right-of-entry privileges, acting in contempt of court and failing to prevent their organisations from repeatedly breaking the law.
Sadly, since the royal commission, this sort of behaviour has not stopped and, in some organisations, has increased, with the courts continuing to make numerous findings and levying countless penalties against organisations and their officers who continue to flout the rule of law.
In March of this year we saw the courts penalise the CFMMEU and its officers for pressuring a worker into joining the union and giving up their hard-earned wages in fees for an organisation that they, in exercise of their individual right, did not want to join in the first place, effectively working for nothing. According to the CFMMEU, 'that's just the way it is'. The government's view is it most certainly should not be that way.
As recently as last month the CFMMEU and its officers faced another fine of over $100,000 for unlawful entries and threats on construction sites. That decision saw them top $4 million worth of court ordered penalties for the 2018-19 financial year alone.
In fact the CFMMEU's behaviour has been so poor for so long, that in 2017, one Federal Court judge described that union as 'the most recidivist corporate offender in Australian history'. It seems, sadly, little has changed.
That is why the government is committed to passing this vital legislation, which will take a significant step towards curbing the behaviour we have seen threaten the rule of the law in Australian workplaces.
The bill will strengthen the powers of the courts to disqualify officers of registered organisations from standing for or holding office where they flout the law.
The bill will also make it an offence to act as an officer or shadow officer while disqualified. This is a sensible change consistent with the treatment of directors disqualified from running corporations.
Those individuals convicted of serious criminal offences such as blackmail, extortion, or threatening to cause serious harm to public officials simply should not hold office in a registered organisation. The bill therefore includes serious criminal offences punishable by five years or more imprisonment as a new category of prescribed offence, which leads to automatic disqualification of the officer. This reflects provisions in the Corporations Act which also provide for the automatic disqualification of company directors where they are convicted of certain serious forms of misconduct.
This bill introduces new and streamlined cancellation grounds to deal with organisations or parts of organisations that do not comply with the law. Where appropriate, these grounds reflect the powers in the Corporations Act for the court to wind up a business, including where its directors have acted in their own interests, or otherwise unfairly or unjustly towards members.
Where the unlawful behaviour is contained to one part of an organisation, instead of cancellation, the court will be empowered to make what are called alternative orders which are specific to that particular branch or division without affecting the other parts of the organisation that may be functioning effectively.
The bill will also make it easier for the court to appoint an administrator, where the organisation or part of the organisation has ceased to function effectively, the officers of an organisation engage in financial misconduct, or the organisation fails to act in the best interests of its members. This is not unlike the administration powers that apply to a company that is dysfunctional or otherwise in financial difficulty.
This bill also introduces a new public interest test that must be satisfied before registered organisations can merge. The Fair Work Commission will consider the likely impact of the merger and an organisation's record of compliance with the law as well as other matters of public interest. Parties with sufficient interest will have the opportunity to voice their opinions about the proposed merger. Before corporations are able to merge, they must satisfy the regulator that the merger would not substantially lessen competition or is otherwise in the public interest, so it is appropriate that registered organisations must simply do the same.
These reforms are critical to stop the law-breaking by some registered organisations and improve the ability of the court to remove long-term repeat offenders from holding positions of office.
In re-introducing this bill, the government has listened to stakeholders to ensure that its provisions as closely as possible align with the standards for registered organisations and their officers with those that apply to companies and their directors.
This bill strikes the appropriate balance between ensuring that registered organisations and their officers act with integrity and obey the law, without affecting the vast majority of organisations and their officers that do the right thing and work hard to represent their members and act in their best interest.
All the parties in this parliament who believe in the rule of law should feel the need to support these reforms, and I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Hunt.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Cabinet) (10:48):
I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Congratulations on your appointment, Deputy Speaker Mitchell. The National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill, or the bill, amends the National Health Act of 1953 to support the ongoing administration of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, or PBS, and will ensure ongoing patient access to vital medicines.
The PBS has been providing affordable access to medicines for Australians for over 60 years and is rightly respected and valued for the high-quality, cost-effective services it delivers. Members of this House will know the names of medicines such as Orkambi and Kalydeco, delivered to help families who are facing the great challenge of cystic fibrosis, and Spinraza, for spinal muscular atrophy, a medicine that otherwise would have cost over $300,000, beyond the reach of virtually every Australian family who would otherwise need it; it is now on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for as little as $6.50 a script.
And there is Brineura, on the parallel Life-Saving Drugs Program, for Batten disease. Although it will be needed by only a very small number of children, it is the difference between life and the loss of life for young children facing Batten disease and would otherwise cost over $750,000. And then there are medicine breakthroughs such as Opdivo and Keytruda, for a variety of indications of cancer, where lives can be saved, are being saved, and will continue to be saved.
So, as a government, our record is that we are deeply and fundamentally committed to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the Australian patients who benefit from this scheme. The PBS covers more than 5,000 clinically proven products across a broad range of conditions, from asthma and arthritis to diabetes and cancer.
We have a commitment to list all of the medicines on the PBS when recommended to do so by the medical experts. Since 2013, as a government we have made over 2,100 new or amended PBS listings, at an investment of over $10.6 billion, with more medicines in the pipeline. We will continue to list all new medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and this of course compares with the actions taken by our predecessors in 2011. This is a fundamental difference and also an exemplar of why we need a strong economy.
Due to our strong economic management, we are therefore able to provide further support for patients who access the medicines they need through the PBS. In particular, I am privileged to have recently announced that the Morrison government will invest a further $308 million to reduce the costs of life-changing prescription medicines for over 1.4 million Australians who require multiple medicines each month.
From 1 January 2020 the safety net threshold to receive free or cheaper medicines through the PBS will be lowered by 12 scripts for concession card holders and the equivalent of two scripts for non-concession-card-holders.
This change will mean that people will take less time to reach their safety net threshold, saving them up to $80 per year and providing them with earlier access to free medicines, or medicines at a reduced co-payment. This will be a particular benefit to families who require multiple medicines per month, and pensioners and individuals with multiple chronic conditions such as heart disease, high cholesterol, arthritis, asthma and diabetes.
In relation to this specific bill, the delivery to patients of medicines that were once listed on the PBS is a collaborative effort, and Australia is well supported by its broad network of community pharmacies and the broader medicine supply chain. This bill will therefore support them to continue to support Australians in their needs.
The bill proposes amendments that will support the PBS in two ways. First, the amendments provide for an application fee to be charged when pharmacists make an application to supply PBS medicines at pharmacy premises.
There is currently no fee, and this amendment will ensure that the operations of the pharmacy approval processes are consistent with the Australian Government Charging Framework.
The fee will apply to all applications to establish a new pharmacy or relocate an existing pharmacy, or where the pharmacy changes ownership. Payment of the fee will be required at the time the pharmacists submit their application. It is in line with the agreement struck with the Pharmacy Guild and represents the broad consensus amongst pharmacists within Australia.
The amount of the fee will be determined by the Minister for Health in a legislative instrument and will be calculated based on the regulatory activity involved in processing these types of applications.
The fees will be reviewed each year by the Department of Health and adjusted accordingly.
The second of the amendments includes measures that will allow PBS medicines to continue to be supplied to patients following the bankruptcy of an approved pharmacist so as to ensure that the community can continue to receive, with security, much-needed medicines. This will be of particular benefit in rural and remote areas, where access to alternative pharmacies may be limited.
The approximate number of pharmacies affected by bankruptcy or external administration is 20 each year. The bill therefore provides the Secretary of the Department of Health the power to grant permission to an appointed administrator to manage the supply of PBS medicines at pharmacy premises, thereby guaranteeing continuity and security for patients. The new provisions will assist this continuity of supply of PBS medicines at an effective pharmacy until such time as the pharmacy can be sold or transferred to another pharmacist.
The changes proposed in this bill will improve the operation of the PBS. I am confident they will be welcomed by PBS users.
I would like to acknowledge and thank key stakeholders for their input during consultation, in particular, the Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association, the Australian Friendly Societies Pharmacy Association, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia. I also want to acknowledge, within my office, chief of staff, Wendy Black, and senior adviser in relation to medicines and pharmacies, Sam Devlin, for their very powerful work in helping to develop some of these initiatives.
The aim of the government is to ensure that Australians have access through the PBS to affordable medicines when and where they need them. The changes proposed will ensure that access to PBS medicines will not be compromised when a pharmacy is affected by bankruptcy or external administration and is part of our fundamental broader commitment to deliver the benefits of a strong economy through central services and on our watch in our time where the experts recommend that medicines will be listed and should be listed on the PBS, we will do just that. It is about saving lives and protecting lives. I commend this bill to the parliament.
Debate adjourned.
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by MrDutton.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (10:57): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The government is committed to ensuring that our police can continue to protect the thousands of Australians that transit through the airport network every day.
It is clear that Australia's airports remain an attractive target for terrorists and other nefarious criminal actors. While Australia already has strong and comprehensive aviation security, we need to remain ahead of this very real and evolving threat.
The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Police Powers at Airports) Bill will help to ensure that Australia's aviation network remains among the safest in the world. This bill will give police broader powers to conduct identity checks at major Australian airports, and issue a move on direction where it is reasonably necessary to safeguard the public and safe operation of the airport.
With the amendments contained in the bill, a person on the premises of a major airport may be issued with a direction to provide evidence of identification only where a constable or Australian Federal Police protective service officer:
suspects on reasonable grounds that a person has committed, is committing, or intends to commit an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a law of a Territory, or a law of a State having a federal aspect, punishable by imprisonment for 12 months or more, or
considers on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to give the direction to safeguard the public order and safe operation of a major airport, including the safety of any persons at the airport or on connecting flights.
This new power is based on advice from the Australian Federal Police that the current requirement to suspect that a person is about to commit, or has committed, a criminal offence before conducting an airport ID check is no longer fit for purpose. Police intelligence or observations that a person is behaving suspiciously in the airport—for example, by taking photos or videos of security screening points—will not always meet the necessary threshold. This is not satisfactory in today's threat environment.
The bill will also empower police officers to direct that a person leave the aviation environment, or not take a flight, for up to 24 hours.
The new move-on power will only be available to police in a limited range of circumstances, including where it is reasonably necessary to prevent or disrupt serious criminal activity at airports or on a flight, or to safeguard the public order and safe operation of these airports. A person may also be directed to move on where they fail to comply with an identity check or a police direction to stop.
Finally, the bill will create new criminal offences for failing to comply with an identity check, move-on or stop direction, punishable by a fine of up to $4,200. To ensure there are appropriate safeguards on the use of these powers, the bill will also contain requirements for police officers to comply with certain duties in exercising the new powers—including appropriately identifying themselves and informing a person that failure to comply with a direction may constitute an offence.
A patchwork of Commonwealth, state and territory laws currently apply across Australian airports. The bill will address some of this complexity by giving state and territory police and Australian Federal Police officers, including protective service officers, consistent and appropriate powers to manage risks that are unique to the aviation environment.
The new powers will be available in all Australian capital city airports, as well as Alice Springs, Gold Coast, Townsville and Launceston airports, and any additional airports that the responsible minister determines into the future. In practice, the decision about additional airports at which the new powers may be exercised will be based on operational advice from the Australian Federal Police.
The bill was considered in detail by several parliamentary committees. In particular, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for its contributions. The government has had full consideration of all of that material, and we have reflected that. We have incorporated the recommendations from the committee into the bill. In this regard, I now table the government's response to the PJCIS advisory report on this bill.
The amendments incorporated into this bill are also consistent with the views expressed by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills as part of their inquiries into the bill. The bill has clearly been considered in detail and, as a result, represents a balanced approach to amending the powers of our law enforcement agencies, while recognising the evolving threat environment at Australia's major airports.
In particular, the bill now includes an explicit statement that the new identity-checking and move-on powers are not intended to interfere with the right to peaceful assembly and do not give police the ability to disrupt or quell a protest that is peaceful and does not affect the public order and safe operation of the airport. The bill also ensures that a person subject to a move-on direction will be notified of their right to apply for judicial review or an interlocutory order, including the procedure for urgent or expedited applications.
This bill is further evidence of the government's commitment to keeping the travelling public safe and secure and ensuring Australia is a world leader in aviation security. It will provide our law enforcement agencies with the tools and powers they need to do their job effectively—protecting Australia's airports and its citizens from serious criminal and security threats. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment (Sunsetting of Special Powers Relating to Terrorism Offences) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Dutton.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (11:03): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Australian government is committed to ensuring the safety and protection of the Australian community. Law enforcement and security agencies must have access to the tools and capabilities that they need to manage the ever-evolving terrorist threat.
To this end, this bill ensures that the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) retains its strong counterterrorism capabilities while the government progresses more detailed reforms to ASIO's questioning and detention powers, following reviews of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM).
The bill will extend the sunset date of the ASIO's questioning and detention powers in division 3 of part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 for 12 months until 7 September 2020.
This will enable the government adequate time to progress legislative reforms to ASIO's questioning and detention framework in light of the PJCIS and INSLM reviews, while ensuring that ASIO will continue to have access to these important tools in its efforts to gather critical intelligence to enhance Australia's counterterrorism efforts.
Importantly, the extended regime will continue to be subject to the extensive safeguards and oversight mechanisms that are appropriate.
Concluding remarks
By way of conclusion, I would note that this bill ensures security agencies continue to have the capabilities to deal with the changing national security and threat environment while also protecting individual rights, including through transparency and oversight measures.
The PJCIS and INSLM have comprehensively examined ASIO's compulsory questioning and detention powers and I acknowledge and appreciate the extensive and continuing work of the PJCIS and INSLM.
I also appreciate the ongoing partnership with states and territories in our joint effort to keep the Australian community safe.
To this end, this government is unwavering in its commitment to ensuring Australia's counterterrorism and national security framework continues to be as robust and responsive as possible.
Debate adjourned.
Migration Amendment (Repairing Medical Transfers) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Dutton.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (11:06): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to repeal the provisions inserted by the Home Affairs Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Act 2019, also known as Labor's medevac law, or the 'bring them all here' law, and extend the existing return and removal mechanisms to transitory persons brought to Australia from a regional processing country under section 198C of the Migration Act.
Labor's medevac law, or 'bring them all here' law, was passed by parliament in February on a lie. There is no medical emergency on Manus or Nauru. There are no children on Manus or Nauru.
Labor's medevac law, or the 'bring them all here' law, which they teamed up with the Greens to rush through the parliament, has only served to weaken Australia's border protection policies by effectively removing the ability of the government to decide who comes to Australia.
The government has significantly less powers to prevent the transfer of a person with bad character under Labor's medevac law, or the 'bring them all here' law, than under any other process. In fact, the minister actually has more power to stop individuals coming on a tourist visa than to stop those with bad character that seek to be transferred under Labor's medevac law, or 'bring them all here' law.
There are currently people in PNG and Nauru who are charged with crimes against children, are being investigated for the supply of illicit drugs or have posted terror-related information online and the government, under Labor's law, has no discretion to prevent the transfer to Australia of those individuals.
Any law which removes the government's ultimate discretion to decide who enters Australia's borders undermines our strong border protection policies. As a nation, it is imperative that we are able to determine who enters Australia and whether they should remain within our borders permanently.
There was never a need for Labor's law. The government's existing medical transfer provisions have brought over 900 people from the RPC in both locations to Australia to receive medical attention. This demonstrates that the medevac laws were nothing more than a short-sighted political tactic for Labor to appeal to Greens voters for the May election.
Let me be very clear, while this bill removes one medical transfer pathway established by the law passed with the support of Labor and the Greens, there will remain the existing process to manage medical transfers. Transferees requiring medical treatment not available in a regional processing country will be able to be transferred to a third country or indeed Australia for assessment or treatment.
Labor's medevac law, or 'bring them all here' law, failed to provide a mechanism to return or remove transitory persons brought to Australia under section 198C back to a regional processing country or third country. Consistent with provisions in place for transitory persons brought to Australia under section 198B, transitory persons are expected to return to a regional processing country once they no longer need to be in Australia for the temporary purpose for which they came. This bill will rectify this inconsistency.
The Department of Home Affairs has advised me that since the Migration Amendment (Urgent Medical Treatment) Bill was first introduced by the former member for Wentworth in December 2018, there has been a marked increase in self-harm behaviours in regional processing countries. Many of these acts are undertaken for the explicit purpose of manipulating the system and gaining access to our country. This bill removes the motivation for transferees to engage in this dangerous behaviour.
This is a mess entirely of Labor's own making. The Labor Party enthusiastically voted for this law to try and contain the Left of their party without having any idea of the consequences.
The Leader of the Opposition should acknowledge this mess and vote with the government to repeal this dangerous law.
I commend the bill to the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Dutton.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (11:11): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019 is an important addition to the government's efforts to further strengthen Australia's national security laws and counterterrorism framework.
Keeping Australian communities safe from those who seek to do us harm is, and will continue to be, the Australian government's No. 1 priority. This bill supports the government's commitment to keeping Australians safe. The bill introduces a temporary exclusion order (TEO) scheme to delay Australians of counterterrorism interest from re-entering Australia, until appropriate protections are in place.
Since 2012, around 230 Australians have travelled to Syria or Iraq to fight with or support extremist groups involved in conflict. Around 80 are still active in conflict zones.
The advice of Australia's national security agencies is that many Australians of counterterrorism concern, who have travelled to Iraq and Syria to engage in that conflict, are likely to seek to return to Australia in the very near future. This bill will ensure that law enforcement agencies can effectively manage these returns in a way which will reduce the threat to the Australian community.
There will be two components to the TEO scheme.
First, an Australian of national security concern who is overseas may be subject to a TEO prohibiting them from returning to Australia for up to two years. The bill does not permanently prohibit entry into Australia, and a person will be entitled to a return permit if they apply.
A temporary exclusion order could be made where the minister suspects, on reasonable grounds, that the order would substantially assist in preventing terrorism-related activities. A temporary exclusion order could also be made by the minister where ASIO assesses the person to be a risk to security for reasons related to politically motivated violence.
The bill establishes a framework for a reviewing authority to provide independent oversight of the minister's decision to make a TEO before it comes into force.
An exception to this review process is provided for in the bill to address urgent circumstances. In such cases, the TEO would come into force immediately pending review, which must be undertaken as soon as reasonably practicable.
The reviewing authority will be appointed by the Attorney-General. Former judges or serving senior Administrative Appeals Tribunal members may be appointed to the role.
If the reviewing authority determines that the minister's decision was not lawful, the TEO is taken to have never been made. All TEOs will be subject to review, and the reviewing authority will have access to all the information that was before the minister, except to the extent that the disclosure of such information is not in the public interest. This will protect sensitive sources and capabilities. It will, however, be open to the reviewing authority to overturn the decision to make a TEO if insufficient information to support the making of the exclusion order is provided.
Review of the minister's decision is based on Australian administrative law principles relating to the legality of the decision. This is similar to the United Kingdom's TEO scheme. Judicial review will also be available through the Federal Court or High Court.
A TEO would not be able to be made against a person who is younger than 14 years of age, and for persons aged between 14 and 17, it will be a requirement for the minister to have regard to the best interests of the minor as a primary consideration.
The second component of the TEO scheme—a return permit—will mitigate risks to the community following the return to Australia of persons who were subject to a TEO.
The bill specifies the minister must issue a return permit within a reasonable period if a person applies or if a person is being deported or extradited to Australia.
The bill also provides that a return permit may specify conditions which the person must comply with once in Australia. The conditions would be tailored to the individual, with the intention of assisting law enforcement and security agencies to appropriately manage their risk to the Australian community.
Conditions that may be imposed include requirements that the person surrenders their Australian passport, or that they notify authorities if they change their residential address.
Conditions would only be imposed where considered necessary for the purpose of preventing terrorism related activities.
The bill was first introduced into parliament on 21 February 2019, and referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for inquiry.
The government has reviewed the committee's report from this inquiry, and has substantially incorporated the committee's recommendations into the bill I introduce today. I thank the committee for its work, and take this opportunity to table the government's response to this inquiry.
In conclusion, this bill addresses the significant risks which Australia faces from returning foreign fighters.
It is essential that Australian authorities have the capacity to manage the risk of persons returning to Australia from foreign conflict zones.
The temporary exclusion order scheme being introduced under this bill is based on a scheme which has been successfully operating in the United Kingdom. It is targeted and specific to individuals who are a national security risk to the community. Moreover, it is a proportional response to the threats we face, while ensuring appropriate safeguards and accountability.
The government has been clear that our policy is to deal with foreign terrorist fighters as far from our shores as possible.
The bill will ensure that if an Australian of counterterrorism concern does return to Australia, it is with adequate forewarning and into the waiting hands of authorities.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Dutton.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (11:17): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I'm pleased to introduce the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2019. These measures are consequential to the Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Exclusion Orders) Bill 2019, which will provide greater control over returning Australians of counterterrorism interest, including foreign fighters.
The bill will introduce additional accountability and transparency measures in the temporary exclusion order scheme (TEO scheme). These measures implement recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in its review of the TEO scheme.
The bill will amend the Intelligence Services Act 2001 to provide that it is a function of the committee to monitor and review the exercise of powers under the TEO scheme. The committee is also required to review, by three years after the date of commencement, the operation and effectiveness of the TEO scheme.
The bill also amends the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010 to enable the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor to review the operation, effectiveness, and implications of the TEO scheme on his or her own initiative.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing Cohort) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Dutton.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (11:19): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Migration Legislation Amendment (Regional Processing Cohort) Bill 2019 is to reinforce the coalition's longstanding policy that people who travel here illegally by boat will never be settled in Australia. The Labor Party also say that they believe in this same principle.
The bill will amend the Migration Act to strengthen Australia's maritime border protection arrangements by barring illegal maritime arrivals transferred to a regional processing country from applying for an Australian visa.
The legislation will apply to people transferred to a regional processing country on or after 19 July 2013, including people who are currently in a regional processing country, have left a regional processing country and are in another country, are in Australia for a temporary purpose awaiting return to a regional processing country and who are taken to a regional processing country in the future.
This legislation, importantly, is consistent with the announcement by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, who, when announcing the signing of the resettlement arrangement with Papua New Guinea on 19 July 2013, declared:
From now on, any asylum seeker who arrives in Australia by boat will have no chance of being settled in Australia as refugees.
When Prime Minister Howard left government in 2007 there were only four IMAs in detention. None were children. Without any policy foresight, Labor proceeded to tear down the successful Howard government border protection policies and this is what happened:
50,000 people arrived on over 800 boats;
1,200 deaths at sea (that we know of);
Over 8,000 IMA children were detained;
17 onshore detention centres and two regional processing centres were opened to deal with the influx of illegal arrivals.
All of this resulted in a $16 billion border protection blowout. And the taxpayer is still paying.
We must never forget the tragedy which happened at our border under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments. And the parliament must act responsibly to legislate to ensure that it never happens again. This bill will form an important part of the government's people-smuggling deterrence messaging by sending a clear message that no-one who travels here illegally by boat will ever be settled in Australia.
The coalition is proud of its record at the border. The coalition has ended Labor's border chaos and restored integrity to Australia's immigration system using strong and consistent policies, including:
Turn-backs where it is safe to do so;
Offshore processing; and
Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs).
Under Operation Sovereign Borders:
There have been no deaths at sea;
We have closed 17 detention centres;
We have removed all the children from detention;
We have got all the children off Manus and Nauru; and
We have increased the humanitarian program to 18,750 places.
Operation Sovereign Borders has successfully halted the criminal people-smuggling networks by denying them a product to sell. Operation Sovereign Borders has strengthened our borders to ensure that any future attempts to reach Australia illegally by boat have zero chance of success. However, we cannot afford to become complacent and risk a return to large-scale people-smuggling arrivals when hundreds of men, women and children tragically drowned at sea.
This legislation contains a bar that will apply to all visas, both temporary and permanent. Any visa that allows transferees to come to Australia has the potential to provide a pathway to permanent residence. We cannot leave the door open for people smugglers to sell a backdoor passage to our country.
There remains scope for transferees to be granted a visa in certain circumstances. Under the amended law, the minister will have the discretion to lift the bar if it is in the public interest and allow a visa application to be made. The discretion may be exercised in a range of circumstances, such as meeting international legal obligations or where individual circumstances justify special consideration.
In addition, the bar will not apply to persons who were under 18 years of age at the time they were first transferred to a regional processing country.
This legislation sends a strong message to people smugglers and those considering travelling illegally to Australia by boat: Australia's borders are now stronger than ever.
I commend this legislation to the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tehan.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (11:24): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019 gives effect to the annual charge cost recovery measure in the higher education sector, consistent with the Australian government charging framework.
This separate bill is required to provide for an annual charge to be applied on higher education providers, which is separate from education legislation.
The 2018-19 federal budget included an annual charge cost recovery measure affecting higher education providers, which is the subject of this bill.
The bill implements an annual charge on all higher education providers whose students are entitled to HECS-HELP or FEE-HELP assistance under the Higher Education Support Act 2003. The annual charge will partially recover the costs incurred by the Commonwealth each year in administering the HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP programs from the higher education providers.
The bill does not set the amount of the annual charge, which will be prescribed by the regulations. It is anticipated the amount of the charge will depend in part on the size of the providers, determined by the number of enrolments per year.
The 2019-20 federal budget included a one year delay to the commencement of the annual charge. Therefore, the annual charge will commence from 1 January 2020, and higher education providers will receive their invoice for the annual charge for the 2020 calendar year in 2021, after reconciliation of higher education providers' HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP student enrolment data has occurred.
The annual charge measure announced in the 2018-19 federal budget will ensure consistency and fairness across the whole of the tertiary education sector, as a similar charging measure already operates in the vocational education and training sector. In this case, partially recovering the costs of the annual charge reduces the impact of the annual charge on all higher education providers.
The annual charge measure is consistent with the Australian government charging framework and links the cost of services to those who benefit from them. In this case the higher education providers will be required to meet the cost for the regulatory arrangements from revenues they raise from students. Currently these costs are borne by the general public. It also increases awareness with the higher education sector of the costs incurred by the Commonwealth in administering HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP programs.
Associated amendments will also be made to the Higher Education Support Act to reflect the annual charge measure, set out in the Higher Education Support (Cost Recovery) Bill 2019.
Subject to the passage of this bill and the Higher Education Support (Cost Recovery) Bill 2019, the annual charge measure is to commence from 1 January 2020—although 2020 charges will not be issued until May 2021.
I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tehan.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TEHAN (Wannon—Minister for Education) (11:28): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Higher Education Support Amendment (Cost Recovery) Bill 2019 and the associated Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019 give effect to cost recovery measures for the Higher Education Loan Program, or HELP, in the higher education sector. This is consistent with the Australian Government Charging Framework.
The 2018-19 federal budget includes HELP cost recovery measures (an annual charge and an application fee) affecting higher education providers, which are the subject of this bill.
Part 1 of schedule 1 to the bill amends the Higher Education Support Act 2003to put in place an application fee on applicants seeking approval as higher education providers under the act. The fee will be applied from 1 January 2020. The level of the application fee will be set in the Higher Education Provider Guidelines, at an amount that will recover the government's full costs of administration and assessment of applications from prospective providers.
Part 2 of schedule 1 to the bill also amends the Higher Education Support Act to reflect the introduction of an annual charge on higher education providers under the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019.
The annual charge will partially recover from higher education providers the costs incurred by the Commonwealth in administering the HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP programs.
The amendments will require a higher education provider to pay the annual charge as and when it falls due, as a condition of their continued approval under the Higher Education Support Act.
The amendments will also enable the Higher Education Provider Guidelines to set out the administrative detail of collection and recovery of the annual charge; for example, when assessment notices will be given to providers, whether there are penalties associated with late payment of the charge, and when and how extensions of time to pay the charge can be given.
The HELP cost recovery measures announced in 2018-19 federal budget will ensure consistency and fairness across the whole of the tertiary education sector, as similar charging measures already exist in the vocational education and training sector.
The HELP cost recovery measures are consistent with the Australian Government Charging Framework and link the cost of services to those who benefit from them.
In this case, the higher education providers will be required to meet the cost for the regulatory arrangements from revenues they raise from students.
Currently these costs are borne by the general public. It also raises awareness with the higher education sector of the costs incurred to the Commonwealth for administering HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP programs, and the costs of assessing applications from prospective FEE-HELP providers.
The HELP cost recovery measures are expected to provide a combined estimated saving of $11.7 million in fiscal balance terms over the 2019-20 to 2022-23 period for both charges. This is an amount that the general taxpayer will not have to bear.
The government consulted with the higher education sector on the annual charge and the application fee through the release of the draft cost recovery implementation statement in late 2018. Feedback received from this consultation process has helped to inform the development of the final cost recovery implementation statement.
It is anticipated that the final cost recovery implementation statement will be released to the higher education sector prior to the commencement of the HELP cost recovery measures on 1 January 2020.
The method of calculation of the annual charge will be settled and prescribed in regulations, and the application fee amount will be settled and prescribed in the Higher Education Provider Guidelines, along with the administrative processes for collection and recovery of the annual charge.
Subject to the passage of this bill and the Higher Education Support (Charges) Bill 2019, the HELP cost recovery measures are to commence from 1 January 2020. However, higher education providers will not be issued an invoice for the annual charge for the 2020 calendar year until May 2021, after reconciliation of higher education providers' HECS-HELP and FEE-HELP student enrolment data has occurred.
I commend the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Water Amendment (Indigenous Authority Member) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Littleproud.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management) (11:33): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
It gives me great pleasure to move the Water Amendment (Indigenous Authority Member) Bill 2019 second reading. The Australian government is committed to implementing the Basin Plan. We are committed to doing so in ways that deliver the best outcomes for the basin, its environment and its many industries and communities.
Water lies at the core of the basin. Water supports the diverse and complex ecology that exists throughout the basin. Water drives agricultural production and the associated wealth supports regional communities and the nation. Water is at the heart of the spiritual and cultural traditions of basin Indigenous communities.
At the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting in December 2018, I asked basin states to make a commitment, in agreement with the Australian government, to establish a position on the Murray-Darling Basin Authority for a standing Indigenous authority member. This bill delivers on that commitment.
It also continues the work of the government in developing programs and opportunities for Indigenous communities in the basin, to enable them to maintain their spiritual and cultural connection to the river, as well as developing viable economic opportunities.
Aboriginal people are the traditional custodians of the Murray-Darling Basin. While a great deal of work has been undertaken by the government to improve engagement with Indigenous communities in the basin, there is more that we can do. The establishment of the standing Indigenous position on the authority continues this work, by improving Indigenous involvement in the management of basin water resources and recognising the knowledge and expertise that Indigenous communities can bring to the authority.
The bill provides that the Indigenous authority member will be an Indigenous person and that they will be appointed on the basis of their high level of expertise regarding Indigenous matters relevant to basin water resources. They will not be appointed to represent particular regions or organisations, but to represent the interests of Indigenous communities across the basin.
To be eligible to be appointed to, or to act in, the Indigenous member position, a person will need to meet the definition of Indigenous person contained in section 4 of the Water Act. Section 4 defines Indigenous person as a person who is a member of the Aboriginal race of Australia or a descendent of an Indigenous inhabitant of the Torres Strait Islands. The person will be appointed using the same appointment process that applies to the other part-time members of the authority and will be subject to the same terms and conditions of employment. This includes remuneration and the requirement not to be a member of the governing body of a relevant interest group at the time they are appointed to the authority.
The appointment of an Indigenous person to the Indigenous authority member position does not preclude another Indigenous person being appointed to a different position on the authority.
The creation of the standing Indigenous authority member position builds on the government's strong track record in engaging Indigenous people and communities in the management of basin water resources. In 2016, a number of amendments were made to the Water Act 2007 to improve Indigenous community engagement in relation to the basin's water resources. The amendments also sought to better recognise the importance of water to the cultural, spiritual and social aspects of Indigenous communities.
Amendments that were made in 2016 included adding 'Indigenous matters relevant to basin water resources' as a field of expertise that may qualify a person for appointment to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. The amendments also mandated that the Basin Community Committee, which reports on community concerns and issues around Basin Plan implementation, must include at least two Indigenous persons with expertise in Indigenous matters relevant to basin water resources.
Further amendments included that the preparation of water resource plans must have regard to social, spiritual and cultural matters relevant to Indigenous people. The authority will only be able to recommend that the minister accredit a water resource plan if this requirement is met. It was also clarified that one of the functions of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority is to engage with Indigenous communities on the use and management of basin water resources.
All of the amendments made in 2016 have been effective in increasing engagement with Indigenous communities in the basin. Indigenous community groups, for example, are currently being consulted by state governments and the authority as water resource plans are developed and assessed.
The government recognises that work remains to be done to improve Indigenous engagement in the basin. This need for further progress has been identified, for example, in the recent Productivity Commission assessment report into the Basin Plan.
In 2018 the government took further steps to ensure that Indigenous communities are able to participate in the economic and cultural life of the river system.
The government has committed a world-first $40 million over four years for the Murray-Darling Basin Aboriginal Water Entitlements Program. This program is intended to support basin Indigenous communities' investment in cultural and economic water entitlements, and to increase their involvement in water planning and management. This program is supported by amendments that were made in 2018 to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2005 to enable the Indigenous Land and Sea Corporation to purchase water, as well as land.
In 2018, the authority was directed to report publicly on how Indigenous values and uses are considered in environmental water use. Indigenous involvement in that work must now be reported on annually by the authority. The authority is also currently working with New South Wales and Queensland to identify water that could be allocated to Indigenous communities through water resource plans.
Funding has been provided to support basin Indigenous organisations for additional project officers in both the southern and northern basin. This support will help these organisations to translate the findings of the National Cultural Flows Research Project into practical and effective ways forward. The National Cultural Flows Research Project, a project driven by and for Aboriginal people, established a national framework for cultural flows. The framework, released in 2018, provides the first guide and method for future planning, delivery, and assessment of cultural flows.
As part of the delivery of the northern basin environmental works program local stakeholders, including Indigenous groups, will be consulted as part of the development and implementation of toolkit measures. Priority will be given to Indigenous and local suppliers in the delivery of those works.
Ultimately the bill's amendments are important to ensure that an Indigenous voice is clearly represented amongst the authority's members. The Australian government is committed to continuing to improve engagement with Indigenous communities in the Murray-Darling Basin. This bill is the next step in that process and is an important milestone in Australia's history, recognising the role of Indigenous Australians as the traditional custodians of the Murray-Darling Basin. The government would like to thank all basin water ministers for their cooperation in unanimously seeking to ensure an Indigenous person is a member of the Murray Darling Basin Authority.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Littleproud.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management) (11:40): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2019 amends the Farm Household Support Act 2014.
The bill proposes to maintain the temporary increase to the farm assets value limit for farm household assistance at $5 million. It also ensures allowable deductions are applied against the relevant income type for those deductions.
The government recognises the significant contribution of agriculture to the Australian economy and regional communities. We are committed to strengthening the sector to ensure it continues to be profitable, competitive, resilient and sustainable.
The government wants all Australians to prosper, to be able to inject capital into their businesses, save for their retirement, and to support their children to succeed. We also want farmers to have the supports to assess and safeguard their long-term financial security and farm household allowance does this.
It is more than a social security payment—it is a package of assistance comprising income support, ancillary allowances, an independent financial assessment of the farm business, an activity supplement that pays for advice and training, and individualised case management.
To date, farm household allowance has helped nearly 12,000 farmers, and almost 7,000 are receiving the payment now. We have paid more than $330 million in fortnightly payments and related supplements and allowances. Over $43 million of this was in the FHA supplement which added up to $12,000 per household last financial year.
As this is a support payment farm household allowance is aligned with mainstream social security, unless there are good reasons for departure. The most significant departure is the two-tier asset test. Farmers have access to a significantly higher threshold for assets than other payments. This setting recognises that a farmer's biggest asset is their land, but in times of hardship that land is not capable of generating a return that sustains the family.
The book value of a farmer's assets often excludes them from other income support payments, yet they cannot realise those assets for self-support without taking away some, or all, of the longer-term income-producing capacity of the farm enterprise.
In September 2018, the government increased its support for farmers and farming communities, by temporarily increasing the threshold for farm assets to $5 million. This was an increase of almost $2.4 million and opened up the program to many more farm households experiencing hardship.
But the government is going one step further, and from 1 July 2019, the farm assets value limit will be retrospectively maintained at $5 million. Farmers and farm households can be assured that the government stands with them and their communities to generate wealth, and build strength, prosperity, and resilience.
The bill also seeks to amend the treatment of allowable deductions so that they can be claimed against related income—that is, either on-farm or off-farm income earned by a farm household allowance recipient.
Allowable deductions will relate to the income they apply to. That is, allowable deductions associated with on-farm business income will be able to be deducted from that income and off-farm deductions will be associated with off-farm income. The exception is for people in very straitened circumstances who may offset their off-farm income from their on-farm loss. This offset has been available since 1 July 2014 and remains unchanged.
This bill amends the Farm Household Support Act to ensure allowable deductions can be claimed against the income that they relate to.
These amendments accord with the underlying objective of the farm household allowance program, and help paint as accurate a picture as possible of a recipient's farm enterprise, its viability, and possible options for improvement.
These amendments will not change income thresholds or eligibility for farm household allowance.
In seeking to maintain the farm assets value limit at $5 million and amend the Farm Household Support Act 2014 to ensure allowable deductions can be claimed against related income, this bill further demonstrates this government's responsiveness and commitment to the needs of farmers, farming communities, and rural and regional Australia.
I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Timor Sea Maritime Boundaries Treaty Consequential Amendments Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum to this bill, and to the Passenger Movement Charge Amendment (Timor Sea Maritime Boundaries Treaty) Bill 2019, presented by Mr Taylor.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (11:46): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Timor Sea Maritime Boundaries Treaty Consequential Amendments Bill 2019 gives effect to the majority of the 2018 Treaty between Australia and the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste Establishing Their Maritime Boundaries in the Timor Sea. The treaty is an historic achievement for Australia and Timor-Leste and its implementation is firmly in Australia's national interest. In introducing this bill, the government recognises the significance of this year, 2019, to the Timorese people. This year marks the 20th anniversary of the popular consultation that led to Timor-Leste's independence, and the beginning of our close security and development partnership.
The treaty will replace the Timor Sea Treaty between the Government of East Timor and the Government of Australia, which established the Joint Petroleum Development Area, and the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste relating to the Unitisation of the Sunrise and Troubadour Fields.
Through this treaty, Australia and Timor-Leste have settled a long-running dispute over our maritime boundaries, agreed upon a pathway for the development of Greater Sunrise and laid the foundation of a new chapter in our bilateral relations. The treaty also provides for transitional arrangements to deliver stability and certainty for companies with operations in the Timor Sea; the express purpose being to ensure these companies can continue operations under conditions or terms equivalent to existing arrangements. Although additional taxation legislation is required to give effect to the agreed transitional arrangements, the Australian government wants to progress this bill now to demonstrate Australia's commitment to implementing the treaty. The remaining legislation will be introduced as soon as possible.
The treaty is a landmark for international law and the rules based order. It is the result of the first ever compulsory conciliation under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Australia and Timor-Leste demonstrated goodwill and preparedness to compromise during negotiations. Both countries, and the independent conciliation commission, recognise the outcome was fair, balanced and consistent with international law.
The bill proposes to give effect to the treaty by repealing parts of the Petroleum (Timor Sea Treaty) Act 2003 and transitioning the area of current joint administration known as the Joint Petroleum Development Area in recognition of Timor-Leste's sovereign jurisdiction. The Seas and Submerged Lands Act 1973is also amended to establish and define the Greater Sunrise Special Regime Area as an area over which Australia will exercise its rights as a coastal state jointly with Timor-Leste.
This bill also implements the arrangements for the regulation of petroleum pipelines in areas of foreign continental shelf jurisdiction consistent with the terms of the treaty by providing for two new 'international offshore areas' for the purposes of the Bayu-Undan pipeline corridor and the potential Greater Sunrise pipeline corridor. The bill further provides for amendments to affected offshore petroleum titles as a consequence of the treaty. Necessary consequential amendments to give effect to all of these elements are made to other legislation by this bill.
This bill repeals provisions that gave effect to the superseded Timor Sea Treaty and international unitisation agreement, and amends the scheduled areas for the offshore areas of Western Australia, the Northern Territory, and the Territory of Ashmore and Cartier Islands affected by the maritime boundary.
This bill alters particular offshore petroleum permits and licences which adjoined the western side of the Joint Petroleum Development Area. The effect is to reflect that portions of Australia's continental shelf under titles held by certain Australian titleholders will transition to the continental shelf of Timor-Leste upon entry into force of the treaty. A consequence of this transition has also seen elements of exploration permit work programs transferred to new Timor-Leste production-sharing contracts as agreed in the parallel transitional arrangements negotiations.
This bill gives effect to the Greater Sunrise Special Regime area, established by annex B of the treaty. The purpose of the Greater Sunrise Special Regime is to facilitate the joint development, exploitation and management of petroleum activities in the Greater Sunrise gas fields.
This bill establishes the legal infrastructure required for the regulation of Greater Sunrise to be transitioned to a designated authority that will act on behalf of Australia and Timor-Leste.
This designated authority will, subject to the approval of the governance board for the Greater Sunrise Special Regime, enter into the Greater Sunrise production-sharing contract with the Greater Sunrise contractor. This will be done as soon as practicable following entry into force of the treaty and under conditions equivalent to the relevant production-sharing contracts, and to the legal rights held under the applicable retention leases currently in place in accordance with article 22 of the Timor Sea Treaty and article 27 of the international unitisation agreement.
This bill also maintains and incorporates the Eastern Greater Sunrise offshore area into the Northern Territory offshore area, to ensure the Australian retention leases in the Eastern Greater Sunrise offshore area continue uninterrupted until such time as the Greater Sunrise production-sharing contract commences. The Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 will continue to apply to these retention leases during this period.
Overall, this bill fundamentally demonstrates Australia's commitment to a robust, mutually beneficial bilateral relationship with Timor-Leste specifically, and to international law and the rules based order more generally. This bill lays the foundation for a stronger relationship with Timor-Leste and creates a pathway for the development of Greater Sunrise, the economic benefits of which will be significant, particularly for Timor-Leste.
I commend this bill to the chamber.
Debate adjourned.
Passenger Movement Charge Amendment (Timor Sea Maritime Boundaries Treaty) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill presented by Mr Taylor.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (11:53): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Passenger Movement Charge Amendment (Timor Sea Maritime Boundaries Treaty) Bill 2019 complements the Timor Sea Maritime Boundaries Treaty Consequential Amendments Bill 2019.
This bill amends the Passenger Movement Charge Act 1978 by replicating the imposition of the passenger movement charge in relation to journeys to an installation in the special regime area.
This package of bills gives partial effect to the 2018Treaty Between Australia and the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste Establishing Their Maritime Boundaries in the Timor Sea.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Single Treatment Pathway) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Chester.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Veterans and Defence Personnel and Deputy Leader of the House) (11:55): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
I'm pleased to introduce the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Single Treatment Pathway) Bill 2019. The bill is designed to provide veterans with a more timely, convenient and user-friendly method of accessing their medical treatment.
The Australian community has a clear expectation that veterans will be well looked after, and of course as a government we're absolutely committed to putting veterans and their families first.
This bill will simplify access to medical treatment for veterans without the need for claim forms or upfront costs via a Department of Veterans' Affairs health card.
The amendments to the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004would remove and replace the dual treatment pathway model with a single treatment pathway model. The amendments would mean that all DVA clients would have access to health care via a DVA health card.
Since the introduction of DVA health cards, uptake in treatment among veterans has improved, indicating that, where they don't face any up-front costs, veterans are more likely to access treatment for service related injury or disease.
DVA health cards provide veterans with an easier way to access treatment which is not compromised by the inability to afford treatment.
Once this bill is passed, veterans will only need to present their DVA health card at the time of receiving medical treatment, and payments will be made directly to health providers via the Medicare system. Around 4,000 clients will no longer have to pay up-front and then seek reimbursement from DVA. Importantly, this bill retains discretionary power for the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to reimburse a person the cost of treatment or pay directly a health provider in special circumstances.
These amendments will mean better outcomes for veterans, as they will have easier access to treatment as and when they need it.
I commend this bill.
Debate adjourned.
Migration Amendment (Streamlining Visa Processing) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Coleman.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr COLEMAN (Banks—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs) (11:58): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Introduction
The department's biometric program for the provision of personal identifiers has been implemented in phases. Commencing in 2006 with the collection of facial images and fingerprints of illegal foreign fishers, it was extended in 2010 with the addition of facial images and fingerprints for visa applicants in high-risk locations and expanded to noncitizens refused entry at Australia's international airports. More recently, in 2015, the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics) Act 2015 simplified and expanded the department's personal identifier collection capability with a broad discretion to require personal identifiers for the purposes of the Migration Act 1958 or regulations made under that act.
The purposes of the biometric program include:
assisting in the identification of a person;
improving the procedures for determining visa applications;
enhancing the department's ability to identify non-citizens who have a criminal history or are of character concern;
assisting in identifying persons who may be a security concern;
combating identity fraud in immigration matters; and
facilitating genuine travellers more efficiently.
The collection of personal identifiers is essential to establishing the identity of noncitizens, as checks using personal identifiers are far more accurate than document based checks of biographic details such as name and date of birth alone.
Intention of the bill
The intention of these amendments is to enable the collection of personal identifiers to be a prerequisite to making a valid visa application. If an applicant refuses to provide their personal identifiers then they cannot make a valid visa application and cannot be considered for the grant of a visa.
The measures provide a mechanism for the minister to specify a group of visa applicants who must provide one or more personal identifiers (also specified) to have a valid application—that is, it will be a mandatory requirement. The groups of applicants would not include persons unable to provide certain personal identifiers, such as the collection of fingerprints from people with a permanent physical disability, resulting in the inability to collect fingerprints.
These amendments do not remove the discretion to require personal identifiers from visa applicants at any time after a visa application has been made. The minister would continue to be able to require additional personal identifiers after lodgement of the visa application, where for example the identity of the visa applicant remains uncertain.
Protections
These amendments fully retain existing protections associated with the collection of personal identifiers in the Migration Act, such as those relating to privacy, humanity, and dignity. Nor do these changes expand who may be required to provide personal identifiers or what personal identifiers may be required. Rather, this amendment is about enabling the streamlining of the process by which personal identifiers are required and provided at the time of a person applying for a visa.
As per the current biometrics collection program, people who are incapable of providing a particular biometric will be exempt from the requirement.
For visa applicants who may need to travel quickly to Australia, for example due to a family emergency, it is not intended that the requirement to provide personal identifiers as an application validity requirement apply to short-stay visas in emergency situations.
Conclusion
It's important that identity checks are able to be done against personal identifier data to detect individuals of concern as soon as they make a visa application. Personal identifiers are far superior to checks undertaken using biographic details such as name and date of birth that are contained in identity documents.
Recent terrorism-related events both in Australia and overseas highlight the need for the Department of Home Affairs to know who is applying for a visa as soon as they make a visa application through the provision of personal identifiers. These amendments will enable enhanced scrutiny, improve the integrity of our visa programs, and reduce the risk of terrorism.
This bill enhances the integrity of Australia's visa programs and protects Australians from persons who are a criminal threat or a risk to national security. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Coleman.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr COLEMAN (Banks—Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs) (12:03): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Migration Amendment (Strengthening the Character Test) Bill 2019 is to strengthen the current legislative framework in relation to visa refusals and cancellations on character grounds. This bill ensures that noncitizens who have been convicted of serious offences, and who pose a risk to the safety of the Australian community, are appropriately considered for visa refusal or cancellation. The bill presents a very clear message to all noncitizens that the Australian community has no tolerance for foreign nationals who have been convicted of such crimes.
The number of people crossing the Australian border is rapidly increasing, and while this brings overwhelmingly positive benefits for our country, it also enables threats to our security. We are an accessible and attractive destination to visit, to do business and to live. We are a welcoming, multicultural, open and cohesive society. At the same time, we need to ensure that we remain safe and secure.
Consistent with community views and expectations, the Australian government has a very low tolerance for criminal behaviour. Entry and stay in Australia by non-citizens is a privilege, not a right, and the Australian community expects that the Australian government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they do not abide by the rule of law. Those who choose to break the law and fail to uphold the standards of behaviour expected by the Australian community should expect to lose that privilege.
Following 115 public submissions, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration's report on migrant settlement outcomes titled No one teaches you to become an Australian noted that strengthening the character provisions will make Australians feel safer and be safer. The committee has more recently urged the government to pass and enact this bill in their report on Review processes associated with visa cancellations made on criminal grounds, noting this important legislation addresses community concerns related to non-citizens who commit acts of violence in Australia.
This bill will amend section 501 of the Migration Act to provide that a person will objectively not pass the character test if the person has been convicted of a designated offence which carries a maximum sentence of not less than two years. I and my delegates within the department will then have the discretion to cancel or refuse a visa on that basis.
By strengthening the character test in this way, the minister and their delegates will have a clear and objective ground with which to consider cancelling the visa of, or refusing the grant of a visa to, a non-citizen who has been convicted of offences that involve:
violence against a person, including murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, assault, aggravated burglary, and the threat of violence,
non-consensual conduct of a sexual nature,
using or possessing a weapon, or
breaching an order made by a court or tribunal for the personal protection of another person.
In making a decision to refuse or cancel a visa on this ground, the department will need to take into account a wide range of factors contained within a binding ministerial direction. Those factors include:
the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
the best interests of minors in Australia;
expectations of the Australian community;
Australia's international obligations;
the impact on victims; and
the nature and extent of the person's ties to Australia.
In summary, this is an important bill that sends a clear and unequivocal message on behalf of the Australian community—the entry or stay in Australia is a privilege, granted only to those of good character. Like the Australian community, the government has no tolerance for non-citizens who are found to have committed these serious crimes. We make absolutely no apologies for protecting the Australian community from these harmful people, and we will act decisively whenever we are made aware of that.
I commend this bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Sukkar.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Housing) (12:08): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Corporations Act 2001, A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 and the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to combat illegal phoenix activity.
Illegal phoenixing involves the stripping and transfer of assets from one company to another by individuals or entities to avoid paying their liabilities. It has been a problem for many decades.
This bill will give our regulators additional enforcement and regulatory tools to better detect and address illegal phoenix activity and, importantly, to prosecute or penalise directors and others who facilitate this illegal activity, such as unscrupulous pre-insolvency advisers.
To support these reforms, the government will also provide an additional $8.7 million over four years from the 2018-19 financial year to increase funding for the Assetless Administration Fund. This additional funding will increase ASIC's ability to fund liquidators who play a vital role in investigating and reporting illegal phoenix activity.
The bill also makes minor amendments to the government's already legislated insolvency reforms which formed part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda. These amendments will ensure that these important reforms operate as intended.
The bill was considered by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, which recommended that the bill be passed.
Full details of the measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 2) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Sukkar.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Housing) (12:11): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Treasury Laws Amendment (2018 Measures No. 2) Bill 2019
The government is committed to supporting the Australian innovation ecosystem by providing a tax and regulatory environment that will help innovation in Australian businesses and help them raise capital, grow and succeed; and of course get more Australians into more and better-paying jobs.
This government, the Morrison government, is the government of innovation, jobs and business creation. We want to see new businesses and new enterprises get off the ground and get going.
As promised, we are putting in place the world's most forward-leaning regulatory sandbox for fintech development.
The Morrison government sees an active fintech sector as a critical driver of more competition in financial services. We want to see competition, because it will increase the pressure on financial providers—both traditional and emerging—to be more responsive to consumers' needs and deliver better outcomes for Australians.
The government is a strong believer that choice empowers consumers to seek the financial services that best suit their needs without being tied to businesses that don't listen to them.
The enhanced regulatory sandbox will allow firms to test new products and services without needing to obtain a financial services licence or a credit licence from ASIC first. It will therefore allow for trial and error in a controlled environment, giving firms a chance to confirm their concept through initial testing with their clients.
In simple terms, this will help Australians and Australian businesses to access cheaper financing and better financial products so that they can grow and invest. The productivity benefits that will flow from this will be huge. Most investment of course equals more jobs and better wages.
Those in business know the importance of meeting customer needs. The regulatory sandbox will provide a means to test market demand. It will give firms looking to do things differently—to do things better for consumers—a real leg up and clear air to get going. It will reduce the time it takes to make their products and services available to consumers and it will mean entrepreneurs are more informed in making decisions on their offering before applying for a licence.
We have worked hard to develop a legislative regulatory sandbox which builds on ASIC's existing licence exemption. But we have also been mindful of ensuring the firms in the regulatory sandbox maintain protections for retail consumers.
The government's enhanced sandbox is about helping fintech businesses overcome the initial regulatory burden and costs of licensing that may otherwise hinder some of their innovative offerings.
Schedule 1 to this bill takes the first step. It extends the regulation-making powers in the Corporations Act, establishing the foundation for the government's new framework.
The regulations will then set out the detail regarding eligibility criteria, the types of products and services that can be tested, and the conditions that will need to be met during testing.
Prescribing the detail in regulations will mean timely adjustments can be made in response to the evolving market. This will ensure the regulatory sandbox stays fit for purpose in this rapidly moving sector. This approach, which combines legislative authority and flexibility, sets Australia apart from its international peers.
The draft regulations were released for public consultation between late October and December 2017. The government will consider those responses as we work to finalise the final design of the regulations.
Under the proposal released for consultation, businesses will be able to test a wider range of new and innovative fintech products and services. This includes holistic financial advice, the issuing of consumer credit contracts and facilitating crowdsourced funding.
To ensure that the sandbox is operating effectively and is fit for purpose, the legislation provides for an independent review to be undertaken 12 months after the enabling regulations have commenced.
As I've mentioned, while businesses will be able to operate without a licence, they will still be required to meet key consumer protection requirements including responsible lending obligations, best interests duty, and to have adequate compensation and dispute resolution arrangements.
The government believe the regulatory sandbox will provide significant improvements. It will support small business, and it could revolutionise many aspects of the financial services sector—right across the spectrum of innovation, including payments, insurance, credit, data and analytics and personal finance management.
Consumers are already benefiting from the emergence of fintech firms. These nimble and consumer focused firms are putting pressure on traditional financial services providers to be more responsive and to deliver better outcomes for Australians.
The government and I would like to thank the fintech industry for their work with the government to help develop the regulatory sandbox and other initiatives we have progressed in the last three years.
The regulatory sandbox will no doubt be a source of many breakthrough innovations in fintech in the coming years.
Schedule 2 to this bill makes a number of minor complementary technical amendments to the Early Stage Venture Capital Limited Partnership, Venture Capital Limited Partnership and tax incentives for early stage investor regimes to clarify the income tax law and ensure that these provisions operate within the original policy intent.
The tax incentives for early stage investors measure and the new arrangements for venture capital limited partnerships measure were introduced as part of the National Innovation and Science Agenda. Together, these measures are designed to promote an innovative, risk-taking and entrepreneurial culture by providing incentives for investors to invest in Australian innovative, high-growth potential start-ups and venture capital.
The amendments being made by this bill will ensure that investors in innovative Australian businesses continue to benefit from effective, generous government support and have certainty as to how these programs are intended to operate.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned
Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Sure Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share of Tax in Australia and Other Measures) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Sukkar.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Housing) (12:18): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
Everyone needs to pay their fair share of tax to ensure the government is able to fund the vital infrastructure and services that Australians expect and deserve. Of course, most taxpayers pay their way, but integrity rules are necessary to ensure those taxpayers that don't are caught, and are made to pay their due.
Thanks to the great work of the coalition government over many years, Australia has some of the strongest rules in the world to combat tax avoidance, but more can always be done to make sure that all taxpayers, including multinationals, pay the appropriate amount of tax.
Schedule 1 to the bill introduces new provisions to improve the integrity of Australia's thin capitalisation rules.
These rules prevent multinationals from shifting profits offshore by having unrealistically high levels of debt in Australia that enables them to claim excessive interest deductions.
The bill strengthens the integrity of the thin cap rules by improving the reliability of asset valuations that are used to support debt deductions. It does this by requiring multinationals to rely on the asset values that they publish in their financial statements. This will remove the ability for multinationals to adopt a special valuation solely for tax purposes. The bill will also remove the ability for multinationals to justify their debt using assets that can't be recognised for accounting purposes.
No new revaluations are allowed after 7.30 pm on 8 May 2018. So, to allow companies to adjust to the changes, transitional rules will allow companies to rely on asset valuations that were made prior to this time until the last day before the start of their income year commencing on or after 1 July 2019.
The bill also amends the income tax law to ensure that all foreign controlled consolidated groups are recognised as inward-investing entities, even if they have foreign operations. This will confirm that these entities are not able to use thin capitalisation tests that are only appropriate for outbound investors.
Schedule 1 to the bill will ensure that multinationals cannot structure to avoid our tax integrity rules, which, as I've said, are amongst the strongest in the world.
These changes, of course, build on the already strong arsenal the tax office has to deal with multinational tax avoidance, which includes the diverted profits tax, the multinational anti-avoidance law and the Tax Avoidance Taskforce.
Schedule 2 to the bill levels the playing field for hotel bookings in Australia by ensuring that offshore sellers of Australian hotel accommodation calculate their GST turnover in the same way as local sellers from 1 July 2019.
This measure follows the government's decision to extend the GST to digital products and other services from 1 July 2017 and to low-value imported goods from 1 July 2018.
Schedule 3 ensures luxury car tax is not payable on cars that are re-imported into Australia after being refurbished overseas. This will mean that, from 1 January 2019, the same tax treatment will apply to luxury cars, irrespective of where the car is refurbished.
This bill will help ensure that taxpayers pay their fair share of tax, as I have mentioned, close loopholes and ensure programs delivered through the tax system give the greatest returns to the taxpayers, which again just demonstrates the government's commitment to continually strengthening the integrity of our tax system.
Full details of these measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Sukkar.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr SUKKAR (Deakin—Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Housing) (12:23): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The Treasury Laws Amendment (Putting Members' Interests First) Bill 2019 amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 and the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act 1999to improve the provision of default insurance in superannuation.
Given the significance of superannuation to Australians' retirement, the government wants to ensure that people's hard-earned savings are not unnecessarily eroded by inappropriate insurance arrangements.
This bill will address the provision of insurance through superannuation.
This bill requires that insurance be provided on an opt-in basis only for members with balances below $6,000 and any new members from 1 October 2019 who are under the age of 25.
The government has delayed the start date of these elements by three months from the announced commencement of the package to provide additional time for funds to take action and notify members prior to the changes taking effect on 1 October.
The government recognises that insurance through superannuation, of course, has value for many Australians. While working on these elements there have been numerous examples provided of how people have benefited from having insurance in times of need.
However, what is not always mentioned are the circumstances where people have had a significant proportion, and often their entire account balance, eroded by insurance premiums.
The government does not propose to prevent anyone from being able to obtain insurance coverage within superannuation, I want to note. We are simply trying to ensure that the current settings meet the needs of members without inappropriately eroding their retirement savings.
Default insurance, required under Labor's MySuper reforms, can result in members paying for cover that goes beyond their needs or paying for multiple policies upon which they can never claim.
Insurance premiums can reduce low-income earners' retirement balances by 10 per cent or more, compared to having no insurance and increasing with every additional set of policies that might be held by an individual.
That is why, through this bill, the government will ensure that members who are at particular risk of account balance erosion will not have insurance provided as a default unless they've directed otherwise.
The government recognises that many individuals already assess their insurance needs and make informed decisions themselves to hold accounts with a certain level of insurance.
To ensure that this measure doesn't disadvantage engaged members, the legislation allows for a member to elect that they want to maintain their insurance and they will not be subject to the changes in this bill.
The bill will undoubtedly benefit young and low-balance members and is in the best interest of all Australians.
The independent Productivity Commission in its final report on superannuation found that, while insurance in super provides value for money for many members, it doesn't do it for all.
This is particularly the case for young members or members with low incomes, where the Productivity Commission found that insurance in super is poor value, does not meet their needs and means that premiums can result in an undue erosion of their hard-earned retirement savings.
Full details of the measure are contained in the explanatory memorandum.
Debate adjourned.
Customs Amendment (Immediate Destruction of Illicit Tobacco) Bill 2019
First Reading
Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Wood, for Mr Dutton.
Bill read a first time.
Second Reading
Mr WOOD (La Trobe—Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs) (12:27): I move:
That this bill be now read a second time.
The government is committed to combating the illicit tobacco black market. In particular, a range of complementary measures were introduced in 'Black Economy Package—combating illicit tobacco'as part of the 2018-19 budget.
The black economy package seeks to disrupt illicit tobacco supply chains and deny criminal groups access to illicit profits that fund their other criminal and black economy activities. As part of this package, from 1 July 2019, tobacco products will be a prohibited imports and will only be allowed into Australia with a valid import permit, with limited exceptions such as individual travellers. Any tobacco that is detected at the border without a valid permit will be seized.
The Customs Act 1901 currently requires seized prohibited imports to be stored for a minimum of 30 days before destruction. This storage requirement, together with legislative and administrative requirements for prohibited imports, impacts upon the border operations of the Australian Border Force and limits the ability of the government to regulate and manage illicit tobacco effectively.
The bill will amend the Customs Act to empower the Comptroller-General of Customs, who is the commissioner of the Australian Border Force, to deal with the seized tobacco products in the manner he or she considers appropriate, including immediate destruction of goods. Similar controls already exist for other prohibited imports, including seized psychoactive substances and prohibited serious drug alternatives.
The bill will ensure the ABF is able to respond in a dynamic and timely manner to destroy the ever-increasing volumes of tobacco and tobacco related seizures. These amendments will improve the handling of seized illicit tobacco, resulting in the effective regulation of tobacco permit conditions and enabling greater focus on targeting of illicit tobacco. This bill will improve financial outcomes for the government and enhance implementation of new tobacco measures.
On a personal note, I'd like to thank the ABF personnel for their great work on illicit tobacco seizures. I had the great pleasure recently of touring the Australian Border Operations Centre at the ABF headquarters in Canberra, which houses representatives from various local and international law enforcement agencies and further improves operational planning, coordination and information-sharing within the law enforcement and security community. Thank you.
Debate adjourned.
BUSINESS
Suspension of Standing and Sessional Orders
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (12:31): I move:
That standing order 31 (automatic adjournment of the House) and standing order 33 (limit on business) be suspended for the sitting on Thursday, 4 July 2019.
Question agreed to.
CONDOLENCES
Hawke, Hon. Robert James Lee (Bob), AC
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the House record its regret at the death, on 16 May 2019, of the Honourable Robert James Lee (Bob) Hawke AC, a former member for Wills and the 23rd Prime Minister of Australia, and place on record its appreciation of his remarkable service to our nation, which he loved, and offer its deepest sympathy to his family in their bereavement and, indeed, to the nation.
Mr HILL (Bruce) (12:32): When I heard the news that Bob Hawke had died, I was in a meeting of the Noble Park Labor Party branch and it was a few days before the election. Someone came and whispered it in my ear. After processing it, I told the branch. At that point, whatever we were dealing with and had left to deal with in the preparations for the election suddenly seemed unimportant, and the rest of our evening was given over to reflections and impromptu tributes and so on about Bob's life and legacy. It was good, we all felt as we left, to be with our Labor family that night.
The legacy of Bob Hawke and his Labor government is unparalleled in modern Australian history. Bob was no timeserver. He was Labor's longest serving Prime Minister, but he didn't just play it safe to rack up the years as PM; he was a Labor Prime Minister who changed our nation for the better. Bob had a vision and courage, and he persuaded Australians and his party of the need for change. He did so, as has been remarked in previous speeches, with a deep and visible love for Australia and for Australians, and with the trust of the people.
Bob Hawke's legacy lives on in the daily life of our nation. I will touch on just a few areas—as we are the last couple of speakers, there is almost a sense of summing up, having listened to a lot of the tributes yesterday. To every Australian who carries and values their Medicare card, you can thank Bob Hawke and his Labor government. The very idea of Medicare was bitterly opposed by the Liberals. In 1975, they abolished Labor's first attempt to introduce universal health care. But it was Bob Hawke's conviction, his Labor values, that saw Medicare introduced. His four election victories ground the Liberals down to the point they begrudgingly had to accept Medicare, and universal health care became a part of our national fabric.
For all Australians, the environmental record of Bob Hawke's Labor government continues to enrich our country today. He was described as the first PM for the environment, and he saved so many of our national treasures. There was the Franklin River, the ancient Daintree, the banning of uranium mining in Kakadu, and the Uluru National Park being put on the World Heritage List.
Of course, when Bob Hawke became Prime Minister only three in 10 Australians finished high school. By the end of the Labor government that figure was eight out of 10, laying the foundations for a more educated, more productive and wealthier society.
The millions of Australians who retire now and in the decades to come with a better standard of living through universal superannuation can thank Bob Hawke and his Labor government. Bob laid the foundations for our system, which now sees more than $2.7 trillion of workers capital owned by 14.8 million Australians.
It's part of the current brand propaganda, if I can put it that way, that is spread about the major parties of government in Australia that Labor is bad for the economy. You hear this; it's nonsense. I don't believe it's borne out by the facts or the record, but many do believe it. When people raise it with me, the first truth I remind them of is that it was Bob Hawke's Labor government, with Paul Keating as Treasurer, that transformed Australia's economy, laying the foundations for the longest run of prosperity of any country in the world and for the wealth we still enjoy today, and he shared that wealth with ordinary Australians. No government is perfect nor every decision right, but undoubtedly Bob and Paul's vision to open Australia up to the world, to deepen our economic, social, political and strategic connections to Asia and our region was right.
Bob also represented Australia so brilliantly on the international stage, pursuing our national interest with values and conviction. He said that fighting apartheid in South Africa was one of his proudest life achievements. He took up this cause in 1969 as president of the Australian trade union movement, fuelled by his visceral distaste of racism and discrimination, and he never took a backward step. He used the office of Prime Minister skilfully and forcefully, supporting a ban on South African sporting tours, marrying two of his greatest passions—sport and politics. Those photos of Bob Hawke and Nelson Mandela when Nelson Mandela visited Australia in 1990 are truly spine tingling. And his decision to allow 40,000 Chinese students to stay in Australia—a captain's call of the very best sort—after the Chinese communist party massacred its own citizens in Tiananmen Square in 1990 reminds us what leadership looks like.
There are so many lessons from Bob's leadership in life, beautifully summarised, I thought, by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday: don't fear risk, persuade people, be among the people, listen, engage, bring people together. We in this place would all do well to remember his style of consensus leadership, bringing unions and business together—not bashing one or bashing the other but seeking consensus across the aisle. And, as the member for Maribyrnong reminded us yesterday, it was not a lowest common denominator but rather one born of negotiation to shift and bring together hearts and minds, fit for the times.
In closing, I was struck by David Marr's comment. He said that Bob Hawke showed us 'that change is possible, that policy matters and a better Australia is waiting'. So the great romance which has been talked about in the last month between Bob Hawke and his nation has ended, but it will remain a love story for the ages. Australia is a better country and we are a better people because of Bob's leadership and his reforming Labor government. Vale Bob Hawke, Australia's greatest peacetime prime minister.
Mr PERRETT (Moreton) (12:39): I'm honoured to follow the member for Bruce and his wonderful contribution. There have been so many great speeches in this chamber in honour of Bob Hawke—from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and from both sides of the chamber. Obviously, Bob Hawke is deservedly lauded by all in this House as an outstanding prime minister and a giant within the Labor Party.
We all have our own experiences of meeting Bob. I'll come back to that a little bit later, but I'd just like to explain what it was like as a Queenslander when Bob Hawke became Prime Minister in 1983—an election that I, as a 17-year-old, didn't get to vote in—and the sort of Queensland I had grown up in.
Queensland was just about to re-elect a Bjelke-Petersen state government for the sixth time in an easy win for the Bjelke-Petersen led Country Party. The gerrymander gave them an unassailable electoral advantage, and this was the pre-Fitzgerald era, where the Queensland Country Party's currency was brown paper bags filled with cash. There was a pervasive criminal culture. We would eventually realise that it had actually infiltrated to the highest levels of the police service and even into the government itself. It was in that climate that Queenslanders welcomed a fresh Prime Minister, the 23rd, and voted in on a landslide a bloke they called Bob. He came in on a slogan of 'Bob Hawke. Bringing Australia Together'. He may have been a Victorian via Western Australia, but Queenslanders thought of Bob as being one of us.
Queenslanders know what bad government looks like. The Hawke government was the antithesis of the government we had in Queensland at that time. It would be another four years before the Fitzgerald inquiry would be established, but the air in Queensland was already thick with the stench of corruption that could not be ignored. It was known throughout.
Bob was a leader that Queenslanders could actually believe in. He was a leader that we could trust. He had vision, he had values and he was one of us. He was the Prime Minister Queensland needed through those dark days of the pre-Fitzgerald era and during the shocking revelations of the Fitzgerald inquiry 30 years ago. Ironically, Joh Bjelke-Petersen was embarking on a swap to federal politics at the time when the Fitzgerald inquiry was called. Shortly after the Fitzgerald inquiry was commissioned, Bob called a federal election and Joh, thankfully, abandoned his tilt at federal politics. I'll give credit to Bob Hawke; I'm not sure if he deliberately waited until Joh Bjelke-Petersen was out of the state and forgot to nominate for a federal seat. I think Joh was in LA at the time, and so it ended up that the push for Canberra faltered completely.
So while Queensland was a state in crisis, Bob got on with the job of reforming Australia and, as detailed by so many, creating the modern Australia—the modern economy: floating the dollar; Medicare; universal superannuation; Landcare, celebrated by many of the National Party people in this place; preserving the Antarctic and the Daintree in Far North Queensland; and preserving the Franklin River in Tasmania. I would note that I'm not encouraging that any government should do so by sending an F-111 to spy against a state government, but it got the job done—a little bit unusual, democratically, but it got the job done.
Bob Hawke not only encouraged opportunity, he made sure young Australians could access it. When Bob Hawke became Prime Minister, I was one of the only three in 10 Australian students who had graduated from high school. By the time he stepped down as Prime Minister he had turned that figure around to seven in 10, education being the truly transformational work of government.
It was Bob's values that made him the legend we remember today. As mentioned by so many people, the fact was that Bob Hawke abhorred racism; he found it repugnant. Bob Hawke always stood up for those who could not stand up for themselves, as a real Christian should. Bob's tearful response to that bloody massacre in Beijing's Tiananmen Square in 1989, offering Chinese students studying in Australia asylum, was a torrent of compassion through one of the saddest days. Yet, Bob still went on to be a good friend of China. We all loved Bob for that Tiananmen Square moment and for reminding us that good leaders—good friends—speak bluntly to other countries when they need to.
I know for a fact that Queenslanders still love Bob. When I was a candidate in 2004, '07, '10 and, I think '13, Bob Hawke often came to Moreton, as a marginal seat, trying to win it for Labor and then to retain it for Labor. I remember after that Kevin '07 launch in Brisbane, when Bob Hawke and Paul Keating came out and stood together—even though they weren't the best of friends at the time. There is a wonderful photo of that; in fact, my wife is standing right in front of them and I actually got Bob Hawke to sign the picture for my wife that next day. It took me quite a bit longer to get Paul Keating to sign it, but that's a different story!
In Moreton we would just work Bob incredibly hard. Even when he was in his eighties we would go from Sunnybank Plaza shopping centre across the bridge to Sunny Park, then across to Market Square and then to Sunnybank tavern. All the time Bob was talking to everyone; there were queues of people coming up to talk to him. I think he might have been trying to get a few phone numbers off some of my constituents, but people were so drawn to him. He loved people; it was evident in those walk-throughs, and the people loved Bob. Whether you were a US President, like Ronald Reagan, or just a normal shopper in Sunnybank, Bob was just Bob, and that's what everyone loved about him.
Today, we honour Labor's greatest peacetime Prime Minister and mourn the man. Bob Hawke will always be an inspiration to Labor and this grateful nation, because Bob showed us what we can achieve as a nation and individually. He showed us fairness, he showed us the benefits of hard work and building consensus, and he showed us hope. So I extend my sympathy and gratitude to his family for sharing him with us. Bob Hawke, may you rest in peace. I'll be raising a glass of Hawke's Lager to you sometime over the weekend, just like I did last night.
Mr STEPHEN JONES (Whitlam) (12:45): Bob Hawke's passing has cast a sad shadow over our nation. Whether you voted for or against him, nobody would deny the contribution that he has made to this country. I pay tribute to all the contributors to this condolence motion on all sides of the House over the last 24 hours. There has been an outpouring of genuine affection and a genuine respect for the contribution that Bob Hawke has made to this country and to this parliament.
I last spent quality time with Bob Hawke up your way, Deputy Speaker McVeigh, at the Woodford Folk Festival where he was a regular attender as a guest of his good mate, Bill Hauritz. On that evening, just after New Year's Eve, a small group of us gathered together for a dinner and some entertainment. Yes, there was plenty of beer flowing, lots of good jokes and plenty of songs. Bob, as he always did when more than two or three people gathered together, took no little urging to burst out in a verse of 'Solidarity Forever'.
I reminded him at the time that I'd had the opportunity of voting for him and his then Labor opposition in my first election, way back in 1983. That time was full of hope for what a Hawke Labor government could do for the country. Even in my wildest dreams, I could not have anticipated the achievements and the challenges that that government confronted over its years in office. They made great strides across all portfolio areas, and he had a great team. Many contributors to this debate have said, 'Yes, Hawke was a great leader and an inspirational Prime Minister, but he had the benefit of leading a great cabinet and a great caucus.'
Most of the speakers have pointed to some of the seminal contributions that the Hawke and Keating Labor governments made to this country, and I just want to single out a few of them. What comes to mind is what was thought of as a great challenge as he came into office: how was he was going to strike a relationship with the then powerful Australian trade union movement to ensure that we could do justice to the working people of this country, ensure that we kept inflation under control and ensure that we could modernise the country? It was the accords struck between the Labor government and the ACTU which were an essential element in that modernisation project.
It is little known to many people who sit in this place on this day that the Medicare that we celebrate was actually a feature of the social wage that was at the heart of the Prices and Incomes Accord. The trade-off for unions in moderating and restraining wage growth was the social wage element of which Medicare was one. In fact, there was a wage offset in one of those early national wage cases under the Hawke and Keating Labor governments, in recognition of the benefits that Medicare was going to flow through to working people and their families. Medicare is a part of our national fabric, but it was not always so. Medicare and its precursor, Medibank, were hotly contested. Today it's the common sense of the nation; back then, it was hotly contested.
Another part of the important social wage was occupational superannuation, and it has been mentioned by a number of Labor speakers previously. Occupational superannuation is now part of the common sense of our nation; it wasn't in the early 1980s. In fact, if you were a manager, a public servant or a male, you were more likely to have occupational superannuation. If you were none of those things, you were most unlikely to have any occupational superannuation and, therefore, very little savings for your retirement. The fact that we now have a pool of occupational superannuation totalling $2.4 trillion is a tribute to the courage, the commitment and the leadership of the Hawke Labor government, in partnership, through the accord process, with the Australian trade union movement. Australians today, whether they know it or not, were the beneficiaries of that great vision under those leaders back in the early eighties.
Under Hawke's leadership, Australia emerged from the economic doldrums of 1983 to be one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. More than 1.6 million jobs were created, inflation was constrained and the massive budget deficits they inherited from the Fraser governments were transformed into record surpluses. The legacy of the Hawke and Keating governments was a modernisation of our economy and a new way of thinking about work in this country.
I want to say a few words about the Hawke government's contribution to the Illawarra. I represent an Illawarra and Southern Highlands based seat—an area where I have spent most of my life. It's a wonderful region, but, during the early 1980s, it was going through some of its great challenges. The steel industry across the country was on its knees and the steelworks at Port Kembla was no different. It was hit by recession, a world oversupply and competition and it was crushed by outdated technology. In 1980, the Broken Hill Proprietary company, BHP, who were then owners of the Port Kembla and Newcastle steelworks, employed in Port Kembla some 20,500 employees. By 1984, the year after I left school—it was the reason I became a lawyer not a boilermaker!—it had shed over 35 per cent of its workforce.
Within a year of the Hawke government coming into office in 1983, the Hawke government secured support for a steel development plan, a comprehensive plan to ensure there was a future for the steel industry and a demand for steel products. But there was also a transformation plan put in place for the workers in the steel industry—a bounty system of over five years that allowed local steel producers to retain between 80 and 90 per cent of the domestic market. The steel industry plan helped create a favourable environment for re-investment in the steel industry. Important investments were made during those early years after the steel industry plan, which have seen the steel industry and the Port Kembla steelworks go on to prosper up to today.
When Bob was asked what he would like to be remembered for, he replied, 'As a bloke who loved his country and still does, and loves Australians and who wasn't changed by his high office.' It's clear to see that Bob loved Australia and Australians loved him. Bob was a legend of our movement but he is also a legend of this country: it is for people like me, who were so inspired by his leadership in those early years of my life in politics, to speak of him in the past tense. We mourn his passing; we celebrate his contribution to this great country. There is a special place in the hearts of every Wollongong boy and every person from the Illawarra for the great contribution he made to our region in listening to and coming to the aid of our region and its heart and soul, the manufacturing workers and the manufacturing industries of the Illawarra, in that difficult period through the 1980s. It's why he continues to be much loved throughout the region, and he will never be forgotten.
After 89 colourful years of life, Hawke's legacy will live on through his life-changing policies and his powerful words of wisdom, which continue to inspire Australians and Australian Labor to this day. I thank the House for the ability to make these contributions to this wonderful debate and to pay tribute to this wonderful man and his contribution to our nation.
Debate adjourned.
GOVERNOR-GENERAL'S SPEECH
Address-in-Reply
Consideration resumed of the motion:
That the Address in Reply to the speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to.
Mr GORMAN (Perth) (12:54): I first thank the Governor-General for his remarks in opening the parliament as well as for the comments at his swearing in, where His Excellency said, 'Australia is not a finished product.' Whatever your views in this place, wherever you stand on the political spectrum, you would have to agree there is still so much work to do for our nation.
To represent my community here in the 46th Parliament is an honour, so I start by thanking the people of Perth for the honour of representing, advocating and being your voice in this, the 46th Parliament. Indeed, they have chosen to elect me twice in the space of less than 12 months and that is a special honour which I am particularly grateful for. Equally, I want to thank those who helped in my election campaign and congratulate all members on their election, especially the newest members of this parliament. Equally, I congratulate the Prime Minister on his election and I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition and their respective teams.
Much has been said that this is the aspirational parliament. Like the word 'reform' or the word 'innovation', there is no doubt that, come the end of the 46th Parliament, we will almost be sick of the word 'aspiration'; it will have become overused and will possibly have lost some of its meaning. But what does aspiration mean for us here and now? My aspiration is for our country. I aspire for more Australians to achieve their hopes and dreams. An aspiration is nothing without education. Without learning, you cannot achieve. So in the spirit of that, in the opening of this parliament, I want to share some of my hopes, my aspirations and some of the lessons I've learnt from my electorate as we enter the 46th Parliament.
The land, the community and the history of the land on which the Perth electorate sits goes back to the Dreamtime. Boorloo existed for uncounted centuries, sustaining the oldest continuing culture in human history. Every time I am welcomed to any part of this country we now call Australia, I'm grateful for how First Nations people have chosen to share their experiences with us. Imagine for one moment if First Nations people had not chosen to share their culture, not chosen to bring us in. Recently I was at a City of Perth citizenship ceremony, 5.30 in the evening, the sun was setting. As he welcomed us to his land, an elder, known across Perth as Uncle Ben, a delightful man, reminded us that, in his lifetime, he had gone from being banned in the City of Perth as the sun set to now welcoming us as the sun set on to his land.
We indeed have come have a very long way. It is a journey Perth will continue to make and we will discuss even more as we approach 12 August 2029. That date is the bicentenary of the founding of Perth. It was at the location where the Perth Town Hall now stands that a tree was cut down as a symbolic gesture to found the city. So much has changed. For a start, if you walked into the centre of Perth and started chopping down a native tree, I'm pretty sure you'd be arrested. I'm pretty sure my colleague the member for Fremantle would be there protesting saying, 'You cannot cut down one of these beautiful trees.' But the bicentenary is a chance to celebrate the country we continue to build—that great unfinished project. It will be a date that focuses our minds towards further reconciliation, on making Perth a truly world-class city, on building our sense of what it means to be a West Australian and on Western Australia's contribution to the great Commonwealth of Australia. It will also be an opportunity to celebrate and discuss our future.
My wife, Jess, is a bicentenary baby born in 1988. As many know, as a nation, we really did celebrate that moment. Indeed, some of those celebrations have been noted as we've celebrated the great life of Bob Hawke in recent days. The federal government invested incredibly heavily in those celebrations, which were driven by the arrival of the First Fleet in Sydney in 1788. At the time, there was a feeling from other states that the celebrations were too focused on Sydney and New South Wales. It's not the only thing where we might feel that things are too focused on Sydney or New South Wales, but Sydney was the heart of the action. The New South Wales government received more than $18 million from a $63 million pool for national celebrations of state and territory governments. Other projects that happened in New South Wales received funding of more than $200 million.
Over the course of the next two decades, we are going to have a large number of these celebrations—not just in Perth. We're going to have towns and cities across Australia recognising their bicentennial. We have Brisbane and Perth holding their celebrations before 2030 and Melbourne and Adelaide before 2040. In Western Australia, Albany, Fremantle, Augusta and Busselton will all mark 200 years of settlement over the next 12 years. The federal government—indeed, this parliament itself—needs to be involved in all of these celebrations, and the one I'm particularly passionate about is that celebration that will happen in Perth. I hope that, as we come towards that date of 12 August 2029, we have walked further towards true truth-telling and reconciliation. I hope that, by that date, we have a voice to this parliament from our First Peoples and that we continue to celebrate the project that we continue to build together, Australia.
My more modest aspirations when it comes to the Perth electorate are long, and I will not fit them all in this speech, but there are a few that I hope are completed by the time we get to 2029. One of the critical pieces of missing infrastructure is the Perth-Bayswater-Morley-Ellenbrook train line. This project, a flagship of the McGowan government's METRONET program, will deliver jobs in the short, medium and long term. By 2029, this project, I hope, will be up and running—or up and rolling, as you would say—creating an important transport route for locals in the north-east of Perth. But, if we want those jobs to come earlier and that economic activity to start, we need to fast-track the train. The Leader of the Opposition has already outlined his call to bring forward infrastructure investment to create jobs, to continue to support the great Australian economy. This project could and should start this year, and I urge the Deputy Prime Minister to make this so.
Other infrastructure projects I'm passionate about include the redevelopment and revitalisation of the East Perth Power Station, following in the steps of the Sydney and Brisbane Powerhouses. I'd be happy to assist any member of this place who may wish to visit the East Perth Power Station, some 8.5 hectares of prime riverfront land in the inner city. It is a beautiful site, and it has an incredibly exciting future. In May of this year, I was proud to stand alongside Premier Mark McGowan as he announced intentions to bring forward some of the capital works necessary to be able to revitalise that land and, hopefully, hand over to someone with more creative ideas than me the ability to take that East Perth Power Station and give it a new life for the 21st century. Whether it hosts art, culture, business or community activity, it will be a great asset for all people in Western Australia and visitors to our state. It will also generate huge numbers of jobs—local tradies, architects, artists and hospitality workers all working on this great project in our inner city. It'll be a beautiful connection from the old to the new.
As we talk about the inner-city developments needed to continue to make sure Perth is a world-class city, I also note that soon Perth will be the only mainland capital without a light rail or rapid transit system. Light rail is a necessary building block to ensure Perth remains a functional and modern city. I always encounter great enthusiasm for the debate about light rail. Some of that enthusiasm is to debate the absolute non-necessity of light rail, looking at examples in Sydney, where it has, indeed, been a very difficult process to bring that tramline back to life. But I also look at places like the Gold Coast, where there's been a very successful, very quick build of a much-loved new light rail system. I congratulate the City of Perth commissioners and the staff of the City of Perth for including in their recent draft planning strategy the action to identify the city's preferred mass rapid transit routes and to work with the state and federal governments to advance proposals for the funding and delivery of mass rapid transit in Perth. I commend the city. I commend their staff. That is a very exciting thing to read in their planning documents.
One of the smaller challenges we face in the electorate of Perth is the need to ensure that, where we have a city that is struggling—that has a large number of vacancies—which we know all too well in places like Beaufort Street and in the CBD of Perth, we continue to invest in community activation. I commend the work of Activate Perth, which is following in the steps of Renew Newcastle and Renew Adelaide in activating the Perth CBD. I believe that, in the steps of the Stronger Communities Program and the Local Sporting Champions program, there is a space for a government led community activation fund for every electorate in the country. Every member in this place has parts of their community and their electorate that would benefit from investment in community activation. Space activation makes sure that, where a community is not able to fully enjoy all of the assets that they have, the energy and enthusiasm that comes from people who say, 'I want to create a festival. I want to create something. I want to bring life back to my community,' is given that opportunity, because great ideas and great energy sometimes need just a few dollars to bring them to reality.
Across Perth, we have much-loved but ageing sporting facilities. The wave of investment 30, 40 and 50 years ago is starting to become a liability for many struggling sporting clubs in my electorate. Multimillion-dollar repairs are daunting for the small community sports clubs who lease or own these assets. We have the birthplace of the careers of many great Western Australian cricketers at the Western Australian Cricketing Association, or the WACA, in East Perth. We have the homes of two West Australian Football League clubs in my electorate. We have smaller venues like the Mount Lawley Bowling Club and the Bayswater City Soccer Club. They are all in need of serious investment so they can continue to be the community assets that have been loved for so many decades. I'll continue to fight to make sure that they can get the sort of investment they need to continue to service my community.
During the recent election campaign and in my time in this place, I was also proud to advocate for a number of projects that I believe still deserve consideration by the government that has been elected. I note they didn't make many commitments in the electorate of Perth, but at least they ran this time, so that was a step in the right direction. The coalition government should consider the project of the Maylands Waterland, originally invested in by the Whitlam government and opened by the Fraser government. It is a great place for young people of preschool age to learn how to swim and how to be safe around water. It's a fabulous asset on the banks of the Swan River. There is also the Bayswater urban forest. Urban forestation is going to be something that we are going to talk about more and more in this place as people seek to protect the tree canopy in the inner city. It's a great project that is reducing local greenhouse gases and driving visitors to that part of Bayswater that once was beautiful bushland, that became a tip and a dump for many years and that is now returning to its former glory. I've already mentioned the WACA. It's a great project and I commend all who have advocated for it. I know that many on the government benches are passionate about seeing the WACA become the community hub that it can be in coming years. During the campaign, both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party made commitments, following meetings with the Jewish Community Council of Western Australia, for upgrades to the Jewish Community Centre. I welcome the commitment of the government and I look forward to that funding being brought forward so that the upgrades to that important community asset just on the border of my electorate can be completed soon. We should also ensure that we release the funds from the Safer Communities Fund. I welcome the commitment of the government to invest more in that fund, but we need to release those dollars. I look forward to working with my neighbouring colleague, the new member for Stirling, to ensure funding for some of those community assets that I've just mentioned.
If we're serious about aspiration then we need to be serious about education. It's the great transformer. My parents were both teachers, and I'll take this opportunity to congratulate them on their 25-year membership of the Independent Education Union and their recent professional recognition by the Australian Council for Educational Leaders. My mum, Wendy, was awarded the ACEL(WA) Fellowship, and Ron received the Pre-eminent Educational Leader Award. Congratulations, Mum. Congratulations, Dad. In Dad's speech, he noted that the teachers of today sitting in classrooms across the country are preparing children for a world in 2100. That is not a future that is scary or worrisome but a future we ought to be thinking about. The people they are educating today will still be around in 2100.
When you consider that great responsibility of teachers and educators and the role they play, then we have to be serious about doing the work that educators do. There are some 80 childcare centres in the Perth electorate minding, educating and growing the minds of some 4½ thousand young people in Perth. There are 14,566 students who study at TAFE in the electorate of Perth. The wages and job security of those who educate are far too disparate. TAFE lecturers and university tutors lack the job security to focus on their important academic and training work. Early-childhood educators lack the pay equity that they have sought for so long. And we need to make sure there are career pathways and professional development for the teachers of our nation. In that theme of education, the people of Perth are not just my constituents but my educators, and I thank them for the lessons that they teach me every single day.
I want to thank the team that I was lucky to work with in this election. Elections are a team sport. I couldn't have met my aspirations without the support of a team of absolute champions. Thank you for the counsel and advice of the Honourable Amber-Jade Sanderson, Ester Borcich and Naomi McLean. I want to thank my team in the office: Dylan Caporn, Liesa Gibbs, Melinda Perks, Marissa Williams, Marcus Podyma, Lincoln Aspinall and Dylan Perkins. Of course I thank Jess, Leo and my family for their ongoing support. And I want to thank every single one of the volunteers of the great Australian Labor Party. The reality is we didn't feel that great on the evening of 18 May 2019, but I assure you that the Australian Labor Party is not a finished project either.
I now conclude by making some condolence remarks. On Tuesday I walked out of the Governor-General's address to the devastating news from my dad that Charles—otherwise known as Chuck—Bonzas had passed away. Chuck was an activist and a life member of the Australian Labor Party in the great Fremantle branch. He was a founder of the Fremantle Anti-Nuclear Group, otherwise known as FANG, which is where he met my parents. He was one of the most genuine, passionate people you would ever meet, and you were almost guaranteed to have met him over a beer, if not multiple beers. He was a founding member of what was known as 'project iceberg', leading the campaigns against nuclear power and nuclear weapons in Western Australia.
He also served this country in the Vietnam War. He served in the 1st Field Squadron, Royal Australian Engineers. He helped sweep and clear what was then known as the barrier minefield. He was part of what became known as the tunnel rats, investigating, mapping and ultimately destroying tunnels across Vietnam. Chuck only truly embraced his identity as a Vietnam veteran in the last decade of his life, but I know many of the veterans and friends he gained and reconnected with in recent years would also share in the loss of him and will miss him greatly.
Chuck wasn't the biggest fan of children—he didn't even call them children; he used to refer to them as 'sproglets'—but he made an exception for a few, including me and my brother, Joey. We've known him like an uncle my entire life. He was a sometimes drunk uncle who would from time to time rock up at our house late at night uninvited, including one Christmas dinner. After that we figured it was easier to invite Chuck along to the Christmas dinner, which he did for many years. It was my absolute pleasure to have him at our family Christmas just last year.
Chuck didn't tolerate idiots. He didn't dodge a fight. His arguments within the Labor Party are legendary. I reckon Chuck probably got a few extra years of life just because he was determined to fight the Right at one more conference. One of his passions was the environment, working in the renewable energy space. The other was his rejection of nuclear industry.
I was privileged to have Chuck at my campaign launch last year. He saw it fit to try to help the campaign along by insisting on slipping a few $50 notes into my hand. I explained to him politely that that was not an appropriate thing to do, but Chuck did not believe that the Labor Party's fundraising code of conduct should apply to him!
Indeed, it was one of many rules in the Labor Party that he didn't necessarily think should apply to him!
We're going to miss Chuck greatly. He was a great friend of mine, the member for Fremantle and the former member for Fremantle, Melissa Parke. His loss is a very sad thing for the Labor family in Western Australia. I'm pleased to have been able to honour his life in this place, and I look forward to a beer with some of his friends at Clancy's Fish Pub in coming days.
Mr HAYES (Fowler—Chief Opposition Whip) (13:15): I will start by saying what a privilege it is to be able to, once again, be in this House as the re-elected member for Fowler. I'd like to take the opportunity of thanking the people of my community, who once again placed their trust in me to be their representative in the federal parliament. As the member for Fowler—and I've held that position now for the last nine years—I can reassure the community I certainly do not, and will not, ever take for granted the great honour that they have given me. It's a privilege to be representing, in my case, one of the most diverse communities in the whole of Australia. It's certainly rich in spirit and acceptance and it's a very, very kind and compassionate community. Fowler is certainly one of the most successful examples of multiculturalism that you will find in Australia.
I take the opportunity to thank all those who helped me during the course of the election campaign. I apologise to them that we couldn't deliver a Labor victory on 18 May, as I think they did need a Labor government to protect and advance their aspirations. But I say to all those branch members who selflessly gave of their time, to our local community organisations and to the various volunteers who all turned up and made tireless efforts, whether it be prepoll or on election day or simply seeing me to give advice, I really appreciate everything that you've been able to do for me in helping me to secure Fowler, once again, as a Labor seat.
As part of my campaign, I certainly had the pleasure of engaging with various organisations and cultural groups throughout the community, including those of very linguistically diverse backgrounds. All members of parliament have the opportunity to go and visit all aspects of our constituents' endeavours. As I indicated, mine is the most multicultural community and I'm frequently invited to the various cultural and religious events throughout the community. I found amazing the many in those groups that volunteered their time to come out and support me in the political processes of our democratic society and support my election. It is their support, for almost a decade, that has helped me to, quite frankly, stay in touch with the real needs of the local community. So, as the re-elected member for Fowler, I pledge to remain accessible to all constituents. I know it's trite to say, but, regardless of whether they voted for me or not, I know my principal job as the federal member for Fowler is to look after the people of my community and the people in need. So I remain committed to ensuring that that has the utmost priority in my community.
I want to just talk a little about priorities. One of the highest priorities I certainly have is trying to secure employment opportunities in our local region. It is absolutely diabolically important, particularly in a community like mine, which, as I've expressed, is very diverse but, regrettably, is certainly not a wealthy community. We need to have the opportunity of employment prospects to sustain not only the community but the local economic environment as well.
This is particularly the case with the development of the Western Sydney Airport, the new Badgerys Creek airport, which is being constructed just outside my electorate and which is expected to maximise employment opportunities and create more than 28,000 jobs by 2031. This is something that I think all of us in Western Sydney are particularly excited about. There is no doubt that this will be of economic benefit to the country—New South Wales in particular—but I've made a point of saying that it cannot be at the expense of our local community. I know a lot of work's going into configuration of flight paths and all that to prevent unnecessary disruption to our local communities, but it's also important that, as this airport's being constructed on the basis of being a piece of economic infrastructure that will be of benefit to the state of New South Wales and to the nation generally, we do not overlook our local community in all that.
What I mean by that is that I think there's got to be some degree of prioritisation given to local employment opportunities flowing from the construction of the Badgerys Creek airport to local residents. It is important when I say that we're not a wealthy community. As a matter of fact, the average household income—not the average income but the average household income—in my community is just a little bit over $60,000. So a piece of infrastructure like this could be very significantly life-changing for families and communities in and around my electorate of Fowler.
Unfortunately, what follows from that is that Western Sydney was also found to be currently the epicentre of rental stress. We've all heard about the issues in Sydney and Melbourne with housing prices, and I know there's some fluctuation of that now, but what is not fluctuating is the issue of rental stress, particularly in my community. As a matter of fact, Fowler is rated No. 1 in the nation for being affected by rental stress. These statistics, such as they are, caused me to reaffirm my commitment to ensuring that the vast number of job opportunities expected to be created in and about the airport are targeting residents of communities such as mine with the aim of ultimately easing pressure not only on families but also on their household expenditures. I also remain committed to ensuring that local businesses are also considered, if not prioritised, in many of the activities in and about the construction of this airport, because that will ensure further underpinning of the local economy of the areas that we have the honour of representing in Western Sydney.
I also remain committed to helping those in my community who continue to experience issues with Centrelink. I know this probably affects every member of this House, but we are experiencing issues with Centrelink, particularly those constituents that are trapped in very complex situations. Unfortunately, this is an issue which arises most frequently—certainly in my electorate office. There is no doubt Centrelink has been a crucial part of supporting those who find themselves in tough circumstances or in places where they need support for themselves and their families. As I said a little earlier, whilst being a very diverse electorate, mine is certainly not a wealthy electorate. We have significant pockets of disadvantage. When individuals and families try to access support from Centrelink, issues often arise, with many of these issues stemming from the lack of communication between individuals, Centrelink offices and, without putting too fine a point on it, the policy settings of the department. In many cases, Centrelink seems to apply its policy guidelines strictly, in a manner which does not give proper consideration for the nuances and complexities involved in the circumstances that individuals find themselves in. This government's ongoing attack on Centrelink—particularly with staffing—has had enormous pressure on Centrelink's ability to meet and address the issues of many of my constituents who find themselves in critical need.
This is particularly evident for those constituents who have to apply for disability support pensions. They are constituents who are clearly able to provide medical advice of their disabilities but, nevertheless, have not necessarily been placed in a too-hard box but are being considered, primarily, as fit and able. One of these is a woman named Mrs Anna Gutteres, who has visited my office on many occasions. She is the mother of a son with a severe disability. What she says to me is that there's just a general lack of understanding within Centrelink with regard to the complexity of her son's case. For a woman who has to bring up her son with the range of difficulties he has, it just seems to me that we need to show her a little bit more compassion and certainly show more sensitivity for cases like this. In fairness, many of these cases would be complex, but, with the amount of cutback that has been occurring within Centrelink, it prevents it having the time and, I suppose, the ability to take a holistic approach in addressing these matters. But this is certainly an issue which is front and centre within my community.
In a similar vein—and I'm sure I'm not alone in this either—my electorate seems to be very much overrepresented by people and families that live with disabilities. I know the minister would have received letters, as would probably most of us here in parliament, over the last period complaining about the ability of the NDIA to satisfy the needs of families living with disabilities. Regrettably, as I say, my electorate is overrepresented by families with disabilities. Partly that's because of the housing prices in my community being less than elsewhere in Sydney. Within a 20-kilometre radius of the Liverpool CBD is 51 per cent of all families in New South Wales that live with autism, which is an extraordinary figure. But, again, it more than relates to the fact that housing in Western Sydney is a little cheaper than elsewhere. The point of all that is that, regrettably, somewhere around 80 per cent of those families living with autism are single-parent families. As people may appreciate, very few relationships successfully survive bringing up children on the autism spectrum.
These are issues that must be addressed. They must certainly not simply be put to the side and treated as just another public servant job or simply something that the government's got to do. We have the honour of being elected to this parliament, and I would have thought that one of the primary aspects of us coming here is to make a difference for the better in our respective communities. When it comes to issues of disability, we need to actually have a greater focus on people in need. I don't know the experience of other members, but it's always been my experience that people that come to me who live in families with disabilities don't want a lecture on politics. They don't want a lecture on who's done what. They don't want to be told if it's a state or federal issue. They simply want help. I think it has to be about the way we run our support for those families that live with disabilities. Our ambition should be to holistically look after these people, not simply treat them as another number and make them go through the rigours of what is occurring, regrettably, at the moment, in the processing of the NDIS.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
Preschools
Ms RISHWORTH (Kingston) (13:30): The Morrison government likes to solemnly declare, when it comes to its unfunded tax cuts, that governments should be able to make decisions that aren't just for one or two years into the future. Unfortunately, when it comes to preschool funding, that dedication to long-term budgeting is thrown in the trash. The Liberals have only funded preschools until the end of next year, and the clock is ticking.
The minister says it's just not possible to fund preschools for longer, because, he claims, there are problems with data and attendance rates. In two matters of public importance, at least three media releases and multiple newspaper reports, the minister has justified the lack of funding certainty for preschools because this government wants to talk to the states and territories about attendance. This is a flimsy excuse for not properly funding preschools, but it does give the minister some cover. The problem is that the government is doing nothing to improve preschool data and attendance rates. Last week, at the education ministers council, the Commonwealth signed off on a new national partnership rollover of one year, with no changes to the parameters and performance indicators. That means that attendance is just not on the radar.
If it's not about attendance, what is the lack of funding for preschools about? Is it about cutting the funding to preschools to fund an unfunded tax increase for high-income earners in 2025? The government must explain— (Time expired)
Belov, Professor Katherine, AO
Mr ALEXANDER (Bennelong) (13:31): I rise to inform the House of a wonderful achievement by one of our local constituents in Bennelong, Dr Katherine Belov, who has been made an Officer of the General Division of the Order of Australia. Dr Belov has had a marvellous career in academia and university across a number of different roles. She is truly a lifelong local Bennelongian, residing and growing up in West Ryde before attending Macquarie University. She specialised in comparative genomics and had a distinguished career in that field, including research on fighting superbugs and documenting the genomic composition of native Australian wildlife. Since 2005, she has been an assessor on the Australian Research Council, and in 2014 she was awarded the Fenner Medal in biology by the Australian Academy of Science. In addition to her research, Dr Belov has been a strong advocate for women in STEM and has led successful research teams of largely female research students and postdoctoral students.
I would like to add my personal congratulations to Dr Belov not only for her well-deserved award but for her years of groundbreaking research and positive contributions to science in Australia. Australia can only continue to excel as a first-rate country if we have passionate and public STEM leaders such as Dr Belov leading from the front.
Auslan
Ms OWENS (Parramatta) (13:33): I rise today to issue a challenge to all members of parliament and senators to participate in this year's Auslan leaders challenge. Join the challenge to show your support for the 30,000 or so Australians who speak Auslan today. It's easy—kind of. All you need to do is record a short sentence in Auslan on video so that it can be broadcast on 23 September as part of the International Week of the Deaf. It will form part of Australia's contribution to the International Day of Sign Languages. The deaf societies and organisations all around the country will be standing by to help you all record your messages. If you think it's too hard, New Zealand did it in May. All of them from Jacinda Ardern down spoke their sentence and videotaped it in New Zealand Sign Language in conjunction with Deaf Aotearoa, a great contribution to recognition of sign language by the New Zealand parliament. If the Kiwis can do it, we can do it.
Most of you know I do this every year. I've been doing my 90-second statement in Auslan every International Week of the Deaf for quite a few years. It's not easy, because Auslan is actually a different language. The grammar's different. But it is remarkable and, if you do it, you will learn something about one of the great Australian languages, recognised as an Australian language 30 years ago and spoken in Australia for over 200 years. It's really worth doing. In the next week, you'll get a letter from the CEO of the Deaf Society, Leonie Jackson, telling you how to do it. Get on board, speak a bit of Auslan and learn something about another great Australian language.
Infrastructure
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (13:34): Transport and traffic congestion is the No. 1 local issue in my electorate of Menzies. In all the surveys, which I regularly do, what's returned from my constituents as their No. 1 issue is traffic and transport—the congestion. So I was very pleased to be able to announce, along with the minister at the table, Minister Tudge, on a number of occasions, a series of projects which will help to ease that traffic congestion and transport issues in the electorate. For example, the provision of additional car parking places at Eltham Station will make it easier for my constituents in that part of the electorate to get home sooner and more safely. In addition, there are more car parking places at the park and ride in Doncaster, again, assisting those residents who use those facilities on a regular basis. There's the provision of new traffic lights on Tram Road in Doncaster near the Applewood retirement village. And there's one which I'm very pleased about: the improvement of the drop-off and pick-up points in some 16 different schools and preschools in Nillumbik. This will assist for the safety of young children, in particular, when their parents are dropping them off in the morning and picking them up in the afternoon. Then, of course, on top of that, there's the $10 million to try and help ease traffic congestion on the main road, Fitzsimons Lane corridor, which was announced in conjunction with Minister Tudge.
Economy
Mr KEOGH (Burt) (13:36): We're back for a third term of this government, and what do we find? We find that the economy of this nation is floundering under this government. What have they delivered for the people of Australia? They've delivered anaemic growth. They've delivered record-low wage rises. They've made sure that we have an economy that is floundering. People are hurting. Unemployment is now up to 5.2 per cent. It is even higher in states like Queensland and in my state of Western Australia. And what are they doing about it? Let's check their plan. Let's see what the government is going deliver. What did they announce at this election to help us see economic growth in this nation, to make sure that more people can go into work, to make sure that we see the growth that will provide the foundation of our economy going forward? Hang on—nothing. There was no plan to help the economy coming out of this government. They've arrived for a third term and all they're going to do is leave us with anaemic growth. The Reserve Bank governor has been out, trying to make it clear to the government that it should not be relying on monetary policy alone to provide the growth that our economy clearly needs. It is why Labor put forward an alternative approach to tax cuts, to bring forward tax cuts, to put more money in all working Australians' hands, so that they could be spending it in the economy, helping those small and family businesses by making sure people could buy their goods and services, but no. Instead, under this government, in their third term, on their watch, we have a floundering economy. (Time expired)
Monash Electorate
Mr BROADBENT (Monash) (13:37): It's an honour and a privilege to stand here today as the inaugural member for the seat of Monash. Having been once or twice in this House, I was honoured to be in the presence of the member for Bass and the member for Herbert, who will be future long-term members of this House. Having been the member for Corinella and McMillan on two occasions, and now the member for Monash, I recognise the great honour that was bestowed upon me by the people of those electorates. I thank not only the people of those electorates but also my campaign team in the Liberal Party of Victoria. In my campaign team I thank Bill Westhead; Gary Blackwood, member for Narracan; Mary Aldred; Aaron Brown; Kay Clements; Wayne Farnham; Matt Green and Julie Pike. I thank my amazing office staff: Annelise Answerth; Tony Cantwell; Jenny Hammett; Laurie Jolley; Millie McLean and Ken Mitchell. They are the amazing staff who support me so well. I thank all my branches right across the electorate of Monash—named after the great Sir John Monash. There is one group that is very special, my family: Bron, Evan, Sian, Paul, Emma, Em, Kate, Griff, Bo and Lal. My thanks go to all of them. To be the member for Monash is a new beginning, a new start and a new era.
Taxation
Ms CHESTERS (Bendigo) (13:39): The government is already boasting about the tax cuts that they're going to deliver in five years time. But the questions that I have, and the questions that lots of people have is: how are they going pay for it? What are they going to cut to fund these tax cuts?
In electorates like my electorate of Bendigo, what are we going to suffer to fund this government's planned stage 3? It's going to cost $95 billion—$20 billion a year. Just so people understand what the government has to cut to fund that, it is roughly what we're going to spend on aged care or public hospitals this year. To fund their tax cuts, is the government seriously going to take to the next election that they're going to cut every dollar from our public hospitals? It's roughly twice what we spend on Newstart. Maybe that's their plan: to kick everybody—every single person in this country looking for work—off Newstart. Is that how they're going to fund these big tax cuts in stage 3? It's also double what this country spends on child care. Maybe they're going to go out and say to all the mums returning to work, 'Sorry, we're scrapping the tax subsidies. You or your partner is going to stay at home.'
That's what this government has done. The economy is floundering and they have no plan to turn it around. They're delivering these massive tax cuts in five years time. They've got to come clean and tell us just how they are going to fund these tax cuts. Twenty billion dollars a year— (Time expired)
Federal Election
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (13:40): The people of Central and North Queensland are often misunderstood and much maligned. People say we're different. In the wake of the 18 May election victory, I am honoured to represent the people of Mackay, Proserpine, the Whitsundays, Bowen, the Burdekin and Townsville. These people were called a lot of names: rednecks, bogans, knuckle-draggers and racists. They were called ignorant. They were called cavemen and hillbillies. The Twitterati called for a Quexit; they wanted to kick us out of the country.
Well, at the ballot box, the cavemen came out with their clubs, and this election result is a victory for them. It's a victory for the men and women who put on the high-vis and hard hats and head out west to work in our mines. It's a victory for the farmers and graziers, the fishermen and the fruit-and-veg growers—people who might have dirt under their fingernails but who put food on our tables. It's a victory for small business men and women, for tradesmen and for soldiers and servicemen in our garrison city of Townsville. The people I stand here to represent may be misunderstood. They may be maligned. But they've made sure their voices will be heard. I congratulate them on their election victory. I'll make their voices heard in this chamber.
Renewable Energy
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (13:42): It's quite clear that, across Australia, business and local communities are doing the heavy lifting when it comes to energy transition. The facts have been evident in my own electorate, with local groups and councils leading the way when it comes to taking action on climate change. They've worked together to develop a climate change adaption plan, because current modelling says that Mayo is only going to get hotter and drier. Just this month in my community we held two community energy forums to outline a proposal to set up a regional community energy foundation.
One in two households in Mayo has rooftop solar, one of the highest rates in the nation. But not everyone can get involved. The community energy foundation is a model that involves local stakeholders bulk-buying retail renewable energy and then all of us sharing the benefit. There are more than 100 community energy projects established across Australia. This project in Mayo has the potential to reduce power prices and transition to renewable energy while also establishing a trust fund to pay for future initiatives.
This is about communities taking back the power, so I was incredibly proud to be invited to speak at both of the forums, and I will be doing my best in this place to advocate to government to do more in this space, because funding is much needed right across the nation.
Steer, Ms Molly
Ocean Heroes Bootcamp
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (13:43): I rise this afternoon to highlight the magnificent achievements of a youngster in my community who's making waves around the nation and overseas. Eleven-year-old Molly Steer, who is the founder of the highly successful Straw No More campaign, has been selected to attend the Ocean Heroes Bootcamp in Vancouver in Canada. In fact, Molly was the inspiration behind my commitment towards introducing plastics legislation in this term of government, because this is a young lass who is all about solutions and not slogans.
Molly is only one of 50 youngsters across the globe selected to attend the boot camp, being held at the University of British Columbia. The Ocean Heroes Bootcamp aims to empower existing and emerging youth leaders to create their own ecocampaigns to take action against ocean plastic pollution. It will also feature keynote presentations from international influencers such as UN Environment Programme Goodwill Ambassador Adrian Grenier and Bye Bye Plastic Bags founder Melati Wijsen, who was recently named one of CNN's top five most influential youths on the planet.
For many years now Molly has been a most vocal and passionate environmental advocate. Molly said that she is extremely excited to be given the opportunity to attend the boot camp and to be surrounded by like-minded people from across the world who have achieved so much in their own plastics campaigns. I have absolutely no doubt that it will be a huge learning experience for Molly and will allow her to further expand and enhance her already successful no-straw campaign.
Economy
Mr THISTLETHWAITE (Kingsford Smith) (13:45): Weak economic growth, stagnant wages, subdued consumption, skyrocketing electricity prices and rising unemployment: this is the coalition's legacy after six years in office. Our nation and our people can't have another three years of reacting when it's too late. They need action now. All this government has as a plan is to blame Labor. We can't wait for a Treasurer who's spending more time focusing on his opponents than on growing our economy. The wages of working Australians are stagnating at close to record lows and are growing eight times slower than profits.
The RBA sounded the alarm bells for those opposite. It did that on Tuesday by saying that you cannot rely on monetary policy alone to stimulate the economy. The government must act. This government is asleep at the wheel, with no plan to revitalise our economy to save jobs, households, pensioners and small businesses. The RBA is saying that you need a plan to boost incomes in this country and yet we have had more of the same from this government, with penalty rates again cut on 1 July, a couple of days ago.
The RBA is also saying that the Australian economy can sustain lower rates of unemployment and underemployment, but unemployment has recently risen to 5.2 per cent and underemployment is close to record highs at over one million people. Wake up, members of the government! Think of Australian families, pensioners and small businesses, and develop a plan to grow our economy and boost—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): I thank the member and I call the member for Mackellar.
Mechtersheimer, Mr Thomas
Mr FALINSKI (Mackellar) (13:46): Tom Mechtersheimer is the founder and executive chairman of neuroCare. NeuroCare is a company that specialises in non-invasive options for mental health, pain management and rehabilitation, using neuromodulation technologies integrated with psychotherapy. Tom is a leader in this fast-growing market and he is clearly making an impact within the industry. He is a Bayview resident. Mackellar is lucky to have someone of his calibre in our community, but his legacy and work span much further than Mackellar. Tom co-founded Regeneus, a stem cell company, as well as prostaCare, a company developing a novel DC ablation based BPH treatment. Today he owns and leads the Passion Innovation Group.
Tom has studied internationally and is a fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. He has vast experience in starting markets from scratch, building successful teams and taking on global ventures. His superb track record and his passion for leadership have enabled Tom to unlock the potential of innovations. I take this opportunity to commend Tom on his excellent innovations in the area of neuropathy and thank him for all the work he has done in this area.
Economy
Ms TEMPLEMAN (Macquarie) (13:48): Things are pretty dire for savers when interest rates hit a record low of one per cent. Our growth is slow and wages are stagnant. No wonder household spending is weak. All we see is inaction by this government. Unfunded tax cuts for high-income earners in five years time is not a plan. We need to see low- to medium-income earners getting tax cuts now. It needs to be Labor's plan. Small businesses in Macquarie, in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury, need this to flow through to our economy.
Part-pensioners in particular are feeling the brunt of one per cent interest rates. Since 2015, as the Reserve Bank slashed rates five times, part-pensioners have struggled because the government assumes that they're earning at least 3.35 per cent on their savings. Clearly, that's not happening, not for anyone anywhere in Australia and definitely not for part-pensioners in the Blue Mountains and the Hawkesbury. The amount of pension they receive is based on a fantasy and yet there has been no action by the Liberals in the last four years. Every day this government delays cutting deeming rates is a day it keeps part-pensioners struggling to cope with their power bills. Every day it delays is another day of ripping off part-pensioners. Every single day this government delays it should be ashamed for what it is doing to part-pensioners across this country.
Boothby Electorate: Infrastructure
Ms FLINT (Boothby—Government Whip) (13:49): It was an honour to be sworn in as the member for Boothby in the 46th Parliament earlier this week. I'd like to sincerely thank my community for the opportunity to serve them again as part of the Morrison government.
I'm proud of our government's plan for a strong economy, lower taxes, guaranteed essential services, growing jobs and congestion-busting infrastructure—it's great to see the 'minister for urban infrastructure and busting congestion' here in the chamber—looking after the environment and so much more. We are already at work delivering on this agenda, with our tax cuts passing through this House earlier this week. In my community, this will make life that little bit easier for more than 75,000 hardworking taxpayers, who will keep more of the money that they've worked so hard to earn.
The Morrison government is also delivering for my local residents, with federal funding for a range of local infrastructure, sports clubs and community projects that will make a real difference to my community. One of these projects that we've just announced that we'll be partnering with the Marshall Liberal government on is for $170 million towards the Hove rail crossing grade separation project, which will bust congestion on Brighton Road for my local community. Projects like these will ensure residents can get their kids to school, get to work and get to the shops sooner and more safely. I could go on, Deputy Speaker, but as you can see we are already hard at work delivering for my community in Boothby and for the people of Australia.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member. I call the Member for Fenner.
Economy
Dr LEIGH (Fenner) (13:51): The Liberals have become the party of procrastination. With the economy tanking faster than the leadership tilt by the member for Dickson, the government's entire focus has been not on today, but on five years time.
Labor took larger and more equitable tax cuts to the last election, and now we're the only party arguing for every taxpayer to get a tax cut this term. Who can say the economy doesn't need it? We're in the longest per capita recession since the early 1980s. Engineering construction and new car sales are falling. Unemployment is a full percentage point higher than in Britain, the United States, Germany and New Zealand. Real wages have been flatlining for six years, and the Productivity Commission tells us that productivity growth is 'mediocre'.
Just this week, we had more bad economic news. On Monday, 20 top economists warned that the odds of recession in the next two years were 29 per cent. On Tuesday, the Reserve Bank cut rates to historic lows. On Wednesday, dwelling approvals were reported to be down. And today the Bureau of Statistics tells us that job vacancies have slowed and retail sales figures are lousy. The government's 2024 tax cuts will make the tax system less progressive and lead to cuts in services. They're based on economic forecasts no serious economist believes. But the big problem is that the government's focused on 2024 when we need a plan for today. Why don't they have a plan? Well, maybe it's what the member for Hasluck told Niki Savva:
In politics, you never plan; you always plot.
(Time expired)
Health
Dr GILLESPIE (Lyne) (13:52): It's my great honour to stand here as the member for Lyne again. I thank the voters of the Lyne electorate for giving me the honour and privilege of serving them here in this building.
As part of the federal coalition government's record investment in health, a new headspace centre will be established in Taree over the next 12 months. It will be one of 153 headspace sites nationally. Headspace aims to improve access for young people between the age of 12 and 25 years of age, not just for the signature issue of early signs of mental health problems, but also physical health, social and vocational support, and any problems with alcohol and drug use.
When I visited the site of the New South Wales government's $140 million redevelopment of the Manning Base Hospital, I was also delighted to announce a Medicare licence for a new MRI machine at the Base Hospital, which will improve the diagnostic and treatment capability of the Manning Hospital.
Another important health initiative that the coalition's health plan includes is the $63 million boost to radiation therapy services across regional Australia. I also had the honour of announcing with my friend and colleague, Minister Greg Hunt, that the Manning-Great Lakes region was going to be one of 13 sites with radiation therapy services.
We are busy rolling out all the promises that we made in the election, and I look forward to delivering these in this financial year.
Economy
Dr CHALMERS (Rankin) (13:54): The government has an opportunity today in question time to tell the Australian people how they'd pay for stage 3 of their tax package. If they want to commit $95 billion five years out, they need to come clean on what services and programs they'll cut in the budget to make room for it.
Stage 3 comes with a $95 billion price tag, and by the end of the decade it will cost almost $20 billion every year. That's roughly what we're spending on aged care or public hospitals this year and more than what we'll spend on the NDIS. It's roughly twice as much as we'll spend on Newstart or carers and child care this year.
Before the election, the Grattan Institute sounded the alarm on $40 billion of secret cuts baked into the budget, which Labor remains very concerned about. Those opposite won't tell us where these cuts would fall and on what programs. And if the government's budget forecasts underperform, this is going to mean even more debt or more cuts to pay for this stage 3, a point made by respected economics commentator Michael Janda today, when he said:
Tax cuts risk service cuts or budget deficits …
It's irresponsible to lock in $95 billion of spending five years out.
This mob hasn't got the economy right for six years, and now they want to pretend that they know what the economy and the budget will look like in 2024. They shouldn't have held tax cuts this week to tax cuts in five years time.
LNG Marine Fuel Institute
Mr GOODENOUGH (Moore) (13:56): I wish to inform the parliament of the work of the LNG Marine Fuel Institute in promoting the transition of the maritime industry to the use of low-emission liquefied natural gas as a marine and transport fuel.
The objective is to replace the use of heavy fuel oil as the primary fuel for maritime shipping with more environmentally friendly LNG, which is produced abundantly in Western Australia's north-west. By promoting and facilitating the use of LNG as a marine transportation fuel, the federal government can partner with industry to help grow Australia's economy and create jobs whilst reducing pollution and emissions on a large scale.
In 2016 the International Maritime Organisation made a decision to enforce the global reduction of sulphur emissions to 0.5 per cent by 1 January 2020. This deadline is fast approaching. One ultra-large container ship emits more sulphur in one day of steaming than over 50 million cars do in a year.
The barriers preventing the transition from heavy fuel oils to LNG include a lack of appropriate infrastructure, such as bunkering facilities, and a lack of an appropriate policy framework. It should be a priority for the Commonwealth to implement an emissions control area covering all Australian ports, as has already been done in the USA, Canada, the North Sea and the Baltic.
Economy
Mr WATTS (Gellibrand) (13:57): We're back here for the first question time of the new parliament, but those opposite are still on holiday! They won the election and they've kicked back and cracked open a beer; they're sitting in the hammock and they've put on the Hawaiian shirts, but they're not turning up for work. The economy is deteriorating around their very eyes. We're seeing stagnant economic growth. We're seeing wages growth at record lows. We're seeing consumption tanking across the economy.
Sentient economic analysts—observers and commentators—reckon that the government ought to do something about this. We saw the Reserve Bank Governor come out earlier, literally begging the government to hop out of the hammock, to put on the suit and tie instead of the Hawaiian shirt and get to work—to start shovelling and to start doing some work.
What's their plan? Their plan is the old plan. Their plan is $95 billion off the budget in five years time. How's that going to help the economy at the moment? Even worse, they're not going to tell anyone where this is coming from. If you've got $95 billion of tax cuts in five years time you've got to take that from somewhere else in the budget. You cut from schools, you cut from hospitals—probably both, given their record.
In contrast, we will act now. Labor has sought to move amendments to this tax bill, both here and in the Senate, to give every Australian a tax cut in this term of parliament. Those opposite voted against it. They voted against it here and they voted against it in the Senate. They don't want every Australian to get a tax cut in this term of parliament, and that's what Labor is fighting for.
Canning Electorate: Infrastructure
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (13:59): It's an enormous privilege to stand in this House and be the member for Canning once again. I thank the Canning representatives for putting their trust in me.
To them I say this: the next three years are about delivery—delivering on those commitments that we made to the Peel region. Firstly, that's in health care, delivering the $25 million this government has committed to the Peel Health Campus, the single biggest investment into that hospital since it started in 1997.
Roads: this government has committed more than half a billion dollars to extending the Tonkin Highway deep into the Peel region, getting trucks off our streets and out of our neighbourhoods and opening up more opportunities for private investment. We are going to put a roundabout at Thomas Road and Nicholson Road and prevent more accidents like what has occurred over the last five to 10 years. We're going to build the Pinjarra Heavy Haulage Deviation and get 100 trucks every day out of the Pinjarra township, helping that place realise its full potential as a tourist town.
When it comes to rail, we are going to deliver the Lakelands Train Station. This government delivered $37 million. The Labor state government is standing in the way, but we're going to make sure that that long-awaited train station is built. These are just some of the things that I look forward to delivering, along with the Morrison government, over the next three years.
The SPEAKER: In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members statements has concluded.
CONDOLENCES
Hawke, Hon. Robert James Lee (Bob), AC
The SPEAKER (14:01): The question is that the motion moved by the Hon. the Prime Minister be agreed to. I ask all present to signify their approval by rising in their places.
Honourable members having stood in their places—
The SPEAKER: I thank the House.
STATEMENT BY THE SPEAKER
Clerk of the House of Representatives
The SPEAKER (14:01): Before I call on question time, I have a brief statement to make to the House that will be of interest to all members. Members would be aware that I announced earlier this year that our Clerk, David Elder, is to retire. As I said at the time, we'll recognise his longstanding and outstanding service to our parliament and to our nation on his last day in this chamber, which I can now advise members will be Thursday, 1 August. His last day in the parliament will be at the end of the following week.
I can advise the House that a selection process for the position of Clerk was undertaken, which was overseen by the Parliamentary Service Commissioner, Mr Peter Woolcott AO, and assisted by an advisory panel comprising former speaker Anna Burke and former member for Boothby Andrew Southcott. Following consultations with the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business, I have today signed the instrument appointing our next Clerk. I'm very pleased to advise members that our next Clerk will be our current Deputy Clerk, Ms Claressa Surtees.
Claressa commenced with the Department of the House of Representatives in August 1994. She subsequently served in a number of important roles, including Serjeant-at-Arms and Clerk Assistant, following which she was of course promoted to Deputy Clerk. The Clerk of the House of Representatives is the principal adviser in relation to proceedings of parliament and is also responsible for the Department of the House of Representatives. The Clerk plays a critical role in maintaining our democracy. As I have said, I was sure members would welcome the announcement. It's also, of course, a historic appointment as Claressa will become the first female Clerk of the House of Representatives.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Economy
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:04): My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Which of his policies on wages, consumer demand, interest rates and productivity is working the best?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:04): All of them, and all working together—and all were endorsed by the Australian people at the last election for the economic plan that we took to this country to address the serious economic challenges that the country faces. And I can tell you the biggest risk to the domestic economy in this country that presented itself this year was relegated at the last election, with the defeat of the Labor Party. This was a Labor Party that, at the last election, achieved—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Members on both sides will cease interjecting. The member for Isaacs has unfortunately picked up where he left off in the last parliament, and he is already warned. I can assure him that, when I do that, there's enormous relief in the chamber. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order?
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker, as you'll appreciate increasingly as time goes on, there was no preamble, no rhetoric, just a simple question: which of the economic indicators does the Prime Minister think is working the best?
The SPEAKER: I take the point. It was a question without a preamble and it mentioned four topics. I'm going to keep listening to the Prime Minister. I've taken the point of order.
Mr MORRISON: He may not have heard my answer to the question, Mr Speaker. I said: all of them. But the issue that this government is most focused on, above all things, is the creation of jobs. Jobs—that is the focus of our government; that is the focus of our economic plan. That includes providing tax relief for Australians, which has been through this House and will go through the other house later in this day. I'm pleased that the more than 60,000 people that live in the opposition leader's electorate will be benefiting from our tax cuts, legislated today. They will benefit the members in his electorate as they will indeed benefit the members of all electorates in this place. We went to this election on the platform of ensuring that Australians keep more of what they earn, and our duty in this parliament is to ensure that we keep faith with those Australians who work hard, with those businesses who invest to create those jobs, with those Australians who each and every day go about their business to make this country stronger.
The SPEAKER: The Prime Minister can resume his seat for a second. The Manager of Opposition Business can just pause for a second. The question was specific. The Prime Minister is entitled to compare and contrast on policy, briefly, but not to then move on to another topic. He's entitled to compare and contrast and mention tax policy, but I think he's now done that. Has the Prime Minister completed his answer? He's completed his answer.
Morrison Government
Mrs ARCHER (Bass) (14:07): My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise how the government is getting on with the job of supporting all Australians to realise their aspirations to secure their future?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:08): I thank the member for Bass for her question and congratulate her and the member for Herbert on their outstanding first speeches in this place this morning. I commend them for their election to this parliament. I know that there are 38,000 constituents in the member for Bass's electorate who will be very pleased to see the tax relief legislation passed through this parliament as a result of the commitments of our government. I say to the member for Bass and all members of this place: welcome to the year of the first budget surplus in 12 years. What that demonstrates is that responsible economic and financial management is at the core of our government's plan to ensure that we respect, we reward, we recognise and we encourage the aspirations of all Australians and that we enable all Australians to pursue their aspirations.
On this side of the House, we join with the Australian people in celebrating aspiration, not indulging in the politics of class envy, which still seems to riddle those on the opposite side. This means their aspirations to earn more and to keep more of what they earn will always be respected by members on this side of the House, as we have done in introducing our bill to provide tax relief to all Australians and to guarantee the essential services that all Australians rely on.
That's what responsible economic management delivers. Whether it is delivering on ensuring the National Disability Insurance Scheme can meet the needs of half a million Australians and the progress we've already made since the last election to ensure that we can bring further states on board or ensuring we're delivering on our mental health initiatives that will support not only those young Australians and, importantly, the veterans that the member for Herbert spoke of earlier today but the millions of Australians who each year struggle with issues of mental health, our economic plan is designed to deal with the challenges that we face and to create jobs.
We are legislating tax relief in this place. We are working with the states. I've already met with premiers around the country to deliver $100 billion worth of infrastructure projects to get the economy in the strongest position it possibly can be. We are busting the congestion of regulations that can hold back the investment that drives job creation in this country. We are implementing our national skills agenda that we put in the budget and that we took to the election, which will see 80,000 apprentices added to the workforce of this country, to protect and expand the markets that Australians rely on, as one in five jobs are created by trade. We are modernising our economy, particularly our financial system, and we are standing with our agricultural producers, whether in flood or drought, to ensure that they get the support that they need through our national drought fund which those opposite oppose. (Time expired)
Taxation
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:11): My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the tax cut of just over $1,000 a year for a pharmacy worker in my electorate have more of a positive impact if the penalty rate cut the Prime Minister supports wasn't taking more than $5,000 a year off the same worker?
Ms Butler: I wonder why the rate of consumption is so low?
The SPEAKER: The member for Griffith is warned.
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:11): The government endorses the industrial arrangements put in place by the Fair Work Commission, which were introduced by those opposite. We have always supported the independence of the Fair Work Commission to consider matters and to come to judgements. We do not believe that politicians should set people's wages. We believe that should be done through the fair and transparent process that provides certainty for investment and engagement in the national economy. It would seem that, while the Leader of the Opposition may have changed names, the same old class war he is seeking to perpetuate in this place is all just the same.
Taxation
Ms FLINT (Boothby—Government Whip) (14:12): My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the government's efforts to provide income tax relief for millions of hardworking Australians, including in my electorate of Boothby? Is the Treasurer aware of any alternative approaches?
Mr FRYDENBERG (Kooyong—The Treasurer) (14:12): I thank the member for Boothby for her question. I can inform her and the House that nearly 70,000 taxpayers in her electorate will benefit from the passage of our tax bill through this parliament. Around 30,000 of those will get the full $1,080. On 2 April in this place, we brought down this year's budget. The budget is back in the black and back on track. It's a budget with a record $100 billion of spending on infrastructure and record spending on schools and hospitals. As members on this side of the House will remember, we have done all of that without increasing taxes.
Central to the budget was $158 billion of tax cuts focusing on short-term relief and long-term structural reform, which will see around 94 per cent of Australian taxpayers pay a marginal rate of no more than 30c in the dollar. Our tax package of $158 billion of tax relief builds on the $144 billion of tax cuts that we already legislated from last year's budget. That's around $300 billion of taxpayers' money that is back in their pockets where it belongs.
Our budget and our tax cuts are based on the values and principles that the Nationals and Liberals sign up to: reward for effort, encouraging aspiration and enabling Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. We are doing all we can to reduce taxes, against the will of those opposite, because those opposite are ignoring the will of the Australian people. They are ignoring the message that was sent loud and clear at the most recent election. We on this side of the house, all 77 members, got the message, but only two members opposite got the message that the Australian people want tax cuts: the rent-a-quote, the member for Hunter over there; and the aspirational frontbencher, the member for Wills. They got the message from the Australian people. As long as the member for Rankin, who was so proud and pleased, in his own words, of the retirees tax and the housing tax, and who thought it was courageous to have $387 billion of higher taxes put to the Australian people, is in charge of their tax policy, the coalition will always be on the side of Australian workers and lower taxes.
Taxation
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:16): My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. The government has refused to adjust deeming rates since March 2015, despite interest rates being cut five times. What has this cost the average pensioner?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:16): The Leader of the Opposition would be aware that the deeming rate currently sits at 1.75 per cent for the lower threshold, which is to the first $51,800 of a single aged pensioners financial assets. The 3.25 per cent upper deeming rate applies to financial investments above this threshold. He is correct that the last time—
Mr Perrett interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for Moreton is warned.
Mr MORRISON: The last time that this was changed was when I was Minister for Social Services. We have had a consistency in cash rate positions for some time. In fact, it has been a record for the consistency of cash rates. There have been two changes to the cash rates most recently, and that is what prompted the Minister for Families and Social Services, with my encouragement, to bring forward a submission to the ERC and ask the Department of Social Services to review the deeming rate once again. That matter will be considered by the ERC in the normal course of events. It will be done responsibly and in accordance with the government's overall fiscal strategy.
Climate Change
Mr BANDT (Melbourne) (14:17): My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. We're facing a climate emergency, but, under your government, Australia's greenhouse pollution is going up year after year. You're the minister for emissions reduction; the KPI is in the job title. Minister, in what year will emissions reduce as required by the science? If emissions don't reduce in line with the science, will you resign as minister for emissions reduction?
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (14:18): I thank the member for his question. The Australian people, a short time ago, voted for a sensible and achievable approach to emissions reduction, one that will keep power prices down, keep the lights on and keep the economy strong. We are not going to trade off emissions policy and trash the economy, and we don't need to. The reason is simple: we have a proud track record of emissions reduction in this country. We beat our 2012 targets for Kyoto, we'll beat our 2020 targets by 367 million tonnes and we'll beat our Paris 2030 targets.
We knew, as of December last year, that we needed to find 328 million tonnes of abatement to reach our 2030 target. The Prime Minister laid out, several months before the election, down to the last tonne, how we will reduce those emissions. The centrepiece in that is the $3.5 billion Climate Solutions Package. That will ensure that we reach our targets.
It is true that in recent years we have seen extraordinary growth of the gas industry in Australia and, as a result of that, we are seeing this year 150 million tonnes of emission reduction as a result of clean gas exports from Australia. So not only are we ensuring that we will reach our emissions reduction targets, we are ensuring the world will reach its emissions reduction targets too.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Sigley, Mr Alek
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:20): I'm pleased to announce that Mr Alek Sigley has been today released from detention in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Alex is safe and well. Swedish authorities advised the Australian government that they met with senior officials from the DPRK yesterday and raised the issue of Alek's disappearance on Australia's behalf. Early this morning we were advised that the DPRK had released Alek Sigley from detention and he has now safely left the country. I can confirm he has arrived safely.
On behalf of the Australian government, I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to the Swedish authorities for their invaluable assistance in securing Alek's prompt release. This outcome demonstrates the value of the discreet, behind-the-scenes work of officials in resolving complex and sensitive consular cases in close partnership with other governments. I am sure we all could not be more pleased that we not only know where Alek is but we know he is safe.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:21): I join with the Prime Minister in welcoming this announcement. I thank him for the private discussion that we had yesterday, discreetly talking about this very issue. On behalf of Labor also, I thank the Swedish authorities for their assistance. This is indeed good news for Alek and his family, and good news for our nation.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Infrastructure
Mr O'DOWD (Flynn—Deputy Nationals Whip) (14:21): My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development.
Mr Rob Mitchell interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The member for McEwen will leave under 94(a). The member for Flynn will begin his question again.
Mr O'DOWD: My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the actions being taken to deliver the government's $100 billion infrastructure program to support the growth of the Australian economy now?
Ms Catherine King: It's going to be a short answer!
Mr McCORMACK (Riverina—Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Leader of The Nationals) (14:22): It's going to take three minutes actually. I want the members opposite to consider two numbers—51,625 and 7.7. The reason why those two numbers are important—and I will start with the latter first—is that 7.7 was the percentage swing to the member for Flynn at the last election. You know why? They backed him in because he's investing in and delivering infrastructure. He's backing in and delivering jobs, and he's backing in and delivering tax cuts. Now 51,625 taxpayers in the member's electorate of Flynn are going to receive tax relief for the 2018-19 income year under the tax relief plan currently before the parliament. That's good news.
It's good news for Flynn, it's good news for central Queensland, and having the member for Flynn back as their representative is great news for that great electorate. The great people of Central Queensland have clearly delivered a great person who will deliver for them.
As I've said previously, Australia has entered the age of infrastructure. In fact, there are more cranes over Australian skylines than there are over the United States of America at the moment. That is a fantastic outcome. A lot of those are private investors building for a better future. They are also building public infrastructure.
Ms Catherine King interjecting—
Mr McCORMACK: I hear the shadow minister opposite cry out about the New South Wales government. They're delivering $94 billion of infrastructure over the next four years. That's what coalition governments do when they're in surplus, Shadow Minister. We're delivering a pipeline investment of a record $100 billion. The budget on 2 April, which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the Australian people on 18 May, saw a 25 per cent increase in infrastructure spending. The Liberal and National government will bring $100 billion over 10 years—a rolling infrastructure plan that's helping manage our growing population in cities, in towns, in regional capitals and in farming districts right across the nation.
In the member for Flynn's electorate, we're investing $100 million in the Port Access Road extension into the Gladstone port, and the mayor there, Matt Burnett, is delighted about it. He said it is:
… fantastic news and we can get the trucks off stage one right onto stage two, bringing our commodities into the Gladstone Port …
We have added $3 billion to the Urban Congestion Fund, now worth $4 billion. That's delivering car parks; that's delivering better roads and better infrastructure. The fact is people in the city areas do not want to spend all their time looking at brake lights in front of them; they want to get where they need to get sooner and safer. That's what our Urban Congestion Fund is going to enable them to do. That's what our $100 billion record of infrastructure is doing in capital cities and regional Australia, right across the nation.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
The SPEAKER (14:25): I would like to inform the House we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from Fiji, led by the Fijian Attorney-General and Minister for Economy, Public Enterprises, Civil Service and Communications. On behalf of the House, we extend a very warm welcome to you.
Honourable members: Hear, hear!
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Roads
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:26): My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. When announcing his government's commitment to the upgrade of Linkfield Road between the northern Brisbane electorates of Petrie and Dickson, did the Prime Minister tell the people of Petrie and Dickson that his own budget numbers show no funding for the project until 2026-2027?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:26): What I can tell the Australian people and in particular the members in Brisbane and their constituents, is our plan is going to deliver in this year alone $2.7 billion worth of infrastructure investment in Queensland. Just this year! Between the time we were first elected and out to the end of—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
Mr Albanese: Again, it was a really specific question—no preamble. It went to his own budget profile. I seek leave to table the budget profile provided by the department to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, showing $18.75 million in 2026-27 is the first time there is a single dollar for this project. Did he tell the voters when he announced the road that it was coming in 2026? I ask leave to table it. I'm trying to help him.
The SPEAKER: For the Leader of the Opposition, my longstanding practice has been if the document's already a parliamentary paper, we're not just going to keep re-tabling them.
Mr Albanese: I'm trying to help!
The SPEAKER: Well, you're not helping me!
Opposition members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I'm presuming those on my left want me to rule on the point of order rather than keep discussing it? The Leader of the Opposition is right: there was no preamble and the question was pretty specific. However, the Prime Minister is entitled to a preamble himself in answering it, and I think the Prime Minister has done that and if he wishes to now address himself to the question that was asked he can.
Mr MORRISON: It seems the smugness of the opposition hasn't changed, Mr Speaker. It seems the little stunts and the arrogance haven't filtered away, despite having at the last election the lowest primary vote for the Labor Party in over 100 years. That was the response from the members of the electorate of the member for Dickson and of so many members around this country.
Ms Catherine King interjecting—
Mr Burke: Mr Speaker—
The SPEAKER: The member for Ballarat's now warned. The Prime Minister was entitled to respond to the bit of paper that was thrown across the table at him. That's why I'm allowing him to do that. He will now bring himself to the question. If members on my left don't want the Prime Minister or ministers to address certain remarks they might cease handing documents across when they're not asked. The Prime Minister can now address himself to the substance of the question.
Mr MORRISON: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was seeking to do before the Leader of the Opposition had got to his feet, I was simply pointing out the volume of expenditure that is being undertaken in Queensland, including in Brisbane, by this government to ensure we're delivering on the congestion-busting projects and all the other projects that are going to ensure that our economy is driven forward and that jobs are going to be created.
As the Leader of the Opposition has just indicated, the transparency of the arrangements for these projects is set out in the budget papers. I'm pleased that the Leader of the Opposition reads the budget papers. That's why we have them. That's where we set them all out. Given he has referred to these budget papers in putting his question, let me simply say this: what we put in our budget was our entire plan. When the Treasurer came and referred to these projects and so many others he set them out before this parliament, and then we set out that entire plan before the Australian people. The Australian people endorsed that plan for a stronger economy because the Australian people endorsed the economic leadership of the government, and they rejected completely the $385 billion of higher taxes that those opposite wanted to put on the Australian economy. So the Australian people couldn't have been clearer to them about what we were offering and they couldn't have been clearer in their rejection of the Labor Party, who had the lowest primary vote for the Labor Party in more than 100 years.
Mr Conroy: Why did yours go down as well?
The SPEAKER: The member for Shortland will cease interjecting.
Energy
Mrs WICKS (Robertson) (14:31): My question is to the Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction. Will the minister update the House on how the government is reducing cost of living pressures by delivering lower power prices, including for people in my electorate of Robertson?
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (14:32): I thank the member for Robertson for her question. She is a terrific local member who wants to see a fair go for those who have a go. I'm delighted to inform her that almost 55,000 of her constituents are going to benefit from the tax relief before the parliament here today, which we implore those opposite to support.
She also wants to see a fair go for her constituents on energy. We took a clear plan to the election with a firm commitment to deliver more affordable, reliable power for all Australians. I'm delighted to inform the House that we are seeing results. From this week the default market offer comes into place. That ensures that 800,000 Australians who aren't in a position to negotiate a better price receive a fairer price than they did last year—a price cut on their electricity bills saving households up to $660 and saving small businesses up to almost $3,000 on their power bills. Along with that we saw the introduction just a couple of days ago of the reference price. That means that all energy customers will have a clear and transparent benchmark against which their bills will be measured. For the first time, they will be able to compare apples with apples in the offers given to them by their energy companies so they can achieve the best possible plan for them. On top of that, from 1 July we saw the introduction of the Retailer Reliability Obligation. This puts accountability on the big energy companies to ensure that years ahead of time they have the supply in the market to meet the needs of their customers, be they households, small businesses or industry. All of that is great news for families, for small businesses and for industry, which creates so many jobs for Australians. They will be able to save money from their power bills just as they will be able to get more money in their pockets from the tax relief that is in front of the parliament here today.
We know that a dollar in the pocket of a family is the best place to have a dollar, and that's where we want to see more of it. Compare that with what those opposite put forward during the election campaign: an economy-wrecking target that would see wages slashed—according to independent modelling—by $9,000 a year and jobs slashed by 336,000 across Australia. Only the Liberal-National government will get power prices down, keep the lights on and, most importantly, ensure that there is more money in the pockets of hardworking Australians.
Taxation
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:35): My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. What programs and services will be cut to fund stage 3 of the government's tax scheme?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:35): None.
Environment
Mr ENTSCH (Leichhardt) (14:36): My question is to the Minister for the Environment. Will the minister update the House on the measures the government is taking to ensure practical outcomes in the environment, particularly in improving the health of our oceans?
Ms LEY (Farrer—Minister for the Environment) (14:36): Can I thank the member for Leichardt and note that around 66,607 taxpayers in his electorate will receive tax relief for the current income year under the tax plan currently before the parliament. Can I also acknowledge the member for Leichardt in the important environment portfolio, in his role as envoy for the reef. He will bring his dynamism, charm, determination and considerable energy to advocate for a resilient reef, and to other passions that he has, including marine plastics.
Australia proudly leads the world in ocean science and the management of our oceans. Three million square kilometres of our waters are national parks and 36 per cent of our waters are marine parks—boundaries and activities landed by the coalition government. Inside those marine parks, 25 per cent are no-take zones—a record we can be very proud of. But eight million tonnes of plastic goes into our oceans annually—not much from our region; quite a lot from our northern neighbours. We work assiduously with them to clean up our oceans, including our $16 million Pacific Ocean Litter Project.
Australians care about our environment. They want to be involved in protecting it now and into the future. The Morrison government will work internationally and with communities, with local organisations and with our scientific experts to address all of the issues that confront us, large and small, including Asia-Pacific rainforest recovery, blue carbon and sequestering carbon in our coastal and marine ecosystems, and we will continue to invest in protecting the Great Barrier Reef. We are committing $100 million to the Environment Restoration Fund. There are many good projects in members' electorates, many coastal and marine projects supporting our conservation volunteers and the coastal environments of Bells Beach, Mount Martha Beach, the Surf Coast. We are, across the land, working quietly at delivering these local environment projects to protect every ecosystem, large and small.
We can't opt out of modern living or the modern world, but we can get smarter about the way we live and the pressure we place on our environment, and about doing everything we can to mitigate that—reducing waste, increasing recycling. We have a big agenda here and I want to acknowledge Assistant Minister Evans, the member for Brisbane, for his absolute passion for working on the circular economy: renew, reuse, recycle, reduce. We have a big agenda. Conservation is everyone's business. I look forward to all members of the House supporting this.
Newstart Allowance
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:39): My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. Would an increase in the rate of Newstart stimulate consumer demand and economic activity and therefore jobs?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:39): At the last election, we put forward very clearly our plans to ensure that we could boost the incomes of Australians. The priority we provided for that was for working Australians, through the delivery of tax relief. That was the priority we set out. The opposition, at that election, did not put forward any plans to increase the rate of Newstart. In fact, they never set out any potential cost that that might impose on the budget. It was not our plan to do that. It was our plan to continue to go through the six-monthly indexation of such payments. That is the process we will continue to follow in relation to those social security payments. So we have no plans to increase social security payments for Newstart beyond what is the normal six-monthly indexation using the measures that are always in place, which is the same policy that was taken to the election by the Labor Party.
National Security
Mr HASTIE (Canning) (14:40): My question is for the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on steps the government is taking to keep the Australian community safe from the threat of terrorism?
Mr DUTTON (Dickson—Minister for Home Affairs) (14:41): I thank the member for Canning very much for his question and acknowledge his service to our country in uniform and also now as he chairs the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. He is one of the smartest minds in this parliament in relation to national security matters and he really leads a great team within the committee. I acknowledge the work that he does.
As we all know, earlier this week over 200 federal police brought to culmination a 12-month investigation in relation to three individuals. It demonstrated—by the arrest of those three individuals in relation to allegations of terrorist related offences—that this threat has not gone away. In September 2014 the threat level against our country was raised to 'probable'. We know that, whilst the police and intelligence agencies have been able to thwart 16 attempted major terrorist attacks in our country, seven have been successful. We have had, as a country, a very high number of people who have gone to Syria and Iraq to fight in the name of ISIL. The threat is not only beyond our shores but, as we know, here in Australia as well. About 230 people left our shores to go and fight overseas. We know that about 100 of those, on the best estimates we can make, have been killed in the theatre of that war. We know that there have been about 100 people within that 230 cohort who have sought to come back home, or we believe will seek to come back home. We know that about 40 are already here.
This government—and the Australian public recognised this at the last election—will do everything that we can to keep Australians safe. We have introduced multiple pieces of legislation, including the encryption laws last year which were questioned by some of those opposite on the front bench but which have directly resulted in Australian lives being saved. That's the reality. This government, in this term, will make sure that we do whatever we can to keep Australians safe. Australian citizens have a constitutional right to return to our country. We need to do that in a managed way. That's why we've introduced a bill into the parliament today to temporarily exclude, for up to a two-year period, some of those Australian citizens that have been working with ISIL that now have the capacity to come back, to put together an IED or to walk into a food court or other place of mass gathering and cause serious death and carnage in our country. We want those opposite, in the Senate, to support our temporary exclusion order regime. It's based on the United Kingdom model. It has worked there and it will work here. It's not a silver bullet but it is another way in which we can work to manage the return of some of these evil people. This government will look to the opposition to stand up and to support this government in every measure we put forward to support the Australian people. (Time expired)
Economy
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:44): My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. The chief economist of the National Australia Bank has said:
In our business survey we're getting readings that are basically as bad, if not worse, than the bottom of the GFC.
What does that say about the economy on his watch, particularly for small business?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:44): The National Australia Bank business survey that came out after the election saw business confidence rise seven points following the election, and that is the largest single monthly increase in business confidence since the time of the 2013 election. Business confidence has been restored as a result of the re-election of this government. The reason it was under threat was because of the prospect of a Labor government. It was under threat because of the biggest risk to the Australian economy: those that sat opposite. The Labor Party wanted to tax the Australian people more, who, with their good grace and wisdom, go out there, work hard every day and run small businesses. They wanted to tax more the retirees who want to save and live off their savings.
I note, whether it was on the retirees tax, the housing tax, the small business taxes or the plethora of taxes; they all remain the Labor Party's policy. As I look down at the front bench of the Labor Party, I see the same old faces, the same old arrogance, the same old class envy and the same old smugness, which says, 'We don't think Australians should keep more of what they earn.' They think, on the Labor Party's side, the answer to a stronger economy is higher taxes. The Australian people disagree with them and they voiced their disagreement by telling them, in the lowest primary vote for the Labor Party in 100 years, that they are sick to death of Labor seeking to kill aspiration in this country.
This is a Labor leader who has more in common with Jeremy Corbyn than Paul Keating. We've seen the Snapchat. We've seen the Instagram posts. They're buddies in arms, all part of the new Labor agenda, which would take this country back decades and decades.
Our plan for a stronger economy was taken to the Australian people and it was endorsed by the Australian people. The Australian people rejected this mob; they rejected them absolutely and with good cause. Labor's policies, which remain unchanged, are to undercut and douse the aspiration of hardworking Australians. On this side of the House we will always stand up for hardworking Australians. We will always put forward policies that respect them and encourage them, while on that side Labor have learnt absolutely nothing by their rejection at the last election.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition is seeking to table?
Mr Albanese: I seek leave to table an article from ABC News published on Thursday, 20 June 2019: 'Growing number of Australian small businesses struggling amid economic downturn'. That's June.
Leave not granted.
Queensland: Floods
Mr CHRISTENSEN (Dawson) (14:48): My question is to the Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management. Will the minister outline to the house how the government is supporting North Queenslanders recently effected by the flooding and farmers in rural communities that have been effected by the ongoing drought?
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management) (14:48): I thank the member for Dawson for his question. He'd also be interested to know that 61½ thousand members of his electorate will now get a tax cut. Not only will we be supporting those that are affected by the floods in North Queensland but we'll be now moving to support those people with our actions today. But I do acknowledge your keen interest in this; the disastrous floods that happened this year covered an area greater than Germany. I was fortunate enough to walk in and fly in to some of those affected areas during the flood event as it was unfolding and to visit some of these brave Australians.
I remember getting off the chopper and talking to a fellow who had just lost everything. He'd lost every beast on his property. He'd his whole livelihood, his whole income. The only thing he could say to me when I said, 'Are you okay?' was that there was some poor bugger worse off than him. Let me tell you: those courageous and brave Australians are who we are and what we are, but we are not leaving them alone. Our government is going to stand shoulder to shoulder with them. We are committing $3.1 billion to the North Queensland floods. A hundred and eighteen million dollars of that is going directly to those people that have been impacted to help them recover. It was $25,000 and, with the support of the Prime Minister and the Premier of Queensland, it was instantly taken to $75,000 because of the appreciation of the magnitude of this event and to get on with the job of clean-up.
We've also partnered with the state government, with $242 million worth of programs of recovery in infrastructure but also rebuilding the psyche of a lot of these communities that have been hurt. It's important we also help to rebuild the agricultural sector, and there's $5 million worth of agri-rebuild loans that farmers will now be able to access. That'll be complemented by $400,000 grants for restocking and replanting to get them up on their feet, to give them a fair go.
But to those farmers out there also that are impacted by the drought: we haven't forgotten you. The drought hasn't abated, and this government continues to stand shoulder to shoulder, with nearly $7 billion worth of commitments that we put on the table; nearly $37,000 in farm household assistance to put money in farmers' pockets to pay for those life expenses that they have and to put bread and butter on the tables of their families; and putting more rural financial counsellors around the kitchen tables of our farmers to help them fill out the paperwork and make clear directions. We now have a $5 billion centrepiece, the Future Drought Fund, that will give a $100 million dividend in the good and bad years to make sure that we build the resilience not only of our agricultural sector but of these regional communities.
Make no mistake: these events are setbacks, but they are not the end of regional and rural Australia. We will fight through this as we have in the past. The story of regional and rural Australia, the story of agriculture, is: just add rain and, when we get it, the future is bright. This government will continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with you.
Energy
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:51): My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the government committed to deliver gas prices of $7 per gigajoule or less for Australian industry and households?
Mr TAYLOR (Hume—Minister for Energy and Emissions Reduction) (14:51): Honourable members would be aware that my colleague in the other place Senator Cormann has been speaking with his fellow senators about a range of policy issues, including issues relating to energy, and, as a government, we are always prepared to listen to good ideas on how to reduce the cost of living for Australian families and reduce the cost of doing business for Australian businesses. But, as we know on this side of the House, we are absolutely committed to a fairer deal on energy for all Australians, and that means a fair deal on gas and a fair deal on electricity.
The member opposite raised the question of gas prices. Gas prices, wholesale prices, have fallen from their peak in 2017. We saw a peak on gas prices of over $20 per gigajoule.
The SPEAKER: If the minister could just pause for a second—he doesn't have to go back to his seat; I won't be that long, I promise—it was a very specific question. I'll always allow a preamble, and he's on the general policy subject, but it had nothing to do with electricity. It was a specific question about gas. I've allowed him to go for a minute, and he needs to address himself to the question or wind up his answer.
Mr TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Of course, I was on to gas prices, and we saw in 2017 a $21-per-gigajoule peak on gas prices. We've seen a halving of those prices, down to $10. But we call on states and territories to remove the blanket regulatory bans, the moratoria on offshore gas exploration and development, because that will make the difference.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition can resume his seat. The question wasn't generally about gas prices. It was a very specific question. I'll always allow a preamble. We're now 1½ minutes in. I just say to the minister: he needs to address the specifics of the question and no longer address the general policy topic, or simply wind up his answer or take it on notice.
Mr TAYLOR: We will continue to work for more affordable gas prices and electricity prices for all Australians.
Mr Albanese: That's a no.
The SPEAKER: No, the Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I'll enforce the standing orders, but the Leader of the Opposition can't start answering questions himself.
Mr Albanese: Someone has to!
The SPEAKER: If you want to change the standing orders, those on my right might want to ask some questions of those on my left, but that's a matter for the House.
National Disability Insurance Scheme
Mr ANDREWS (Menzies) (14:55): I ask the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the Minister for Government Services if he would update the House on the progress that the government is making in delivering the NDIS for the benefit of all Australians.
Mr ROBERT (Fadden—Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services) (14:55): I thank the member for Menzies for his question and for his deep interest in the NDIS through chairing the Joint Standing Committee on the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which I know he is pleased to do. I'm sure he is also pleased that 57,000 of his constituents will be receiving a tax cut from this government's tax relief plan. The member for Menzies knows, as we all know, that the NDIS is a true national endeavour and, frankly, it is worthy of all of our efforts.
Since the commencement of transition, the number of Australians that have joined the scheme now has increased 900 per cent to 280,000 Australians with disability; 85,000 of these are getting a service for the very first time ever. The provider market has grown from 3,500 to 21,000 and, importantly, as at Monday this week, NDIS is now available to all Australians on the continent.
Since the government was elected, the Prime Minister and I have been speaking with participants, with their families, with carers, with advocates and providers to listen and hear firsthand how this world-leading scheme is improving outcomes for participants. I think we are 80 per cent of the way there in delivering the scheme and the key aspects, and we recognise the last 20 per cent can sometimes be the hardest. That's why we have developed a clear plan to develop the last 20 per cent, and we have been progressively outlining and actioning that plan over the first 35 days in government. That's included, firstly, convening the COAG Disability Reform Council, where all ministers resolved three key interfaces between the NDIS, the mainstream services including health, voluntary out-of-home care, and agreeing to a national action plan to improve hospital discharges. The COAG DRC will continue to meet every three months to resolve further interface issues and, if those ministers need to gather on a rolling three months to solve further issues, they'll do so.
Secondly, we are driving a strong transparency agenda with the states and territories to ensure they've got the maximum amount of data they need to make key decisions. Thirdly, full scheme agreements have now been negotiated and finalised with Victoria and Queensland. Fourthly, the 2019 annual price review has been finalised to further develop a robust and innovative market. Fifthly, in the last 35 days, we've had a six-month surge into resolving temporary backlogs in the early childhood and early intervention supports, which have resulted from a large number of children coming from state and territory systems into the NDIS. This includes a key performance indicator for children being finalised from access to a plan of 50 days and, in some cases, delivering a 400 per cent improvement on service delivery. We are getting on with the job strongly in serving participants in this world-leading scheme.
Indigenous Affairs
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (14:58): My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister work with me to advance the recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Constitution in a way that's consistent with the principles of the Uluru Statement from the Heart?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (14:58): I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. He and I met yesterday and we have discussed on earlier occasions, since the last election, this matter, and there is definitely a spirit of cooperation which we are seeking to establish when it comes to advancing these issues. We had the historic recognition at the opening of this parliament, not only of the fact that the first cabinet minister was an Indigenous Australian but, indeed, that the first Minister for Indigenous Australians was an Indigenous person and the unique opportunity that is presented by the fact that the Shadow Minister for Indigenous Australians is also an Indigenous Australian. This gives us a great opportunity and we shouldn't limit our options in how we continue to progress this. The government, before the election, had endorsed and adopted the recommendations of the bipartisan joint select committee on constitutional recognition, and we are going to continue to implement the outcomes of that report and the recommendations it provided. We have agreed to work together with the opposition to that end, but all parties—all members of this parliament in this and the other place—I would say, are seeking a non-partisan, an a-partisan, perspective on this, not just a bipartisan one. We welcome everyone to the table in seeking to advance this agenda. We've allocated $7.3 million for a co-design process to improve local and regional decision-making and develop options for constitutional recognition. We've set aside $160 million in the contingency reserve for a future referendum once a model has been determined, so we are serious about progressing this matter.
The ultimate models and the ultimate options that are considered by the government will be a process of this ongoing consultation and the work done by the Minister for Indigenous Australians and the shadow minister. They will do that work independently and they'll do it together. The Leader of the Opposition and I will follow that same pursuit. But I will also say that, as important as this issue is, the priority for my government, right now, is addressing the terrible curse of Indigenous suicide in remote and Indigenous communities. This is heartbreaking. The rates of Indigenous suicide in remote and regional communities is just unthinkable, but it is real. The program we have announced to address that and funding that we have provided in the budget, I know, are supported by the opposition. I also thank the former Leader of the Opposition for his support on these initiatives. We will continue to work each and every day towards zero. That must be our goal. The fact that young Indigenous Australians see taking their life as the way forward is heartbreaking for every member of this chamber. There are the challenges of Indigenous education, there are the challenges of Indigenous health and there are the challenges of Indigenous employment. These will always be front and centre in my government—our government—and, I believe, our parliament.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition on indulgence.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:02): on indulgence—I thank the Prime Minister for his answer and thank him for the spirit in which he's reached out to the opposition to work, particularly, with the new minister. I congratulate Minister Wyatt on his appointment and I congratulate shadow minister Burney. I'm sure that they can advance in a united way and work together to try and achieve some outcomes for something that, frankly, has been intractable for a very long period of time. I'm sure that, if this 46th Parliament can advance this agenda, both in terms of constitutional recognition and practical reconciliation, it would be a marvellous achievement.
Mental Health
Mr WALLACE (Fisher) (15:02): My question goes to the Minister for Health. Would the minister please outline to the House what this government is doing to address the tragedies in relation to youth suicide, mental health and eating disorders?
Mr HUNT (Flinders—Minister for Health and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service and Cabinet) (15:03): I want to thank the member for Fisher, who has been a passionate and tireless advocate for action on mental health, youth suicide, and in particular eating disorders. Born of his own familiar with this challenge, he has helped deliver the first national eating disorder centre, endED, which we're supporting with $6 million. But that has become a pilot for a network of eating disorder residential treatment facilities around the country.
We heard today from the member for Herbert and the member for Bass about their own challenges with mental health. We've heard the Prime Minister's words, and we've heard the Leader of the Opposition, in particular, in relation to youth suicide. Mental health and youth suicide are not the province of any one side of this parliament. Whether it's the government or the opposition or the crossbench, we all come together with our concerns.
We know the challenge: 404 young lives were lost, in the last full year for which we have figures, to their own hands, tragically. One in four young Australians suffer some form of mental health challenge in any one year. More broadly, over the course of our lives almost half of Australians will have some form of mental health challenge, whether it's anxiety, depression, bipolar, schizophrenia or so many other conditions. These things are of profound importance and, to take the Prime Minister's lead, they bring together this chamber, this parliament, our parties and all of those whom we represent.
On that front, I'm proud that we've been able to deliver a $500 million youth suicide prevention and mental health treatment package. This includes $375 million for headspace and, within that, in particular, there is $110 million to focus on early psychosis youth centres, $111 million to deliver an extra 30 headspace centres around the country and an extra $150 million to expand services for the existing headspace centres. But coupled with that is the absolute importance of building resilience and encouraging prevention. The Prime Minister invited me to join him and the member for Reid at Burwood Girls High School. There we had the great privilege of seeing batyr—a young group led by young people talking about the experiences and challenges that they had faced—give a sense of hope, inspiration and support to these young women that their lives could be something special, but they had to recognise that there was hope, there was the ability to reach out, and we could see the transformation on that day.
So, yes, we're supporting that, but this challenge brings this whole parliament together. We can save lives and protect lives, and we have to work towards zero.
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:06): on indulgence—just briefly, we stand with the government on addressing this terrible scourge facing young people with regard to mental health issues, and I congratulate the government on a range of its initiative, including the increased funding for headspace.
Water
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:06): My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Given the severity of the drought, what is the Morrison government doing to address international speculators in the water market pushing up the price of water for farmers?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (15:06): I'll make a brief remark and then hand over to the Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management. The Future Drought Fund was brought into this parliament before the election. It was the product of the National Drought Summit, which was intended to provide ongoing permanent support to build drought resilience in this country. I hope the opposition now, on the other side of the election, will change their position and support this initiative and provide this much-needed support and encouragement to people and families in rural and regional Australia, whether they are on farm or living in farming communities. This parliament should support that initiative and the many other initiatives we've brought to address the ongoing drought.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr MORRISON: The Leader of the Opposition interjects, but before the last election the Leader of the Opposition was part of the same shadow cabinet that voted against the Future Drought Fund. They said they would oppose it; they would not support it, and they sent an appalling message. They may wish to reconsider that matter, and I ask the Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management to add to my answer.
Mr LITTLEPROUD (Maranoa—Minister for Water Resources, Drought, Rural Finance, Natural Disaster and Emergency Management) (15:08): Let me go to the point around the water market. Obviously, as I've gone around and done shed meetings with irrigators up and down the basin, both in the north and in the south, one of the great concerns that I was hearing, particularly exacerbated by the drought, is the cost of water. Ninety-three per cent of trades happened in the southern basin, where a lot of the conjecture is. Fourteen per cent of those that own water licences don't own land.
Now, when state governments separated water from land, I don't know whether their intent was where the market has evolved to now. The government took swift action after listening to the concerns of real people on the ground in farmers' sheds. With the Treasurer, I've now nearly finalised terms of reference so the ACCC can get under the bonnet of the water market to make sure that the original intent of this market, when it was created, is still working and that small farming families are not taken out of it. This is a responsible step in making sure that we understand that the market is as pure as it was intended to be, and we will make sure that the terms of reference are broad enough so that the ACCC can give confidence to everybody.
The transparency that is required within this Basin Plan will be seen through. The states also have a part to play in this.
The SPEAKER: The minister will resume his seat for a second. The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
Mr Albanese: The question was very specific.
The SPEAKER: If you can just address what the point of order is.
Mr Albanese: It's to relevance. The question was very specific about the impact of international speculators in the water market and the impact that that's having on farmers. I'm sure it has been raised with the minister in those very meetings he has spoken about.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition has made his point of order. The minister has the call.
Mr LITTLEPROUD: I'll simplify it for the Leader of the Opposition. Within that 14 per cent are international players. We're not running away from that. That's why the ACCC will look at it. To keep it in simple terms: they will be taken into this inquiry by the ACCC. That 14 per cent are part of the cohort that we are looking at. That is a responsible action of a government that listens—that listens to the people, not just the bureaucrats. We've sat in the sheds and we've listened to real people. (Time expired)
Commonwealth Integrity Commission
Ms SHARKIE (Mayo) (15:10): My question is to the Attorney-General. A March 2019 poll by The Australia Institute found that 80 per cent of Australians support the establishment of a federal integrity commission to prevent, investigate and expose corruption. Sixty-seven per cent polled said that they held low to very low trust in politicians in our federal parliament. When will the government introduce legislation to create an integrity commission with real powers to reduce corruption and, hopefully, restore public trust in us in this chamber?
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (15:11): I thank the member for Mayo for her question. I'm glad that I walked up and asked her who her second Independent question was to. When she said it was to me, that was very useful. The exact date is going to depend on the stakeholder consultation that will happen between now and December.
Mr Albanese interjecting—
Mr PORTER: Yes, indeed. It's always good to get a tip-off though. It is the case that those surveys have been published and they do indicate that this is an area that requires significant work. It's also the case that we must remember that Australia is consistently ranked by Transparency International as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. We are absolutely committed to a Commonwealth Integrity Commission. You will, of course, recall that on 13 December 2018 the Prime Minister and I announced the establishment of a Commonwealth Integrity Commission. We released a very detailed public consultation paper with respect to the model that we've put forward. The model is one in two parts. The law enforcement integrity division will have the same functions and powers as the current Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity but with broader jurisdiction. The second and entirely new part of the organisation will be the public sector integrity division. That will investigate alleged criminal corruption involving the remainder of the public sector, including departments and their staff, parliamentarians and their staff, the staff of federal judicial officers and, in appropriate circumstances, recipients of Commonwealth funds. It will have a very broad jurisdiction.
It, of course, would not escape the member's notice that, in the last budget, the forward estimates now show $145.2 million committed to this body. That is $104.5 million of new funding and includes the existing ACLEI budget of $40.7 million. I note, in evidence of the commitment of the government to this organisation, that that is funding well in excess of what members opposite had budgeted for their variant model of this body.
During the consultation process that has happened so far we've had 78 submissions. They were with respect to that very detailed draft discussion paper that we had out. The next part of this phase will be to take basic drafting out and consult with a range of stakeholders and then, of course, cabinet, but we're totally committed to this. This is something that absolutely has to be got right. It is detailed. The price of getting it wrong is to decrease public confidence in all of us and our civil service, and we will not let that happen.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition.
Mr Albanese: Thank you, Mr Speaker. My question—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: Sorry—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: No, it is the Leader of the Opposition's call. The call went to the government and the government—
Honourable members interjecting—
The SPEAKER: I just say to the House that, if arrangements have been made, I am not aware of them and am not party to them. This practice began in the last couple of weeks of the last parliament.
Mr Albanese: Mr Speaker—
The SPEAKER: Given I'm going to rule on it, I think what you say is irrelevant, I've got to say. The call alternates. The arrangement that happens with the Independents early in question time is something that has been settled between the sides. It was the government's call last time, and the only person that jumped was the Independent. I'm not comfortable with an arrangement where the alternation of the call is manipulated. I'm not. If a formal arrangement wants to be made, that'll need to be made, but the government is not going to prevent the opposition getting a question by not jumping, having an Independent and then seeking the call. The call alternates, and either side knows that.
Economy
Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (15:15): My question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. Why has the national economy fallen from the eighth-fastest growing economy in the OECD when they were elected in 2013 to the 20th today?
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (15:15): I'm pleased to see that the Leader of the Opposition is being very inclusive with his new team today—very inclusive! Apparently they're a team of one on that side. I suspect that speaks volumes about the support for the Leader of the Opposition.
GDP growth, the growth of the economy today, is stronger than every G7 economy except the United States. We are in the 28th year of uninterrupted growth. Our economy, when I was recently at the G20, is the economy that other world leaders want to know more about because of its success. One of the reasons they want to know that is because 1.4 million jobs have been created on the watch of this government since we were first elected in 2013 and, importantly, it was at a growth of 2.9 per cent a year—2.9 per cent a year in jobs growth. When the Labor Party left office it was 0.2 per cent. So the rapid growth in employment speaks volumes about the Australian economy.
The Reserve Bank have said very clearly in their most recent statement that the Australian economy is growing, that the consumption growth looks forward, that the employment growth has continued to be strong, that a further gradual lift in wages growth is still expected and that there are tentative signs that prices are stabilising in the housing market in Sydney and Melbourne. We are creating 1,000 jobs a day. The alternative being offered by the Leader of the Opposition at the last election and that he now seeks to carry forward—
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
Mr Albanese: This was one of the shortest questions ever asked of you—
The SPEAKER: No, I don't want to have a discussion.
Mr Albanese: Relevance—he needs to answer why it was eighth and now it's 20th. Why?
The SPEAKER: I think the Prime Minister is in order. There can be more than one reason.
Mr MORRISON: Our government is going to get on with the job of continuing to strengthen our economy. Our side of the House believes in tax relief. The Labor Party have come into this place this week and they have said to Australians that they have learnt nothing about the need to let them keep more of what they earn. What is it about tax relief and tax cuts that the Labor Party are so opposed to? Why do they cling to this outdated and moribund view that says you have to tax Australians more to grow the economy? We took an economic plan to the Australian people, which they endorsed. They rejected the Labor Party's plan of higher taxes. What is it about higher taxes that the Labor Party are so obsessed with that means they remain shackled to this view of the world?
The SPEAKER: Has the Prime Minister concluded his answer?
Mr MORRISON: No.
The SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.
Mr Albanese: It goes to relevance. They've been in government since 2013—
The SPEAKER: I'll ask the Leader of the Opposition to resume his seat and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. The standing orders, which I think he was responsible for introducing, say that you can only bring up a point of order on relevance once in an answer.
Mr Burke: Raising a point of order under 91(e): in your earlier ruling, you said that the Prime Minister was in order based on the issues he was talking about then. Now he's gone down a completely different path, which is not consistent with the ruling you made.
The SPEAKER: I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his point of order, but I'm the judge of whether the Prime Minister's being relevant. I am going to hear him for the next up to 19 seconds.
Mr MORRISON: The final say on who was better to manage the Australian economy was rendered by the Australian people at the last election, and it was the coalition government of the Liberals and Nationals. The Australian people have had their say on the economy, and they voted for the coalition government. (Time expired)
Defence Personnel
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (15:20): My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and defence personnel. Will the minister update the House on steps the government is taking to prevent suicide and improve mental health of our Australian Defence Force and veteran community?
Mr CHESTER (Gippsland—Minister for Veterans and Defence Personnel and Deputy Leader of the House) (15:20): I want to thank the member for Herbert and also congratulate him on his inaugural speech this morning where he spoke about his lived experience and his service in uniform to our nation. He spoke about the teamwork, he spoke about mateship but he also spoke about the sacrifice of his comrades in arms. I want to recognise all members of this place and in the Senate who have served in the Australian Defence Force and say quite simply to them all: thank you for your service.
The member for Herbert asked me about veterans' mental health and suicide prevention measures. I want to stress that the only acceptable number for me as minister is zero, the only acceptable number for the Australian community is zero and I'm sure the only acceptable number for this entire parliament is zero when it comes to veteran suicide. It is a tragedy indeed that more than 3,000 Australians take their own lives each year, and unfortunately there is no simple answer to this rather sad and complex issue.
I want to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Minister for Health for their renewed focus on the issue. Let me please quote from this morning's speech by the member for Herbert, where he said:
Mental illness and suicide prevention is our responsibility; we are all responsible. Suicide is not just a veteran issue and not just a Defence Force issue; it's a societal problem. We can and must do more.
I want to assure the House and I want to ensure Australians listening at home that help is available for our veterans who are struggling or experiencing poor mental health. The government has listened to the concerns of the veteran community and we have taken action, I must say, with the complete support of those opposite. We have introduced free mental health care for all veterans. We have invested in improvements in Open Arms, a free counselling service which is available on 1800011046. It was relaunched last year by Mark Donaldson VC, quite an extraordinary Australian in his own right. We provide now more than $230 million per year in terms of veterans mental health support. We are trialling new and innovative approaches, including the use of psychiatric dogs, and six new wellbeing centres are being established, including in the member for Herbert's own electorate.
I want to say too I'm working with the ADF service chiefs in terms of the important transition process, which has proven to be one of the most difficult aspects for some of our veterans leaving the military and re-joining civilian life, and also working with the ex-service community and the corporate sector to make sure we are supporting veterans into employment.
I know, the government knows and I'm sure those opposite know as well that there is more to be done. Just last week, I hosted a national Veteran Mental Health and Wellbeing Summit, where we brought together some of the leading experts in Australia. In the coming weeks I will be meeting with veterans and their families to discuss what else we can be doing as part of our national veterans mental health action plan. I have also written to all members in this place with military experience, from both sides and from the crossbench, and offered them direct access to me and my office to provide their input from their own lived experience, which I think is going to be very important as well.
When it comes to suicide prevention and mental wellbeing, I think we all have an important role to play and I again urge those who are experiencing difficulties who are listening today to please seek help, to contact Open Arms on 1800011046.
Mr NEUMANN (Blair) (15:23): on indulgence—I associate the opposition with the remarks of the minister. Labor will offer constructive bipartisan support. Every suicide amongst the veterans community is one suicide too many. This is a real problem amongst our veterans community. It is to our shame nationally and it is a tragedy. So we will do everything we can to support the government in this space.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Sigley, Mr Alek
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (15:24): As an update, I can inform the House that Alek Sigley is now safely in the Australian embassy in Beijing. I understand that his father will soon be able to speak to him and I can only imagine the relief and joy that his father must feel. His family have asked me to convey their thanks to all of those who have helped and expressed their support for them over the past several days. I also want to thank all those who have helped us in this very sensitive matter, particularly all those leaders at the G20 who approached me that I was able to speak to for their sincere offers of support to seek to resolve this situation. So, once again, I am very pleased that Alek will be on his way home, but right now he is on Australian soil in Beijing. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.
DOCUMENTS
Presentation
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (15:25): Documents are tabled in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Full details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
COMMITTEES
Government Response
The SPEAKER (15:26): I publish a schedule of the status of government responses to committee reports as at 30 June 2019. Copies of the schedule are being made available to honourable members and will be incorporated in Hansard.
The schedule was unavailable at the time of publishing.
DOCUMENTS
Commonwealth Ombudsman
Presentation
The SPEAKER (15:26): I present the reports for 2017-18 on the Commonwealth Ombudsman's activities under part 5 of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979.
AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS
Reports Nos 33-51 of 2018-19
Report No. 1 of 2019-20
The SPEAKER (15:26): I present Auditor-Generals reports Nos. 33-51 of 2018-19 and No. 1 for 2019-20. Details of the reports will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.
STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE
Dowd, Ms Anne
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (15:26): If I make take that opportunity to say a few words about Anne Dowd, who was in the advisers box in the chamber this afternoon. I would like to pass on my thanks and that of the government to Anne for her service as the parliamentary liaison officer for the past nearly four years. Today marks the final day of which Anne will work as the parliamentary liaison officer. The PLO, as it is better known, is a very important part of the legislative and procedural process of the chamber, and Anne has served this government with incredible distinction and great humour. She did put up enormous amounts with the last Leader of the House. She is a person of very thick skin and high levels of tolerance. Anyone who has been a part of the ministry would be very familiar with Anne and her chasing them for the introduction of bills and ensuring that duty ministers are there for their rostered time slot.
If I might add, while Anne today is retiring from her position as parliamentary liaison officer, she is retiring from the Australian Public Service, which she has served since 1981, working in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet for 28 years. Throughout her career Anne has worked in a variety of positions, including the Australian War Crime Commission, frequently travelling internationally, and more importantly has supported Prime Ministers with swearings in, administrative changes and Governor-Generals' appointments, to name but a few of her many tasks over those 28 years.
More recently Anne was responsible for the coordination of the Australian government legislative program from within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and now as the House parliamentary liaison officer. It has been noted by many that Anne is one of the busiest people in Parliament House. If I might wish her on behalf of the Prime Minister and government and all members present all the very best for her retirement after nearly 38 years in the Australian Public Service.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:28): The opposition joins in thanking and congratulating Anne Dowd for her work over the years. In praising and describing her work, I will avoid the acronym in case it gets cut into an ad, but the work of the parliamentary liaison officer is extraordinary work. Many on our side will remember Anne's work within the department during the time that we were in minority government in particular, when a whole lot of procedures had to be changed and different ordering of work had to be organised quite differently to what had happened previously. Her skills then became helpful again for the other side of politics during the latter part of the last term.
The work of the parliamentary liaison officer effectively makes whoever's in government look more organised than they would otherwise look. So you can only imagine what we would be at different points without the parliamentary liaison officer. For Anne, the term 'public servant' is a noble one and the words, when you consider what they say, say it all about the work that Anne has done, and we wish her well.
The SPEAKER (15:29): I thank both the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business, and we all wish you a very happy retirement.
BUSINESS
Leave of Absence
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (15:30): I move:
That leave of absence from the determination of this sitting until 13 October 2019 be given to the honourable member for Kingston for parental leave purposes.
Question agreed to.
MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Indigenous Affairs
The SPEAKER (15:30): I have received a letter from the honourable member for Barton proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:
The importance of improving services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians.
I call upon all those honourable members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.
More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—
Ms BURNEY (Barton) (15:31): I recognise that we are on Ngunawal country and, as I am sure the vast majority of people in this place know, next week is in fact NAIDOC Week. NAIDOC Week is celebrated in mid-July each year, and this year it will run from 7 to 14 July. The theme for NAIDOC Week this year is 'Voice. Treaty. Truth. Let's work together for a shared future'. NAIDOC Week celebrates the history, culture and achievements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people across the country. It is an incredibly proud time for everyone and an important part of our national calendar—even more so because much of the discussion and debate around First Nations affairs is focused on injustice and disadvantage. We do need to hear the positive stories as well. NAIDOC celebrations take place in communities right across this country—schools, towns, organisations and governments. Each year at the national level, there is a city of focus. This year it is Canberra, where the National NAIDOC Awards will take place on Saturday night. I look forward to joining the member for Hasluck in presenting some of those awards.
The history of NAIDOC is an amazing one, and it fits rightly into the theme for today's MPI. Of course, there is a long and significant history, and it stretches back more than most Australians would realise. It is a history born out of protest and a desire to celebrate culture and to improve the circumstances of First Nations people. Boycotts of Australia Day by Aboriginal groups have a long history in Australia, going back to before the 1920s, but a lack of acknowledgement and understanding and action by the police meant that these protests did not gain wide acknowledgement.
In an effort to give Aboriginal Australians a voice among the powerful, William Cooper, after whom the electorate of Cooper is named, wrote to King George V. He petitioned the King for special Aboriginal electorates in the Australian parliament way back then. At the time, the government simply dismissed the idea, saying it fell outside its constitutional responsibilities. Of course, Aboriginal people were not recognised as citizens in those times. It was the 1967 referendum that fixed those two issues.
On Australia Day in 1938, protesters marched through the streets of Sydney. This was followed by a congress of over 1,000 people. It was known as the Day of Mourning and was one of the first major civil rights gatherings anywhere in the world. Following this congress, William Cooper and others presented the Prime Minister, Joseph Lyons, with a proposed national policy for Aboriginal people. This was again rejected, because the Constitution still did not recognise Aboriginal people as citizens of Australia. In 1939, William Cooper wrote to the national missionary council to seek their support to make the protests an annual event. They agreed, and the day of mourning was held from 1940 to 1955 on the Sunday before Australia Day and was known as Aborigines Day. In 1955 Aborigines Day was moved to the first Sunday in July and became a celebration of culture, not only a day of protest. From there it grew into NAIDOC Week. It was expanded to include Torres Strait Islanders in 1991. Today, a national NAIDOC committee makes decisions on national celebrations and awards each year.
I want to go to the topic that we are having this MPI about and an amazing book I've just finished reading. I recommend it to every single person in this parliament. It's called Dark Emu and is written by Bruce Pascoe, who has traditional links to the Yuin of the South Coast of New South Wales and also to Tasmania. The book turns on its head the widely held view that Aboriginal people were hunter and gatherer societies. Pascoe uses the actual diaries and documents of the early colonists to advance a truer picture of Aboriginal society and the land. He speaks of permanent dwellings; aquaculture like the Brewarrina fish traps; farming, of daisy yam in this part of the world, for example; and the use of fire to look after country. He speaks of the pure ingenuity of the harvesting of birds and insects like the bogong moths that we are so familiar with around here. He speaks of how the economy worked based on culture, kinship ties and reciprocity. One aspect that really resonated with me because of my Wiradjuri ties was the wide open plains that early settlers described as perfect for sheep and cattle grazing. Those open plains had been made by Aboriginal people and were destroyed very quickly by hard-hoofed animals devastating country, food supply and economy. Pascoe also advances the theory that there was no need for fences, because there was no dispute about who belonged to what parts of the country. That is something we could all learn from today.
In my closing remarks, can I say on the issue of improving services being provided to Aboriginal people, there could be no more urgent action that we could undertake. We heard today in question time the Prime Minister speak about the level of youth suicide. We know what the incarceration rates are. We know what the removal rates of children are. We know what their health outcomes are. We know that we are not meeting the Closing the Gap targets. These are issues that I know people take very seriously, and we will hear shortly from the shadow minister for health on some of those issues in the health space.
The philosophy that needs to go forward, and I'm sure will go forward, is that the day has gone when Aboriginal people are told how to conduct themselves and the way in which organisations are run is determined by others. It is time for proper codesign. It is absolutely time to make sure that what we do in the Aboriginal affairs space is directed and supported, particularly by local Aboriginal communities. The Aboriginal population is a growing population but in reverse to the general population. The bulk of Aboriginal people are young people, under the age of 25. That presents particular policy issues for those of us who are responsible for developing policy. The level of domestic violence and of abuse in Aboriginal communities is a national shame. There are many Aboriginal communities across this country that do not have clean water, where people are living in the shells of cars. That is unimaginable for most people, who can go and turn on a tap and get clean water, who can flush the toilet and who have a comfortable, safe and secure home to sleep in—these are simply not the case for so many of our people. We cannot but think about that and factor it into what we do in this place with policy development. We've got to remind ourselves of the history of the incredible effect of intergenerational trauma from things like the forced removal of Aboriginal children from their families. That may have happened a few generations ago but it happened for a long time, and young Aboriginal boys and girls still feel the trauma of that today. It is carried with them. Those are the issues that we need to understand, absolutely. I know that the member for Hasluck has a personal story along that theme. Those are the things that we need to understand.
If a community is burying two or three young people a week, if a community is in permanent grief and people are related to each other in that small community it is impossible to function normally. These are the really important issues that must be understood by all of us in this place and by those who make policy decisions around Aboriginal people.
I commit myself to a bipartisan approach on this, and we will work collaboratively everywhere possible with the government. I know that my colleagues are supportive of that. But I say this very strongly: bipartisanship cannot be a race to the bottom. Bipartisanship has to be about achieving the highest outcomes. If bipartisanship is a race to the bottom, then it is not worth doing. I have seen in so many instances over my career where bipartisanship ends up being what you can actually agree on, and sometimes that's not very much. I know that that's not what we're talking about in this particular space.
In closing, I commend this MPI to the House and recognise the speakers who will follow me.
Mr WYATT (Hasluck—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (15:41): I want to acknowledge and join myself with the words that the member for Barton has used in her address on this issue. One of the earlier things that I did with the new agency was to sit with them, given that I was reminded of William Cooper. I'd read in detail the whole NAIDOC history again, just to refresh my memory with the beginnings and origins of the stages through which the leadership at that time took many issues to governments. Bill Ferguson, Sir Douglas Nicholls and many others—Kate Fitzpatrick—were involved.
Their resolve was to look at ways in which services could be better for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people—ways in which governments would engage in conversations that would result in resolution to a better life and better opportunities; the same opportunities as any Australian has. If we think back to the period in which they lived, the challenge was certainly a considerable barrier to the things that they were striving for. The Day of Mourning became a significant line in the sand. The involvement of the churches in writing to every Aboriginal organisation meant that there was a different focus in this nation on addressing the levels of disparity.
In talking with my agency—and I want to acknowledge the Prime Minister's establishment of it as an independent body under the umbrella of the Prime Minister and where the CEO, Ray Griggs, reports to me—one of the things I did say was that I want to have co-design. I want us to think about the way in which we focus on the client: in other words, understand the community and the need; deal with the issues where you start to have a better understanding of what the challenges are.
The second was to clarify; find out what is really going on and how to address it. Thirdly, it was to create and build the best possible joint solution—not a solution that is one-sided but a solution that involves both sides. And the point the member for Barton made is an important one: we don't build to the lowest common denominator. We build to a level which is the aspirations of a community—what the families and the children want and desire in order to progress in their own choices of life to better opportunities and options.
The fourth thing I said was about change: make it happen. Too often with services we have the discussions, we go away, and change is expected to occur, but it doesn't always. That's why at times when I look back to 1972, at some of the investments, the level of change has not been as I thought it would be. The area of Aboriginal health has been a challenge for a long, long time. The levels of disparity in many of the illnesses and diseases, both chronic and those which are caused by other factors, continue to prevail at the levels they are.
The fifth step is to confirm and make sure that what you've agreed to starts to happen—make sure that the agreement is a two-way process of occurring. Next, continue: make the change stick. Often we will go into a community, have the dealings and reach the agreement, but we don't have the continuity. We don't continue with the reforms we need to ensure services are meeting needs and that those needs are at the forefront of an agency's activity.
And we need to close—close the engagement but maintain the relationship. That is one of the things that is absolutely critical in reforms in Aboriginal matters across all elements: educational pathways, having our kids attend the schooling system, addressing the complex health issues, looking at the incarceration rates that are high in my own home state, examining economic opportunities, and putting into place procurement processes that encourage the capacity of Aboriginal businesses to become competitive and to flourish. What I find with those organisations is that they employ local Indigenous Australians to be part of their workforce. So we build the economic base. We have to also learn to deal with unintended consequences and bring people back to the point of what it is that we are trying to provide the service for.
I think the challenge that all of us have—I would ask every member in this chamber to go out into your electorates and meet with Aboriginal organisations and get to understand what the challenges are, so that when the member for Barton and I work together on issues we know what you're bringing back to us. Knowing the level of detail collectively within this chamber will alter the way in which services are provided, because it's not just a minister and a shadow minister that make a difference in the challenges. It's every 151 of us, because in your own seats you'll know the way in which organisations function and operate. If we establish that, then we can make a difference. There are the nuances. We did it and we've done it on a number of issues. We see it in question time when colleagues stand up and ask questions about: 'In my electorate, there are challenges for this family or this individual or this organisation.' What I want us to do is to build on that intent of goodwill and that opportunity to do the same for Indigenous services, organisations and communities.
There are members in this House on both sides who I engage with—and I'm sure the member for Barton does equally—who come and talk to us about something that has to be remedied. We talk about the solution, then I ask them to go back and spend time talking to the organisation, to obtain their perspective on what needs to be a solution that governments can support. We can throw money, but it's not always money; it's about how we utilise not just the Aboriginal affairs bucket. If I drew a circle, the amount that goes into Aboriginal affairs would be like the sweep hand on the clock. The bulk of resources are in mainstream services. How do we do our best to ensure that we have a combination that optimises every opportunity within Commonwealth, state and territory, and local government resources to assist communities to move to that position that they desire?
The challenges that we also have mean we have to provide information about choice. When we had the syphilis outbreaks in the Top End of Australia, it took the community controlled health sector, state and territory systems and GPs working collaboratively to have an impact—not a reliance on just one component. Services are critical, but it's the way in which we work in order to deliver those services.
With NAIDOC Week coming up, I would invite everybody in this chamber to take some time out and attend some of the events. Meet not just the leaders but those who have stalls and are part of the community—those who are there showing with pride what it means to them to be Indigenous Australians and what their organisations are doing to make a difference. Share the food, share the culture, share the dance, look at the art and hear the stories, because it's through our mutual understanding of each other that this nation will become a greater nation in the way in which we move forward. If we don't, then this is a discussion that will be happening in 20 years time.
The changes began in 1972. Subsequent prime ministers have built on the opportunities, but we've still not closed many of the gaps. As we heard from both our leaders, the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, there is a genuine commitment to work towards making a substantial difference not only in the provision of services but, more importantly, in the outcomes that we seek collectively for Indigenous Australians, regardless of their geographic location. I thank the member for Barton for her MPI. I look forward to working with her in a bilateral way to influence our colleagues to make a difference for the future.
Mr BOWEN (McMahon) (15:51): Once a year in this place we gather to hear from the Prime Minister of the day about the progress or, more often, the lack of progress in meeting the targets set to close the gap of Indigenous disadvantage in our country. I think all of us, collectively and individually, genuinely lament, express our disappointment and reflect. And then, all too quickly, we move on. We move on to the issues of the day and criticise each other. We move on to the story of the hour. It's far too little. The plight of our First Australians is not the first-order issue in our Australian political debate. What is happening for those in the centre of our country is not at the centre of our political debate, and we must collectively do better.
We've set those targets to close the gap and, in too many instances, we are not meeting them. In some instances it's getting worse, particularly in relation to health. We have set the target of closing the gap for Indigenous life expectancy by 2030, but we are not making it. What small gains are being made in Indigenous life expectancy are being outpaced by gains for non-Indigenous Australians, and in some instances, particularly in relation to Indigenous females, we're going backwards. There was a 32 per cent increase in the Indigenous suicide rate between 1998 and 2015. Australians of Indigenous heritage are four times more likely to have diabetes or pre-diabetes and twice as likely to die from respiratory disease. Cancer rates have increased by 21 per cent, whereas cancer rates for those of non-Indigenous background have been decreasing.
As we speak, there is an HTLV-1 crisis, particularly in the centre of Australia. This week there's been news that we have had the best HIV-AIDS figures in 18 years. But even as we've made progress a disease which is a cousin of HIV-AIDS, HTLV-1, is at epidemic proportions, affecting almost half of some remote communities. We are making no progress. In fact, as a country—this is not a partisan remark—we are, frankly, not even trying. We have a huge task ahead of us. In real terms, health expenditure on Indigenous Australians—excluding that on hospitals—is falling when it should be increasing. Again, I say this not as a partisan remark but as a reminder to the country that we have a huge task ahead of us.
The issues are complicated; nobody would suggest that they're not. We can't simply increase health funding and fix the problem—not unless we fix housing, fix education and fix the spirit of no hope in many communities. I've read reports which show that communities of the First Peoples of Canada that have empowerment and have hope for the future have much lower suicide rates than other communities. I'm sure the lessons are the same here in Australia.
These are complicated issues which we all must focus on and think more about. Last week I was with the member for Lingiari, not only in Alice Springs but in Kintore on the border of Western Australia and the Northern Territory, 500 kilometres west of Alice Springs—as we've previously been to Docker River and Papunya. These circumstances should not exist in Australia in 2019! We cannot let this stand, that people are living in our communities, in our nation in 2019, in these circumstances.
When we go to see people on dialysis in Alice Springs and in Kintore and in Docker River, these are our brothers and sisters in Australia in 2019. These are not statistics. As worrying and concerning and as deeply disturbing as these statistics are, these are human beings and our fellow Australians in Australia in 2019. This cannot stand.
It is NAIDOC Week coming up. Our friend the member for Barton has reminded us of the themes of NAIDOC Week. I say that it is incumbent on all of us to be a voice for Indigenous Australians in this House—those who are Indigenous and those who are non-Indigenous. But we should also have a voice directly to us from our First Peoples. We should get this done. This is not a third chamber of parliament; it is only right and just that our First Nations have a voice to us to express their views about what is happening in their communities, and this must be done. And until that is done I fear that we'll continue to lament once a year, we'll continue to express disappointment, we'll continue to reflect and we'll continue to tut-tut and say, 'We must do better.' And then, by the afternoon we'll have moved on.
That Indigenous voice to us to remind us of our responsibilities and of our obligations, of our moral responsibilities as a parliament, is necessary. I commend the member for Barton for this matter of public importance.
Mr HOWARTH (Petrie—Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and Community Services) (15:56): I thank the shadow minister for this MPI into the importance of improving services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. It's a very important issue, which I think all members of this place do, rightly, care about.
I agree with the shadow minister when she said before that it's important to get across the positive stories as well. She mentioned NAIDOC Week and some of the positive stories around Indigenous Australians and what's happening there. I agree with that. When we look at the Closing the Gap targets, as the member for McMahon just talked about—and the shadow minister opposite—I've been here quite a few years now, and every year we come in and hear about them. Sometimes those targets are just not going down. Some have been improving, but some aren't.
The shadow minister spoke about the bulk of Aboriginal people being under 25. That is important as well. We need to have a different mindset in relation to that too, because not all of us are under 25. I myself am not Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, but I have a couple of friends who are. I spoke to one of them recently, my friend Ramone in my electorate. He spoke about the new generation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, that they do have different ideas, that they do have different mindsets and that they haven't been affected, for example, by the stolen generations—although, I do note that the shadow minister did say that that does affect younger people. She mentioned that.
He said that younger Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people have many friends who are multicultural, so they are perhaps coming from a different perspective from previous generations in this space. He spoke about education as being key and that, generally, he thought that younger Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are treated well and accepted well by their peers.
This issue is very important. When I look across at some of the different policies of the minister, for example, and what he is saying, his key focus is to ensure that there are better health, education and safety outcomes for all Australians, with access to real jobs and greater opportunities. He also spoke about some of the great results in relation to jobs for Indigenous Australians, which is very important. But there are also some half a million people living across 86 per cent of Australia's land mass. Many community populations are less than 200 persons and a significant distance from major roads, bigger populations and service centres. Indigenous Australians make up a third of the population across 2,000 remote communities and towns.
I mention this because regional Australia is very important as well, given that a lot of Indigenous Australians live there. So, when regional representatives speak in this place—a lot of Liberal and National Party members, as well as the member for Lingiari opposite and the member for Kennedy—we should listen to what are some of the needs in those areas, because there's no doubt that that will affect Indigenous Australians.
It's not just government that's going to play a role here, of course. I think that all Australians can make an important difference here. The minister spoke about building the economic base, which is important, and my friend Ramone is doing that. He is involved in business, setting up a small business in furniture manufacturing, and is mentoring young people in my electorate. I want to thank him for that.
The minister also spoke about meeting Indigenous organisations. It is important for us as members and for senators in the other place to get out there and meet Indigenous organisations, but let me go a step further. I actually want us to meet Indigenous people, because, unless you've got friends or people that you know that are Indigenous—Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander—how do you know what it is that is affecting them? I think it's important for us, as members of parliament, to go out of our way to meet Indigenous Australians and to actually befriend them and ask them, 'What is important to you?' When we're looking at closing the gap or boosting jobs in business and so forth, let's talk to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and listen to them. As Ramone said to me today, 'Luke, what is important, if you want to get our mob on side, is that you work with them and not tell them,' and you can't do that unless you've got friends that are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander. So I think that's something that we can all do. As the Assistant Minister for Community Housing, Homelessness and CommunityServices, I look forward to working with the minister and seeing how I can help in that space. I'm very committed to that.
Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari) (16:02): I acknowledge the MPI which has been brought forward today by the member for Barton and thank her for her contribution, as well as the minister, the member for McMahon and the previous speaker. I was really encouraged by the words of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition here this afternoon, in the course of question time, talking about the acceptance of the need for bipartisanship in progressing the issue of a voice and constitutional recognition. I applaud them for it and I hope we can do it, but we did get that from the last Prime Minister, and we didn't achieve an outcome. So we need to be sincere about what we do and be prepared to make changes—not fixed by ideological positions but prepared to move. We need to be subject to the will and aspirations of Aboriginal people.
I'm not seeking to be partisan here, but I want to just talk about the last federal election, because in my own electorate 42 per cent of the voting population are Aboriginal people. Across the 21 mobile teams that worked across the desert in the Northern Territory, from the 14 that went to Aboriginal communities, I got over 75 per cent of the vote in most and over 90 per cent in four. That was a result of going and talking to people prior to the election about what their needs and aspirations were. I want to just make it very clear I hear their voice, and their voice tells me what I'm telling you, and that is that they are sick and tired of being told what to do by us and that the remnants of the intervention so badly put by John Howard and Mal Brough are still hurting Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, sadly. We need to say that's all gone, and we need to make sure every aspect of it is taken away. Then we need to sit down and say, 'Well, what are the key issues which you're engaged with and which are important to you?'
What they told me was that at the top of the agenda was CDP. What they are after is a new program which looks a lot like the old CDEP, which I know the minister is au fait with. We had resistance from the former minister, who told us on the one hand that he was prepared to move but on the other that he was unable to move. We can't be doing this. If we're sincere in getting the outcomes we need and we are prepared to listen to Aboriginal people, we need to listen properly. And if we are listening properly, we will come up with outcomes which they accept as being determined by them.
They also talked about the need for regional representation. We talked about what the old ATSIC looked like and regional councils and regional assemblies and how their voice might be properly articulated at a community and regional level. They made it clear that was their aspiration. Sadly, and this is just a comment, in many places people hadn't even heard of the Statement from the Heart. The aspirations of people who live in very rural communities are sometimes not heard. The thing we need to understand is we need to go talk to them wherever they might be—in the remotest corners of this country. It's all right to have the voices of Sydney and Melbourne, because they can get a hold of the media. That's fine. There's no doubt they have a very legitimate cause to prosecute. But we need to make sure that the interests we're representing are the interests of all First Nations people, not just some. That requires us to do the listening that is properly done.
I think the minister is up to it and I know he knows that our side of this place—certainly the shadow minister, myself and Senator Dodson, who have worked with him in the past—is very sincere about our desire to get outcomes with you and your government. We don't seek to make political points here. There is no political advantage to me in working with you, but I want to work with you, because it's important to get the outcomes this nation needs. If we are to improve services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this country, that's the only way it will be achieved. But it does mean the government making very hard decisions and telling those recalcitrant agencies within the government that they have to be brought to book and they have to do their job and make sure they are accountable for the services they are providing. They should do it through you as their coordinating minister.
Mr RAMSEY (Grey—Government Whip) (16:07): It gives me great pleasure to stand and speak on this MPI today. Grey is an electorate that has an Indigenous population of around 7.2 per cent. I make the point that all the remote Indigenous communities in South Australia lie within the electorate of Grey, so I'm very familiar with many of the issues and challenges that they face and I regularly visit those communities to talk and sit down and listen to what they have to say. I'm very pleased to report that my relationship with them is very good and that I believe we have made some great ground over time.
The Close the gap report delivered earlier this year, 2019, tells us that there is more to be done, but we are making progress. But that 'more to be done' now falls on the shoulders of Australia's first Indigenous Minister for Indigenous Australians, Ken Wyatt. It was very good to hear the minister's comments—the first comments in this chamber in that position—at the beginning of this debate. I thank the minister for those comments. I believe we have somebody who is dedicated and is highly accomplished in former portfolios but who brings great passion to bringing about realistic change in this area. I acknowledge the shadow minister's commitment in this area as well.
That Close the gap report told us that we were making some particularly good ground in the early years and in year 12 completion. I can point you to the places where that's happening. Certainly education is a real issue, a real challenge in these remote communities. I would say the school attendance program is successful, but it's patchy. It always seems to rely on the quality of the individual actually leading the program and the quality and the acceptance of the school principal who is associated in those particular places. If you don't have a good tie-up and everybody pushing in the same direction, the program will deliver far less. When you hit the spot, it really works. I think we have to keep working at that. A problem of course is that when you have a particularly talented leader so many other organisations in the community say, 'We want that one,' and they get pirated off and you have to start again. We need to make a real commitment to this program to make sure that it is working.
I'm particularly pleased with the number of Indigenous owned and controlled organisations that have been awarded contracts to deliver services to local communities under the Indigenous Procurement Policy. I'm seeing a difference in my own communities. I talk here about Ceduna, as I've done many times in this chamber, because it's the home of the cashless welfare card. We have worked with the community there. Indigenous organisations have confidently risen to the challenge and increasingly taken on more and more work that previously the government or other providers used to do for them. The Ceduna Aboriginal Corporation is the new provider of CDP. They are very excited about that and are gearing themselves up to get their teeth into it. They believe they can do great things for their people. In fact, all 13 of the new CDP providers that commenced work four days ago are Indigenous controlled or owned. I think that's a great outcome. It's a great tick for the government policy. Right across the board we're seeing more organisations taking on more government contracts and delivering good results. They're actually delivering the work on time and on budget. It's exactly what we need.
The next step, of course, is for the individuals who work within these organisations to step outside them, take those skills into the broader workforce and make room for new people to come in and take on the roles that they previously occupied. We will have to keep applying ourselves to make sure that they have the confidence to step outside that space.
I have been the member for Grey now for 11½ years. I can certainly say that there's plenty of work to be done. Sometimes I put my head in my hands almost in despair because I see the things that others have referred to. On the other hand, I know that we are in a better space now than we've been before—
The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Hogan ): I thank the member for his contribution and I call the member for Newcastle.
Ms CLAYDON (Newcastle) (16:12): I am delighted to follow my colleagues in this matter of public importance discussion today on services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. I thank the Minister for Indigenous Australians for his contribution earlier and willingness to work in a bipartisan manner to focus on outcomes. I take heed of what both the member for Barton and the member for Lingiari said before. A bipartisan approach must be reaching for the stars. We have to be setting a benchmark of excellence and, in fact, leading the world. We need to have confidence that that is a shared position of this parliament. The First Nations people of our country deserve nothing less and expect nothing less from this parliament.
There are plenty of signs of a willingness to have a kind of renewed relationship with the parliament. Indeed, no sign is more prominent than the Uluru Statement from the Heart. That had a very rocky re-entry into this parliament. Let's not forget the complete dismissal last September of any notion that there could be a voice to parliament. Indeed, the new Prime Minister, a month after the former Prime Minister dismissed it, went on to say that he too believed that there could be no countenance of a voice to parliament—with the very mischievous interpretation that this somehow represented a third chamber. Of course, there has been a resounding and emphatic rejection of that interpretation by First Nations people.
I'm glad to see that there has been some movement on the government bench to now give some shape to what a voice might look like. There is an allocation in the budget of $7.3 million to try to progress this. I would like to see that that is done. I take on board the minister's comments earlier on about the new agency and a genuine desire for co-design of programs. This is an ideal opportunity for that $7.3 million to be spent around the design of what this process is going to look like and, indeed, to have a genuine partnership.
The theme for this year's NAIDOC Week is 'Voice, Treaty, Truth'. They were the three fundamental elements of reform that were spelled out in the Uluru Statement from the Heart. So this NAIDOC Week is indeed honouring the intent of that statement from Uluru. It is the job of this parliament now to honour that statement. However that voice gets shaped and interpreted, I think we should never lose sight of the fact that the Indigenous voice in Australia is at least 65,000 years old. This is not a new idea. This is not a new voice in our nation.
Likewise, the concept of a treaty has a very, very long history—since colonisation, in fact. In my own home town of Newcastle, I remember 30 years ago convening, in my then role in the Newcastle Aboriginal support group, a public meeting and discussion around treaties and what that would look like in Australia. I am definitely not wedded to the idea that there be one treaty that serves the entire nation. There may be multiple. I do not wish to prejudge what that is going to look like. But there is nothing surer than that one day this nation will have to answer to that history, own that history and, indeed, go back to looking at treaty-making. There will be the formation of a treaty at some point in Australia's history. I really hope that I'm in a parliament that helps to do that.
Likewise, there can be no treaty without truth, without owning our history and without having a shared understanding and agreement on the unfinished business in this country. These are all matters that are deeply meaningful to First Nations people, regardless of whether they live in a highly urban environment like Newcastle or in a remote community like Wadeye. These are matters that go deep in our national identity and the relationship we have with First Nations people.
Mr LEESER (Berowra) (16:17): I would like to thank the member for Barton for moving this MPI and to congratulate her on her appointment as the shadow minister in this area. I also acknowledge the minister in this space, Minister Wyatt, who is the first Indigenous Minister for Indigenous Affairs and is doing a wonderful job. This is a very important matter of public importance. Both the minister and the shadow minister raised the extraordinary figure of William Cooper. William Cooper was a great petitioner, a great activist, a great Yorta Yorta man and a great leader of people. When he presented his petition to King George in the 1930s it is to be remembered that the number of Aboriginal people in Australia had declined so much that Aboriginal leaders at that time were worried about the very survival of their people. As the member for Barton said, one of the good things today is that, as we know, the total number of Aboriginal people is actually growing in our country, whereas, in William Cooper's day, the future looked incredibly bleak.
As my friend the member for Macarthur will know, the other thing that was extraordinary about William Cooper was that in 1938 he was one of the few people, despite the challenges of his own people, who decided to petition the German embassy against the discrimination and violent action against Jews in Germany on Kristallnacht. That was an extraordinary act from an extraordinary leader. I think we should all celebrate William Cooper for not only his leadership of his own people but his leadership of our country.
Australia is a wonderful place to live. This is probably the greatest country in the world. We are a country of great fortune, great riches and great success. But, unfortunately, not everyone shares in that success, and many of the social and economic indicators are that Indigenous people probably miss out on that success more than almost any other group of people. You only needed to hear the passion that the Prime Minister displayed today in his answer in relation to Indigenous suicide to see the major challenge that we as a country face in dealing with this. I am delighted to see him and the Minister for Indigenous Australians make this a great priority, with the $34.1 million injection into Indigenous suicide prevention, particularly supporting leadership locally among Indigenous people to deal with these issues. After the election, I took some time and read the dreadful report into those suicides in the Kimberley. That coroner's report is a most arresting document, not just because of the individual cases but because the coroner looks at some of the systemic factors that cause Indigenous suicide, particularly in that community. I'm pleased to see that $19.6 million is going to deal with the issues of Indigenous suicide in the Kimberley.
Last year I had the great privilege of co-chairing, with Senator Dodson, the Joint Select Committee on Constitutional Recognition relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, from which the recommendation of co-design came. I want to thank and acknowledge the minister, the Prime Minister and the government for adopting all of the recommendations of that report. It was a very important report. Much has been made of the issue of co-design today. I want to explain why we chose to recommend a process of co-design. The first reason is that, as I think the member for Lingiari said, people in Indigenous communities are sick of people here in Canberra telling them that they know best for their communities. If a process of bottom-up consultation is going to work, it has to be designed with the people for whom the service is going to be provided in mind so that it works for them.
Secondly, we simply did not have time to adequately go round and do that task in the nine months that we had to complete our report. Thirdly, if this is going to change lives, it has to be culturally appropriate. Something that might work in my electorate in northern Sydney will be very different to something that works in Kununurra or in remote communities in the Torres Strait or in North Queensland.
The final reason is that a process of co-design evidences a partnership. Co-design isn't Indigenous people designing something by themselves. It's not us in Canberra telling them what to do. It is a design process that involves government and Indigenous communities in the community where the challenges are faced. It gives me great encouragement to see the way in which the notion of this partnership is at the heart of everything that the minister has said he wants to achieve and wants to do in this space in his approach to Indigenous affairs, whether it is in relation to improving health and education outcomes, addressing employment or improving the lives of Indigenous people. It is only through partnership that we can achieve the change that all Australians seek.
Mr GOSLING (Solomon) (16:22): I thank the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians for raising this matter of public importance, because it is very important. I acknowledge the Minister for Indigenous Australians, who is with us. I can't think of anything more important for our first MPI than the shadow minister speaking on the importance of improving services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. We've been talking about Bob Hawke a lot this week, and that's what he did when this place opened. He made Indigenous issues the first order of business. I read that motion to the parliament yesterday as part of the condolence. That's how important he saw it as being, that's how important we see it as being and that's how important we hope that you, Minister, and your colleagues see it as being as well. We think it's great that you're the first Indigenous cabinet minister and the first Indigenous minister for Indigenous affairs. We think that's great. We hope that you can encourage those that sit together with you on the front bench to start taking this stuff seriously.
We have targets. You've been in government for six years, and, of seven of those targets, just two are on track. I've seen the minister up in Darwin consulting, and I applaud that, but what we need is for that information that you already have to quickly transfer into real outcomes on the ground, not just in the Northern Territory but around our whole nation. The status quo is not good enough. Whilst my colleague the member for Lingiari and others cautiously hope that this bipartisanship becomes a reality, he certainly has seen, over the decades, that unfortunately—as the member for McMahon, the shadow minister for health, said—too quickly it is just forgotten and we just move on with other things. Instead of seeing the investment that we need—and I must say that suicide prevention is important; I congratulate the Prime Minister for making that a priority, but that's the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff—what we need is services for Indigenous Australians and for all Australians in the Territory. But all we have seen from the coalition, it must be said, are cuts, chaos and neglect when it comes to the service provision for Indigenous Australians in this country. When they cut the payments, cut health services and cut funding for education, guess who suffers. It is the people who are in some cases in the Northern Territory living in Fourth World conditions in our First World nation. It's not good enough.
One case in point is hospital funding in the Northern Territory. Those opposite cut $16 million from Northern Territory hospitals. At the election we said we would reverse that, because we know how disastrous that is for health outcomes not just for Aboriginal Territorians but for all Territorians.
The head of the Northern Territory branch of the AMA, Dr Robert Parker, has recently written a letter to the Minister for Indigenous Australians and the Minister for Health, and I will be seeking to table that letter at the end of my contributions. In his letter, Dr Parker made the Minister for Health and the Minister for Indigenous Australians aware that the NT has almost two to three times the rate of hospital separations compared to the rest of Australia, and the government are cutting the budgets for NT hospitals by $16 million. The Indigenous and remote rural issues add significantly to the hospital separation.
The unique factors in the Northern Territory place additional economic burdens on the NT. The cost of providing health services in the NT is far in excess of anywhere else in the major cities and anywhere outside rural Australia. Now, your colleague, the Minister for Health, looked at the letter, waited a month, didn't propose any solutions or give any constructive insights and instead called for the Territory government to be sacked. The government has cut funding to hospitals, so the he calls for the Chief Minister to be sacked. It's pathetic. Enough of the cheap shots from the federal government. You both need to act. If minister Hunt doesn't understand what's required in the Territory, then I suggest that the Minister for Indigenous Australians brings him up to the Territory to have a look for himself.
I now seek leave to table the letter.
Leave not granted.
Mr GOSLING: I've been refused.
Mr THOMPSON (Herbert) (16:27): I acknowledge the Minister for Indigenous Australians and the shadow minister. Minister, I look forward to working with you, and so does my family, who you've met today. My mother-in-law, Florence Burns, was born on Palm Island. My wife is a proud Aboriginal woman. My one-year-old daughter is an Aboriginal Australian. This MPI is personal and close to my heart.
One of the single biggest contributors to the health and wellbeing of our First Nations people is access to health and other services that many of us take for granted. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people typically die at much younger ages than other Australians and are more likely to experience disability and reduced quality of life due to ill health. The thought that my family—that my daughter—will have a much shorter life span than others across this great nation is something that I reject outright. This is simply not good enough.
The importance of improving services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians is not just a statement; it's something that we must do. The government has invested in a number of programs in my electorate to help improve services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Some of those are the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service; Creative Spirits; the Cowboys School Attendance and Transition Project for Indigenous youth; the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, GBRMPA; the Capacity Building for Indigenous Rangers Strategy; the NRL Cowboys House; remote Indigenous student scholarships; and many more.
Similar to what I said in my maiden speech earlier today, I am aware like everyone else in this place that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians' rights have improved dramatically over the decades, but we must not forget that there is still a lot of work to be done in recognising and valuing our First Nations people and their culture.
Today I called Indigenous Australians in North Queensland and asked what they want, because I believe that for far too long we have told people what they want instead of asking: 'What do you need?' There are significant challenges for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services in remote communities. I met with the minister for Indigenous affairs this week. No Australian deserves to live without access to clean and safe water, such as Palm Island is experiencing right now. The water quality issue plaguing Palm Island is the result of complete and utter neglect and incompetence by the Queensland state government. It needs to be urgently addressed. I met with the minister and his staff yesterday on this issue. The government remains committed to seeing that the basic services that have been ignored are provided to the people of Palm Island. If this water crisis were in the south-east corner there would be a riot. It wouldn't be acceptable. As I stand before you today, it is not acceptable on Palm Island.
When I visited Palm Island, which is a lovely place, not so long ago, I met with a young, proud Aboriginal man named Telson. Telson has started his own social enterprise, a coffee cart. When I met with Telson I said, 'Why did you do this?' He looked and smiled and said, 'Why not?' I thought that was a pretty normal statement, why not. Palm Island is no different to the mainland. It's no different to anywhere else in Australia, and it shouldn't be treated that way. I committed as a part of my election campaign to hold roundtables throughout my electorate, which includes Palm Island, because I will not be telling the people of Great Palm Island what they want—I will be standing there with open arms asking what they need. I think they will need bipartisan support, from both sides of the House, on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander affairs. I'm very proud to be on the committee, and I will be contributing very positively with the voice of my family and the voice of my electorate.
BUSINESS
Days and Hours of Meeting
Mr PORTER (Pearce—Attorney-General, Minister for Industrial Relations and Leader of the House) (16:33): Mr Speaker, as you are aware, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Relief So Working Australians Keep More Of Their Money) Bill moved through this House on Tuesday—
An opposition member interjecting—
Mr PORTER: I did leave off 2019! But I won't torture the title again. That moved through this House on Tuesday evening and is presently the subject of consideration and debate in the Senate. I'm not aware whether or not the result of that consideration will be the bill's being passed with or without amendments or some other result. In those circumstances, it may be that you are minded to suspend the sittings until the ringing of the bells, at which point we will obviously have a better idea of the results of that debate in the Senate. The bill can either be dealt with here or I, as Leader of the House, can adjourn the proceedings.
Mr BURKE (Watson—Manager of Opposition Business) (16:33): There's been good consultation between the Leader of the House and me. As was evident on Tuesday, when we facilitated the bill going through the House that night, there's been similar cooperation in the Senate with respect to making sure that the bill is debated. It's the bill which no-one seems to be able to read out loud and keep a straight face at the same time, so I won't even go to name it. While there's a chance it will go through there unamended, anyone who predicts the Senate is brave. With that in mind, the course of action recommended by the Leader of the House is supported by the opposition.
The SPEAKER: I thank both the Leader of the House and the Manager of Opposition Business. As they both know, I will always seek to act in accordance with the sentiment of the House—particularly on a day like today, where we would be going back to the address-in-reply and which members like to prepare for. It's a very important contribution that they make.
So I thank both of them for discussing that matter. I think it's a practical thing for members. There is no reason to keep the House going while we wait, so the House is suspended until the ringing of the bells.
Sitting suspended from 16:35 to 19:31
ADJOURNMENT
Mr MORRISON (Cook—Prime Minister and Minister for the Public Service) (19:31): With tax relief now secured for all hardworking Australians, I move:
That the House do now adjourn.
Question agreed to.
House adjourned at 19:32