2015-06-15 44 1 6 House of Reps 0 1

Monday, 15 June 2015

The SPEAKER ( Hon. Bronwyn Bishop ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

PETITIONS 1 PETITIONS Craigieburn Post Office 1 Climate Change 1 Apollo Bay: Community Radio 1 PETITIONS 2 PETITIONS Responses 2 10:01 Dr JENSEN DYN Tangney Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows: Melville Amnesty Group 2 Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2 Melville Amnesty Group 3 Halal Certification 3 PETITIONS 3 PETITIONS Statements 3 0:02 Dr JENSEN DYN Tangney In a previous statement, I spoke about the importance of the committee's engagement with the community and shared some of the highlights of a recent school visit. Today, I will cover public hearings, another very useful forum offering the opportunity for public engagement and scrutiny of the House of Representatives petitioning system. Public hearings held by the Petitions Committee allow the participants to discuss, in detail, the issues raised in their petitions and to reflect on their experience of engaging with the committee. This feedback provides the committee with an understanding of the effectiveness of our work and our public outreach efforts with the Australian community. In late April the Petitions Committee held a public hearing in Sydney and met with several petitioners. The committee first heard from a petitioner who had conducted an online petition through change.org. He collected more than 60,000 signatures through this medium. Given that it was an electronic petition, the committee had to find that it did not meet standing order requirements. As a result, it was received by the House as a document and could not be referred to the relevant minister for a response. Nonetheless, the petitioner reported that he preferred to use social media to start a petition and that it had been a successful venture, insofar as it had reached a wide audience rapidly and received a lot of support. The petitioner stated that electronic petitioning 'will become the norm in the 21st century'. Although the committee cannot currently receive electronic petitions, the committee has inquired into electronic petitioning and recommended its introduction. Earlier this year the government responded to the report and was broadly supportive of this recommendation. Ways of accommodating this predicted 'norm' of electronic petitioning in the House are being investigated. The committee also heard from several other petitioners representing community organisations. These petitions were compiled in the traditional way, with handwritten signatures. They were found to meet standing order requirements and have been presented to the House. Our questions regarding engagement with the committee and the reason behind choosing to petition rather than another medium received encouraging answers. Generally, petitioners reported that they were satisfied with the key elements of the current petitioning system. However, it appears that we need to enhance public awareness of the role of the petitions committee and the mechanisms by which the committee interacts with the House and ministers, as several petitioners indicated that they were unfamiliar with the committee and the rules associated with petitioning the House. One group indicated that they had viewed the website and contacted the committee secretariat for information directly. The reason they chose to petition was to receive a formal response from the minister. Three groups had approached their federal representatives who suggested that they petition the House. Most petitioners chose to petition because they felt it would raise awareness and show evidence of public support for their concerns. All petitioners who appeared before the committee wished to elaborate on the particular issues that they had raised in their petitions and, although the committee can neither make recommendations nor endorse or advocate the contents of the petition, I assure all petitioners that the committee does everything in its power to bring these issues to the attention of the relevant minister. In addition to information on the committee's web page, including checklists and sample templates, when starting a petition many prospective petitioners are often surprised to learn that they can receive feedback on their draft petitions. The committee has received very positive feedback on this and encourages petitioners to use the service before beginning to collect signatures. I would like to thank those members who promote the option of petitioning to their constituents. It is evident that their efforts help inform the wider community of the role of the committee and make the petitions process worthwhile. I would also like to thank the participants of the hearing in Sydney. Their insights and experiences with petitioning have helped us to develop ways in which we can better engage with the Australian community, assist people to have their petitions presented in the House of Representatives and to receive a response. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 4 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Small Business 4 10:07 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) 96 per cent of all of Australian businesses are small businesses, employing more than 4.5 million people and producing more than $330 billion of the nation's economic output; (b) in 2013-14 Australians started more than 280,000 small businesses; (c) the Coalition Government has developed and started to deliver as part of the budget, the largest small business package in the nation's history—the Jobs and Small Business Package—worth $5.5 billion; and (d) as part of the Jobs and Small Business Package, all small businesses will get an immediate tax deduction for each asset they buy costing less than $20,000; and (2) acknowledges the work of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Small Business in putting together a package that will deliver for small businesses now and into the future. I have great pleasure in moving this motion on the coalition's Growing Jobs and Small Business package today and for the House to record and note its support. Small business in this country represents 96 per cent of all businesses, employing more than 4.5 million people and producing more than $330 billion of economic output for this nation. In 2013-14, Australians started more than 280,000 small businesses. This coalition government has developed and started to deliver, as part of this budget, the largest small business package in this country's history—the Jobs and Small Business package—worth some $5.5 billion. As part of the Jobs and Small Business package all small business will get an immediate tax deduction for assets they buy costing less than $20,000 after 7.30 pm on budget night. This motion also seeks to acknowledge the work of the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Small Business in putting together a package that will deliver for small business now and into the future. The coalition's Growing Jobs and Small Business package is designed to have a tremendous impact on Australia's economic climate, particularly for small businesses around the electorate of Forde, where we have approximately 11,000 small businesses. Our government is seeking to arrest the decline in the small business environment overseen by the previous Labor government, and we have now developed and delivered the largest jobs and small business package in the nation's history. The hardworking men and women of Australian small businesses deserve a government that will provide them with the opportunities to invest, grow and prosper. We are creating a more competitive system that supports small business growth and does not hinder it. Small business owners are the have-a-go Australians who follow their dreams, take a risk and dive into the world of business. They are the people who provide services, train and employ people, and contribute to economic growth in their local communities. There is no doubt that small business is at the forefront of Australia's jobs and growth for the future. It is the coalition government that is delivering for small business now and into the future through our growing jobs and small business package. Creating the ability for business to reinvest leads to existing output being increased but at lower cost. It also leads to new and improved ways of doing business, overall improving our nation's productivity and longer-term wealth. We want to see higher investment leading to higher employment and wages over time. And we believe the measures undertaken in this growing jobs and small business package is the first step in achieving this. Along with other package measures such as reducing the company tax rate, we will see continued assistance for small business to allow them to grow and compete more effectively with larger businesses, thereby again creating the opportunity to grow and prosper and employ Australians. More people in work means fewer people on welfare and more money for individuals and families results in a stronger Australian economy. Helping more small businesses to become profitable and sustainable and competitive will put small business owners in this best position possible to hire new employees, provide more jobs particularly, in my electorate, not only for younger people that are struggling to find employment but also importantly for an increasing number of older workers who are looking to re-enter our workforce. From 1 July 2015 incorporated small businesses will be eligible for the 1.5 per cent company tax cut, and small incorporated business will receive a five per cent tax discount up to $1,000 further improving cash flow and building a positive economy for small business. It is with great pleasure that I move this motion. I commend the Prime Minister and the Treasurer for their terrific work and I commend this bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 10000 Is the motion seconded? Mr Coleman 241067 I second the motion. 10:12 Ms OWENS E09 Parramatta In the last sitting week, Labor supported the government's legislation on the instant tax write-off and we were pleased to do so. There is no doubt at this time that small business does need a lift in confidence. We have seen business confidence flat line over the last year. It has now recovered to almost the level that it was prior to the last budget—but still below where it should be. We know small business has been suffering as consumer confidence has dropped as well. It is good to see this government doing something to repair the damage it has done to business and consumer confidence since it was elected over a year and half ago. We are also pleased to see that they selected the instant tax write-off when they decided to do something about business confidence because we were against them when they cut it last year. The government members, I think, were not paying much attention when they are in opposition because in opposition the Labor government introduced an instant tax write-off at the height of the Global Financial Crisis, initially for $5,000 instant right house write-off which we increased to $6,500 on a permanent basis. It was well received by the small business sector generally. It was greatly appreciated. It was a permanent instant tax write-off that gave them an ongoing tax concession for every item they bought up to $6,500. When the government came to power, one of the first things it did was abolish it because they did not think it was a good thing last year. We are very pleased to see them finally recognise the error of their ways and reinstate what was a very good policy. It is unfortunate they have chosen to do it for only two years. Ours, of course, was ongoing. Theirs is for two years only; it finishes in 2017. What we expect to see then—and economists are broadly saying now that it is a bit of a hole as businesses pull their expenditure forward in order to benefit from the write-off—is a bit of a slump in 2017. That is unfortunate. It is unfortunate that the government did not see their way to reinstate the permanent, instant tax write-off that they abolished last year. The motion also refers to the period when Labor was in government during the global financial crisis and the number of jobs in small business at the time. Again, I wonder whether members of the government, when they were in opposition, slept through the global financial crisis because we suffered the largest and deepest recession in the world economy since World War II during our time in government. I am incredibly proud of the way the Labor government supported small business at the time. You might remember, Deputy Speaker, that construction had flatlined. There were large construction companies in my electorate that had started to lay off staff; they were down to three days a week. It was the extraordinary building and stimulus package of the time which kept those businesses working during that period. There were some very good results across the board. While most economies went into recession, Australia was one of only two developed economies that did not go into recession. It was an incredible piece of economic management in hindsight. There was an overall increase in the number of employed people from 9.5 to 10.6 million during the worst global recession the world had seen since World War II. We actually grew jobs, and we grew the number of small businesses. The total number of businesses in Australia grew. The number of people employed in medium enterprises grew by 822,000 and, in large businesses, by 757,000 workers. This, again, was quite a strong economic performance—I would say an exceptionally strong economic performance—given that we were facing the largest recession the world had seen and no other economy survived that recession the way ours did, largely because of the work of the Labor government but also some historical work done by previous governments as well. An honourable member interjecting— Ms OWENS E09 Of course it had something to do with the Reserve Bank. I will take that interjection. It was a result of many things. It was a result of the fact that Australia had variable rather than fixed interest on home loans, unlike the US, which had fixed rates, so drops in interest rates did not actually flow through. There were many, many things—the fact that we had the eighth lowest debt in the world and we had the first lowest debt after the global financial crisis. So we improved our debt position relative to the world. It was to do with the Hawke and Keating government, it was to do with financial regulation, it was to do with all sorts of things. It was because Australia was well-governed, but it was also because of the work that the Labor government did in stimulating the economy that supported small business through that time. 10:18 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks It is good to second this important motion from the member for Forde, focusing as it does on the government's very important initiatives in the small business sector. Of course, those initiatives all have a very strong focus around productivity because ultimately, at the end of the day, the thing that drives living standards in the long run is productivity. There are other elements of the economy that ebb and flow over time—the terms of trade prices and so on, and obviously the degree to which there is participation in the economy helps to promote economic growth—but there is absolutely nothing which is more fundamental than productivity. It is one of those terms that get thrown around a little, but essentially it means the value of goods and services that we produce in a given unit of time. The more valuable the goods and services that we produce in a given amount of time the more wealth we create. The more wealth that the economy creates the higher living standards are across the board. It is absolutely fundamental to the government's economic agenda to drive productivity growth. We see in the measures in the budget a very strong focus on assisting small businesses to make their businesses as productive as possible. As we know, the vast majority of Australian businesses are in fact small businesses. They employ many millions of Australians and they form the bedrock of local communities. Indeed, in my electorate of Banks the thriving commercial centre of Hurstville and other major centres in Mortdale and Peakhurst, and the large manufacturing centres in Padstow, really are the backbone of our local economy. Small businesses in my electorate and indeed around the country will benefit enormously from these measures. The $20,000 instant asset write-off basically means that businesses that were putting off a decision to invest in some new productive equipment for their business are accelerating that decision—bringing it forward. Of course with businesses investing in equipment which enables them to run their business more effectively, that is the essence of productivity right there. It allows labour to produce goods and services more efficiently. Right around my electorate we are seeing a very strong response to these initiatives. Just last week it was tremendous to have the Prime Minister at the Buzzbar Espresso in Mortdale. The owner there, Mr Matt Alderton, took us through all of the various purchases that he was going to make in his various businesses to assist in the growth of that business. As I said, it is helping to grow productivity. It is also a very important productivity-boosting measure that under these changes businesses will be able to expend all their start-up costs immediately—accounting costs, legal costs and so on. That is important for productivity because what we want to see are more and more small businesses start. We want to see more and more businesses, especially in those high-growth areas of the economy—areas like technology and internet and so on, where I spent my career prior to coming here—those businesses which will tend, over time, to become a bigger part of the economy and be highly productive. They will be assisted by these measures. Now, rather than businesses having to absorb the cash cost of those start-up costs immediately—only being able to claim them back through tax over four or five years—they will be able to claim them back immediately. That is an important cash injection for those businesses in those often very difficult times when they are starting up and getting things off the ground. It is also getting rid of those complex provisions about capital gains tax hitting businesses when they restructure. That is also very effective in helping businesses to move forward and to focus on building a productive enterprise rather than getting bogged down in bureaucracy and red tape. These are tremendous initiatives and I strongly support this motion. 10:23 Mr RIPOLL 83E Oxley This Liberal motion is nothing more than a double-dipping dose of unwarranted self-aggrandisement and self-congratulations before any are due— The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 I do not know whether I should have called you now! Mr RIPOLL 83E Thank you! If you listen to the government, small business and the economy are doing great. But if you actually check the facts, they tell a very different story. Last week the Westpac–Melbourne Institute Index of Consumer Sentiment fell 6.9 per cent from 102.4 in May to 95.3 in June. That is not good news; they are not good numbers. But this is what Westpac senior economist, Matthew Hassan said: This is a surprisingly weak result. It now appears that last month's surge of optimism was a brief 'relief rally' following the RBA's May rate cut and a Budget that was less 'damaging' than many feared. Less damaging than many feared! He continued: With these factors now behind us, sentiment has reverted back to a level more reflective of broader concerns about the outlook for the Australian economy. At 95.3, the Index is 1% below its pre-Budget level and the weakest read since the start of the year. This is not good news. It was noted that consumer spending and business investment is weak. Mr Hassan went on to say: Individual components of the index highlight these renewed concerns about the economy. By far the biggest fall in June was in the sub-index tracking expectations for 'economic conditions, next 5 years' which plunged 17%— Under these brilliant guys here, the Liberals— reversing all of last month's 20% jump. He continued: Job loss fears remain a major concern. The Westpac Melbourne Institute Unemployment Expectations Index rose 3.8% to 152.8 (recall that higher readings indicate increased expectations that unemployment will rise over the year ahead)— not good news. Looking into the future, the long-term outlook is also not good: Since the last Board meeting, evidence of weak consumer spending and a deteriorating outlook for business investment along with this survey result will keep the Bank alert to disappointing economic progress. Finally Mr Hassan said: Our current view is that rates will remain on hold throughout 2015 and 2016 while recognising that since the last Board meeting the case for even lower rates has strengthened. This motion from the Liberal Party suggests everything for small business is just sweet, rosy and hunky-dory because of the actions of this brilliant government. This could not be further from the facts or the truth. I acknowledge that the small business measures in the budget are a positive initiative, but what is missing from the government is any acknowledgement that what they did in their first budget in cutting more than $5 billion in tax assistance measures, and their continued talk of debt and deficit disasters for pretty much the last four years, has all destroyed consumer and small business confidence to boot. They are a strange mob, the Liberal government, because they were fantastic at talking down the economy while in opposition but, when they got to government, they forgot to stop talking down the economy. They are supposed to talk it up and actually do a good job, and they just kept talking it down, down and down further. Now the government have been in power since September 2013, coming up on two years. You would have thought that, if the actions the government were taking were good and positive for small business, you might see an improvement over time in the trend of consumer and business confidence. But have we seen that improvement? Have we seen that trend? No, we have not. It is just not happening. If anything, the long-term outlook under the Liberal government, when considered by any respected commentator, is not good by any reading of the facts. So I say to Mr Van Manen and his good colleagues: this is your watch. You are now in government. That is the whole point of winning government: you get to implement your policies and take responsibility for what your policies actually do. We supported the government in bringing back the tax measures that were cut just 12 months ago under their previous budget. They cut the assistance to small business, and they go: 'Oh, what we have done? This is actually destroying small business.' So they are bringing back those measures again. The honourable thing for the government to do would be to acknowledge at least that they got it wrong last year when they cut the instant asset write-off—and then they reintroduced the instant asset write-off—and cut the loss carry-back for companies and accelerated depreciation for motor vehicles. What genius did it take to think of those cuts? Instead of motions that are nothing more than government propaganda about criticising Labor, they could actually do something a bit more to lift the confidence of small business. You might guess also that, when the Liberals say they are doing a good job on the economy and the budget, they would not have doubled the deficit and also added a further $35 billion in debt. 10:28 Ms SCOTT 165476 Lindsay Today I rise in support of the motion put forward by the honourable member for Forde. In my first speech, I gave a wonderful quote from Sir Winston Churchill: Some see private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon. Small business surely is that sturdy horse. Small business is a critical pillar of the community and an essential employer to the people of Western Sydney, Penrith and St Marys that I represent. Paul Brennan, the chairman of the Penrith Business Alliance, says: 'There are roughly 13,000 businesses in the area. The majority of these businesses are either micro or small to medium enterprises. Small business is the biggest employer in the area. It is vital to our economy and is the most ready to step up output. All our feedback reports that the reduction in tax for small business is viewed as welcome and a real shot in the arm after the impacts of the GFC, decreased consumer confidence, decreased export sales and international tourists due to the high Australian dollar.' We need to grow small business and inspire new entrepreneurs to innovate and create business and jobs for the future—jobs like the Werrington Park Corporate Centre, part of the Sydney IQ project. This project is designed to be a major catalyst for attracting high-tech industry, global investment and state-of-the-start research. Add to this the new UWS Business Development Incubator. This project is designed to promote entrepreneurship and provide start-up businesses with cost-effective workplaces, mentoring and support for investment and growth. That is great news for new businesses in Western Sydney. But add to that the federal government's support for unincorporated small businesses, cutting their tax rate by five per cent up to $1,000 annually. This is great news for new entrepreneurs in Western Sydney, just like those coming to the UWS Business Development Incubator. Just last week the Minister for Small Business and I visited the High Street Depot Cafe. This was its second day in business, the second day this business had opened its doors. We met Noreen and Tim. Noreen and Tim are local people but they have travelled internationally and secured their craft. They have now brought those skills back to Penrith, and with their young family they are having a go. This is what our small business package is designed for—to help young entrepreneurs to have a go and start their own business. That is why we are cutting the red tape and allowing the immediate deductions of professional services necessary for business owners like Noreen and Tim to open their doors. One of our hallmark measures is the accelerated depreciation program, allowing businesses to immediately write off up to $20,000. Local business owner, Brett McVea, from National Locksmiths, spoke about the new capital equipment he has purchased for his business. He says: This equipment keeps us in the market place, keeps our income and keeps the boys employed. It allows us to build the business. We can grow and have grown because we have the technology to grow. It's a fantastic initiative and well done to the government for considering small business—backbone of the economy. Well said, Brett. Deputy Speaker, incentives to unshackle small business do not stop there. We have lowered the small business company tax rate to 28½ per cent—a 1.5 per cent tax cut for businesses with an annual turnover of up to $2 million. Jim Hill from Nepean Solar agrees. He says: In regards to the reduced corporate taxes—having the reduced tax payable coupled with the instant tax write off will definitely stimulate the industry, in particular small business. It gives companies like myself the chance to grow and make a profit. Overall, it's a fantastic initiative and stimulus for small business. Gina Field, the owner of Nepean Regional Security and the President of the Penrith Valley Chamber of Commerce, states: As the Prime Minister said recently in Parliament, small business is the locomotive of the Australian economy. Whether large, medium, small, micro sized or home based, business owners all have the same wants and needs, to remain viable, have business growth and to employ more people. We are enthused and encourage by any Government that can give business owners tax breaks and advantages to allow us to confidently continue to do this. This is also reinforced by the Penrith Valley BEC. My community supports these measures. 10:33 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I rise today in support of small businesses right across the country who have been doing it tough since this government was elected. That is why I find it absolutely galling that those opposite can claim to be the best friend of businesses when, as my colleagues have discussed today, business confidence has fallen over the course of this government, consumer confidence has fallen over the course of this government and unemployment has risen. That has had a huge impact on small businesses. A particular case is what has happened in my electorate of Canberra, which has been devastated, once again, by a coalition government. We saw it in 1996 when the Howard government came into office. What did they do to Canberra? They absolutely decimated it. It just underscores the coalition government's complete contempt for Canberra and their complete contempt for public servants, the servants of democracy that serve this government and that served the government then. What happened to Canberra in 1996? We saw 30,000 public servants right across the country lose their jobs. We saw 15,000 public servants here in Canberra lose their jobs. That had a huge knock-on effect on the local economy and also the capital regional economy. Business bankruptcies went up. Businesses closed down. Local shops closed down. People left town. We saw a reduction in the population here in Canberra, we saw unemployment go up and we saw personal bankruptcies go up. That was 1996. Fast forward to 2013, when this government was elected. What did we see? Again, a huge whack to small businesses in this town. Coalition governments have form on having a huge negative impact on Canberra. What have we seen since this government was elected? We have seen 8,500 public servants lose their jobs. Mr Ewen Jones interjecting— Ms BRODTMANN 30540 As we saw in 1996, you cannot take 8,500 Public Service jobs away and expect to have zero effect on the economy. Since this government was elected, 8,500 Public Service jobs have gone, and we have seen small business confidence fall through the floor. I say to the member for Herbert there, as I say to many members both on this side of the aisle and on the other side of the aisle: go to Canberra businesses and actually have a conversation with them. Do not just order dinner or a glass of wine— Mr Ewen Jones 96430 Beer! Ms BRODTMANN 30540 have a chat with your mates and then head off. Actually have a conversation with the businessperson or the person who is serving you the curry at the Jewel of India, the Peking duck at Wild Duck or the sandwich when you arrive here on Sunday afternoon. Mr Ewen Jones interjecting— Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Just have a conversation with those people, the people who are serving you and the people who own those businesses. You will hear from them that they have been doing it very tough since this government was elected. Either their profits and their business have plateaued or they have lost between 20 and 30 per cent of their business as a result of 8,500 public servants being lost. Mr Ewen Jones interjecting— Mr Tudge interjecting— Ms BRODTMANN 30540 This is a huge impact on Canberra, on the capital region and on consumer and business confidence. Canberrans, knowing what coalition governments do to Canberra and to the Public Service when they get in, just shut their wallets or purses and stop spending. You have had a hugely negative impact on my electorate. The people of Canberra are not happy about this, and you just need to go and speak to small business owners when you are wandering around ordering your dinners or your sandwiches. Have a conversation with those people. I have had plenty of conversations with people through my business walkarounds. I used to have my own small business before I came into this life. I know what it is like to deal with the challenges of a small business. I know the risks that you need to take and I know the challenges. I know from my conversations in business walkarounds in Fyshwick—and I just remind the Prime Minister that Fyshwick is not in the electorate of Eden-Monaro—in Woden and in Tuggeranong that they are all doing it incredibly tough as a result of what this government has done to this town and to the Public Service—the people that serve Australia's democracy and this government and prepare the government's briefs and policies. You have complete contempt for Canberra, for the Public Service and, through that, for the small businesses and micro businesses that serve this town, this community and this region. The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 For those observing the debate, I did not intervene in the robust discussion, because the member for Canberra can well look after herself. Debate adjourned. Employment 10 10:39 Mr CONROY 249127 Charlton I move: That the House: (1) recognises that alongside national defence, there is no higher obligation on a Commonwealth government than to support and promote the employment prospects of its citizens; (2) condemns the record of the Government which has seen: (a) an unemployment rate at a 12 year high; (b) more than 81,000 Australians added to the unemployment queue since the election of the Government; (c) a record underemployment rate of 8.6 per cent; (d) a youth unemployment rate of over 15 per cent; (e) 190,000 people long term unemployed, more than any time since records began; and (f) one in four unemployed people being long term unemployed; (3) recognises that while support for small businesses is important to stimulating jobs growth, more is needed; and (4) calls on the Government to invest more in education, training, industry and innovation policies to rectify this jobs crisis. Besides national defence, there can be no higher duty of a federal government than ensuring the economic prosperity of this country and ensuring that every Australian who wants a job can find a job. Sadly, on this particular issue, this august duty, this government is failing this nation. This government is failing the nation on unemployment and it is failing the people of this country most grievously. If you look at the latest employment statistics, until very recently unemployment was at a 12-year high. Those opposite will probably refer to the latest monthly figures which, quite frankly, are somewhat suspicious, given the fact that most of the employment growth supposedly came from Western Australia, a state close to being in recession due to the collapse in the mining industry. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you look at the other employment figures that are relevant to this debate, we have an underemployment figure of 8.6 per cent, the highest rate in this country since records began to be collected on underemployment. It is higher than during the 1980s recession and the 1990s recession. That is very concerning. We have a youth unemployment rate of over 15 per cent nationally. We have a youth unemployment rate in my home region of the Hunter of over 20 per cent. Just think about that for a second. One in five young people in the Hunter Valley who want to find work cannot find work. That is a grievous situation. We have 190,000 long-term unemployed. That is the highest number of unemployed people ever recorded in this country. What is even more concerning is that one in four unemployed people in this country are long-term unemployed; they have been unemployed for over 52 weeks. This all paints a picture of an economy that is strong in parts but sluggish in others, an economy which is not providing the jobs growth so necessary to give Australians an opportunity to find stable, rewarding and fulfilling employment. That is a great tragedy. Ultimately it reflects poorly on this government, a government that came to power making commitments around supposedly creating one million jobs in this country over five years. The figure is nowhere near that. In fact, extrapolating from job creation figures over the last two years, the figure will fall 150,000 jobs short of that target. Those opposite might point to monthly figures on jobs creation, but the real thing to consider here is where do we compare internationally? We have a higher unemployment rate than the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. That was not the case under the last Labor government—a Labor government that helped create 900,000 jobs during the global financial crisis and a Labor government that produced an unemployment rate that was the envy of the rest of the world. That is our proud record on jobs. It is a proud record that stands in contrast to the record of those opposite. In the last budget we saw a small business package announced. We on this side welcome that. We welcome it in part because it was based on some initiatives that Labor had in place that those opposite decided to abolish. They have brought them back and they have expanded one. That is great and we support that, but it cannot just be that small business package that is the driver of jobs growth in this country. We need to do more on innovation and industry policy. That is something those opposite do not believe in, given the fact that they have cut $2 billion from innovation policy in this country. We need a renewed commitment on education and training and skills formation. That is something this government is so grievously lacking in, given the fact that they have cut $1 billion from training in their last two budgets. We have a jobs crisis in this country. We have unemployment at around a 12-year high. We have the highest underemployment rate since records began. We have the highest number of long-term unemployed since records began. We have youth unemployment over 15 per cent. We have one in four unemployed people who have been looking for a job for more than a year. Urgent action is required. Those on the Labor side take job creation very seriously. It is our raison d'etre to provide the dignity of employment to as many Australians as possible. For those on the other side it is all about rhetoric. It is all about symbolism. It is all about demonising job seekers rather than helping job seekers. I am proud to move this motion. I am proud to stand up for jobs, alongside every other Labor member in this place. The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 Is the motion seconded? Dr Chalmers 37998 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 10:44 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert I commend the member for Charlton for bringing forward the motion. Unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, and underemployment are massive issues for this country. But I would like to pick him up on one thing. The first duty of any government is to secure its borders and protect its citizens but, as a Labor member of parliament, I expect that he would gloss over those things. There are a lot of issues around unemployment and underemployment, and the issues in my electorate are wide-ranging. There are three major concerns in my regional electorate: youth unemployment, which is over 20 per cent and that does not include those who have opted out of the system; senior unemployment; and unemployment for non-English speaking migrants. We have to understand that governments do not create jobs; governments create the circumstances for business to employ people. We have to set the circumstances. If the set of circumstances are too lax then abuse occurs. If it is too stringent, opportunity is restricted. I see a bunch of school kids up behind the glass in the gallery. I say to them, what we are trying to do, and the issue the member for Charlton raises, is that when you leave school, whether you go to university or just get a job, you are able to go out and get a start. When I speak to kids at Queensland Youth Services or at Green Army jobs, what they are really chasing is a start, an opportunity. They do not really care what they do, so long as they can get that start. What they want is that opportunity. A letter to the editor of the Townsville Bulletin a little while ago talked about the Snowy Mountains scheme and how visionary that project was. People from all around the world worked on that massive scheme and barely a word of English was spoken, yet they did such a fantastic job for Australia. Unfortunately, none of those people could get a job today because they would not pass basic literacy and would not get past the workplace health and safety issues. These days, people under 24 must have 100 hours as a learner just to get a drivers licence, including 10 at night. Whilst we do not want unsafe workplaces and unsafe roads, we are putting up barriers to employment and to opportunity that are working against the very people whom we should be trying to provide with opportunity. The member for Charlton and I both come from regional electorates where public transport is not that easy. We are very much a car society. In Townsville, if you live in the upper Ross and if you have to be in the city for a nine o'clock job interview and you miss the 6.30 bus, or it does not turn up, which is often the case, you cannot get to the Willows in time to get the connecting bus into the city. If you are from a low-SES background and your parents do not own a car, that is how governments preclude people and make it harder for them to get an opportunity. We do not want lax workplaces and we do not want to roll down things, but we do have to look at the exclusions that we put on people who are trying to get a job. We must look at these things here. Governments have a serious role to play in providing opportunity. Queensland just recently elected a state Labor government. That is all well and good. Labor went to the election saying that they would provide the jobs and the opportunities without selling assets. As soon as they got in, they still want the money from the federal government's asset recycling fund, which is a bit silly. The figure I have heard bandied about the place in relation to the amount of private investment pulled out of Queensland due to the change of government is $37 billion of private investment. That is a massive amount of money. That is a massive amount of private investment. We will wait with bated breath to see what Curtis Pitt is going to do with the state budget. He must map out a plan for the provision of jobs and a map for the provision of opportunity for Queenslanders because we are ones who are really up against it at the moment. Queensland made the decision, and that is very well and good, and that is fair and I accept the decision, but you cannot sit there and say we do not have opportunity because we do have opportunity. If you are asset rich and cash poor then you have to look at the rationalisation of assets. Opportunity is what we are seeking for all people. 'To get a start' is the phrase I hear all the time in my community. 'I just need a start.' We have to make sure that employment laws and workplace health and safety things are right and that opportunity is there so we can guide people and help them get that start. It is so much easier to get an opportunity if you are in the workplace. It is so much easier to get a job if you are actually in work. That is what we have to work towards. 10:49 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin I pay tribute to my friend the member for Charlton for moving this motion about jobs today, and I am pleased to be seconding it. Having said that, it gives me no pleasure to point out that our communities have a fair bit in common when it comes to challenges in the labour market: unemployment in Logan, in my area, is 9.4 per cent; it is 8.1 per cent in the member for Charlton's area and in both cases, unfortunately, it is well above average. And youth unemployment is much worse, as we know: it is 17.8 per cent in my community of Logan and something like 13.2 per cent in the member for Charlton's community, and the national average is bad as well at 13.4 per cent. These are very troubling statistics at the local level, and unfortunately the national numbers are worrying as well. Despite a marginal improvement for May, we still have unemployment in this country with a six in front of it. It is has had a six in front of it since July 2014, and that is too high. We have not seen unemployment that high since the now Prime Minister was the employment minister in the early 2000s. On top of that, we now have a budget that has downgraded the forecast for unemployment and so we will have higher unemployment for longer, despite the government's promises that they would create all of these new jobs. In fact, on the contrary: we have had 56,500 more unemployed people since the government came to office. What makes this government's poor performance on unemployment so stunning is that unemployment is higher today than on any single day of the global financial crisis. We saw the sharpest synchronised downturn in the global economy and yet the unemployment rate then was still lower every day under Labor than it is today under the Abbott government. The member for Charlton and I both played our role in the Labor government during the global financial crisis, where Labor managed to keep Australia out of recession and keep unemployment below six per cent. A million jobs were created during that time in office, despite the worst global conditions since the Great Depression, and now we are seeing a lot of Labor's good work being worn away by this government, which has a political strategy but not a strategy for jobs. People in my community worry that unemployment will affect them or their family members, and they know the devastating effect that unemployment has on individuals and families. There is also another good reason to be concerned—that is, the effect that unemployment has on our growth prospects as a country today and into the future. Economists talk about three types of unemployment: frictional unemployment, which is the least worrying kind of brief periods where people are out of work as they are changing jobs; cyclical unemployment, which is the job losses that occur during recessions and economic stress; and structural unemployment, which occurs when people are out of work because of deeper, underlying problems in the national economy caused by things like mismatched skills, skills shortages, technological change and intergeneration disadvantage. What economists are really concerned about is that the higher unemployment we are witnessing in Australia could become this type of structural unemployment. This is a process that has a fancy economic term—hysteresis—which can have scarring impacts on the national economy, because when people are out of work for a period of time they lose employable skills and the labour market becomes harder to crack, resulting in an increase in structural unemployment. That is why the increase in the long-term unemployed is a real source of concern. It is not only hurting families, as I said, but it is also hurting the long-term growth prospects of our national economy, and that is what is so troubling about the numbers that we do see for long-term unemployed and the prospects of our young people not entering the workforce when they would like to. All of these issues combined are very troubling indeed. The way we respond to these challenges is one of the starkest differences between this side of the House and that side of the House today. On this side, we want to invest in education, in training, in industry, in innovation and in employment, while those opposite are more interested in trashing these investments for short-term political gain. We need more investment in education and training in this country to develop the skilled workforce we need for the future economy. We do not need things like the coalition's $30 billion cuts to schools or their $100,000 degrees; we need more encouragement for small business and greater support for innovation. And we need a proper jobs plan to identify where the jobs of the future will come from, rather than the backwards-looking short-termism of those opposite. On this side of the House we defended Australian jobs during the global financial crisis, and we are more than happy to fill the vacuum left by the government when it comes to a proper long-term vision to invest in our workforce. 10:54 Mr WILLIAMS 249758 Hindmarsh The member for Rankin stands up and talks about unemployment being too high. When the member for Rankin worked for a previous Labor Treasurer in late 2013— Dr Chalmers 37998 Unemployment was a lot lower than it is now! Mr WILLIAMS 249758 The member for Rankin would be interested in listening to this. The then Treasurer, Chris Bowen, said: The unemployment rate is expected to increase from 5.6 per cent in the June quarter 2013 to 6¼ per cent in the June quarter 2014, and stabilise at that rate through to the June quarter 2015. I repeat: stabilise at that rate through to the June quarter 2015. Dr Chalmers 37998 It never hit six! Mr WILLIAMS 249758 That was your prediction, member for Rankin. You have a short memory. On your way; off you go. He has no idea what was said previously and he is not willing to recognise what he came up with when he was a senior adviser to the previous government. How poor they are in sticking to the facts. Let us look at the facts. The member talked about our jobs plan. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will tell you where there is a jobs plan. Members opposite forget that only a month or two ago in the budget we invested $5.5 billion in the new Growing Jobs and Small Business package, including $3.25 billion in tax cuts for small business and $1.75 billion in accelerated depreciation measures. I have had great feedback, as most of my colleagues on this side have, about how good this is for small business. They are going out there and are investing in their businesses. They are redeveloping. They are looking at employing more people. They are looking at expanding and growing further. They have been buoyed by this incentive that the federal government announced in the May budget. In terms of new employment services, there is close to $7 billion for the Jobactive program. We have heard constantly about infrastructure projects right around Australia. We are investing billions in major infrastructure projects. In South Australia there is the north-south corridor—two major projects worth $1 billion. There are the free trade agreements. Every few days we hear that Australian businesses are looking to take advantage of the free trade agreements after the federal government successfully negotiated new agreements with China, Korea and Japan, which will boost jobs, enhance investment and help our economy. I will give you one example from a recent visit to China by Randall Tomich of Tomich Wines. They have secured a distribution agreement with China's biggest hypermarket chain, RT-Mart, which is set to deliver more than $500 million in annual sales to Australian food and beverage brands. The deal will see the establishment of a designated aisle selling famous Australian brands, whether it be dairy products, vitamins, wine or other food. This company has outpaced Wal-Mart and a European company, Carrefour, in sales over the last two years. The deal, believed to be the largest of its kind by an Australian food company, will benefit from a reduction in tariffs under the free trade agreement. Mr Tomich has said his company's research suggested each store would generate annual sales for the Australian brands of between $4 million and $5 million. If this is achieved, yearly sales of between $500 million and $630 million are possible. Naturally it has taken a lot of hard work and five years to get to this position, but this is what Australian entrepreneurs and businesses are all about—taking advantage of the opportunities currently out there. Let us compare those opposite. As former Treasurer Peter Costello said, in 2009 the Labor government increased spending by nearly 13 per cent, an increase which had no precedent in modern economic management, except at the height of the Whitlam mania. This is what they do: they spend money and waste money. There are new programs that are wasteful and inefficient. We have created jobs. The recent May figures showed employment rose by 42,000. Since the government was elected more than 280,000 new jobs have been created—280,000 new jobs. We are on the way to rebuilding this economy. Today Gaganis Brothers, just outside my electorate—a great family business—announced an extra 50 jobs. Recently we had success stories like Robin Johnson Engineering, who do great things with their energy systems in the transport, energy and resources sector. Philmac, a world leader in pipe systems in the agribusiness sector, was a recipient of $2.4 million under the federal government's Manufacturing Transition program. This will allow new jobs, new investment and new expansion. Compare this with Labor in South Australia that promised jobs but created very few. The state Labor government promised 100,000 new jobs in six years and have only delivered 10,000—well short. They need to reduce taxes, reduce the emergency services levy, reduce payroll tax and ensure a more competitive environment for South Australia so that businesses can take advantage of what the federal government is offering them through free trade agreements and budget incentives. This will ensure a more prosperous economy. 10:59 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin I am very pleased to rise in support of this important motion moved by my friend the member for Charlton, which sets out a very sorry record from this government on jobs and calls for urgent action. I emphasise the statement for the benefit of the member for Herbert: … there is no higher obligation on a Commonwealth government than to support and promote the employment prospects of its citizens … This is an obligation that this government is failing lamentably. The electorate of Scullin, like that of Charlton and like that of Rankin, faces significant challenges in respect of unemployment, in part owing to complex issues, including intergenerational disadvantage. Breaking these cycles is difficult, but it is made even harder when there is a government seemingly obsessed with making people's lives worse. The most recent budget implicitly recognised some of the damage which has been done, with the reinstatement, albeit rebadged, of Labor's policies such as Youth Connections and partnership brokers—of course, without explanation and without apology as to why these and other programs were abolished in the first place. We can only assume they were cut in a flurry of ideologically inspired incompetence by this government. The original reason was, of course, the so-called budget emergency, which has miraculously disappeared, just 12 months later. I am certainly relieved for the young people and the providers in Melbourne's north but question why they had to be put through this ordeal in the first place. Members opposite have been hubristically talking up the government's apparent record in job creation, but let us not forget Tony Abbott's commitment to create one million new jobs in five years, a commitment not spoken of by members opposite. It is little wonder. When we were in government, Labor had to contend with the global financial crisis—a real emergency, not an ideologically inspired one. Yet, despite the global financial crisis, unemployment was not as high as it is today and has been throughout the Abbott government's watch. The most recent unemployment figures showed a modest reduction in the unemployment rate, and we say thank goodness for that. However, the unemployment queue has actually grown by 56,000 people since this government was elected, with last month making one year of unemployment being over six per cent. The member for Charlton has already effectively set out the grim unemployment statistics and touched on the record underemployment—a matter that members opposite, I suspect, will not be addressing. But I want to make mention of some statistics that impact Melbourne's north-east region, which covers the electorate of Scullin, where the unemployment rate was half a percentage point higher than the national average. Most worrying here is youth unemployment. In April, the national figure was just over 13 per cent; in the north-east region, over 20 per cent. In April last year, it was only 16 per cent. To give these figures some context: usually the rate is only so high during the school holidays, when more young people are looking for work. Clearly there is a significant structural problem, exacerbated by the austerity policies of this government. At community meetings I have been holding throughout the electorate, the issue of jobs and particularly jobs for young people keeps being raised. There is a genuine and well-founded fear that there simply are not enough entry-level jobs for young people. It is vital to remember that these are people's lives that we are talking about. We are talking about talent that is wasted, ambition unfulfilled and opportunities lost. It is a human cost as well as statistics and the economic cost. All Australians deserve the dignity of work, including opportunities to be made job ready. This is why education is so important and why the Abbott government's cuts to school and university funding are so reckless and so short sighted. These cuts will entrench disadvantage. Education is the great enabler. Labor understand this, which is why we opened up the university sector without burdening students with $100,000 degrees. We supported the vocational education sector. Despite all this government's hubris about its small business package, there is no real plan for jobs. Fortunately, in Victoria, we now have a state Labor government with such a plan. It is welcome relief from four years of torpor under Baillieu and Napthine and is a counterbalance to austerity at a federal level. Victorian Labor has identified six sectors with potential for economic growth, including medical technology and pharmaceuticals; new energy technology; food and fibre; transport, defence and construction technology; international education; and professional services. At the federal level, this will be complemented. Labor would invest in jobs of the future, particularly in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, to make sure that Australians are ready to take up jobs in the new economy—the good jobs that the Treasurer talks about but does nothing to create. Labor accepts and indeed embraces the duty and the obligation to support and promote the employment prospects of citizens. We understand the immense challenges facing working men and women of Australia as well as future generations of workers. Only Labor has a plan to rise to these challenges, and only Labor will deliver to ensure the employment prospects of current and future generations of working Australians. 11:04 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie I am pleased to be able to rise today and speak on this motion. In the motion before the House, the first point reads: That the House: … recognises that alongside national defence, there is no higher obligation on a Commonwealth government than to support and promote the employment prospects of its citizens … I agree with that, and I am pleased to be able to speak on it and set the record straight for the members for Charlton and Scullin and others who seem to have forgotten that, under the previous Labor government, we saw $16 billion ripped out of the defence budget, including reducing defence spending as a percentage of GDP to the lowest level since 1938. I agree that national security and the Australian Defence Force are key elements and that it is a key responsibility of the Australian government to ensure that these are well funded and that the nation that we all love and the democracy that we enjoy continue to thrive. Just last week, I had the opportunity to spend a little bit of time with the Navy over at HMAS Stirling and have a look at some of the superb work that the young men and women in the Australian Defence Force are doing. Labor's record there is not great, and their employment record is not much better. I do agree with that first point in what they are saying. Of course, the federal government have a major responsibility in making sure that we create an environment for small business where businesses flourish and ensuring that employment opportunities are there, but of course state governments also have a large responsibility. We now see a state Labor government in Queensland with a fairly appalling record, I think, of sitting around for the last four months not doing a lot, just cancelling anything that the previous Liberal-National Party Newman government implemented. We obviously know that they came into power and were not expected to do so, but they do not have a plan. They do not have a plan for jobs. They do not have a plan for the state. They only have a plan for more debt and deficit, just like all Labor governments do. We have already seen them cancel projects in the state like the port projects on the Gold Coast and also in Cairns, and of course this affects jobs. These cruise ship terminals would have made a big difference to Cairns and on the Gold Coast. We have also seen them cancel some of the Brisbane City Council housing development applications—thousands of jobs just with those three alone. This is what happens when you get a government that is just ideologically opposed to what the former government wanted to do. They have even cancelled things like the hospital guarantee waiting list. How appalling. So what are we doing in this space? I was fortunate enough last week to have the Assistant Minister for Employment, the member for Cowper, up in my electorate, and we visited a number of projects. I want to thank him for coming up. We went out to Costco at North Lakes, where almost 40 job seekers have found work through MAX Employment, and we visited a Work for the Dole site at Deception Bay, at the local PCYC, where local job seekers are putting their skills into practice and developing new skills. I want to thank the Deception Bay PCYC for taking on this Work for the Dole project, and I want to thank the young men and women that are there involved in this project. When they go to their next job interview, they will be able to say: 'Well, I've actually been volunteering down at the local PCYC, and I've been helping build a new deck, and I've been working with timber, and I've been painting the wall, and I've been doing a bit of plastering, learning new skills. I've been proactively getting out there.' That looks great when you go for that interview. So that is an important practical step, and I want to say, 'Well done,' to those 16 or so participants that were involved out there. The 2015 budget has a strong focus on helping more job seekers, especially young job seekers, find and keep a job. Our Growing Jobs and Small Business package will give small businesses more confidence to invest and grow their business and in turn employ more staff. The package will see a new $18 million National Work Experience Program. What a great idea—a work experience program that will provide job seekers with the opportunity to undertake work experience in businesses to improve their chances of finding a job. This is so important when I talk to job-seekers in my electorate, because there is that catch-22 experience: 'I need experience, on one hand, to get a job, but I also don't have any.' So the Work Experience Program will be fantastic. We are also investing $212 million in a Transition to Work service to help young job seekers most at risk of long-term unemployment find a job, and I look forward to all of us working together to help more Australians find work. 11:09 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON 8T4 Werriwa I am pleased that the member for Petrie is very congratulatory towards this government reintroducing programs for youth unemployed that it basically abandoned in its first year after election. Equally, I want to put on the public record the way in which I deplore the abolition of trade training centres, which were very crucial in electorates such as my own. Yes, the Abbott government has at this stage renamed and rebadged a few programs that it thought there was no need for in the last budget. That is a recognition of the realities we now face. We had a contribution for the member for Herbert, who came in here and started to lecture us about security being more important than unemployment. That is an interesting contribution from a government that allowed 100-plus jihadists to leave the country and has been explaining their numbers to us ever since—whether there are 113 or 110. But I believe that a more timely contribution in regard to unemployment came from the chairman of the Australian Catholic Social Justice Council, Bishop Christopher Saunders. He said of unemployment and this government: Society fails its citizens where the economy does not generate sufficient employment and when government does not adequately intervene to promote job creation and maintain basic wages … He further commented: Just leaving it to the market will not ensure the benefits of prosperity flow to low-paid and unemployed workers. In an article in Justice Trends, he went on to note: Youth unemployment has risen dramatically following the global financial crisis: 290,000 Australians under the age of 25 are now unemployed. That's an unemployment rate of 14 per cent. The level is much higher for 15 to 19 year olds at 20 per cent—about 160,000 young Australians Unfortunately, the approach in Australia— he is talking about this government— has been to argue for some of the most punitive measures for young unemployed people. So they have accomplished very high unemployment, particularly amongst young people, but the whole strategy of the government has been to demonise these people and to basically say: 'Let's reduce their rates when they're unemployed. Let's make them go for six months without any payments whatsoever.' I agree with Bishop Saunders when he says of the Intergenerational report: This is a worthy initiative, but it does raise a question about the lower priority given to the need to skill up and employ younger workers. When we talk about what the government is doing, we had another very timely contribution from ACOSS, the Australian Council of Social Service. I cited this in a recent speech here, but I want to go on to quote what they say about the suffering of people on Newstart and youth allowance in regard to the payments that already operate without the attempt by the government to further marginalise, stigmatise and persecute young unemployed people, under an unemployment level that they themselves have accomplished. An ACOSS survey of Newstart and youth allowance recipients in regard to housing—it also looked at many other measures of welfare—found that 27 per cent of them said, 'I spend more money than I receive,' in regard to their housing. Forty-eight per cent of them said, 'I break even most weeks,' and only 16 per cent of them said, 'I am able to save some money most weeks.' We have a situation here where the current unemployment pattern in south-west Sydney is close to seven per cent. Most worryingly, in the Hunter and Newcastle region it is over 12 per cent. In January, the worst month of recent times, we saw 28,000 full-time jobs lost, whilst about 16,000 part-time jobs were created. The underemployment rate is therefore nearly unchanged from where it was at its record worst, having only dropped to 8.5 per cent. In sheer numbers, 750,000 Australians are in unemployment queues and almost two million are not working to the extent to which they wish they could. We have a Treasurer of this country, at the usual distance he is from the Australian people, telling people: 'Don't worry about the housing price crisis in Sydney and nationally. Go out and get a good job.' This is a government which has said to unemployed people: 'We're going to basically strip you of your humanity. We're going to make sure your payments are in some ways not adequate, because you're a shirker, and we are appealing to those people who are financing welfare.' Youth unemployment remains much too high, at 13.5 per cent. While it is down from its record high levels for this century, earlier in this very government's tenure, it is still at a level not seen since 2002. So I commend the member for Charlton for raising the question of unemployment in this country. The government have accomplished something which the current Prime Minister's hero, Prime Minister Howard, accomplished: record levels of unemployment. At the same time, they are reducing people's conditions while they are unemployed. 11:14 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes Sometimes you see in soccer an own goal, and that is what this motion is from the hapless member for Charlton—it is simply an own goal. We are quite happy to talk about unemployment—how we are improving it and compare it to the disastrous term of the previous Labor government. I can imagine the member for Charlton sitting down last Thursday preparing his speech on this motion. Unfortunately, the ABS numbers came out last Thursday and they showed that in May there were 42,000 new jobs created in the economy. I can imagine the member for Charlton kicking the cat at such bad news. There were 42,000 new jobs and the unemployment rate is down to six per cent. It is still too high but it is down to six per cent. Mr Albanese R36 Unemployment was less—it was less under us. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 I hear the member for Grayndler interjecting. I remember that when he was sitting on this side of the chamber his last forecast was that at this time unemployment would be 6.25 per cent. The member for Grayndler should give us a round of applause because we have unemployment much lower than what was anticipated and forecast when he was running the show. Now that we are running the show we are a quarter of a per cent under. This government is out creating jobs. Mr Albanese R36 You are opposed to jobs. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 The member for Grayndler seeks to intervene. I remind him of his record when he was sitting on this side of the chamber. There were 200,000 jobs lost. When the member for Grayndler was running the show the unemployment queue was increased by 200,000. You could fill the MCG twice with the number of people who joined the unemployment queue under the member for Grayndler's policies. Mr Albanese R36 It's not true. Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 The member for Grayndler says it is not true. I have a copy of the ABS figures here. I am happy to give them to the member for Grayndler so he can see the numbers. The ABS figures show that the unemployment queues of this country lengthened by 200,000 under the previous Labor Party. Let us compare that to the previous Howard and Costello coalition government. They inherited $96 billion worth of debt and deficit. They paid back that $96 billion of debt and $54 billion worth of interest along the way, they put $40 billion in the Future Fund and they had a surplus of $20 billion. On top of that they reduced the unemployment queues of this country by 300,000 people. The previous Labor government increased those same queues by another 200,000. Most affected were small businesses. The numbers do not lie—there were 519,000 jobs lost in small business under a Labor government. It is interesting to dig down into the ABS numbers because of the stories they tell. They show the contrast between New South Wales, which has a coalition government that gets on with the job and allows the private sector to get on with it, and Victoria, which has a Labor government that ties things up in red tape, breaks contracts and lets the CFMEU and their union mates run over the place. Let us have a look at what the ABS numbers for the last two months show for New South Wales and Victoria. In the past two months New South Wales created 35,200 jobs. That was a pretty good effort from the coalition government in New South Wales. How about our friends down in Victoria, where the Labor government is in charge? How many jobs did they create? Not even one. There has been a decline of 1,400 jobs. So New South Wales has put on 35,200 jobs and Victoria, where we have a Labor government in control, has lost 1,400 jobs. History repeats over and over again. Whenever you have a Labor government in control, which thinks it is big government and big unions that control jobs, we see jobs lost. Whenever we have a coalition government, which understands that government does not create jobs but it is small business and entrepreneurs that create jobs, we see job creation in this country happen, and that is what we are seeing now. This government is well on the way to creating one million new jobs. We are going to work hard. We are going to get the unemployment numbers down and continue to decrease the unemployment queues of this country. Debate adjourned. Trade 17 11:20 Mr NIKOLIC 137174 Bass I move: That this House: (1) recognises: (a) the importance of Australia's Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), which now include nations in three continents—North America, South America and Asia; (b) Australia's three most recent FTAs negotiated and signed in 2014 with Japan, South Korea and China and the positive security, stability and economic prosperity which will result from each of these mutually constructive agreements; (c) the Government's intention to continue to enhance current and future trade and investment opportunities for the long term advantage of all Australian citizens; and (d) the significant personal contribution made by the Minister for Trade and Investment in securing FTAs with Japan, South Korea and China in 2014; (2) acknowledges the following advantages of FTAs to Australia as being: (a) removing potentially billions of dollars of tariff imposts for foreign produced consumer goods (including, clothes, shoes, car components, cars and electronics); (b) enhancing capital flows into Australian agriculture, finance, tourism, infrastructure and mining as a result of streamlined approval procedures for foreign state owned investors; (c) improving primary agriculture, particularly dairy, beef, lamb, wine and horticulture as a result of overseas tariffs being phased out over time; (d) streamlining licensing and reducing restrictions on Australian services firms, including banks, insurance companies, financial fund managers, as well as law, architecture and engineering firms; and (e) providing cheaper and more streamlined visa approval procedures, making it easier to undertake reciprocal travel, work and study in Australia and relevant trade partner nations; and (3) notes the continuing importance of trade between nations and of Australian formal FTAs in supporting both global and regional stability, as well as Australian long term economic prosperity, all of which are emphasised by Australia's unique geopolitics. I welcome this opportunity to highlight the trifecta of mutually beneficial free trade agreements concluded by the Abbott government. I also acknowledge the extraordinary effort, persistence, diplomacy and sheer hard work of our trade minister, Andrew Robb, who delivered what many said was not possible—three free trade deals with Japan, South Korea and China in the last year. Minister Robb deserves our thanks and the thanks of our country for so quickly enhancing our trade opportunities, which will underpin our future prosperity for decades. These free trade deals mean new markets, new investments and more jobs across the entire economy. Opportunity is on our doorstep to grasp. As the world's attention and investment dollars increasingly focus on Asia as the key driver of global prosperity, Australia is perfectly positioned. When you consider that the middle class from India to Asia, which is currently around 500 million people, is projected to grow to 1.7 billion people in the next 15 years you get some sense of how the demand for clean, green, quality fresh products will grow exponentially over time. And we are well placed to benefit. We are sitting astride the Indian and Pacific oceans adjacent to that unfolding economic miracle—that tripling of people rising out of poverty and into the middle classes—and we are benefiting from the trade diversification across three continents because our free trade deals encompass agreements across North America, South America and Asia. The free trade deals already concluded and those yet to come will certainly enhance our economic security. The advantages are both tactical and strategic. I have heard many of my colleagues discuss examples where the removal of tariffs has meant more exports and substantial increases in prices. In my own electorate of Bass the Treasurer visited just a few weeks ago and met a commercial fisherman called Karl Krause. Karl was able to tell the Treasurer that 18 months ago he was getting about $60 a kilo for his premium crayfish; now, after these three free trade deals, he gets around $100 a kilo—a substantial increase in price. And Karl told the Treasurer he was investing more in his business because higher demand and better returns incentivise that investment. Last Thursday in Launceston I welcomed a Chinese delegation led by Chairman Wang Xing De. They were visiting Bellamy's Organic, which has made enormous inroads into the Chinese market with its premium infant formula and toddlers milk. It is fair to say that the Chinese delegation was enormously impressed by the opportunities for value-added food products that Tasmania offers, and many new ideas were sparked about other trade opportunities. Exports of cherries to China have lifted 114 per cent since these three free trade deals came into being, with Tasmania's Reid Fruits exports of cherries going from five tonnes to almost 200 tonnes under the new free trade deals. Greater trade means enhanced capital flows into Australian agriculture, finance, tourism, infrastructure and mining. The government is also working to ensure that we streamline approval processes for that investment. A good example is our establishment of the Major Projects Approval Agency in Launceston in July last year. The Hodgman government on coming to power has co-located its coordinator-general in the same office. So what you get is working across both state and federal jurisdictions to make sure that we remove as much as possible any obstacles to investment. In Tasmania we have also backed worthy projects that will help us produce more for growing regional markets. That includes investment in the second tranche of irrigation schemes in Tasmania—$60 million worth of new federal investment, $30 million worth of Tasmanian government investment and $30 million from private investment. That will deliver approximately 40,000 additional megalitres of water at 95 per cent reliability in the locations of those projects. The scheme will support viticulture, grazing, irrigated cropping and walnut enterprises, to name just a few. This investment will allow us to tap into improved export conditions for primary agricultural goods, including dairy, beef, lamb, wine and horticulture, as a result of overseas tariffs being phased out over time. In conclusion I reiterate the continuing importance of trade between nations in general and under Australia's free trade agreements in particular. This important economic interaction underpins our security on so many levels and supports Australia's long-term economic prosperity. The DEPUTY SPEAKER MT4 Is the motion seconded? Mr Goodenough 74046 I second the motion. 11:25 Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Perth It is clear that Labor has a very proud track record in reducing the barriers to trade. Indeed it was the Whitlam and then the Hawke-Keating governments that transformed the Australian economy and removed much of the barrier to trade. We are proudly a trading nation. Exports and imports account for around 40 per cent of Australia's GDP. That means that trade is inextricably tied up with Australian jobs. Western Australians understand this even more, because our exports and imports account for around 60 per cent of the gross state product in Western Australia. So we know that trade benefits working people. It contributes to economic growth and it provides benefits by improving productivity. It opens our community up for better paid and more rewarding and secure jobs, and it benefits working people by delivering lower prices and greater choice for the community. It also improves interdependency in the world, which of course increases security for all. But being pro-trade does not mean that we cannot have a sophisticated conversation about what we can afford to trade away. In the three free trade agreements that have been approved to date there are areas that do cause us concern. The approval of the investor-state dispute resolution provisions are of grave concern to us. We recognise that we are giving investors in other countries greater rights than companies in Australia have to sue government for changes in policy. We are particularly concerned about the asymmetrical labour market provisions that we find in agreements, particularly in the Korean and the Japanese free trade agreements, where there is absolutely no labour market testing for companies wanting to bring people into Australia but the reverse is not the case. Both Japan and Korea retain the right to control the introduction of Australian workers through restrictions on labour market testing. Also, while the term 'contractual service provider' is used in both the Korean and the Japanese agreements, its definition varies significantly depending on the country where the workers are from. Generally speaking when we go through that agreement we see very different sets of rights applying. We are very concerned about the impact the ISDS—the investor-state dispute resolution provisions—will have on the prices of medicines. Indeed the leaks coming out in relation to the TPP recently show that there will be a number of ways in which the TPP can threaten affordable prices of medicines in Australia and will limit our capacity to continue to deliver those benefits for our community. Food labelling is also clearly shown to be a problem in some of these provisions. It is quite possible that Australia could be sued if it introduced labelling of food for source and place of manufacture if a foreign company sees that its sales drop after that labelling is introduced. Very interestingly, over the weekend the Republican-dominated US congress refused to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. They recognise that there are real challenges in these agreements that we must be very careful about. I am concerned that in this parliament we are seeing a dumbing-down of the debate. If we raise concerns about the detail, about the investor-state dispute provisions or about the free movement of people, we are deemed to be anti-trade. This is not how we need to run our country in the 21st century. We need to be capable of having a sophisticated and detailed debate rather than this boosterism that says you that you are pro-trade or you are anti-trade. We want to have trade. We want to open up those barriers. But we are not prepared to sacrifice the long-term interests of this country. (Time expired) 11:31 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore I am very pleased to support this motion recognising the importance of free trade, moved by my colleague the member for Bass. There is an old Dutch saying that an ounce of trade is worth a pound of work. This is a very apt saying, considering the history of trade in our region. The Dutch East India Company and its rival trading house the British East India Company were both established by charter in the early 1600s, by monarchs in their respective countries. The firms became formidable forces in the commodity and spice trade in the South-East Asian region, generating immense wealth for their nations. In fact, some of the earliest Europeans to land on the Australian continent were Dutch traders, such as Dirk Hartog, who navigated off course from their destination, of the Indonesian archipelago, with its markets and supply chains. Merchant trade is what led my family to settle in the then British colony of Singapore in the 1800s, with my great-great-grandfather Robert Goodenough and great-grandfather Arthur Hessman Goodenough being involved in the merchant shipping trade. In the 21st century, international trade has undergone a renaissance, a renewal, with fresh opportunities for economic development between established and emerging economies across the globe. In 2013-14 the value of Australian exports accounted for $331 billion, whilst imports amounted to $338.6 billion. The emergence of free trade agreements, which are essentially international treaties that remove barriers to trade such as tariffs and quota restrictions, serves to facilitate stronger trade and commercial ties, contributing to increased economic integration between participating countries. Australia currently has free trade agreements in force with New Zealand, Singapore, Thailand, the United States of America, Chile, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Malaysia, South Korea and Japan. The countries covered by these free trade agreements account for 42 per cent of Australia's total trade. Australia recently concluded free trade negotiations with China, in November 2014. China accounts for 23 per cent of Australia's total trade. May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Trade and Investment, the Hon. Andrew Robb, and his staff on successfully concluding negotiations for three major, complex free trade agreements within 18 months of taking office. This is testament to the minister's well-developed commercial acumen and negotiating skills. Australia is currently engaged in six other free trade negotiations—two bilateral FTA negotiations, with India and Indonesia, and four multilateral negotiations: the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, the Gulf Cooperation Council, the Pacific Trade and Economic Agreement and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. The additional countries covered by these negotiations currently account for a further six per cent of Australia's total trade. Free trade agreements create opportunities for Australian exporters and investors to expand their businesses into key overseas markets. For instance, in my electorate of Moore, which borders established agricultural areas and coastal fisheries, the recent free trade agreements have benefited intensive horticultural producers who export quality fruit and vegetables such as carrots, broccoli and tomatoes, as well as exporters of western rock lobsters and premium beef cattle, through tariff reductions, putting local producers on a level playing field with competitors from countries such as New Zealand. Access to global markets helps maintain and stimulate the competitiveness of Australian firms, by increasing domestic productivity and contributing to higher GDP growth by allowing Australian businesses access to cheaper inputs, introducing new technologies, fostering competition and innovation. This directly benefits Australian consumers through access to an increased range of goods and services at more competitive prices. Free trade agreements also address barriers which impede the flow of goods and services between nations, encourage investment and enhance international competition. (Time expired) 11:36 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks very much, Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this private member's motion about trade, moved by the member for Bass. I am a big supporter of freer trade, and Labor has a proud history when it comes to trade liberalisation. All three of Australia's largest trade barrier cuts—in 1973, 1988 and 1991—were made under Labor governments. In 1973 Whitlam cut tariffs by 25 per cent. In 1988 and 1991 the big tariff cuts under Hawke and Keating are estimated to have put $4,000 into the pockets of average households. Under prime ministers Rudd and Gillard, we had the Asian century white paper and free trade agreements with Chile, Malaysia, ASEAN and New Zealand. We are supportive of trade liberalisation where it boosts growth, creates jobs, forges competitive industries and gives consumers greater choice and lower prices. The best agreements are multilateral, whereas bilateral or regional agreements are second best but ideally a stepping stone to something more inclusive. I agree with Senator Wong, the shadow minister for trade, who said we need our trade policy to be outward facing, and not inward looking. Japan, as other members have noted, is already Australia's second largest agricultural export market, and we have got these agreements with Japan and Korea signed in the last little while. We have not opposed those trade deals signed in the last 18 months, but we have raised some concern with parts of the agreements. A lot of the work was done by Labor ministers, including Simon Crean, Richard Marles and also my predecessor, the great Craig Emerson, and they did some very important work on the Japanese and Korean agreements. Mr Baldwin LL6 The great Craig Emerson? Dr CHALMERS 37998 The great Craig Emerson—I take that interjection. He is a wonderful man. As I and other speakers have said, Japan is already Australia's second largest agricultural export market, worth about $4 billion last year and also our second biggest market for non-agricultural goods—something like $42 billion in 2013. Korea is our third largest export market and our fourth largest trading partner, with two-way trade valued at $30.5 billion last financial year. On this side of the House, our concerns with the Japan agreement were that it did not go far enough on sugar, and our concerns with the Korean agreement were that it had that ISDS investor-state clause, that Labor would not have agreed to in government. But our support for the two agreements with Korea and Japan goes to our support of free trade deals that are on balance good for Australian consumers and businesses. Labor will take the same approach when it comes to the China agreement and other deals on the horizon. We are expecting the full details of the China deal to be released this week. It should have been released already, and we know it has been finished for some time. When we do come to examine it, Labor will determine on balance if it is in Australia's interests. We hold concerns about key agricultural goods being left out and that it will have an ISDS provision, and we are concerned, as other speakers have said, about the likely labour market arrangements as well. But we also recognise this is an historic opportunity to expand Australia's trade with China, something both sides of the House are interested in. The National Australia Bank, for example, says that the agreement offers considerable potential for Australian agricultural and services firms and will level the playing field with other countries that already have an FTA with China. So when we consider the China deal in detail, we will factor in these advantages for Australian producers and consumers. We also saw the Trans-Pacific Partnership make the news this weekend as the US Congress voted down the President's Trade Promotion Authority, as the member for Perth mentioned in her contribution. Two weeks ago, I participated in a forum hosted by the member for Canberra, with the member for Perth and 100 or more locals interested in the TPP. It was great to see the community so keen to understand the complex issues at play in that partnership. Labor does have some real concerns about what we know about the partnership so far, especially when it comes to copyright restrictions, pharmaceuticals and investor-state settlement mechanisms. We do need a full and proper discussion of the merits of any agreement so that we can come to an on-balance assessment of the deal and decide whether it is in Australia's national interests. That is why the government should undertake some real economic modelling of the deal. We know from our briefings that this has not been carried out, and we call on the minister for trade to undertake detailed economic modelling of the TPP so we can get a better understanding of its merits. Trade is attracting a great deal of interest not just in this parliament but around the community. That is a good thing if it helps us reach a considered position consistent with our beliefs and beneficial for our economy. We are supportive of some of the work done to reach agreements over the last 18 months, but we need to ensure that the China agreement and the TPP, and all trade agreements on the horizon, are in the national interest. If they are, and if they are good for jobs and consumers, we will support them. 11:41 Mr WILLIAMS 249758 Hindmarsh I congratulate the member for Bass on this fantastic motion. Like his state of Tasmania, South Australia and Australia as a whole value our clean and green products, which are highly valued around the world. Whether it be in Asia or all over the world, clean and green is a great sign of Australian quality in our produce. Abache, a company I visited just last week with the Minister for Industry and Science, are involved in organic healthcare products. They made mention of this clean and green fact when they had investment from India. They are going to be creating more jobs and expanding due to these opportunities. As we know, we are working on the Indian free trade agreement too. But going back to the major three free trade agreements we have signed off on with our three largest export markets that account for 61 per cent of our export of goods, I want to explore three main sectors here in this motion today—primary production, services and jobs. In terms of agriculture—something that is always so important for Australia, where we have a great competitive advantage around the world and are recognised for our expertise—the premium winegrowers of South Australia will benefit from these three agreements. Korea eliminated the 15 per cent tariff on Australian wine in December 2014. Under the China FTA, the tariffs on wine of between 14 and 20 per cent will be eliminated within four years. Tariffs will go on seafood, including abalone, rock lobster and southern bluefin tuna. It will also benefit our horticulture sector, with a range of horticultural products with tariffs ranging from eight to 24 per cent now entering Korea duty-free. In Japan, there will be quicker tariff elimination on the vast majority of Australian horticulture products, including up to six per cent which has already been eliminated for almonds. Just on almonds, I want to congratulate Almondco, a great company in the Riverland of South Australian, and Brenton Woolston, the managing director. Almondco supply about 40 per cent of Australia's almond production, and their growth has been outstanding in recent years. I know they will be very happy with the free trade agreements in Asia. In terms of services, and two important areas of education and tourism, there will be big winners from this agreement. South Australia's three universities will benefit, given that the $1.5 billion international education industry is Australia's third largest market. And the Chinese tourism market means that so many inbound tourists from China are constantly arriving on our shores, putting money into our economy and creating jobs—750,000 last financial year. It has been forecast that about 40 per cent of inbound expenditure in tourism growth to 2022-23 will be sourced from China. In terms of jobs, I want to reflect on a couple of family businesses that have made mention of the opportunities in China just in recent weeks. Yesterday I heard great news from Gaganis, a fine local family business. They will employ another 50 people and grow their head office in Adelaide. Significantly, Gaganis's expansion plans include exporting Australian produce to China, such as flour, lentils, beans and nuts. This family business, located in the seat of Hindmarsh, has set up partnerships with Chinese locals in Shanghai and Guangzhou. Randall Tomich of Tomich Wines, another impressive South Australian family business, has secured a distribution agreement with China's biggest hypermarket chain, RT-Mart, which is set to deliver more than $500 million in annual sales and promote Australian brands. These deals are not arrived at overnight. Energy and resources is another important sector in South Australia, and there will be significant opportunities from removing tariffs or locking in zero tariffs on resources exports, including iron ore and copper. These two exports account for around half of South Australia's total export value. Let us hear what those in the business sectors and industry and community stakeholders say. Business SA has said about the Korean FTA: The Agreement protects and enhances the competitive position of Australia's businesses in South Korea. Australian exporters gain significantly … David Basham, from Dairy SA, said about the China FTA: … it will certainly improve our long-term position and it should also help processors. The Wine Industry Association of South Australia says the opportunities with the FTAs are enormous, saying: The recent trade deals with China, Japan and South Korea … offer good reason for renewed optimism in our industry. The Chief Executive of Universities Australia, Belinda Robinson said the China FTA 'will further broaden and deepen an already close relationship on higher education and research between our two countries.' I congratulate Trade Minister Andrew Robb and his team on the fantastic work they have done with these three free trade agreements and look forward to further work on India as we seek to improve our engagement with Asia and broaden our economic opportunities. 11:46 Ms PARKE HWR Fremantle I am glad to have the opportunity to discuss the issue of Australia's involvement in free trade agreements. While the government has made a lot of noise and claimed a lot of credit when it comes to settling free trade agreements, there has not been the same interest in allowing proper transparency and consideration of those agreements. The aura of obscurity and secrecy around these deals has been considerable, matching the government's approach in other areas like asylum seeker policy. This motion specifically identifies the free-trade agreements the government has struck with Japan, South Korea and China—claiming blithely, and without reference to detail, any cost-benefit analysis or independent assessment, that these 'mutually constructive agreements' will result in 'stability and economic prosperity'. In fact the agreements are not balanced and reciprocal; their independently assessed economic benefit is marginal, confined to small gains in agricultural market access, while giving much away. The Korea FTA contains an extraordinary anomaly in relation to employment provisions that opens the door to virtually any Korean workers in Australia but makes it almost impossible for Australians wanting to work in Korea. In the China FTA, the government appears to have made unprecedented concessions on the use of temporary migrant labour. A memorandum of understanding separate from the text of the trade agreement gives Chinese investors in projects valued over $150 million additional rights to bring in temporary migrant workers without undertaking labour market testing, allowing Chinese firms to by-pass laws requiring advertising to first see if suitably qualified local workers are available to do the work. Union and industry groups are concerned about the impact on local employment and the potential for exploitation of workers who will be tied to one employer and may not have English language skills or health and safety training. The agreements with Korea and China also contain investor-state dispute settlement provisions, which allow multinational companies to sue countries in international private tribunals for domestic laws or administrative frameworks that impact upon their profits; for instance health, environmental and labour regulations, food labelling or quality and safety standards. This is why the former Labor government was not prepared to sign an agreement with Korea, while the current government clearly did. The fact is you can reach any agreement if you are prepared to agree to anything, including giving away your country's rights to govern itself. Australians enjoy a life-expectancy that is very close to the best in the world—and a large contributor to that has been our ability to seriously reduce tobacco use. Yet right now the Philip Morris tobacco company is using an ISDS clause in an obscure Hong Kong-Australia investment agreement to sue the Australian government in relation to our plain-packaging reforms, despite the laws having been upheld in our own High Court. Uruguay is also being sued by Philip Morris for its anti-tobacco measures, a move that could bankrupt that country. A US mining company has sued Canada for a fracking moratorium. A Swedish company is suing Germany because it decided to phase out nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster. The French Veolia corporation is suing the Egyptian government for having the temerity to raise the minimum wage. This is free-market corporatisation gone mad. This is nowhere more evident than in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement currently under secret negotiation, which, with its far-reaching ISDS provisions, will put Australian sovereignty and self-determination at risk. Only last week we learned, through Wikileaks, that the TPP will include provisions in the ironically-named 'Healthcare Transparency Annex' that will enable multinational pharmaceutical companies to challenge and bypass national healthcare legislation that seeks to properly regulate access and price arrangements for the greater public good. I think we all know that this government is desperate to find a topic of economic management under which it can claim some kind of achievement—and so far it is the entry into various free trade agreements that seems to occupy that role. Unfortunately, this only works to the extent that the detail and substantive effect of those agreements remain hidden from public view. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. BILLS 23 BILLS Marriage Amendment (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015 23

Marriage Amendment (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015

Second Reading 23 11:50 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney I support the Marriage Amendment (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015. Maya Angelou wrote: Love recognises no barriers. It jumps hurdles, leaps fences, penetrates walls to arrive at its destination full of hope. We are full of hope when we say 'I want to walk through life by your side'; when we say 'I want to share the good times and the bad it with you'; when we say, 'I want to grow old with you.' Neither hope nor love are so common or so cheap that we should deny their legitimacy because of gender. As a legislator, I am proud of the fact that the previous parliament changed 85 laws to remove discrimination against LGBTI Australians and same sex couples. That is Labor's legacy. That is behind us. What is before us is a final challenge—to remove this last great inequality from same sex couples. How can it be fair to deny one group in our community, citizens of Australia, the legal protections and responsibilities that marriage confers? In a few years time the notion that two men who love each other or two women who love each other could be barred from the social and legal status that marriage confers will seem as anachronistic as laws which prevented Aboriginal Australians marrying whom they chose. No-one can imagine today that Jack Akbar and Lallie Matbar had to fight for years in the 1920s to be allowed to marry because Lallie was Aboriginal and Jack was not. Indeed, Lallie was jailed after she and Jack eloped. Their four children never knew the barriers that their parents had to overcome to marry until after their deaths. The state being able to deny marriage on racial grounds is obscene to us today; and so it will be in the future for same-sex marriage. This is not a question of tolerance; it is a question of legal equality. This bill makes it clear that no church will be forced to marry any couple but our government and our legal institutions should not discriminate. In the lead-up to the Irish vote, author Sebastian Barry wrote: I don't see it as a matter of tolerance, so much as apology. Apology for all the hatred, violence, suspicion, patronisation, ignorance, murder, maiming, hunting, intimidation, terrorising, shaming, diminishment, discrimination, destruction, and yes, intolerance, visited upon a section of humanity for God knows how many hundreds of years, if not millennia. Sebastian Barry's gay son was just shy of 18 and too young to vote. Barry wrote: By voting Yes I will be engaging in the simple task of honouring the majesty, radiance and promise of his human soul. I hope that by making this change we will make it clear to every young man or woman shamed or shy about their sexuality, struggling alone to come to terms with being different from their brothers or sisters or their best friends that it is just fine. It will be fine. We accept you how you are. We will be saying to the same sex couples who have loved each other tenderly for years or even decades, who have supported each other financially and emotionally, who have nursed one another in sickness and who have woven their families together: 'We see you.' And we will be saying to the many, many kids who have two mums or two dads or two of each: 'We know you are proud of your family, and you have every right to be.' It is time—it is well past time—that this parliament says to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians: we recognise that you love, and that is more important than who you love. So, to paraphrase William Shakespeare: let us not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments. I commend the bill to the House. 11:55 Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 Berowra I note the support that has been given to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition by large numbers of the Labor Party. Let me just say first that I do believe very strongly that people in same-sex relationships should not be discriminated against because of the nature of their relationship. And, while the Deputy Leader of the Opposition took credit for the legislation introduced in 2008, I might say that would not have been possible but for the work I initiated as the Attorney-General in the period running up to 2007 when I sought to get the Law Reform Commission involved and sought to have departments look at the range of discriminatory issues that might well be addressed by a statute. So I do not come to these issues as a person who is concerned to adversely discriminate against people because of the nature of their relationships. But I do speak to this bill with a degree of disappointment, because there was an expectation, particularly amongst a number of members on this side, that the matter would be addressed in a way that would allow those who are in favour of this type of legislation to be party to it. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition elected to press it, seconded by his deputy. The fact is the engagement that we may have expected did not occur. These comments were made by the Prime Minister, who said it should be presented as a cross-parliamentary bill and should be co-sponsored rather than put forward by any particular party. The member for Leichhardt, a passionate supporter of this view, reiterated that. It was a matter that the Prime Minister's sister, a prominent advocate for same-sex marriage, said should not become a political football. So there is disappointment. I have said that, in relation to legislation of this type, even though I may not be a supporter of it, those who are interested in the subject matter ought to be prepared to look at it in a wider perspective; and that has been denied. It might have been possible if there was to be some discussion. I have said—and it is known now that I did say it; I said it fairly publicly on Q and A—that we should have a willingness to look at the French approach, in which the state simply regulates relationships. They do not necessarily have to be marriages; they could regulate marriages alone and leave it to the institutions who believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman—the churches, the Buddhists, the Muslims, the Hindus—to legitimate those relationships within their form of structures. That is denied. The French approach, I think, could have been a useful matter for members to look at and take into consideration, but that has been denied. We are very disappointed that this matter, we are being told, should be treated on this side as a conscience matter; while on the other side, their party councils want to tie their members into a particular view. I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was one of those who were proposing that approach to their federal body. So it seems to me that this matter is being addressed in a political context not in a context of good faith where those who have a strong view in favour of these matters might be able to play a part in helping to settle the form that legislation might ultimately take and garner broader support for it. It is extremely disappointing to me and my colleagues that the opposition have taken the approach that they have, and we would encourage them to withdraw and to allow some discussions, with those who have an interest in these questions, to see whether there is a meaningful way forward which can be pursued with a degree of cross-party support. MOTIONS 24 MOTIONS Minister for Foreign Affairs, Attorney-General and Prime Minister 24 Attempted Censure 24 11:59 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs I seek leave to move a motion of censure against the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister. Leave not granted. Mr DREYFUS HWG I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Isaacs from moving the following motion forthwith: That the House censures, firstly, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Attorney-General (a) for misleading the parliament over serious and legitimate questions relating to the national security and the safety of Australia; (b) for breaching the Prime Minister's own statement of ministerial standards by: (1) failing to correct the record in the parliament at the earliest opportunity in relation to matters of national security; (2) failing to be honest in their conduct of public office; and (3) failing to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the public or the parliament is not misled. And, secondly, the Prime Minister: (a) for allowing his ministers to mislead the parliament over serious and legitimate questions relating to national security and the safety of Australia; and (b) for allowing his ministers to breach his own statement of ministerial standards. Time and again, this government has shown itself— Mr Baldwin LL6 Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Does he need to seek leave? The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E No, he did at the start. Honourable members interjecting— Mr DREYFUS HWG Time and again, this government has shown itself to be addicted to cover-up and secrecy. More importantly for the Australian people, the coalition has shown itself more concerned about talking tough on national security at a press conference than running a competent government. The way in which it has handled this— Mr Baldwin LL6 I move: That the member no longer be heard. Question negatived. Government members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is a division required? Mr Burke DYW Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Paterson has been here long enough to know that divisions do not happen automatically. You have to ask for them, and if you do not ask for the division then with the fact that there were more people calling no than there were calling aye, it is not surprising that the call was made that the member be allowed to continue. Mr Baldwin LL6 Mr Deputy Speaker, I did call for a division. Perhaps if the noise opposite were not so loud you may have been able to hear it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E I could hear quite clearly, thank you. There was no division called for. Mr DREYFUS HWG The way in which this government has handled the discovery that the Lindt Cafe— Mr Baldwin LL6 I move: That the member be no longer heard. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The question is that the member no longer be heard. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E Is the motion seconded?

The House divided. [12:08]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Rob Mitchell)

 79 AYES Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Brough, MT Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coleman, DB Coulton, M (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Frydenberg, JA Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Griggs, NL Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hendy, PW Hockey, JB Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Hutchinson, ER Irons, SJ Jensen, DG Jones, ET Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Landry, ML Laundy, C Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McCormack, MF McNamara, KJ Morrison, SJ Nikolic, AA (teller) O'Dowd, KD Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robert, SR Roy, WB Ruddock, PM Scott, FM Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Sudmalis, AE Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Van Manen, AJ Varvaris, N Vasta, RX Whiteley, BD Williams, MP Wilson, RJ Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 50 NOES Albanese, AN Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Feeney, D Ferguson, LDT Fitzgibbon, JA Giles, AJ Gray, G Griffin, AP Hall, JG (teller) Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jones, SP Leigh, AK Macklin, JL MacTiernan, AJGC Marles, RD McGowan, C O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, J Parke, M Perrett, GD Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Swan, WM Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 12:14 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I second the motion. This government is addicted to chaos and cover-up. Chaos and cover-up is what we see and it is why this issue is before the House. Mr Tudge M2Y I move: That the member no longer be heard. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The question is that the member be no longer heard. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E The question is that the motion be agreed to. Mr Burke DYW Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You just ruled that we could not have that the question be put and you put the motion. The government agreed with the suspension of standing orders. No-one is voting 'no' so therefore we should now proceed to the motion. The DEPUTY SPEAKER M3E I will restate the question that the motion be agreed to.

The House divided. [12:16]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Mitchell)

 79 AYES Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Brough, MT Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coleman, DB Coulton, M (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Frydenberg, JA Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Griggs, NL Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hendy, PW Hockey, JB Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Hutchinson, ER Irons, SJ Jensen, DG Jones, ET Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Landry, ML Laundy, C Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McCormack, MF McNamara, KJ Morrison, SJ Nikolic, AA (teller) O'Dowd, KD Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robert, SR Roy, WB Ruddock, PM Scott, FM Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Sudmalis, AE Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Van Manen, AJ Varvaris, N Vasta, RX Whiteley, BD Williams, MP Wilson, RJ Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 50 NOES Albanese, AN Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Feeney, D Ferguson, LDT Fitzgibbon, JA Giles, AJ Gray, G Griffin, AP Hall, JG (teller) Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jones, SP Leigh, AK Macklin, JL MacTiernan, AJGC Marles, RD McGowan, C O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, J Parke, M Perrett, GD Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Swan, WM Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

The House divided. [12:21]
(The Deputy Speaker—Mr Mitchell)

 49 AYES Albanese, AN Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Claydon, SC Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Feeney, D Ferguson, LDT Fitzgibbon, JA Giles, AJ Gray, G Griffin, AP Hall, JG (teller) Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jones, SP Leigh, AK Macklin, JL MacTiernan, AJGC Marles, RD O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, J Parke, M Perrett, GD Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Swan, WM Thistlethwaite, MJ Watts, TG Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 79 NOES Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Brough, MT Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coleman, DB Coulton, M (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Frydenberg, JA Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Griggs, NL Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hendy, PW Hockey, JB Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Hutchinson, ER Irons, SJ Jensen, DG Jones, ET Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Landry, ML Laundy, C Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McCormack, MF McNamara, KJ Morrison, SJ Nikolic, AA (teller) O'Dowd, KD Pitt, KJ Porter, CC Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robert, SR Roy, WB Ruddock, PM Scott, FM Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Sudmalis, AE Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Van Manen, AJ Varvaris, N Vasta, RX Whiteley, BD Williams, MP Wilson, RJ Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 0 PAIRS

Question negatived

 BILLS 29 BILLS Labor 2013-14 Budget Savings (Measures No. 1) Bill 2014 29

Labor 2013-14 Budget Savings (Measures No. 1) Bill 2014

Second Reading 29 12:25 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright We move on to the part of the agenda for the resumption of the debate on the Labor 2013-14 Budget Savings (Measures No. 1) Bill 2014. Potentially, the bill implements Labor's 2013 budget policy of repealing the second round of carbon tax related personal income tax cuts that are due to start on 1 July this year. In opposition we committed to keeping the first round of the personal income tax cuts and associated pensions and benefits increase, and they have been retained by this government. We have then delivered further savings to Australian households by removing the carbon tax itself, an issue we campaigned heavily on. The removal of the carbon tax is a savings to the typical Australian family of approximately $550 this year alone. This is implementing a measure first announced by the Labor Party—by the previous Treasurer—in their final budget, handed down on 14 May 2013, where the former government deferred a second round of personal income tax cuts, resulting in a $1.5 billion saving over the then forward estimates. Due to the addition of two further years in the forward estimates since then, the measure is now worth approximately $2.8 billion to the budget over the next four years. The former government never bothered to legislate this May 2013 budget measure. Upon coming to government, we attempted to legislate this measure as a matter of urgency. As such, the measure had been introduced into the parliament twice under the Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013 as part of the package of carbon tax repeal bills. However, Labor have now voted not once but twice against the legislation, which implements this budget repair measure, without outlining an alternative plan to pay for it. We must do this because we are committed to repairing the budget. The government inherited an unsustainable budget position from the previous government. The deficits inherited from the former government that were outlined in the 2013-14 MYEFO totalled $123 billion. We have now brought that down to approximately $82 billion over the next forward estimates period. This is despite the fact that we have lost about $90 billion in expected revenue over the same period of time. Oh, to have the revenue streams that our previous government had through their terms of trade! Government debt, if left unchecked and allowed to continue on the inherent trajectories, would have been $667 billion within a decade. On a daily basis we borrow approximately $96 million just to pay our interest bill, which is down from the $133 million a day we inherited when we came to office. Under the budget settings Labor left, the budget would never get to surplus and the debt would never start to be repaid. Our budget is a budget about building a stronger economy. The focus of the Abbott coalition government is on the passage of our responsible, measured and fair budget through the parliament. Since the last election, our economy has created a quarter of a million new jobs, and the centrepiece of this budget is a plan to create even more. Jobs are now growing at well over three times the pace under Labor. That is an incredible statistic. We are creating three times more jobs in the marketplace than the previous government. The coalition's budget cut the small business company tax rate to the lowest in almost 50 years. And, for two years, we are giving small businesses an immediate tax deduction on any asset they buy costing up to $20,000. This benefits more than 95 per cent of all Australian businesses. The budget also delivers for families. Our Jobs for Families reforms will deliver a simpler, more affordable and more accessible childcare system, giving parents more choice when it comes to balancing work and family. Low- and middle-income families will be $1,500 a year better off using this childcare system. Families using child care in 2017 on family incomes of between $65,000 and $170,000 will be around $30 a week better off. The Abbott coalition government budget in 2015 delivers for families, for small business and for our economy. It is responsible and measured, and it is fair. It has cut taxes and will create jobs, and it delivers a responsible path back to surplus. I commend the bill to the House. 12:30 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to withdraw the second reading amendment in my name for the Labor 2013-14 Budget Savings (Measures No. 1) Bill 2014. Leave granted. Dr LEIGH BU8 I withdraw the amendment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER E0D The amendment is withdrawn by the honourable member for Fraser. The question now is that the bill be now read a second time. 12:31 Mr BOWEN DZS McMahon As we know, the Abbott government has doubled the budget deficit in just 12 months, after having promised to fix the budget. Of course, the change which is the subject of the Labor 2013-14 Budget Savings (Measures No. 1) Bill 2014 has already been factored into the forward estimates, meaning that, if the legislation does not pass before 30 June, there will be a further blow-out in the budget deficit, which already is at $35 billion. If you put aside how much worse the budget deficit is since the last election, even over the last 12 months, the budget deficit forecast for 2015-16 is now $35 billion. The budget is built on a house of cards, as we all know: unfair measures which will never pass the Senate and a projected budget surplus built on a change of the accounting as to how the earnings of the Future Fund are recorded in the deficit. So what we have faced here is a difficult situation and a difficult decision. If this legislation does not pass before 30 June, the deficit will blow out even further. The opposition has reflected on this. The opposition note that the tax-free threshold trebled from $6,000 to $18,200 during our time in office. This change, while it would have been welcome, would have been a small percentage of that increase, so this is not something we would have done in office, despite the spin that the government has put on it. The government has put a quite unfortunate spin on this particular matter, but the Labor Party is prepared to be responsible. Because of the blow-out in the budget deficit on the watch of the Treasurer, it is the case that we will facilitate and support this legislation. This will save the budget approximately $7 billion over 10 years, in addition to the measures I announced we would support—at the Press Club recently—which would save another $7 billion over 10 years. We are the party which takes a long-term view of these measures, unlike the Assistant Treasurer, at the table, who does not take a long-term view of these matters. He takes a short-term view. Of course, we have already outlined alternative savings of $21 billion over the decade, which are available to the government if they choose to take them. If the government choose to be responsible, we will facilitate the passage of those pieces of legislation very quickly: our multinational tax package and our superannuation package. We will be prepared to facilitate those through the House, but of course the government have their head in the sand, taking an irresponsible approach to these measures. We know that the Assistant Treasurer and the Treasurer do not agree with their Prime Minister. We know that they would rather see the government accept those measures, but they have been nobbled by the Prime Minister. They have been told to pull their head in—that they are not going to take the responsible point of view. This Prime Minister does not understand superannuation and does not support superannuation but is pretending and claiming to be a friend of superannuation. For those reasons, this legislation will be facilitated. 12:34 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert Can I just start with what I believe to be one of the great truths about this place: there is not one person in this place who does not want to leave this country a better place than before they got through the front doors here. We all want to do the right thing. We have differing opinions and ideas on how that will happen, but, generally speaking, we all believe that we should live within our means, that the budget should be run in surplus and debt kept as low as humanly possible, to protect us against the unforeseen headwinds which may come along from time to time. That is what households must do. That is what business must do. We must have a plan for the future. The bills have to get paid and the wages have to get paid before you take the profit. The way we decide on how the bills get paid and who pays them is that we have an election. We won the election in 2013 on a basis of fixing the budget mess. I welcome the withdrawal of the amendment, and I welcome the words of the shadow Treasurer, the member for McMahon, about the more conciliatory and rational approach. Governments are elected to fix these things, and we have our say in this House of Representatives. What we have to do is make sure that the Senate understand that they are there to represent the states, not their individual constituencies. The Senate are there to represent the states' interests and not some small sliver of the population in a state or around Australia. That is what we must do in this place. We have to be held to account for the actions that we do—and, when we go to the people next, we will be held accountable for the actions that we do. We all make sure that we live within our means as much as possible, but, if you do rattle up a debt, sooner or later it has to be repaid. There was an Andy Capp cartoon years ago where Andy Capp was walking down the street and he yelled back at the bloke at the TV store, 'I'll have you up on false advertising!' He said, 'Anyone who believes any repayment is easy is a liar.' When you pay it back, any loan repayment you make comes out of your net income, and all payments hurt. What we have done through a number of parliaments—not just through the 43rd Parliament or in the response to the GFC but over a number of parliaments—is to saddle the taxpayers and the people of this country with an unsustainable budget into the future. If we do not face up to it and do the right thing by the people of Australia, we will be as bad as anybody else in the world. So what we have done here is accept that, when we pass things, we have to stand up and take responsibility for them. I commend the bill to the House, and I welcome the change of heart from the people on the opposite benches and hope that the Senate will pay due deference to the words that have been said in this place about how we balance our budget. I thank the House. 12:37 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong The Labor 2013-14 Budget Savings (Measures No. 1) Bill 2014 repeals the second round of carbon tax related personal income tax cuts, which are due to start on 1 July 2015. This measure was originally announced by the former government. In their final budget, in 2013-14, Labor announced they would repeal the second round of personal income tax cuts, due to take effect from 1 July 2015. Labor banked $1.5 billion to the budget bottom line over the then forward estimates period, to 30 June 2017. Due to the addition of two further years to the forward estimates, this means the measure will now boost the budget bottom line by $2.8 billion. But, as we all know, they did not get around to legislating their own repeal. This measure has now been introduced to the parliament twice, under the Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates and Other Amendments) Bill 2013 as part of the package of carbon tax repeal bills. The Senate has now twice voted down this measure put forward by the former government. I welcome the recent commitment from the opposition members to support their own budget repair measure. They have an opportunity to now contribute to the task of budget repair our nation must undertake. The 1 July 2015 round of personal income tax cuts were originally introduced to provide additional assistance to households following an expected increase in the carbon price from a fixed price of $25.40 in this financial year to a floating price of $29 next financial year. In their final budget, the former government revised their carbon price estimates for the next financial year, and this had fallen to around $12. But the former government never followed through by unwinding legislation they put through the parliament to implement the personal income tax cuts due to take effect from 1 July 2015. The former government did not reverse their decision to defer the second round of personal income tax cuts in a 2013 economic statement or in their document outlining their costings for the 2013 federal election. Since coming to opposition, Labor have now twice voted against legislation which implements their own budget repair measure, without outlining an alternative plan to pay for the measure they are now choosing to keep. When we came to government, we inherited an unsustainable budget position from the previous government. It was plain for all to see. It is now time for parliament to get serious about repairing the budget. This bill gives the opposition the opportunity to show they are serious by supporting their own measure from the 2013-14 budget. Above all, it gives them the opportunity to keep their commitment to the Australian people. We all know now, of course, that the former government never delivered on their promise of a surplus last financial year, but they did talk the talk about the principle of returning the budget to surplus. Supporting this bill gives them an opportunity to finally take a small step in the direction of action. We inherited $123 billion of deficits when we came to office. We have now brought that down to $82 billion over the next four years. This is despite the fact that we lost $90 billion in expected tax revenue over the same period. A $40 billion improvement in the budget bottom line is good, but we need to do more. If we had not taken action to address government debt—if we had left it to continue on the trajectory of deficits and excessive spending we inherited from the former government—debt would have been $667 billion at the end of the medium term. Without action, the budget outlook is rising debt for at least another 10 years. The budget would never get to surplus, and the debt would never, ever begin to be repaid. While Labor promised a real spending cap of two per cent per annum, they actually delivered 3.6 per cent per annum, or almost double the cap that they promised. In contrast, we are keeping real spending growth in check at 1½ per cent on average over the five years to 2018-19. We have taken some tough decisions. We have taken them in order to change course and put the budget back onto a secure and sustainable footing. The benefit of making these decision now is that in the years ahead we will be able to afford a sustainable quality of life. Every generation before us has helped to build the quality of life we enjoy, and we can do no less for future generations. Budget repair is about government living within its means and ensuring the sustainability of government services. This government is committed to living within its means. We refuse to keep borrowing money to pay for consumption today at the expense of generations of taxpayers into the future. It is unsustainable and, frankly, immoral. The government is redirecting spending to measures that will boost productivity and workforce participation to build a stronger economy. This includes the Infrastructure Growth Package, the Asset Recycling Initiative and other new investments in infrastructure. It includes building a new Medical Research Future Fund within the next six years. We are eliminating waste by reducing the government's share of the economy over time so that we can keep providing assistance to those who need it most and free up resources for private investment. Our plan will allow us to start paying down public debt. We want to reduce the amount Australian taxpayers spend on their interest repayments while also making sure that more of their tax dollar is spent on delivering front-line services. The repeal of the carbon tax has helped all Australian households, with households better off by $550 on average this year alone. But the government understands households will continue to face cost-of-living pressures in spite of that repeal. That is why we will keep the current personal income tax thresholds and fortnightly pension and benefit increases. This bill amends the Clean Energy (Income Tax Rates) Amendments Act 2011 to repeal the personal income tax cuts that were legislated to commence on 1 July 2015. It also amends the Clean Energy (Tax Laws Amendments) Act 2011 to repeal associated amendments to the low-income tax offset which were also legislated to commence on 1 July 2015. After repealing these amendments, the tax-free threshold will remain at $18,200, the second personal marginal tax rate will remain at 32½ per cent and the maximum value of the low-income tax offset will remain at $445. This bill is an important step towards getting the budget back on track. This bill will help to ensure that future generations will enjoy the high standard of living that we enjoy and that they will not be shackled with debt. It is time for this parliament to repair the budget and ensure Australia's prosperous future. I commend this bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 32 12:45 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Private Health Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill 2015 32

Private Health Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill 2015

Second Reading 32 12:45 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong I would like to thank those members who have contributed to the debate on the Private Health Insurance (Prudential Supervision) Bill 2015 and related bills. This package of bills will transfer the Private Health Insurance Administration Council's prudential regulation functions to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, which I will refer to from here on as APRA, from 1 July 2015. With this package of bills the government is continuing to deliver on its commitment to a smaller, more rational government. This will over time result in lower costs for the private health insurance industry while ensuring that the industry continues to remain stable and well regulated. The consolidation of the council's functions within APRA as the current financial services regulator will reduce duplication, improve coordination and increase government efficiency. This is consistent with the government's commitments to its deregulation agenda. The approach outlined in the legislation is intended to minimise the disruption to the private health insurance industry and ensure that sound prudential supervision will be maintained from 1 July 2015. It will not fundamentally change the regulatory framework faced by the industry. The government has extensively consulted the private health insurance industry and the broader health community on the new bills. APRA will continue to provide the industry with the services that the council previously provided and there will be no substantive changes to the supervisory approach to private health insurers. That means that private health insurers who are compliant with the current prudential framework will not need to take any steps in order to be compliant when the new prudential framework begins on 1 July. This package of bills sets out the prudential regulation framework to enable APRA to supervise the private health insurance industry and, with some exceptions, will be the same as the existing prudential framework. The exceptions include aligning certain provisions to APRA's existing supervision regime, which will help APRA to remain efficient and cost-effective. APRA will remake the existing prudential standards and rules to ensure they align with the bill but the substance of those rules and standards will not materially change. I also want to assure you that the valuable knowledge held by the council on supervising the industry will not be lost. Around 80 per cent of staff in the first instance will transfer to APRA. It is also important to note that the current collection of industry data and the production of reports will be maintained by APRA, ensuring continuity. The transfer of the council's prudential regulation functions to APRA will over time result in savings to industry. These savings will be reflected in reduced annual supervisory levies payable by the private health insurance industry. I reiterate that, under these changes, overall policy responsibility for private health insurance policy, including premium setting, will remain with the Minister for Health under the Private Health Insurance Act. With this package of bills we are fulfilling our commitments to a smaller government. I commend these bills to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 33 12:49 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Private Health Insurance (Prudential Supervision) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2015 33

Private Health Insurance (Prudential Supervision) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2015

Second Reading 33 Third Reading 33 12:50 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Private Health Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 2015 33

Private Health Insurance Supervisory Levy Imposition Bill 2015

Second Reading 33 Third Reading 34 12:51 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Private Health Insurance (Risk Equalisation Levy) Amendment Bill 2015 34

Private Health Insurance (Risk Equalisation Levy) Amendment Bill 2015

Second Reading 34 Third Reading 34 12:52 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Private Health Insurance (Prudential Supervision) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2015 34

Private Health Insurance (Prudential Supervision) (Consequential Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2015

Second Reading 34 Third Reading 34 12:54 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Private Health Insurance (Collapsed Insurer Levy) Amendment Bill 2015 34

Private Health Insurance (Collapsed Insurer Levy) Amendment Bill 2015

Second Reading 34 Third Reading 34 12:55 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Social Services Legislation Amendment (No. 2) Bill 2015 34

Social Services Legislation Amendment (No. 2) Bill 2015

Second Reading 34 12:55 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga This bill seeks to amend the current income management arrangements. It will abolish the 'vulnerable' measure of income management—the measure that identifies the most vulnerable people who may benefit from income management. It will cut away much-needed support from these vulnerable people—support provided by Centrelink social workers. This bill will also abolish the matched savings and voluntary incentive payments—matched savings payments of up to $500 for people on income management who have completed a financial literacy course and can demonstrate a savings pattern; and voluntary incentive payments of $250 paid to people who volunteer for income management for every 26 continuous weeks. Let me clear: Labor does support income management when it is targeted to those most in need. Income management ensures that money is available for life's essentials. It provides a tool to stabilise people's circumstances and ease immediate financial stress. Income management works to make sure that income support payments are spent in the best interests of children and families. It means more money goes to food, clothes and rent, and less money to buying alcohol and gambling. In 2008 in Perth and in the East and West Kimberley, Labor trialled child protection income management, making income management available to child protection workers to assist families at risk of child abuse and neglect. In 2010, following widespread consultation, the Labor government introduced a new, non-discriminatory model of income management in the Northern Territory. This took it from a blanket, discriminatory program that had been designed by the Howard government to a tailored income management approach applying it to at-risk and vulnerable income support recipients, to support people with a high risk of social isolation, those with poor money management skills and those likely to participate in risky behaviours. In 2012, Labor introduced income management in five disadvantaged locations across Australia as part of our Building Australia's Future Workforce reforms: Playford in South Australia, Greater Shepparton in Victoria, Bankstown in New South Wales, and Rockhampton and Logan in Queensland. This was to help families in those locations stabilise their lives so that they could prepare and look for work. Following calls for income management and after consultation with families, the Labor government agreed to implement income management in the APY lands in South Australia, to help families in those APY lands make sure that less money was spent on alcohol and gambling and more money was available for food, clothing and other life essentials. In 2013, Labor introduced income management in Laverton and the Ngaanyatjarra lands in Western Australia, to provide families in Laverton and the Ngaanyatjarra lands with an important tool to help families budget in the best interests of their children. We also worked with the Northern Territory government to provide income management to help deal with people who came before the Northern Territory Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Tribunal, making less money available to spend on alcohol. And right now, across Australia, it is possible for child protection workers to use income management as a tool to support families at risk of child neglect. Unfortunately most states do not use this provision. I know from my own experiences, from what people have told me, that income management is making a difference to people's lives. Mildred Inkamala, from the Northern Territory community of Hermannsburg, said: For my people, it's done a very good thing. Kids are going to school, they're healthier, people are not spending all their money on grog. In Perth, I visited a money management service where young women on child protection income management told me it was helping them stabilise their lives and, in particular, their housing circumstances. These women told me that income management helped them budget and pay their bills. And, as their lives improved, they were able to spend more time with their children. Income management was part of the Labor government's reforms to build an income support system based on the principles of engagement, participation and responsibility. It was Labor that worked to progressively reform the income support and family payment system to foster responsibility and self-respect; to ensure income support is spent where it is intended, on the essentials of life and in the interests of children; and, importantly, to make sure that income support payments support those who need it most. Labor showed that it is possible to be financially responsible at the same time as supporting Australia's most vulnerable. We showed what it means to be fair. In 2008 Labor introduced means-testing to family tax benefit part B. We also means-tested the baby bonus, to make sure that support was going to those who needed it most. As part of Labor's Building Australia's Future Workforce package, we introduced new measures to promote long-term economic participation in 10 of the nation's most disadvantaged communities; extra responsibilities and more assistance for teenage parents on income support, jobless families and other vulnerable groups; new requirements for teenage parents who are receiving parenting payment to meet an individually crafted participation plan; plans focused on education pathways, including school completion, foundation skills or certificate-level qualifications; support for children and families and help for parents to enter or return to the workforce. Labor introduced compulsory participation requirements for parents who are disengaged from the workforce and receiving income support to attend interviews with Centrelink caseworkers. Interviews with Centrelink caseworkers help to make sure that children are ready for school and help the parents to address any prevocational barriers to future employment. Through these reforms to our income support system, Labor showed what it is to be fair, making sure that everyone has a decent standard of living at the same as supporting the most vulnerable, helping people take responsibility for their own lives. We know that very vulnerable people and families need more assistance than the quarantining of income support payments and the tightening of participation requirements. We strengthened the relationship between money management services and Centrelink, to make sure that people on income management are receiving help to build their financial literacy, including budgeting, banking, savings and awareness of the risks of payday loans. Labor provided financial literacy support to people on income management. We also provided additional family support services in regions where income management applied and other disadvantaged locations. We made sure that people on income management met regularly with Centrelink social workers, to help them budget, make sure their priority needs were met and address other issues in their lives that were impacting on their wellbeing. Centrelink social workers meet regularly with people on income management to help them budget effectively and to allocate their income managed funds to priority needs like rent, utilities, food or household items. Unfortunately, that is what this government wants to take away in this bill. It wants to take away some of the support to people on income management. This government, through this bill, wants to take away support from families and people who need it most, and we will not agree to that. Labor believes income management should be targeted. We do not believe that everyone on income support should be on or would benefit from income management. The vast majority of people on income support are perfectly able to manage their own money. Income management is also not a punishment, and that is why the vulnerable measure of income management is so important. The vulnerable measure of income management aims to identify and help vulnerable and at-risk individuals and their families. A Centrelink social worker has determined that income management can help them or their family. They have been assessed by a Centrelink social worker to be in financial hardship or experiencing financial exploitation. The person may be homeless or at risk of homelessness, or they may not be taking care of themselves or their children. The Centrelink social worker aspect of the vulnerable measure is a very important way in which those who most need help are identified and supported, so Labor will not support the abolishment of this measure. We do not support the removal of this vital role of Centrelink social workers. In government, Labor was firm in its commitment to protecting and providing for children and vulnerable people, and our commitment continues. That is why we will not support this government's attempt to take away support for these very vulnerable people. We will oppose the parts of this bill that see social worker interaction and assistance stripped from those who need it most. We will not support changes to income management that take away help for budgeting and prioritising money that makes sure that that money is directed to rent, food and support for children. Labor will continue to support income management as a tool targeted towards the vulnerable that actually helps vulnerable people, a tool carefully targeted towards vulnerable Australians to help them better manage their income support and family assistance payments and to help people stabilise their lives. We will not oppose the parts of the bill that abolish the matched savings and incentive payments. We are focused on supporting those who need it most. We also seek to be fiscally responsible, so we will oppose the cuts that will take much needed support away from vulnerable families. We will oppose the changes that take away the ability to identify those people that may need our support the most. This demonstrates that only Labor can be trusted to reform the income support system, so that it is fiscally responsible and can better support the nation's most vulnerable. 13:08 Mr TUDGE M2Y Aston I rise also to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (No.2) Bill 2015, which is before the House at present. This bill does a number of things. Most importantly, it extends the operation of income management for another two years in all locations across Australia. Most people who are on income management are located in the Northern Territory, but there are also trial sites of income management in other states as well. This bill commits $146.7 million to extend the operation of the income management regime, but in a more streamlined version, which I will get to in a minute. The income management regime has been in place now for a number of years, and I commend the Labor government for continuing on with this and introducing it in many places. It is a system that has been shown to work for many people. It takes people's welfare payments and provides some structured support around those welfare payments. In essence, it helps people to set up individual accounts for typically 50 per cent of their welfare payments, which go into various things such as rent, food, whitegoods and into other accounts they may want to set up. By and large, the evaluations have shown that the 50 per cent of the welfare payments put aside for income management actually was spent on the things it was supposed to be spent on. We do not know much about what occurred for the other 50 per cent of the welfare payments, but for those under income management, the evaluations certainly showed that by and large it was spent on things that it was supposed to be spent on. That indeed was the whole purpose of it—to ensure that there is at least some money there to pay for things like rent, to pay for things like food and to pay for some of the basics, and in doing so to minimise child neglect and to ensure that money is being spent for the purpose which it was provided. There are other ways that we could assess how successful the income management regime has been. You can ask people what they thought of it, and indeed in the evaluations that was done. When they did that, around two-fifths of people on the income management system thought that it had actually made things better for them. The anecdotal evidence bears this out, with many saying that it assisted in terms of putting food on the table and ensuring that there was money available across the payment fortnight, and a further third thought that there was little difference. So, almost three-quarters of people who were on the compulsory income management actually provided a very positive view of income management, or thought that it did not make much difference. Perhaps the most telling figure though is the proportion of people who came off compulsory income management but decided to stay on it in a voluntary way. Almost two-thirds of people actually chose to stay on it in a voluntary capacity despite no longer being compelled to be on the income management regime. I think that is perhaps the most telling figure because it says that most people actually appreciate and enjoy the structured support that the income management system provides. I know from my time in the communities where this operates and from speaking to many people about it that it is by and large—but not universally—supported, particularly from the women. They are often the ones that are left to ensure that the household budget is maintained and that there is food on the table, and this can very much support them in that role. As well as providing the extension of income management for a further two years, this bill makes a number of amendments to streamline the operation of the income management system. This streamlined program includes the removal of social worker assessments through the vulnerable welfare recipient measure, as this was underutilised and resource intensive. The removal of this will allow social workers to better service their vulnerable clients. While participants remain able to adjust how they use their funds to meet priority needs at any time, they will no longer be required to discuss these arrangements with Centrelink every eight weeks. There will be a phased removal of the matched savings payments, which offer people on the compulsory measures up to $500 in matched savings if they complete an approved money management course and have demonstrated an approved savings pattern over a 13-week period. These will cease from 31 December 2015, as they were largely unsubscribed to and costly to administer. Indeed, the evaluation found that only 31 people had obtained a matched savings payment—31 out of, from memory, 27,000 people who were on income management. The phased removal of the voluntary incentive payments, which offer individuals a payment of $250 for every continuous period of 26 weeks, will cease on 31 December 2015, as evaluations have shown that incentive payments are not the main driver for commencing income management and that they can create a dependency on the program. The BasicsCard Merchant Approval Framework will also undergo administrative and policy changes that will simplify the model, improve the customer experience and remove unnecessary customer contact. These streamlined arrangements will achieve savings of approximately $36 million over two years. These changes will maintain service continuity for individuals using the BasicsCard and will take small steps to reduce the ongoing cost. As well as those streamlining amendments the bill also makes amendments to reflect the two measures relating to aged care which were included in the 2014-15 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook announcement. From 1 July 2015 the bill will cease payments of residential care subsidies to residential aged care providers for holding a place for up to seven days before a care recipient enters care. This will ensure the subsidy is appropriately targeted to people actually receiving care. Currently this subsidy is paid to providers at a reduced rate of 30 per cent of the full residential care subsidy that will be payable once the care recipient enters care. When the subsidy is ceased under this measure, the provider will not be able to recoup any lost residential care subsidy from the care recipient. However, the provider will still be able to charge the care recipient the standard residential contribution for the pre-entry period. Lastly, the bill will reflect the government's decision to abolish the Aged Care Planning Advisory Committees as part of the Smaller Government initiative. That is a quick summary of the operation of this bill. As I said, most important is the extension of income management for a further two years so that that structured support can continue and the benefits can continue, but alongside that there is some streamlining to remove things that frankly either were not working or were not being taken up but nevertheless were quite expensive—I think that is a sensible streamlining and cost saving measure. There are also some important measures relating to aged care incorporated into this bill. I commend the bill to the House. 13:16 Ms HALL 83N Shortland The Social Services Legislation Amendment (No. 2) Bill 2015 introduces measures from the 2015 budget related to income management and aged care. This bill abolishes matched savings and voluntary incentive payments for people who volunteer for income management within the prescribed location. It amends the 'vulnerable measure' relating to the social worker assessment process and requirements, reducing interactions between the Department of Human Services and participants. Currently there are two groups of income management participants under the vulnerable measure: participants are assessed by a Centrelink social worker on a case-by-case basis, and there is an automatic trigger applying to a class of people—currently a youth-related trigger. It is assumed that the measures in this bill would apply to the social worker assessment component only, and it is to be hoped that that is the case. Approximately 253 people are currently on income management through being identified by a Centrelink social worker. Evidence from evaluations suggests that the participants who are most likely to benefit from income management are those identified through Centrelink social worker assessment, or through child protection measures. It is of some concern that this is not a move by the government to prevent this taking place. We believe it is vitally important that people be properly identified. Participants placed on income support management through this measure receive regular social worker support that would be reduced under this bill. That is what we do not support—the cuts. The one thing this government is good at doing is cutting services and cutting support to those people who are very vulnerable. It is extremely difficult to understand the performance of this government in the area of providing support to those people that are most vulnerable in our community. Labor supports income management; we can see how income management can assist people to stabilise their lives and to move forward—it is a way of addressing intergenerational unemployment and extreme disadvantage, and we can see the benefit of it. But we also know that people undertaking income management need support, they need the proper programs to help them move forward—programs that change their life circumstances. It should not just be a move by the government of the day to save money. That is what I have always feared—that this is just another example of cost-cutting and saving. A saving of $11.6 million is projected. When taking a wider view of how you save money into the future, you save money into the future by giving people the right sort of support for them to change their circumstances. I fear that that is not the intent of this government. Income management ensures that income support payments are spent in the best interests of children and families. It ensures that money is available for life essentials and helps to ease immediate financial stress. Labor in government extended income management to five communities across Australia as part of Building Australia's Future Workforce. In responding to calls to help after consultation, Labor introduced income management to help families in the APY Lands. The work of Centrelink social workers is essential in ensuring that income management is appropriately targeted and best supports those in need. We on this side of the House oppose cuts to vulnerable families. This government is not about providing support for people who need support. It is vitally important that the government not walk away from the fact that if you really want to change a person's life, income management is part of it but you also have to have the proper supports in place; have Centrelink social workers who can identify the problem and change a person's life. The other component of this legislation relates to aged care. I will share with the House a conversation I had recently with some aged-care providers in the Shortland electorate. They are particularly disappointed about the performance of the Abbott government in the area of aged care—for example, there is no minister responsible for aged care or ageing. That is very disappointing. They are also disappointed that this government constantly changes the rules in relation to aged care. I find it extremely disappointing that part of this legislation is actually doing away with aged-care planning advisory committees. Planning is imperative when it comes to aged care. We have an ageing population in Australia, and we need to plan for the future of that ageing population. We need to make sure that the proper resources are in place, that the proper facilities are in place and that the proper packages are in place. We need to be able to look at it holistically and we need to know that as a country we are going in the right direction. I do not have confidence in this government, and what I am hearing from aged-care providers in my electorate is that they are finding it difficult to keep up with constant changes that are being put upon them by the Abbott government. To be quite honest, it is really not good enough. Part of this legislation also relates to when a person receives an offer of admission into an aged-care facility; it can be very short notice and a timely decision will need to be made about whether to accept the offer or not. Whether or not to accept an offer and move into care is a big decision for a family and for an individual. It is giving up a lot of their independence, and there are a lot of dynamics within a family and a household that need to be addressed. So I was quite concerned when I learnt that up to seven days of social leave could be used as pre-entry. This pre-entry leave gave people time to consider, immediately before they enter a service, all the issues that I just mentioned. It has already been reduced, and the simple fact that the government is looking at reducing it again shows that they are not looking at the big picture. They are not looking at all the issues. They do not care about people that are vulnerable. They do not care about frail aged people that are looking to move into aged care. They are targeting them right at that time; not giving them time to consider all the issues that are involved. It is yet another surprise attack on vulnerable people. The Abbott government really has shown that older Australians are on their own; they have shown their contempt for older Australians and the aged-care system over the past 12 months. Instead of delivering their promises in the area of aged care, they have reneged on those promises and they have let so many people down. The $10 million cut comes hot on the heels of Minister Fifield's heartless decision to axe the dementia and severe behaviour supplement. This supplement was something that people relied on. It was something that aged-care facilities relied on. And axing this supplement has left elderly people—people who are extremely vulnerable, people who are living with dementia—on their own, without the support that they need. This is just further evidence that the Abbott government has completely dropped the ball when it comes to aged care. They are ripping millions of dollars out of the system—at a time when we should be making sure it is strong and sustainable for the future, at a time when we should be investing in aged care, at a time when we should be investing in planning, at a time when we need to be looking at planning our aged-care system. We need to be going ahead with the changes to aged care that were introduced under the previous government and making sure that those frail aged people have the support of government. They should not be in a situation where they are feeling insecure. They need to know they have a government that will support them as they move forward; not a government that completely ignores their needs and drops the ball when it comes to aged care, not a government that shows their lack of care and compassion for older Australians. Comments by the Treasurer last week showed his total lack of understanding of issues around ordinary Australian families when he said, 'If you want to buy a house, then you need to get a good job'. A lot of people have good jobs; they work very long hours; they work weekends. They rely on penalty rates to be able to pay for their house. Saying that it is purely an individual's fault that they do not have the money to put a deposit on a house that costs $1 million-plus in Sydney shows what an out-of-touch Treasurer and an out-of-touch government this is. Coming back to the legislation before us right now, that example I just gave is an example of the attitude of a government that does not care about vulnerable people, an attitude that leads to a government that is constantly placing cuts on those people that are most vulnerable. This is a government that really does not understand issues surrounding aged care and older Australians. This is a government that is prepared to cut planning and to walk away from people that look to it for solutions. So, whilst we support the income management, we also oppose cuts to vulnerable Australians. Debate interrupted. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 39 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS International Cleaners Day 39 13:30 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin This morning, cleaners gathered on the lawns of Parliament House to mark International Cleaners Day and the 25th anniversary of the first such event, held in Los Angeles. The rally was also a public showing of Commonwealth-employed cleaners in their fight to be paid a modest wage increase. These are some of the lowest-paid workers in Australia. They are people who often work extraordinary hours and who do jobs that many others would not do. Many of them are also new arrivals, who do not always know their entitlements, who need their jobs and who are more likely to be exploited, as has been exposed by the Fair Work Ombudsman. Just as unethical employers try to take advantage of cleaners so too did the Abbott government when last year it cut the Commonwealth Cleaners Guidelines, making cleaners in Commonwealth buildings over $6,800 worse off each year on average. Typically of the Abbott government, it wants to balance its budget mess on the backs of Australia's lowest-income families. I call on the government to show some fairness and to show some decency: reinstate the Commonwealth Cleaners Guidelines and provide cleaners with decent conditions and a just and fair wage increase. Duffy, Mr Don, OAM 40 13:31 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan Don Duffy OAM rolls off the tongue fairly easily after this Queen's Birthday honours. I cannot believe he has been chairman of the Pakenham Racing Club for the last 12 years. I think back on the tradition of Peter Ronald, then David Burke and Michael Moore, and the great transition from a small country club to a magnificent new facility carried through with the great vision of Don Duffy. Don was not just recognised for his contribution to racing and to the Pakenham Racing Club. There were also his contributions to St Margaret's College, to the horticultural society and to the Pakenham cemetery, and his broader contributions to the community in many ways that we will never know about. I love the way that in all humility Don said to the community, 'There are so many people in the community whose efforts go unsung who are just as deserving as I am.' But I put to the House today what Jack 'The Drake' Drake, son of 'Bunny' Drake, would have said about this commendation. He would have looked at the new Pakenham racecourse and said to Don Duffy, 'Sensational, Don! Sensational!' That is what Jack Drake would have said. He has passed on, and his dad has passed on. They were great contributors to our local community, as have been Don Duffy and his beautiful and smart wife, Kate. He could not have achieved any of those things without the contribution of Kate involved in the life of Don Duffy OAM. Newcastle Electorate: Obesity 40 13:33 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle The National Heart Foundation recently listed the Newcastle region as the fourth-worst performing area in the state when it comes to obesity and exercise, with 31.5 per cent obese and 63.2 per cent of residents not doing enough exercise. Thankfully, my community is working hard to overcome these issues of obesity and inactivity, and there are a number of fantastic initiatives that deserve particular recognition. Last month I joined in with the 20th anniversary of the Heart Foundation's Walking program as part of National Heart Week, taking a short walk along Newcastle's stunning coastline. Some of the walkers were on their first organised walk, others were part of regular groups who meet and walk for both the physical and mental benefits that group exercise can bring. And on Saturday 6 June I joined 552 runners and 23 volunteers at the third anniversary of the Newy parkrun. Held in Carrington every week, the Newy parkrun is part of the worldwide parkrun movement of free five-kilometre timed runs. Newy was the seventh parkrun in Australia when it started three years ago, and it is one of more than 100, including 10 in the Newcastle and Hunter region. This fantastic community of runners welcomed me and other first-time runners with open arms. I look forward to improving my personal best over the coming months and sampling other running courses in my electorate. I congratulate the event organisers and dedicated volunteers who keep parkrun going every week, and I welcome the work of the Heart Foundation in my community to tackle inactivity and obesity. (Time expired) Henzells Agency, Bankfoot House 40 13:34 Mr BROUGH 2K6 Fisher 2015 marks the 80th anniversary of Henzells Agency operating in Caloundra. It also marks the 25th anniversary of the partnership between Garry Waters and Roy Henzell. On Friday night we joined them, not only for a celebration of the Henzells Foundation but raising much-needed funds for the 'Steps' organisation for disabled children. As a result of their charity work, over $110,000 has been donated to charity. I just want to thank Sandy and all of the team at Henzells, as well as the generous people of the Sunshine Coast for coming together for another worthwhile cause. I also want to pay tribute today to the Friends of Bankfoot House, a pioneer house—the first house in the Glass House Mountains. I guess it was made famous because when gold was found in Gympie this is where Cobb & Co. coaches first stayed. The Friends of Bankfoot House have been able to maintain the heritage and all of the bits and pieces that went together to make up a pioneering life—from the Bakelite radio to the kitchen utensils and from the kerosene lanterns to the corsets and even the chaffcutters. I want to congratulate the incoming committee, which also happens to be the outgoing committee. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, committees tend to have longevity in these places, incoming and outgoing! I thank Ron, Keith, Elaine, Jo and Helen for the fabulous work they do in maintaining our heritage and making sure that the next generation understands what it was like to be a pioneering family on the Glass House Mountains. Chenoweth, Professor Lesley, AO 41 13:36 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Lesley Chenoweth is a professor of social work, she is the head of the Logan campus of Griffith University and she is an extraordinary contributor to our local community. And now Lesley Chenoweth is also an Officer of the Order of Australia. What an inspired choice and what an inspirational person! Her citation for this great honour was for her distinguished service to higher education, particularly social work, as an academic and administrator, and as a leading supporter of people with disabilities. I have spoken before in this place about the pride that I have in representing the Logan campus of Griffith University. Lesley, who runs that campus, and all of her colleagues throughout that campus of Griffith University are tremendous people who are widening and broadening access to higher education in our community. I come across people all the time who tell me that they would not have graduated without the extra effort that goes in on that campus in our community. It speaks volumes about Lesley that she was stunned that she was nominated for the award. It comes as no surprise to any of us who work with her in the community, and around the country, the contribution that she makes to our place. She leads a special team. She contributes an extraordinary amount. It is a wonderful thing. We say to Lesley: congratulations on such a well-deserved honour. We are proud of you and we love working with you. Northern Australia 41 13:37 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon It is an exciting time to be a member of parliament in north Australia. Since Federation, Australians have been talking about unlocking the economic potential of north Australia. There has been a lot of talk, but until now we have not had a government that has the commitment and the drive to turn these ideas into reality. We are going to build the infrastructure we need to bring our goods to the ports, to create the economic policy which will allow north Australian businesses to develop and to invest, and to develop international relationships, which will allow our businesses to tap into the growing economies in north Australia. Now, at the dawn of what many economists are calling the Asian Century, all of these things are coming together for northern Australia under the stewardship of the Abbott government. Five billion dollars has been allocated in this year's budget to build infrastructure in north Australia. Free trade agreements have been signed with many of the major economies to our north. And this Friday, the north Australia white paper will be launched to outline the coalition's strategic vision for developing north Australia. It is an exciting time for northern Australia. I am proud to be part of the Abbott government and proud to be representing north Australia in the Northern Territory. Rail Infrastructure 41 13:39 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand On the weekend, I was very pleased to attend the opening of the congestion-busting Regional Rail Link in Melbourne's west. A joint project of state and federal Labor governments, the Regional Rail Link is the biggest Commonwealth investment in public transport infrastructure in our nation's history. It will add 54,000 passenger seats per day to Victoria's train system, reducing the time spent by Victorians commuting and saving Victorians $300,000 million a year by reducing traffic congestion. The opening was attended by the Premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, and a bevy of state and federal MPs, including the member for Lalor, the member for Corio, the member for Bendigo, the member for Grayndler and the Deputy Prime Minister. Indeed, despite receiving its $3.2 billion in federal funding in May of 2009, at the opening of the Tarneit railway station, the Deputy Prime Minister credited the Howard government for the project. Some might say that 2009 was the best year of the Howard government, but even they would have had more credibility than a transport minister in the Abbott government opening an urban public transport infrastructure project. This is a government that refused to spend a cent on public transport. This is a government that slashed $3 billion from the Melbourne metropolitan rail tunnel project, yet the transport minister was like a modern-day Edward de Groot, charging to the front to cut the ribbon on a project he had nothing to do with. But this time it was not the Sydney Harbor Bridge but the Tarneit railway station. Instead of arriving on a white stallion, he arrived in a white Comcar. He might not have had a sword to match it with de Groot, but he certainly matched de Groot's chutzpah. If Warren Truss wants to open urban public transport projects, he should fund them. Child Care 41 13:40 Dr HENDY 00BCM Eden-Monaro On Wednesday 10 June, I joined Marcelle Van Gasselt, manager of Bega Valley's child support and early intervention service, Playability, to announce the government's decision to extend their funding for another two years. Playability provide support services for many of the district's families, including those who have children with disabilities. Earlier this year, Playability was informed by the Department of Social Services that the funding for their mobile toy library, and supported playgroups, was to cease. I met with Playability, listened to their concerns, and then proceeded to make representations on their behalf to the Minister for Social Services. It is very clear that Playability do a great job for Bega Valley families. They have an excellent reputation for interacting in a sensitive manner with families facing the unquestioned challenges of caring for disabled children. They have been fulfilling this important role for over 30 years. Although they had funding for maintaining some of their other services, including support for Indigenous families, cut backs meant that they would have to stop some services and face difficult budgeting and staffing decisions. Upon review, the minister restored funding of nearly $350,000 for the next two financial years, and I thank him for that. This provides more certainty for Playability to continue its support for Bega Valley families and maintain employment for its dedicated workforce. I am proud to be part of a government that, while fixing Labor's budget mess, can prioritise the genuinely needy in a disadvantaged part of Eden-Monaro. Indi Electorate: Mansfield Secondary College 42 13:42 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi It gives me great pleasure to welcome to parliament today Principal Timothy Hall and the leadership team from Mansfield Secondary College. I would like to acknowledge the fantastic role of schools and education in Indi. Mansfield Secondary College is an outstanding example of academic and cultural scholarship, agriculture through its school based apprentice and its Mt Buller annexe. Today, I would particularly like to acknowledge four of the leadership team: Liam, who has a desire to study a Bachelor of Science and he values the opportunity to look at a range of careers; and Ruby, who has set her heart on going to Melbourne University to also complete a Bachelor of Science majoring in mathematics. There is Jessie, whose goal is to become a police officer—a dream she has had since grade 5. She plans next year to have a gap year in Malta and return. Also, there is Tim—I would especially like to welcome Tim. This morning, Tim received his blazer as part of the Australian Science and Mathematics Olympiad team, which is heading overseas in July. Tim is also from Mansfield Secondary College and is one of the leadership team. I would particularly like to thank the community of Mansfield for the wonderful work they do and the parents. In particular, Tim's parents, Pat and Dave, have come up today to be part of that team. I wish all the Australian Science and Mathematics Olympiad team well. We are really looking forward to hearing of your results and reporting back to parliament as you represent us overseas. Horticulture Code of Conduct Review 42 13:43 Mr JOHN COBB 00AN1 Calare I risk to speak to support the independent review into the Horticulture Code of Conduct. I welcome the review, which I hope will give growers a full description of the terms and conditions they are currently operating under. The horticulture industry has been working hard towards reform for a lot of years. Following on from Labor's review after review, which came to nothing, we do mean business. Producers need assurances on the process which occurs after their fruit and vegetables leave the farm gate and make its way to the shelves. My electorate of Calare grows a range of fruit and vegetables—apples, cherries, cauliflower, corn and cabbage in the east and citrus, grapes and nuts in the west. They all deserve a robust trade and marketing arrangement. My local producers tell me that they are heartened by the review announcement and look forward to improvements through its application within the industry. The review and its findings must be taken seriously. The review must create greater profitable opportunities for producers and ensure the best returns at the farm gate. I anticipate that the wholesalers, particularly in the markets, may put up some resistance. We must remain committed to a more transparent trade. I encourage farmers and others to have their say. We need to restore confidence in the code and its adherence. Parliament House: Cleaning Staff 42 13:45 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I come from three generations of cleaners. My great-grandmother was a domestic in the Western District of Victoria, my grandmother cleaned three places in Melbourne, bringing up seven kids on her own, and my mother cleaned houses until her retirement from cleaning just before her 75th birthday last year. Today is International Cleaners Day—a day to celebrate the hard work of cleaners, like my working-class matriarchy, around the world. But today we are not celebrating. Today we are standing alongside our colleagues who clean this building and we are calling for fair pay and fair conditions. Today we are calling on the Abbott government to reverse its cuts to public sector cleaners, who have had their pay cut by thousands of dollars a year. We are calling on the government to reinstate the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines, which it cut last year, meaning that cleaners are now about $7,000 a year on average worse off. That comes on top of the fact that cleaners' wages have been frozen since July 2012. I met with a group of Parliament House cleaners just a few weeks ago and they are desperate to have the guidelines reinstated, guidelines that were introduced by Labor. For many of these cleaners, English is their second language. Many of them have little to no qualifications. They are absolutely vulnerable—vulnerable and desperate as a result of this government. That is why they are taking 24-hour strike action. Their treatment by this government is absolutely appalling. They deserve respect, fair wages and fair conditions. (Time expired) Banks Electorate: Local Government 43 13:47 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I rise today to speak about a very important issue in my local electorate of Banks, and that is Bankstown City Council's inappropriate plans for the suburb of Padstow. The Padstow plan would see 30 streets in the suburb of Padstow rezoned to allow for buildings of between three and eight storeys. That is completely inappropriate for Padstow and is certainly something which I strongly oppose. This debate has been going on for some months and it is time that people put their views on the Padstow plan on the record. It is time for Bankstown councillors to tell residents where they stand on the Padstow plan. It does not matter what political party they are from; this is about Padstow, not politics. Councillors need to tell the community whether or not they support the plan to rezone 30 streets to between three and eight storeys. I say to Bankstown councillors: if you do not support the Padstow plant, do not vote for it. Do not vote for this plan, which will change the character of Padstow forever. Sensible development is something that is required in New South Wales and around Australia, but it must be sensible, and this plan is not appropriate for Padstow. It should be rejected. Bankstown councillors need to tell people where they stand on this important issue. Social Cohesion 43 13:48 Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Perth At every citizenship ceremony, we proudly tell our new Australians that they are fully-fledged citizens and that there is no difference between their rights and those of any other Australian. We must show that we mean what we say. We cannot have first- and second-class Australians. Forty four point seven per cent of the people in my electorate of Perth were born overseas. I am picking up concern from some communities that they are no longer sure where they stand with this current debate on citizenship. We acknowledge the emergence of threatening non-state entities and agree that our current legislation needs to be updated so that we can respond appropriately where dual citizens are fighting against our interests, just as our current legislation provides for action against those fighting for hostile states. We need bipartisanship on national security, but we also need bipartisanship on our commitment to multiculturalism and our commitment to an immigrant nation—to ensure that there is no difference, either in law or in sentiment, between those who are here by birth and those who have come from overseas. At the heart of our Western democracy is the commitment to the rule of law. As we respond to the threat from those who want to destroy that democracy, let us keep in plain sight the values that we are protecting and ensure that our citizens are always protected against the arbitrary exercise of power. (Time expired) World Heritage Areas 43 13:50 Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 Lyons The care being taken to develop the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Management Plan by the state government of Tasmania with the possible inclusion of some low-impact selective special timber harvesting is to be commended. I certainly welcome the visit by the World Heritage Committee's reactive monitoring mission to Tasmania in response to the state's development management plan. It will provide an accurate picture of the situation on the ground. However, I am still deeply concerned about the future of Tasmania's special timber sector through the impact from disastrous decisions made by the former environment minister, the member for Watson, under the previous Labor government. The Tasmanian forest agreement resulted in a 93 per cent reduction in availability of non-blackwood specialty timbers and a tripling of the price in some cases of species such as myrtle, sassafras and celery-top pine. The sector employs more than 2,000 people full time and another 8½ thousand part time. It underpins the continuation of Tasmania's highly prized woodcraft culture. Yet we have learned since inheriting the Tasmanian forest agreement that the harvest areas for special timbers which were chosen have proved in many cases to be empty vessels, as they include rocky mountain tops, open-cut mines and thousands of hectares of button-grass plains. Why did the former minister advise the World Heritage Committee that the special timber industry's needs could be met from outside the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area when clearly no modelling was performed? Why did he allow people with no experience to choose specialty timber areas without even consulting the sector? If you support the specialty timber sector in Tasmania, you must support the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area draft management plan—because you cannot harvest trees where they do not grow. (Time expired) Petrou, Mr Alex 44 13:51 Ms RYAN 249224 Lalor I rise to commend to the House today some work going on in the electorate of Lalor by a young man named Alex Petrou. Alex works tirelessly in our local community. He works with the Youth Foundation of Laverton. He works with the Laverton Community Integrated Services. And he has developed with young people in my electorate Point Blank, a youth magazine that is fully online and on Facebook. This magazine is entirely written by young people in the areas of Laverton and Werribee. I want to congratulate Alex on the work he has done in getting people onboard with this magazine. He gives special thanks to Theresa Visintin and Ines Pereira for their continued support. This has made it possible for this magazine to be fully online and fully translatable into Facebook, something that members here may not be too familiar with, but this is a first for anything locally. The work that is done in this magazine is extraordinary. These are young people writing about their lives. These are young people writing professionally. And some of the outcomes are already extraordinary. One young person who had been on the long-term unemployed list has, through the work on the Point Blank magazine, gotten herself a very good job out of the work she has done. I would like to commend Alex Petrou and all involved in this terrific magazine. Moore Electorate: Surf Lifesaving 44 13:53 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore Surf lifesaving is an integral part of the coastal lifestyle in my electorate of Moore, with three surf lifesaving clubs along the pristine beaches of Perth's northern suburbs. The outer metropolitan area is one of the fastest growing residential areas in Australia. Young families moving into the area have created demand for surf lifesaving services as they take to the beaches for leisure, with regular surf patrols provided to ensure public safety. Core facilities such as equipment storage areas, gymnasiums, fitness, training and meeting rooms, first aid and medical treatment stations, observation posts, administration office space, and clubhouse areas are necessary for the growing membership of all three surf clubs in my electorate: Sorrento, Mullaloo and Quinns-Mindarie. Major building extensions are planned by each of the clubs, with capital funding being sourced. Local government has been supportive in providing both planning and financial support for the renovations, as has the state in the form of Lotterywest grants. Members of the respective clubs are also making a substantial financial contribution, with our local business community assisting through corporate sponsorship. Together we must work cooperatively to build modern, functional facilities, which are equivalent to the leading Surf Clubs across Australia, to better serve the public and make our local surf lifesavers more competitive in interstate competition. International Cleaners Day 44 13:54 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Today is International Cleaners Day. It is a day that we usually mark. We acknowledge, respect and celebrate the hard work of our cleaners. They are quite often a hidden workforce. They are still here when most of us go home. Yet today we are not celebrating. Today many of us stood on the lawns and welcomed and congratulated the cleaners here at Parliament House who have stopped work. They have stopped work for 24 hours. So I encourage all the people here in the chamber today to make sure that they clean their own toilet tonight before they leave, because the cleaners will not be here to do it. It is not easy for cleaners to stop work. They take pride in their work and they know it is going to hit their take-home pay. But the reason these cleaners have stopped work is that this government is not listening to them. Over 12 months ago the Prime Minister stood up in this place and said that no cleaner would be worse off as a result of the government scrapping the Clean Start guidelines. Well, he was wrong. We have already heard from cleaners who work at the Department of Foreign Affairs that because this government scrapped the Clean Start guidelines they have lost over $6,000 a year. That is money they have taken from some of our hardest working Australians, people who are on a low income. This government needs to stick to its word. It needs to restore the Clean Start guidelines and stand up for its cleaners. Otherwise, they will be cleaning their toilets more often than they would like. Bennelong Electorate: Milne Family 44 13:56 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong Earlier this year tragedy struck Bennelong with a horrific car accident claiming the lives of three constituents. Seven-year-old Ben Milne was the sole survivor, losing both his parents and his older brother. Ben suffered a broken leg and spinal injuries that had him placed in an induced coma. Thankfully Ben is now on the road to recovery. His back brace has been removed and he is finally free of his wheelchair. Ben has no other family here, so his aunt and uncle travelled from the UK and took him into their long-term care. When he is finally fully recovered they intend to return with him to England to start a new life there. I am immensely proud to say that they have not been alone during this difficult time. The whole Bennelong community has rallied to their cause, supporting the family while they are without income and providing some very intensive care. Ben's school, Truscott Street Public School, has been phenomenal in its fundraising. I have to mention the P&C. At a special event I attended just recently they raised $37,000. This is truly a remarkable achievement, and I congratulate everybody involved. I am sure the House will join me in wishing Ben Milne and his new family the very best in the future. Broadband 45 13:57 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith I rise to ask—rhetorically, of course, because we know the answer—what is the Abbott government doing about good broadband in this country? And the answer, unfortunately, is nothing. I have constituents coming to my office complaining about the speed of the broadband that they supposedly have in Griffith, within 10 kilometres of the CBD. Every time it rains the internet slows down. We all know that you have to improve productivity in cities. And how do you do it? Broadband. You do it with broadband. I see the Treasurer and the Prime Minister in the House. And the communications minister is here, Mr Turnbull. Please, my constituents want to know: why can't they have fast broadband? Why can't they have fast broadband in Griffith, in Brisbane? They need it for productivity of our cities. They need it now. We are falling behind Asian countries. My constituents are telling me they cannot get decent internet speed. In the middle of Brisbane. It is utterly ridiculous that we cannot have decent broadband. If Labor was still in government we would have decent broadband. The NBN would have been rolling out across Griffith. I have to say, if you want decent broadband in your cities, the only way is to vote Labor. This communications minister, this Prime Minister will not deliver high-speed broadband. Government members interjecting— Ms BUTLER 248006 Listen to them heckling me, because the truth hurts. (Time expired) Lyne Electorate: Infrastructure 45 13:59 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to bring to the attention of the House the good news that two new bridges and road approaches are now open to the public in the Lyne electorate: Dickinson bridge at Moto and Dyers Crossing bridge are now both open to traffic. They have been built three months ahead of schedule, with $10 million in funds from the Commonwealth government, from the Community Development Grants fund and $1.4 million from Taree Council. They were due for completion in October. This project had been well ahead of time and on budget. Greater Taree City Council has managed the project well with the help of Delaney Civil contractors and GHD as project managers. They are all to be congratulated. It means that heavy vehicles, dairy and beef carters can now access, as well as commuters— (Time expired) STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 45 STATEMENTS ON INDULGENCE 800-Year Anniversary of Magna Carta 45 14:00 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah On indulgence, I do rise to note that today marks the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, the greatest constitutional document of all time that has shaped our democracy as it has shaped all democracies. On 15 June 1215, a group of feudal barons stood with King John on the banks of the River Thames. At Runnymede they agreed a charter which declared that no man, not even the king, was above the law. The barons— Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 Member for Jagajaga! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 I am happy to continue, Madam Speaker. The SPEAKER 10000 The Prime Minister has the call. This is a serious question and we will have some silence to hear it. Mr Shorten interjecting— Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Did you get no notice? Ms Macklin PG6 No notice. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 I am sorry. We will do it another day, then. The barons were thinking of themselves, not history, and the king was thinking of survival, not of fundamental rights; yet from this mix of expediency and self-interest emerged a document that has echoed through history. As Winston Churchill once remarked, the English-speaking world owes more to the vices of King John than it does to the labours of many virtuous sovereigns. But such is the alchemy of history. When a disparate group can fight a principal in common, self-interest can become an engine of human progress. The words of the original document, including the 1297 version on permanent display in this parliament, have faded but they have been renewed through time in other documents of liberty: the American Declaration of Independence, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in constitutions and judicial systems around the world. Modern Australia has an Indigenous heritage and a multicultural character. We also have a British foundation, which in small measure we honour today. We salute those whose struggles have led to our enlightenment and we acknowledge our indebtedness to a history from which we learn and to a legacy upon which we build. The SPEAKER 10000 I call the Honourable Leader of the Opposition. I would say perhaps that, earlier today, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and myself took part in opening Magna Carta Day in the Great Hall, of which many were present, where speeches were made. I would invite the Leader of the Opposition to comment, again. 14:02 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It is indeed today the anniversary of 800 years ago when the Magna Carta, the great charter, first came into being. The authors of the Magna Carta were troublemakers. We celebrate the Magna Carta as the hallmark, the foundation, of our decent and civilised democracy, and the Magna Carta began as treason and subversion. There was a weak, high-taxing king—a king so bad that there has never been another to carry his name since. There were 25 fractious barons fearing the loss of their status, their feudal servants, even more money in taxes and wars which were being lost in regular monotony by their king. The barons brought with them a document. It was written on calf skin—no iPads or tablets in that time. It was in abbreviated Latin, with swan- and goose-feather quills dipped in ink made from crushed wasp eggs and oak-tree bark. This was not elaborate calligraphy with stylised capital letters or fancy illumination; it was a practical working document, a feudal log of claims 63 clauses long. Some of those have long faded into history, but others echo down the ages: the touchstones of our judicial system, protection from arbitrary or illegal imprisonment, the right to a speedy trial before a jury of one's peers. There was freedom of trade and commerce, the lifeblood of great trading nations. It talks about allowing widows to remarry—the first minimal recognition of the rights of women. It even had a single standard of weights and measures. At the very heart of Magna Carta there was one idea in every word of the 63 clauses. It was the idea that, rather than settling the administration of a nation through conflict, through armies, through dictators and even through a benevolent monarchy, a group of words could explain to society how it is run. As Winston Churchill did indeed say, the Magna Carta represents the supreme law because it puts the rule of law above even the power of the monarch. It was a marvellous piece of writing. It inspired the revolutionaries of the American War of Independence. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments are practically directly taken from this document of 800 years ago. The French, in terms of their declaration of the rights of man, were inspired by this Magna Carta. Eleanor Roosevelt said of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that it was a Magna Carta for all humanity. And in Australia, on both sides of this parliament, we recognise the importance of it. Indeed, further away from here, the High Court, which interprets our Constitution which upholds our separation of powers, treats everyone equally under law inspired by the Magna Carta. None of these rights were given lightly. They are far easier to lose than to win. Indeed, today it is important to celebrate the ongoing contribution of this parliament to the role of liberty and freedom in our nation and in our democracy. The SPEAKER 10000 We will move to questions without notice. I perhaps would tell the House that there are more celebration activities going on in the parliament today to which they might avail themselves to hear more of the grand history of the great charter. MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 46 MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS 14:07 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah Prior to question time, I should inform the House that the Minister for Trade and Investment is unwell and he will be absent from question time. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer questions on his behalf. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 46 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE National Security 46 14:07 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Minister for Education admitted that he did not trust other ministers to keep cabinet discussions confidential, saying of cabinet meetings: 'One does need to be careful what they are going to say if it is going to end up in the newspapers.' So, Prime Minister, are you concerned by leaks on matters of national security at the highest levels of your government? 14:07 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I do thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question, because it gives me an opportunity to reassure the parliament and the people of Australia that their national security is in good hands with this government. Their national security is in very good hands with this government. This government has increased funding to our police and national-security agencies by some $1.3 billion after some $700 million was cut out from it when members opposite were in charge. This government has increased funding for our customs and border-protection services which, again, lost some $600 million when members opposite were in charge. This government has introduced four tranches of stronger national-security legislation. This government—with, I am pleased to say, the support of the opposition, in this particular instance—has dispatched a strong force to the Middle East, where we can take action, appropriate action, along with our partners and allies to disrupt, degrade and ultimately destroy the Islamist Daesh death cult. So the national security in this country is in good hands. In this sitting fortnight the government will introduce legislation to strip citizenship from terrorists who are dual nationals. This is very important legislation. Mr Perrett HVP Show us then! The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Moreton! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 It is legislation to strip citizenship from terrorists who are dual nationals. I make this point. It is a very important point and members opposite should listen well. Anyone who takes a gun or a knife to Australians because of who we are has forfeited any right to be considered one of us. That legislation will be coming into this parliament in the next fortnight. What we are determined to do is ensure that as far as is reasonably possible if someone leaves this country to fight with a terrorist army in the Middle East they are not coming back. As far as is humanly possible, if they leave this country to fight with a terrorist army overseas they have committed the modern form of treason. They have committed the modern form of treason and they are not coming back, because they have betrayed their Australian citizenship. This is what this government is doing. I certainly invite more questions from the opposition on this subject, because this is a topic where this government's record is very strong, indeed. Mr Dreyfus HWG Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I ask the Prime Minister to table the legislation. The SPEAKER 10000 There is no point of order. Resume your seat, and do not abuse the standing orders again or you will remove yourself under standing order 94(a). You are warned. Economy 47 14:10 Dr STONE EM6 Murray Will the Prime Minister update the House on this month's job figures and how this government's long-term economic plan is strengthening the Australian economy? 14:11 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I do thank the member for Murray for her question. I thank her for her commitment to doing the right thing by the job seekers of her electorate and elsewhere. I can inform her that last week's employment figures show that April's unemployment was revised down from 6.2 to 6.1 per cent and that unemployment last month, in May, fell to just six per cent. Six per cent is very significantly better than forecast and it shows that there have been almost 290,000 jobs created. It shows that there are 290,000 more jobs in our economy, now, than there were in September 2013. It also shows that our economy is on track to create a million jobs within five years, which is the commitment that this government gave to the people at the election. This encouraging statistic comes on the back of national accounts figures showing that our economy grew by 0.9 per cent in the March quarter, and this is amongst the highest economic growth rate in the developed world. In the march quarter export volumes increased—and I know the member for Murray will be pleased about this—five per cent. It is the best result in 15 years. Construction increased by almost five per cent and that is the best result in six years. Importantly, services exports increased by eight per cent and that is the best result in seven years. Business confidence increased last month from three to seven on the National Australia Bank index, and that compares to just 0.5 over the life of the former government. None of this happens by accident. It happens because Australia is open for business, thanks to the policies of this government. Under this government the carbon tax is gone, the mining tax is gone, environmental approval has been given for new projects worth over $1 trillion—the biggest road-building program in Commonwealth history is well under way—red-tape costs have been cut by $2 billion a year and there are three free trade agreements that mean that 95 per cent of our merchandise exports to our biggest markets will be tariff-free. But there is more! The best budget ever for small business gave the biggest tax cuts ever for small business. Good news for small business: they have just passed the Senate. Mr Perrett interjecting — The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Moreton is warned! Mr ABBOTT EZ5 So this government is not just talking; we are delivering for the small businesses, for job creators, of Australia. Asylum Seekers 48 14:14 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Last week the minister was asked whether the government had paid criminal people smugglers to transport asylum seekers on leaky boats. The minister said: no. Minister, was that true?   14:14 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin I thank the shadow minister for her question for we know that this question is motivated by a desire to discredit Operation Sovereign Borders. This is all about preparing the ground for Labor's policy on asylum seekers, which will be to dismantle Operation Sovereign Borders. And we know what is going to happen because we have seen it before—50,000 people arrived by boat, $11 billion in cost blow-outs, 1,200 people that we know of died at sea under their watch. Mr Burke DYW Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question contained no argument. The minister is required to be directly relevant to the question not to give us a stream of consciousness. The SPEAKER 10000 The minister has the call. Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P The question requires me to go to matters of intelligence, security and operations. I would like to read a quote: The robust principle of all prime ministers and foreign ministers, past and present, is that we don't comment on intelligence matters. Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 There will be silence on my left. Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P The next one: I won't comment on matters of intelligence and security for the obvious reason: we don't want to share with the world and potential aggressors what we know about what they might be doing, and how they might be doing it. Former Minister for Foreign Affairs Bob Carr. Mr Perrett interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Moreton has been warned and will leave under 94(a). The member for Moreton then left the chamber. Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P A question was asked: Are you aware of any advice from the Australian Federal Police, or any other agency, that the Labor Government's policies on border protection and refugees could lead to a surge in arrivals? Quote: Well, I've said before publicly, I don't comment on intelligence matters of this nature. Former foreign minister Stephen Smith. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 There will be silence on my left! Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P From August 2012, a spokesman for immigration minister Chris Bowen said the minister would not comment on immigration department operational matters. And then, 'I'm not going to comment on operational matters'—former Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus. I can inform the House I will not comment on intelligence, security or operational matters. Small Business 48 14:17 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on how the government's $20,000 small business tax incentive will immediately increase local employment opportunities and improve small business viability, particularly in the manufacturing sector in my electorate of Wright? 14:17 Mr HOCKEY DK6 North Sydney I thank the honourable member for Wright. At 11.15 am today, the Senate passed the government's $20,000 instant asset write-off for small business. Two million small businesses out there now have the chance to have a go—to go out and invest, and invest in the things that create jobs. As the member for Wright has been so keen to tell me in the last 24 hours, he has 12,700 active small businesses in his electorate. He brought to my attention a letter from one in particular, Gary and Edwina Stark from Stark Engineering and Hardware: 'Dear Scott, kindly extend to Mr Hockey and colleagues'—Prime Minister—'our congratulations on the recent $20,000 tax incentive for small business. The impact has been immediate in our business. With inquiries and sales of cattle handling equipment growing daily, we have recently hired an extra five employees.' That is how you create jobs—you put it in the hands of small business, you give them the opportunity by reducing the tax burden not increasing the tax burden. There is just one business that has increased the number of employees by five as a result of what we did in the budget. That is good news. I can hear all of the cheers from the Labor Party here! They are all cheering because they are the best friends of the workers—not! The thing is, this is a manufacturing business. They export these crushes to New Zealand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, China, Ireland, the Middle East, Scotland and England—these are the crushes. As the honourable member for Maranoa knows, I was out at Longreach and Cloncurry last week and I saw these crushes at work. Mr Giles interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Scullin is not in his seat and will leave if he keeps it up. Mr HOCKEY DK6 What we want is to actually have more cattle going through the crushes and more cattle going through the yards. It was a timely reminder of the damage that Labor did to the cattle export industry—the live cattle export industry. I will tell you what, farmers right across the country are celebrating the fact that the only friend they have is the coalition government—the people who go in to bat for opening new markets, for increasing exports, the ones who go in to bat for the small businesses— Ms Claydon interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Newcastle is not in her seat. If she speaks again, she will leave. Mr HOCKEY DK6 the ones that go in to bat for the instant asset write-offs on fencing, the ones who go in to bat for accelerated depreciation on water facilities and on fodder. The only side of politics taking care of small business and farmers is the Abbott government. Asylum Seekers 49 14:20 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection. Last Tuesday, the minister was asked whether the government had paid criminal people smugglers to transport asylum seekers on leaky boats. The minister replied 'no'. Minister, was that accurate? 14:20 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson I thank the member for his question. It has been 335 days since has he asked a question. So I say 'well done'. Mr Watts 193430 Is this you, mate? Is that you? The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Gellibrand will leave under 94(a). The member for Gellibrand then left the chamber. Mr DUTTON 00AKI Incidentally, it is over 300 days now since there has been a successful people-smuggling venture, but I will come to that in a moment. As we have made very clear, we do not comment in relation to operational matters. When it comes to Operation Sovereign Borders, we remain absolutely determined to make sure that the boats remain stopped. I thought I would have a look at the issues of consistency and what people have had to say. I thought I would have a look at the record of those opposite when they were in government and at the ministers for immigration and my own record. I think it is an interesting comparison. In terms of boat arrivals, let us look at the member for McMahon—the shadow Treasurer who wants be Treasurer of this country. He was the Minister for Immigration in the Rudd and Gillard governments. There were 398 boat arrivals; on my watch not one. Twenty-five thousand people arrived when that man was the Minister for Immigration.   Mr Dreyfus HWG Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister has not even attempted to be relevant to the question he has been asked, and I would ask that you direct that he be relevant. The SPEAKER 10000 The member will resume his seat. The minister has the call. Mr DUTTON 00AKI We can go through them: the member for Watson, Mr Burke—83 boats arrived on his watch; 6,600 people arrived. If you go to the member for Watson, one of my favourites, 6,600 people arrived on boats during his period. I come to the member for Gorton: 12,800 people on his watch; indeed 52,000 people arrived by boat when Labor were in power. Mr Dreyfus HWG Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 91. The minister is now flouting the standing orders. He is not— The SPEAKER 10000 The member will resume his seat. There is no point of order. The minister has the call. Mr DUTTON 00AKI We can go through their record, and I am happy to go through it all through question time today. I am more than happy to do that. But let me say this: this government had the guts to stop the boats. Ms Claydon interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Newcastle will leave under 94(a). The member for Newcastle then left the chamber. Mr DUTTON 00AKI We cleaned up Labor's mess and, if Labor is re-elected at the next election, let me make this prediction: Bill Shorten will be the weakest prime minister, when it comes to national security, in this nation's history. Aged-Care Funding 50 14:23 Ms McGOWAN 123674 Indi My question is to the Minister for Social Services as representative minister for aged care. Minister, there are seven multipurpose health services in Victoria, with two based in my electorate of Indi—one in Corryong and one in the Alpine Shire. CEOs tell me that funding arrangements have not kept pace with the national funding average provided to public sector residential aged-care services. Will the government tell me what they are doing to ensure a quality of funding in all aged-care places across the aged-care sector, but especially in regional Victoria? 14:24 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook I thank the member for Indi for her question. Of the 11 services that provide multipurpose services throughout Victoria, there was an increase in funding of 4.7 per cent—from $12.8 million to $13.4 million. As the member would know, there has been a practice now since the 1990s that these services are funded per bed per day, regardless of whether there is someone actually in that bed or not. That is a different funding model than would otherwise apply to stand-alone residential aged-care services. The government has not changed that practice, but there have been issues raised more recently which the government is engaging with. The Aged Care Financing Authority is going to provide the government with advice on issues affecting the financial performance of rural and remote service providers by later this year. They will be consulting with the sector and with providers, and they will be able to raise their concerns. I would encourage the member to engage with that process. This funding arrangement has been in place for a long time—it was set, as I said, in the 1990s, and it has run all the way through until this time. But with changes in rural and regional areas and the demographics, and the changes in home-based care, care provided in residential aged care and the changing demands, these things will be looked at. We will consult, we will listen. Members on both sides of the House will know that that is a similar approach to that which the government took to the recent issue of the Department of Social Services grants. Last week I was pleased to announce some $40 million for dealing with the service gaps—whether it was the Mirabel Foundation, which members opposite have raised; Karralika; or members on this side with Heartfelt House up on the north coast of New South Wales. We will listen, and we will act when we listen to people. And in this case we will be listening to the concerns raised by those in the member for Indi's electorate. Small Business 50 14:26 Mr IRONS HYM Swan My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Will the minister outline to the House how the budget will support small businesses to grow and create jobs, particularly in my electorate of Swan; and what has been the response from small business to the government's budget? 14:26 Mr BILLSON 1K6 Dunkley What an exciting day for small business men and women in our country—the best budget small business has seen from a Commonwealth government has been not only announced, not only explained, not only properly analysed but we have now seen key elements of it pass the Senate. To quote Gordon from Thunderbirds: 'All systems are go!' Get amongst it—go and invest up to your $20,000. But you do not have to be limited to just one. If you are in a situation where your business can be boosted by multiple investments of new assets and equipment up to $20,000, you can go again and again and again. There is no cap on this opportunity. There is no break on our encouragement for the enterprise and entrepreneurship that we are seeing. The member for Swan has jubilant news to share with more than 15,800 small businesses in his electorate, but they are reciprocating. They recognise that we collaborate, we partner with small business. And just as we are engaging with small business men and women to see what we can do to help recover the 519,000 jobs lost in small business under Labor, small business people are doing their bit too. Part of that is liaising with local members. It is great to hear the member's account of what he is hearing from his own electorate. We have got Barry, who runs Printezy in Victoria Park. Barry has just purchased a new printing machine to take advantage of the new $20,000 immediate deduction. But that is not the only thing that has passed through the Senate. The reduction in small business company tax to a rate not seen since 1967—what a subject to celebrate! What a statement; what an incentive for small business men and women. There is also an opportunity, as has been outlined by the Treasurer, to get behind the agricultural community with instant asset write-off opportunities for water infrastructure, for fencing and accelerated depreciation for food and fodder. Unlike Labor, we have not forgotten about the 1.7 million small businesses that are not incorporated. Our package includes a discount of five per cent up to $1,000 to give those two out of three small businesses that are unincorporated the encouragement that they need. That is why the encouragement and support from ACCI comes as no surprise. The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Griffith is not in her seat. Once more and she will leave. Mr BILLSON 1K6 ACCI have said: These deductions are particularly powerful when combined with recently announced measures to help new businesses, including allowing new start-ups to immediately deduct professional costs, such as for legal and accounting services— to streamline business registrations, knowing that business registrations are the highest they have been in this nation's history. What an exciting day for small business. We are working hard to energise enterprise. Key measures have now passed the Senate, and we are doing all we can to get behind those enterprising men and women to grow jobs and also help grow our economy. Today we are celebrating for small business. Asylum Seekers 51 14:29 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Given the foreign minister's previous answer, why did the foreign minister comment on operational matters on 10 June? 14:30 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin This matter is now going to intelligence and security operation matters. In accordance with the longstanding practice of both sides of government, I will not answer the question. Infrastructure 51 14:30 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development. Will the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how building the infrastructure of the 21st century will help increase jobs and opportunity for all Australians, including those in Page. 14:31 Mr TRUSS GT4 Wide Bay I thank the honourable member for Page for his question. It is particularly timely today because we have representatives of Australia's 550 local government authorities in town for the annual general assembly of local government. I suspect there may be one or two of them in the gallery—I will not tell on you for having skipped out of the conference where you should be. But, nonetheless, they listened to the opening address and they got a lot of good news from that. Local government plays a key role in delivering vital services for local communities. The last mile of road is just as important in the delivery of transport tasks as the highway or the railway line. The task of providing that last mile is a significant one for local councils. In many communities, the council is the biggest employer. That would certainly be the case in the member for Page's electorate, where he has a number of local authorities who work very hard to try and give their communities the opportunities and the lifestyle that people want who live outside the capital cities. Supporting local government and working with local government is an important priority for this government. We rely on councils to help deliver a lot of the infrastructure and services our nation needs. The government has made in the last budget very substantial commitments to local government: $9.45 billion in financial assistance grants over the forward estimates; an expanded $2.1-billion Roads to Recovery program, which members opposite voted against in this parliament; the new $1-billion National Stronger Regions Fund—a lot of that will go through local authority; the new $300-million Bridges Renewal Program, the second round of which I announced this morning, will be dedicated exclusively to local government bridges to make sure that those last miles can remain open; $200 million extra for the Black Spots Program and for the heavy vehicle and safety productivity programs; $100 million which was announced just recently for the beef roads program mainly in northern Australian; and $45 million under the stronger communities program. These are all programs that will make a real difference to local communities and which local government will play a key role in implementing. We acknowledge that partnership and the thousands of jobs that are created through the provision of local services and we wish the ALGA well with their general assembly over the next couple of days. Asylum Seekers 52 14:33 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Attorney-General's statement today about whether cash payments have been made to people smugglers. The Attorney-General said 'well, I do not believe that has occurred'—so the question is academic. Prime Minister, if the foreign minister can deny that payments were made, if the immigration minister can deny payments were made and if the Attorney-General can deny payments were made, why can't you deny that payments were made? 14:34 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah The very consistent position of this government has been not to comment on operational details of what is necessary and what has been done to stop the boats. Opposition members interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 There will be silence on my left. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 There is a fundamental difference between this government and members opposite. One obvious difference is that this government has stopped the boats whereas members opposite started the boats—that is one obvious difference. But another less obvious difference—but very important in this context—is that this government does not feel the need to broadcast our intentions and our tactics to our enemies. Ms Macklin interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Jagajaga. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 This is a government which does not feel the need to big-note itself in public if the only beneficiaries are our enemies, if the only beneficiaries are the people who will do us harm. Mr Albanese interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Grayndler. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 The only thing that really counts is that this government has stopped the boats and we have done so in a way which is consistent with our position as a decent and humane country because the most decent and humane thing you can do is stop the boats, which is exactly what we have done. Members opposite are very interested in what they claim may have been payments to people smugglers. A half a billion dollars those members opposite put in the pockets of people smugglers. With 50,000 illegal arrivals under members opposite at $10,000 a throw, a half a billion dollars is the figure. That is the extent to which members opposite have enriched the people smugglers of Indonesia and elsewhere. Thanks to members opposite— Mr Danby interjecting— The SPEAKER 10000 The member for Melbourne Ports. Mr ABBOTT EZ5 the people smugglers of our region were better off to the tune of over a half a billion dollars thanks to members opposite. We have taken the money out of the pockets of the people smugglers by denying their business model, by stopping their evil trade and by saving the lives that were otherwise being put at risk under the policies of members opposite. I am very happy to answer any number of questions on this subject, because it allows me yet another opportunity to assure the people of Australia that their borders—our borders—are safe under this government. If members opposite were ever to get back into government, the first thing which would happen is that the people smugglers would be back. National Security 52 14:37 Ms SCOTT 165476 Lindsay My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the important role women can play in combating terrorism and preventing the radicalisation of vulnerable young people? 14:37 Ms JULIE BISHOP 83P Curtin I thank the member for Lindsay for her question. I know how concerned she is bout this issue. The Australian government is engaged in a broad, holistic, sustained and integrated campaign to combat terrorism using all of the resources available to us: Defence personnel in Iraq to assist the Iraqi security forces to build capability to take on the terrorist organisation Daesh; our law enforcement and intelligence agencies; and the counternarrative—which is so important—of our democratic and inclusive values. This response is needed because we know of around 110 Australians who are currently fighting with Daesh in the Middle East and around 155 or so who are supporting it at home here in Australia. Thirty to 40 Australian women are known to be either engaging in or supporting terrorist activity in Syria, Iraq and here in Australia. It defies all comprehension for women in particular to support extremist groups like Daesh given that it is women and girls who are so often disproportionately affected by the brutality of terrorist groups. Tragically, women are playing a role in promoting the violence; but, more importantly, women are playing an active role in preventing it. Last week I addressed the regional ministerial meeting on countering violent extremism, which was hosted by our Attorney-General. The Prime Minister spoke at that summit. It was held in Sydney, and I spoke about the role women can play in combating radicalisation. We were able to share ideas, insights and experiences with women leaders from our region. Amina Rasul Bernardo from the Philippine Center for Islam and Democracy outlined how her organisation is mobilising women from madrasahs to spread messages of peace and democracy. She is helping women find their voices to challenge extremist narratives. Yenny Zannuba Wahid from the Wahid Institute in Indonesia outlined the work being done to spread moderate Islam's message of female equality and to highlight the positive and active role women can play in promoting a moderate Islamic message. As I said at the summit, Daesh adopts the same tactics as online sexual predators, grooming young targets in isolation and seeking to pull them away from parents and friends, so this can happen to individuals even though they have family and friends around them. So women must be a key part of our response. Today I met with Joumanah El Matrah of the Australian Muslim Women's Centre for Human Rights and I discussed with her how the Australian government can work with her organisation—work with Muslim women. We discussed the ways the government can engage with the groups here who are seeking to promote the counternarrative to defeat terrorism—defeat that brutal ideology. This government is absolutely committed to supporting Muslim women, including the leaders who are taking steps to combat terrorism at home and abroad. Asylum Seekers 53 14:41 Mr SHORTEN 00ATG Maribyrnong My question is to the Prime Minister. By failing to deny reports that criminal people smugglers could be paid US$30,000 if they make it to an Australian vessel, isn't the government providing a cash incentive for these dangerous voyages to take place? 14:41 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah No, we are not. Again I contrast what this government has done with what members opposite did when they were in government. We have stopped the boats; members opposite started up the boats. Under members opposite there were almost 1,000 boats, there were more than 50,000 illegal arrivals by boat, there were more than 1,000 deaths at sea and there was more than $11 billion in border protection budget blow-outs. Under members opposite, at $10,000 per person, some half a billion dollars found its way into the pockets of the people smugglers. There are a lot of unemployed people smugglers in Indonesia—a lot of people who were put into business by members opposite—thanks to this government, so I am very happy to contrast this government's record when it comes to border protection with the record of members opposite. Members opposite created rivers of gold into the pockets of the people smugglers of Indonesia, and I want the Australian people to know it has all stopped under this government. I have concluded the answer. MOTIONS 53 MOTIONS Prime Minister 53 Attempted Censure 53 14:43 Mr BURKE DYW Watson I seek leave to move the following motion: That the House censures the Prime Minister for leading a chaotic Government in which the: (1) Minister for Foreign Affairs having flatly denied that the Government had paid criminal people smugglers to transport asylum seekers on unsafe boats refused to answer questions today on the same matter, citing intelligence, security and operational matters; (2) Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Immigration, the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister are disagreeing with each other as to whether the Government paid criminal people smugglers to transport asylum seekers on unsafe boats; and (3) Government is providing a cash incentive for criminal people smugglers to make voyages to Australia by failing to deny reports that criminal people smugglers could be paid $30,000 US dollars if they can make it to an Australian vessel. Leave not granted. Mr BURKE DYW I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Watson from moving the following motion forthwith: That the House censures the Prime Minister for leading a chaotic Government in which the: (1) Minister for Foreign Affairs having flatly denied that the Government had paid criminal people smugglers to transport asylum seekers on unsafe boats refused to answer questions today on the same matter, citing intelligence, security and operational matters; (2) Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Minister for Immigration, the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister are disagreeing with each other as to whether the Government paid criminal people smugglers to transport asylum seekers on unsafe boats; and (3) Government is providing a cash incentive for criminal people smugglers to make voyages to Australia by failing to deny reports that criminal people smugglers could be paid $30,000 US dollars if they can make it to an Australian vessel. We have no choice but to suspend standing orders when we have a situation where that man is physically incapable of answering a question, and it is a question that matters because it is a question with an answer that ricochets around the networks in Indonesia, an answer that either shuts down an incentive—the way some of his fellow ministers have tried to do—or else allows a story to fester that somehow there has been a shift of late, and now people who have been described by both sides of politics in the worst possible terms may well be able to get Australian taxpayers' money to keep people on a leaky boat. Australian taxpayers have a right to know where their money is spent. Australian taxpayers have a right to know in particular if their money is going to the most vile trade that both sides of this chamber have made the strongest comments against. Both sides have made the strongest comments against it. Honourable members interjecting— Mr BURKE DYW I hear the shouting from those opposite, who do not want to suspend standing orders. They do not want a debate that might draw in what they did in Malaysia. They do not want a debate that might draw together the decisions that they made when they voted with the Greens, because, every time they cite the number of drownings, they neglect to reflect on the fact that about half of them occurred—about half of those lives were lost—after they had decided to be part of the blocking of the arrangement with Malaysia. Those opposite do not want an honest debate on this. No wonder the slogans do not make it past three words. No wonder they do not want their own record of how they behaved in opposition to be exposed in any way. But now we have a new measure, where the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection was last week prepared to give an answer in a way that the Prime Minister is not. Admittedly, he was willing to use the vocabulary that the Prime Minister was previously committed to. His answer was the word 'no'. But when asked directly at a media conference on Tuesday whether officials had recently paid the crew and captain of a boat carrying asylum seekers to take them from Australia—whether or not Australian taxpayers' money had been handed over to these people—the immigration minister was willing to shut down the story straightaway and say no. The Minister for Foreign Affairs was willing, when asked by a journalist, 'Do Australian authorities pay the captain and crew of people-smuggling boats to turn them back to Indonesia?'—the foreign minister back then was willing—to answer, 'No.' And the Attorney-General, in the Senate today, has been willing to make similar comments. But, as long as the Prime Minister of this country refuses to shut it down, stories of incentives around Indonesia will continue to run, and Australian taxpayers will quite rightly ask: where on earth is their money being handed over to by Australian officials? We had the bizarre situation—and this is why we need to stop question time and have a serious debate—where the foreign minister, when asked whether or not she answered honestly last week, said: I can inform the House I will not comment on intelligence, security or operational matters. I have to say: other people will be commenting on intelligence after a comment like that, because what the foreign minister is doing is saying by her answer today that she stepped out of line last week. If her answer to the parliament today is in any way accurate, then the immigration minister gave intelligence information in front of television cameras. If the foreign minister's answer today is at all accurate, then she herself, in front of the media, provided answers that were actually meant to be classified. They cannot have it both ways. Bizarrely, of all the different concepts within the parliament, here is one where they reckon parliamentary privilege means that you are allowed to say less inside this room than you are allowed to say outside it—that somehow you must not say it in the parliament, you must not let it get into those Hansard records; just say it in front of a TV camera! That is the right approach! And that is the approach that those opposite have chosen to take. If the foreign minister's answer today is in any way accurate, then last week we saw a gross level of irresponsibility from those opposite. But, if the answers they gave last week were in any way accurate, what we are seeing now is appalling behaviour from the Prime Minister of this country. Three of the members of his own cabinet, all of whom would attend meetings of the National Security Committee, have been willing to give answers, and yet the Prime Minister is not willing to provide the same sort of information. We have a situation where we have no choice but to set aside the ordinary debate of parliament, because this is not simply some mistake that someone might have made at a media conference. This is something that this Prime Minister has claimed is an absolute cornerstone of his prime ministership, and yet he will not let people know if he has done exactly what he used to rail against. He has said: If you pay a people-smuggler, … that's doing the wrong thing, not the right thing, and we shouldn't encourage it. I have to say: US$30,000 would count as an encouragement. If they are serious at all when they talk about the drownings argument being something significant, then you do not pay people to keep them on a leaky boat. You do not pay people to keep them in a situation where every other piece of rhetoric has said that that would put their lives at risk. This parliament has to be able to have a situation where we can ask a question and get something approaching an answer, because—let us not forget—these are hardly questions of difficult detail. We asked the immigration minister, 'Immigration Minister, do you agree with yourself?' and he did not know how to answer. We asked the foreign minister, 'Foreign Minister, do you agree with yourself?' and she said, 'I mustn't answer that.' What we have across there is a government that is in absolute chaos. They have leaks from their National Security Committee. They now have leaks from their own question time briefs appearing online today. We now have a situation where they cannot hold the line even within the ranks of their own National Security Committee. This is a situation where this parliament must shut down question time and have an open debate, because the Prime Minister will not be able to respond to this resolution with a three-word slogan, but it could do with a one-word answer. A one-word answer will settle this—a one-word answer that Australian taxpayers have a right to know. Everyone who is an Australian taxpayer, even if they have to put up with a Treasurer who is not up to it, at least has a right to know whether or not Australian officials have been authorised to act in this way and whether or not people smugglers are now going to wonder, if they make the voyage and start on their pathway, whether they have a choice where either they get turned back, in which case they can get the $30,000, or they make it through. It is a no-lose situation, and if it is not happening a simple answer from the Prime Minister would shut it down well. It is a prime ministerial answer he used to be completely capable of giving. Who would have thought that this bloke would get to the point where he could not anymore say the word 'no'? The SPEAKER 10000 Is the motion seconded? 14:53 Mr MARLES HWQ Corio I second the motion. Last Tuesday we had a remarkable allegation surface: that Australian officials had paid people smugglers to take people back to Indonesia. In this area of policy, there are often some pretty amazing claims that are made out there. We tend to take them with a grain of salt, and the idea that our government would be paying people smugglers to take people back to Indonesia certainly ranked amongst those proposals which would seem to be utterly outlandish. So, not surprisingly, when the question is put to the immigration minister, he answers, 'No, never happened—nothing to see here,' and when the proposition is put to the foreign minister she reiterates it: 'No, it never happened—nothing to see here.' I have to say that personally I heard what they said and I thought, 'Well, that's obviously got to be right, because which Australian government would pay people smugglers who turn up next to an Australian Navy Vessel to take people back to Indonesia?' But then we see an absolutely astounding interview conducted by the Prime Minister with Neil Mitchell on Friday where, when these allegations were put to the Prime Minister, rather than repeating the flat denial, what we hear is obfuscation. What we hear is an attempt to avoid the question and then this fantastic line which sums up everything that this government is about: 'By hook or by crook, we will do what we intend to do—by hook or by crook.' This is the government of the cheap fix. This is the government that goes down the quickest avenue it can. This is the government that does not have enduring solutions. Why on earth would he make a comment like that? We obviously expected that later that day he would clean up those comments, he would do his press conference and he would assure the Australian people: 'No, it ain't so. There is no way that an Australian government would have paid people smugglers to take people back to Indonesia.' But instead he confirms it all. So where does that leave us? That leaves us with the Prime Minister inviting the Australian people to absolutely accept the proposition that that is exactly what happened—that the Australian government has paid wads of cash to people smugglers who turn up next to an Australian Navy vessel. Parties of both sides have been working over the last few years to do everything we can to— Government members interjecting— Mr MARLES HWQ Well, that is true: to try and do everything we can to reduce the model for people smugglers. Yet what we have here is a government which, rather than putting people smugglers out of business, has gone about and created a new business for people smugglers: 'If you come along and draw up beside an Australian Navy vessel then there's half a chance that you're going to get a wad of cash paid by the Australian taxpayers.' Is that the way to go about it? Is that the way the former immigration minister would think that this should be handled? I have to tell you, Madam Speaker, that this has now left the government with a situation where the Prime Minister has made it clear that he is refusing to rule this out and has invited the Australian people to believe that this is exactly what has happened. He has left his immigration minister and his foreign minister absolutely high and dry. We are in a situation now where this is actually what has occurred. When the immigration minister was asked to begin with whether or not people smugglers have been paid to take people back to Indonesia and denied it, at that point the minister not only has an issue with policy but has a personal issue in terms of his ministerial role, as does the foreign minister. What we have seen today we did not see back then. We did not see any avoidance of this issue on the basis of it being an intelligence matter or an operational matter. We just saw back then a flat denial that this happened, and now we have them running away from it. So what we have is the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the Minister for Foreign Affairs left high and dry by this Prime Minister, and what we now need to hear from the Prime Minister is a clear statement of clarity about whether or not people smugglers were paid to take people back to Indonesia, because otherwise he is leaving out there the kind of inducement for people smugglers to get on the water and to turn up next to an Australian Navy vessel. What he has also done is leave his ministers high and dry with a whole lot of explaining to do. Mr Albanese R36 Madam Speaker, on a point of order under standing order 65, during the previous two speeches there were non-stop interjections in breach of standing orders. You have already taken action against the member for Newcastle. Is it fair game on this bloke, as it was on the two previous speakers? The SPEAKER 10000 The member will resume his seat. The member for Newcastle was warned that she was not sitting in her seat and therefore, under the standing orders, is not permitted to interject. I think there was a fair amount of interjection from both sides of the House. 14:59 Mr DUTTON 00AKI Dickson The member for Corio, the previous member, asked for a clear statement. Here is a clear statement: we stopped the boats. We stopped the boats and they will stay stopped under this government. My opposite, the shadow minister, got up and for the first 60 seconds had me engaged a little. I thought: 'Poor bloke. He could get only one question during question time after 335 days of not asking a single question during question time.' I thought I would give him a chance and hear what he had to say, but he lost me when he said that somehow there was bipartisan support when it comes to this issue of stopping the boats. Labor in government under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard will be remembered for many things—for pink batts, kids dying in ceilings, the cheque giveaways and the incompetent state of the economy that they left to us—but they will be remembered most of all, in my judgement, for the way in which they failed when it came to boats in this country. When Labor came to power in 2007 there were a handful of people and no children at all in detention. That was the legacy of the Howard government bequeathed to the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. What happened over the course of that government? All Australians know this story, and I am very happy we are being afforded an opportunity to repeat it today. During Labor's period in government 52,000 people came on 821 boats. As the Australian public know, if you cannot control your borders you cannot control national security, and that was a large part of why Labor were kicked out of government. If you look at the shadow frontbench, those who aspire to be on this side of the parliament after the next election, you see failure after failure. I will go through that in a moment because their record goes to the complete and utter failure, the breakdown, of border security in this country under the Labor government. It is a matter of public record that 1,200 people drowned at sea under Labor. Is it any wonder that we on this side have said that under Operation Sovereign Borders we will act within the law and meet our international obligations but in that context we will do what it takes to keep these people smugglers out of business? We stand by that statement. We absolutely stand by it. All the people in the command structure of Operation Sovereign Borders, who ultimately answer to General Bottrell and I, will do whatever it takes within the law and to meet our international obligations to stop these people smugglers. For argument's sake, if we were faced with a situation where because of sea state we had the threat of people going into the water, we had the threat of a boat capsizing, and we were trying to turn that boat back, we would do whatever it took within the law to make sure that under Operation Sovereign Borders we could stop that vessel from landing on Australian soil, and we make no apology for that whatsoever. I will do whatever it takes and the Prime Minister of this country will do whatever it takes to protect our border protection staff and to protect our defence personnel who are operating under Operation Sovereign Borders. We will do whatever it takes to make sure we support the people smuggler victims, if you like—the people who are on these boats at sea—and we protect them at sea as best we can in the circumstances. These are all very important points to make in the context of this debate. As the government has adopted from day one, we will provide updates under Operation Sovereign Borders when it is operationally appropriate to do so. The fact that Labor cannot get this demonstrates why they are still unfit to govern. If you cannot control your borders, you cannot provide assurances to the Australian people when it comes to national security. I have got only a few minutes left so I want to go to the record of those opposite in relation to some of these claims. I want to go to the man who wants to be the Treasurer of this country after the next election, our friend the member for McMahon, Mr Bowen. When he was immigration minister in this country—and this is the man Labor wants to be Treasurer of this country—ultimately there was an $11 billion blowout as a result of actions taken directly by him and others, and under that man's watch 4,200 children arrived and were taken to detention. Today we have 124 children in detention. That is down from the peak of 1,992. When we came to government it was down to about 1,300. We have decreased it to 124. I pay tribute to the former immigration minister, Mr Morrison, to the Prime Minister and to members of the National Security Committee because we have adopted a policy that works. We have continued the success of Operation Sovereign Borders. All of the claims made by those opposite and all of the confected outrage today demonstrates that the people opposite have no capacity to have the guts to stop the people smugglers again. The people smugglers are lurking in the shadows in Indonesia, across South-East Asia, in the Middle East and otherwise waiting, hoping and praying that Bill Shorten will be elected Prime Minister at the next election because when he was in government he provided streams of money into the pockets of these people. I have spoken about the member for McMahon, but what about the member for Gorton, Mr O'Connor, when he was the immigration minister when Labor was last in power? He wants to be a cabinet minister in Bill Shorten's government. Let us have a look at his record. On his watch 12,821 people arrived on 184 boats in this country. We can hear a lot from the Labor Party but one thing we will not hear—one thing we will not be lectured on—is how to control our borders. As I said in my opening remarks, when John Howard left government he bequeathed a situation in which he had solved the problems that he inherited from the Hawke-Keating governments. Labor completely lost control of our borders, and Bill Shorten has not learnt one lesson. We have in place under Operation Sovereign Borders, under the command of General Bottrell, an operation which has closed down the people smugglers trade. I think it has been very clear to all Australians during the course of the last couple of days and during the course of this debate that this person—who, when in government, ripped out over $600 million from our national security agencies—was part of a government that took money away from our front-line services that were seeking to stop the boats. People now get it. People now get that Bill Shorten is not fit to be Prime Minister of this country. People across the suburbs as we move around the country stop us and say that Bill Shorten has no capacity when it comes to stopping the boats. All Australians know that. He did not have the ticker when he sat around the cabinet table in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years. He does not have the ticker now to stand up to the Left. The true test of this opposition leader is coming in the next couple of weeks. If the Leader of the Opposition goes to the Labor conference and folds in the presence of the member for Sydney for the Left of the Labor Party to prevail in this matter—if he can not get, in conference, support from the Labor Left in relation to turning back boats where it is safe to do so, or if he cannot get the support of the Left in the Labor Party to adhere to the successful policy of temporary protection visas of this government, he has failed. So far this man has failed every test. We will see when he gives evidence in September to the royal commission whether he can pass another test. I suspect he cannot. The Australian public is on to this bloke. People know that he cannot pass the character test. People know that when it comes to the fortitude that is required to stand up to people smugglers—that is required to make sure that we can continue to stop the boats—this Prime Minister and this government are the only ones with the capacity to do that. The SPEAKER 10000 The time for this debate has expired. Mr Albanese R36 It expired two minutes ago. The SPEAKER 10000 No, it was not two minutes ago at all. The member for Grayndler can save his commentary. Mr Albanese R36 I was just trying to help. The SPEAKER 10000 Then I will advise him that he is not. The question is that the suspension motion be agreed to.

The House divided. [15:14]
(The Speaker—Hon. Bronwyn Bishop)

 47 AYES Albanese, AN Bird, SL Bowen, CE Brodtmann, G Burke, AE Burke, AS Butler, MC Butler, TM Byrne, AM Chalmers, JE Champion, ND Chesters, LM Clare, JD Collins, JM Conroy, PM Danby, M Dreyfus, MA Elliot, MJ Feeney, D Ferguson, LDT Fitzgibbon, JA Giles, AJ Gray, G Griffin, AP Hall, JG (teller) Hayes, CP Husic, EN Jones, SP Leigh, AK Macklin, JL MacTiernan, AJGC Marles, RD Mitchell, RG O'Connor, BPJ O'Neil, CE Owens, J Parke, M Plibersek, TJ Ripoll, BF Rishworth, AL Rowland, MA Ryan, JC (teller) Shorten, WR Swan, WM Thistlethwaite, MJ Wilkie, AD Zappia, A 82 NOES Abbott, AJ Alexander, JG Andrews, KJ Andrews, KL Baldwin, RC Billson, BF Bishop, JI Briggs, JE Broad, AJ Broadbent, RE Brough, MT Buchholz, S Chester, D Christensen, GR Ciobo, SM Cobb, JK Coleman, DB Coulton, M (teller) Dutton, PC Entsch, WG Fletcher, PW Frydenberg, JA Gillespie, DA Goodenough, IR Griggs, NL Hartsuyker, L Hawke, AG Henderson, SM Hendy, PW Hockey, JB Hogan, KJ Howarth, LR Hunt, GA Hutchinson, ER Irons, SJ Jensen, DG Jones, ET Joyce, BT Keenan, M Kelly, C Landry, ML Laundy, C Ley, SP Macfarlane, IE Marino, NB Markus, LE Matheson, RG McCormack, MF McGowan, C McNamara, KJ Morrison, SJ Nikolic, AA (teller) O'Dowd, KD Pitt, KJ Prentice, J Price, ML Pyne, CM Ramsey, RE Randall, DJ Robert, SR Roy, WB Ruddock, PM Scott, BC Scott, FM Simpkins, LXL Smith, ADH Southcott, AJ Stone, SN Sudmalis, AE Taylor, AJ Tehan, DT Truss, WE Tudge, AE Turnbull, MB Van Manen, AJ Varvaris, N Vasta, RX Whiteley, BD Williams, MP Wilson, RJ Wood, JP Wyatt, KG 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

15:24 Mr ABBOTT EZ5 Warringah I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 59 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 15:24 The SPEAKER SE4 I present the Auditor-General's Audit reports Nos 43 to 50 for 2014-15 entitled Audit report No. 43—Performance audit: Managing Australian aid to Vanuatu: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; Audit report No. 44—Financial statement audit: Interim phase of the audits of the financial statements of major general government sector entities for the year ending 30 June 2015; Audit report No. 45—Performance audit: central administration of security vetting: Department of Defence; Audit report No. 46—Performance audit: administration of the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register: Department of Human Services; Audit report No. 47—Performance audit: verifying identity in the Citizenship Program: Department of Immigration and Border Protection; Audit report No. 48—Performance audit: limited tender procurement: Australian Customs and Border Protection Service; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; Department of Human Services; Audit report No. 49—Performance audit: administration of the Imported Food Inspection Scheme: Department of Agriculture; Audit report No. 50—Performance audit: administration of the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme: Department of Defence; Department of Veterans' Affairs. Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers. DOCUMENTS 59 DOCUMENTS Presentation 59 15:24 Mr PYNE 9V5 Sturt 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. BILLS 59 BILLS Social Services Legislation Amendment (No. 2) Bill 2015 59

Social Services Legislation Amendment (No. 2) Bill 2015

Second Reading 59 15:25 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook The Social Services Legislation Amendment (No.2 ) Bill 2015 will introduce three measures in the Social Services portfolio, and I thank members for their contributions in the debate. In the first measure, the bill will amend the social security law to streamline the current income management program under a two-year continuation. Income management and the BasicsCard will continue for two additional years to maintain support for existing income management participants. The streamlining amendments made by this bill will enable more effective operation of the income management program. For example, certain incentive payments relating to income management will be abolished, and the operation of the vulnerable measure of income management will be refined and minor amendments made to remove ambiguities and improve the program's effectiveness. The bill also makes amendments to reflect two measures relating to aged care, which were included in the 2014-15 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook announcement. From 1 July 2015, the bill will cease payment of the residential care subsidy to residential aged-care providers for holding a place for up to seven days before a recipient enters care. This will ensure the subsidy is appropriately targeted at people actually receiving care. Lastly, the bill will reflect the government's decision, as part of the Smaller Government initiative, to abolish the aged care planning advisory committees. The aged care planning advisory committees' role was to provide advice in relation to the distribution of aged-care places; however, the last of these committees expired in September 2014. These amendments repeal the now redundant relevant provisions in the Aged Care Act. I also wish to place on record my commendation for the Assistant Minister for Social Services, Senator Fifield, for the extraordinary work he is doing with responsibility for aged care and his involvement in the bringing forward of those measures that I have just made reference to. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Third Reading 60 15:28 Mr MORRISON E3L Cook by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2015 60

Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2015

Second Reading 60 15:28 Mr RIPOLL 83E Oxley When it comes to superannuation, the Liberal Party has about as much grace as a refrigerator falling down a flight of stairs—and it has had about as many positions as that refrigerator on the way down, as well. This is a government conflicted by the issues of superannuation and what it means for our economy, for ordinary working people and, more broadly, for our national savings, which have now tipped over the $2 trillion mark thanks to the superannuation guarantee we are debating today. With that said, Labor of course supports any positive changes and supports any modernisation or assistance that can be brought about through change to the economy and more broadly to Australian small and medium enterprises. Labor does support reducing the regulatory burden on small business and will therefore support this Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill. Labor supports reducing costs on small business. We understand that reducing costs for small and medium enterprises helps them to generate the ability to not only grow their business but to employ more people as well. Labor will be supporting the changes in this bill as they reduce compliance costs on small business and, importantly, do not reduce an employer's obligation to make superannuation guarantee payments for their employees. This bill amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to remove the obligation for employers to offer a choice of superannuation fund to temporary resident employees or when superannuation funds merge. Currently employers must give a standard choice form to employees within 28 days of their beginning employment. Many temporary employee residents already do not exercise choice of fund or complete the choice of fund form and are therefore placed in their employer's default fund. That, of itself, is all right. Also under current arrangements employers may be required to give employees a standard choice form when the employee's superannuation benefits are transferred from a chosen fund or a default fund to a successor fund under a fund merger arrangement. Under the new arrangements in this bill, employers are not required to give employees a standard choice form. If they hold a temporary visa, as defined by the Migration Act 1958, these new arrangements will capture New Zealand citizens—even though they can generally stay in Australia indefinitely. Additionally, the new arrangements in this bill mean that employers are not required to give employees a standard choice form when their superannuation benefits are transferred from a chosen fund or a default fund to a successor fund as a result of a superannuation fund merger arrangement. The bill will reduce costs and compliance burdens on employers—mainly small businesses—who hire people on a temporary basis, through a temporary visa, by reducing the requirement to provide them with choice of fund forms. Importantly, employers will still be required to make superannuation guarantee payments on behalf of their employees, and their employees will still be able to choose their own fund if they wish. Labor's record on reducing red tape in many areas is well known and in this area, in particular, when Labor was in government we repealed 16,794 acts and regulations—an important step in reducing the regulatory burden on small business and the community alike. Under the Seamless National Economy reforms carried out by the former Labor government, and conducted largely through the Council of Australian Governments process, just the first 17 reforms that Labor put in place reduced business costs by over $4 billion every single year. Our commitment in government to continually reduce regulation was considered part of the normal operations of what a good government does, and that ought to continue to be the case—any good government should continually look at reducing red tape and regulatory burdens wherever that is possible and it is the efficient and right thing to do. In addition, in 2008 under Labor COAG agreed to implement regulation and competition reforms under the National Partnerships Agreement to deliver a seamless national economy. Thirty-six separate reforms were covered by this agreement, comprised of 27 deregulation priorities, eight areas of competition reform and reform to regulation making and review processes. As of July 2012, 17 of the deregulation priorities and three of the competition reforms were complete. Then, in May 2012, the Productivity Commission assessed 17 of the Seamless National Economy reforms in its report Impacts of COAG reforms: Business regulation and VET. The Productivity Commission suggested that the 17 reforms that it modelled could increase GDP by around 0.4 per cent, which represents over $6 billion per year, and reduce business costs by around $4 billion per year. That is real reform—real assistance to the community and real assistance to small business. And we did that as part of normal good government. A very good example of this reform work was Standard Business Reporting. SBR commenced on 1 July 2010 and it offered Australian business, accountants, bookkeepers and tax agents a quicker and simpler way to lodge reports with government. The Productivity Commission estimates $500 million worth of potential benefits from this reform over nine years. SBR simplifies business to government reporting by removing unnecessary or duplicated information from government forms, using business software to pre-fill forms automatically with relevant information, providing an electronic interface to report to agencies directly from accounting software and providing a single secure sign-on for online users. Many people in the community may not even know that exists, and that is a really good thing if it is done seamlessly. It is about business doing better business with government; it is about the Seamless National Economy agenda and it is about keeping our economy progressing forward. It is about assisting small business in quiet but significant ways, not just having the vain bonfires of empty pages of regulations so outdated that they are completely meaningless—but perhaps that is for another time. It was the former Labor government that introduced the National Business Names Registration Service for a single online registration process, removing the requirement for a small business to register in each state or territory, lowering the cost to business from over $1,000 for registering in each jurisdiction to under $100 for a single national registration. For the first time it could be done 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, for the convenience of small business—again, a truly great reform. It was a difficult, costly and complex reform but one that Labor undertook and did very well. So successful has that reform process been that the current government is now talking about privatising it and selling it off, because it is making so much progress and doing such a great job. Again, that is a debate for another time. It was the former Labor government that introduced the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House, enabling small business to pay all their employee super contributions to a single location These are good changes—good reforms that have made an enormous difference to small business. Labor is really proud that we not only came up with these ideas but also implemented them. Talking of small business and the important changes contained in this bill and making business for small business easier, there are many other reforms that Labor put in place in the same spirit. There has been a lot of debate about supporting small business lately. Of course 'lately' is 'just lately' for the government. For Labor it has been a longer term proposition—in government, particularly, because that is when we have been able to actually deliver real reforms and real assistance, particularly in those difficult dark days of the global financial crisis. In particular, we understood the need for cash flow assistance to small business. We have seen the government now place asset write-off measures in the budget, and Labor will of course support these measures. We have done that in the quickest possible time frame given to us by the government's timetabling and scheduling of their own bills in relation to this. Labor is very proud to be able to assist the parliament to be able to deliver on these in the timeliest manner. Let it not be said that Labor delayed in any way any of these measures by even one minute, because that simply has not been the case. Labor has in fact moved to expedite this and lend any assistance possible to the government, recognising that the damage that the government did in its previous budget, a little bit over 12 months ago, now needed urgent—'emergency', in the government's own words; one might say 'crisis'—repair of the damage they did in that previous budget. So Labor was very enthusiastic about supporting the government's new-found will to actually support small business. We were very pleased to be able to do that and to see that assistance actually reach small business. But it was also a Labor government that introduced the instant asset write-off. The exact same policy that the government now uses and says is completely new was the exact same one that they took away just a bit over 12 months ago. In fact, they have not even changed the name of it, which is the really curious bit. But it was Labor that increased the instant asset write-off from $1,000 to $5,000 and then further increased it to $6½ thousand—a really good number; a really good measure of where the majority of small business actually expend funds. This was a really good setting. We are very supportive of the $20,000 that the government have now capped it at; we think that is good as well. But, like government, we will acknowledge: you can only spend money that you have; otherwise, you have to borrow it. I certainly would encourage small business to make the best use of the accelerated depreciation assistance that is in place but of course to be very careful and to seek advice on how they do that. Unfortunately, it was, though, a Liberal government that cut it back just recently to just $1,000. This was a retrograde step. This was something that was very bad for small business—something that made small business reel with uncertainty but also created this environment of a loss of confidence that was reflected in many, many consumer surveys and small business surveys. The government would have been sitting and scratching its head over how it would repair the damage that the government had done—some, in part, in this most recent budget. 'A lot', some would say, but 'a lot late' others would say as well. Of course they did not support it when Labor introduced the exact same things. Then, when they did get elected, they did cut back those same measures, because they said they were unfunded—that is right, they said they were unfunded, and they said that there was just no money for these measures so they would have to cut them. As to that principle: at the time when they cut them the deficit was some $17 billion; now they have reintroduced an even higher cap rate of $20,000, but curiously the deficit now is larger under the Liberal government. The Liberal government inherited a smaller deficit—around the $13 billion mark. It was a $17 billion deficit in their first budget. And now, according to budget paper No. 1, it is $35 billion. The deficit has gone up not once but twice, and significantly in anyone's terms. If, at the time, at $13 billion, this was an emergency which needed fire engines to come and put out the fires of emergency and crisis—or even, let us say, at $17 billion—then that a deficit apparently now at $35 billion is sort of okay is curious thinking. I would have thought it was slightly worse, given that it has doubled. Interestingly, on that, you would question: where is the money coming from to fund these things? Well, the debt has actually got bigger as well. That would not surprise people. But the debt has actually really blown out. It blew out between budgets—two Liberal budgets, of course. In two Liberal budgets, the debt has blown out to $35 billion. It is quite substantial. It is huge. And this adding to the debt of course does create some problems. I will not do it here because I will not have time in the minutes I have left to fully explore these things in depth, but some might ask the government legitimately— An honourable member interjecting— Mr RIPOLL 83E If the government member does not want to extend my time, I am glad to accept that. But if the government legitimately says: 'Where is the money coming from and how are they funding this?' then the only possible answer is that they are borrowing the money. Of course, if you do the sums, you would have to say that the government is now borrowing twice as much, because the debt is much bigger—the deficit has doubled. So this is curious accounting. I am sure plenty of accountants and economists can work it out and ask the government—and I will not do that here—where they are getting the money from, because I cannot quite see where the money is coming from. It seems to me to be coming from borrowings. But then again, I am not an expert or an economist. So not only did the Liberal government cut the instant asset write-off and Labor's other tax assistance measures designed to help small business, but they did this in the face of really strong criticism and opposition from the small business and business sectors who actually told the government and the Liberal Party that they had really got this wrong and they should actually reconsider. So, winding back the clock, as they did, and realising the error of their ways, the government have changed and we agree now that what the government is doing by reintroducing Labor's package of small business assistance is a good idea. Labor's record on tax assistance goes much further and deeper for small business. And it is a good record. Not only did Labor introduce the instant asset write-off but it also introduced the tax loss carry back, which, for the first time, meant that companies could claw back tax that had previously been paid—tax paid in the past—against any write-offs they might have in the future. This was a really important assistance measure for small business. What it did was to recognise both small businesses that are of a company structure and those that are not. So there were different measures. There was accelerated depreciation for some small businesses and other measures like tax loss carry back for others. We also recognise the need for small business and business to accelerate their depreciation for motor vehicles. Not only would this help them but it would also help the motor vehicle industry and a sector also reeling from difficult times.   Of course, those difficult times have not gone away. What we are seeing now is that the government should somehow be responsible—they are coming up to nearly two years in government—for trying to assist the economy and making sure that (a) people do not lose their jobs and that (b) small business survives. The strongest thing, as we would all acknowledge, that you can have in a good economy is a job. It is important that the government pay much attention to these factors. Labor's tax assistance, of course, was for four years. When we put our measures in place we made sure that we gave business that certainty—that forward estimates certainty of four years. Curiously again, this Liberal government has only done it for two years. That is a very short time frame for business to operate in. You would find that most of them do their planning over many years, not just two years. It might suit the government in, let us say, a political cycle rather than an economic one to put forward only a two-year time frame. I know that businessmen I speak to say that they would much prefer more certainty from this government and that four years would be much better. When it was combined, Labor's tax assistance was worth more than $5 billion over the forward estimates. Labor increased the instant asset write-off threshold from $1,000 to $6½ thousand, as I said earlier, and the number of assets that this applied to was unlimited. Our accelerated deductions for motor vehicles, loss carry-back for companies and the three tax assistance measures for small business provided a significant boost to small businesspeople and their ability to grow and to employ more people. As an aside, but also related to this: it was Labor that gave one of the biggest tax breaks for unincorporated small business by tripling the tax-free threshold from a bit over $6,000 to $18½ thousand. This was a really important measure and gave significant cash flow assistance to small businesses—particularly microbusinesses. If we are going to have a coffee-machine-led recovery, as the government often talks about, then let it rain coffee machines! I am happy about that; I like my coffee as much as anyone else. But I think that what small business looks for is something a little more substantial from time to time—perhaps some real significant tax measures, like Labor's tripling of the tax-free threshold. Not only did that assist ordinary people and consumers but also small business as well. Again: good, solid ideas, well implemented, did enormous service to our economy. I would really hate to think what our economy might look like today, and what the face of small business might look like, if Labor had not put all of these very serious measures in place. At the end of the day, the reality is that a government needs to have a vision for the future, a vision for innovation and a vision for jobs. That is certainly what Labor has done and what Labor continues to do, whether we are in government or we are in opposition. Sadly, today unemployment is trending up and the long-term unemployment rate is unacceptably high. Sadly, this government has given up on the long-term unemployed. Australia currently spends around $30 billion annually on R&D across all sectors, and it is ranked 17th in the world by the Global Innovation Index. However when it comes to our efficiency at converting research dollars into innovation and commercial success we perform poorly, ranking 116th out of 142 countries. When you look at that data I do not think that would match up with everyone's interpretation of Australians being the great innovators and inventors, doing all those great things. In other words, more needs to be done. That is what this government ought to be doing. Sadly, there is nothing in this budget for small business that will drive innovation, even though the minister likes to talk about it a lot—about how the government is going to help small business by removing obstacles to crowd-sourced equity funding, as one example. In fact, the minister has issued numerous media statements over the last 12 months, talking about what the government plans to do—what they are 'gunna' do. I would remind the minister and the government that it was Labor that consulted with the start-up sector last year on crowd-sourced equity funding, led by my colleague Ed Husic, and then released a discussion paper in 2014. Labor also supported the government's proposed changes to tax concessions for employee share schemes, and Labor has a proud record of supporting innovation. The Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, announced several initiatives in his budget reply address that have been welcomed by small business.    The new $500 million Smart Investment Fund is a great Labor initiative for small business. It will do a lot to bolster the way in which small business can innovate and grow. I have heard a lot of talk from the Liberal Party and the government about how they want lots of businesses to start up. I think that is a good idea; we should have as many starting up as possible. I would add something to that and say, 'We should have as many of them survive as possible as well, not just start up.' Unfortunately, the government might want to 'launder' the data on starting up and say, 'Look how many are starting!' But they might run and hide when we see how many might also be failing. I think an important task for government would be to undertake policies that help not only in the start-up phase but in the growth phase and the employment phase, which transform a small business from being a non-employing small business—and I would like to see lots of them as well. The government need to be really cautious in the way that they scare small business when they talk about a so-called number of 519,000 job losses in small business. In reality, if you look at that closely you will understand that the 519,000 were a transfer: non-employing small businesses were taken out of that category—being listed and numbered in a register there—into a different category, meaning that they now employ someone. We would like to see more non-employing small businesses become employing small businesses. I think that would be a fair thing. I think that it would be a really fair thing for the Australian economy if every non-employing small business could be encouraged and grow sufficiently to be able to sustain themselves and also employ someone. I would like to see that number showing even more transference from non-employing to employing; I think that is a good thing. But we need to be careful about how we look at these numbers. From time to time I hear the minister talking about this 'loss' of jobs—that they were lost! A transfer is not a loss. They did not actually disappear; that 519,000 are no longer counted in this column, they are counted in another column. If you have a look at the numbers, where one reduced the other grew by that number. If the total pie—and this might be a little complicated for the government—of small business actually got bigger, so that there were more, then you cannot say that there were losses as well. Inside that pie, some slices may have changed size but the overall pie got bigger. I know this is a nuance and that the government may not quite be able to work its way through this, but it is really simple: more is— Dr Chalmers 37998 They'll get it! Mr RIPOLL 83E They will get it—yes. More is less and less is more. The reality is that if you have a pie and you make the pie bigger, you cannot say that people lost jobs within the pie. There are actually more jobs. There are actually more small businesses. The other curious factor about these things is that was done at a time when the economy was actually going through its most difficult period—through a global financial crisis. If you were to look at government spending, you might think that during a period of a global financial crisis a government might spend more. In fact, it might have record levels of spending. And Labor certainly was very enthusiastic about supporting the economy and jobs because we understood that the best way you could inoculate yourself against the shocks of a global financial crisis was to make sure the economy was strong and people kept their jobs. If you kept your job, that meant you could pay your mortgage and it meant the economy would keep going and that is exactly what it did. Those spending levels at that time were really important because it did underpin the economy and people's jobs. I think we did a really good thing. You might be a bit surprised today if you realise that this big spending Liberal government that we have got—big taxing, big spending—are now at record spending levels in non-global financial crisis times. You would have to ask where they are spending the money. What is driving that enormous amount of spending? You could understand it during a really big crisis. The problem with having the crisis levels of spending that the government have in place right now is how can the economy afford it? We could maybe work through it, but the problem is if there is another crisis down the track, can we really trust this government that are already spending at crisis levels now when there is not a crisis? I hope there is not one, but at least maybe there should be some redundancy planning around what the government might be forced to do if there were to be some sort of a need for the government to spend. As you can see, it is not as rosy a picture as the government might want to portray. There is a range of things that the government has done that we would obviously support that are really important, particularly in terms of the bill that is before the House in making some administrative changes to superannuation guarantee. They will help the government to navigate around some of these issues. At the same time, we need to acknowledge that for small business—because this is who we are talking about—there are a number of things that the government has done alongside these things. In particular, they have cut more than $2 billion—that is a lot of money—from skills and training programs. You would think that at a time when there is pressure on employment and unemployment is trending up—it is over six per cent, which is too high for any government and it should be much lower—that you would perhaps take some of that record crisis spending and you would spend it on skills and training, because that is what in turn will pay back the economy and will pay back small business. Small business will regularly tell us that there are a number of top five things that they are most concerned about. Cashflow is always in the top five, as you would expect, and the other one is spending on skills and training, because if they are wanting to transition from being a non-employing business—or even an employing small business; a microbusiness—to someone who is going to employ they are looking for the right skill set. They want really good, well-trained, skilled people, so that they can have the confidence to grow their business. That confidence, unfortunately, has been shattered by the cutting back of more than $2 billion from those programs. While we are on the subject of small business and how they manage through and navigate through difficult times, in terms of start-up finance there are some important issues that also need to be raised. Labor are very determined that it will work with the financial sector, the banks and finance industry, to establish a partial guarantee scheme, a start-up finance scheme to help more Australians convert their great ideas into great businesses. We think that is another great way to underpin our economy. Not only then do you provide that sort of start-up funding, you do it in partnership with industry and with the finance sector; you also do it in partnership with government and with people who actually know the business, know the industry and who are not just relying on government to pick the winners. This will enable entrepreneurs to access the capital they need to start and grow their enterprises. We think that is a very positive way forward. We have also announced that we will work with government. There is the opposition's invitation to the government to work with us on a fair and fiscally responsible plan to reduce the small business company tax rate not by 1½ per cent but a full five per cent. We think that can be achieved and it can be done. It can be done in the context of good government, responsible spending and saving. It will do this, without doubt, and it will boost confidence. It will boost the economy and in return it will mean that the government has more tax receipts, so there will be further revenue from government by reducing the tax burden on small business company tax that they pay. These are very good things. Labor have extended the olive branch in these areas and said, 'Work with us as we will work with you when it comes to supporting small business.' We are yet to see the same sort of goodwill in return that Labor have extended, but I do await eagerly for that to happen. The bill that is before the House is a good bill. Labor will be supporting it. It goes some small way to clarifying at least the government's position on superannuation. Although, as I have noted in the past, in other areas of superannuation the government has a very poor track record. Coming to government, one of the first things they did was remove the low-income superannuation contribution to something like 2.7 million low-paid workers—people who earn less than $37,000 a year. It was only a small tax anomaly, up to $500, that Labor had rectified and that the government has put back in place. This is an anomaly that will again have to be fixed at some point. The government know and understand that. It was also the Liberal government, when they came to power, that were the first to delay significantly, by a number of years, the superannuation guarantee from nine to 12 per cent. These are again things that will have to be corrected in the future. 15:59 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I am very interested to hear some of the comments made by the previous speaker, the member for Oxley, in relation to small business and his support for some of the initiatives that the government is doing. I have the greatest respect for the member for Oxley. He might not know that. In a previous life, prior to becoming a member of parliament, in 1998 he worked as an aircraft electrician with the Royal Australian Air Force. Anybody who works with the RAAF is indeed worthy of my respect, as a member who represents the only inland city in Australia with all three arms of the Defence and Forest Hill RAAF Base, which the member for Oxley I know is very familiar with. I can hear him say he is very familiar with it and I am very interested to hear that. I hasten to add though, however, that he ought not lecture this government on its small business record and indeed its small-business ministers because Craig Emerson; Senator Nick Sherry; Senator Mark Arbib; the current member for Gorton, Brendan O'Connor; the current member for McMahon, Chris Bowen; and the current member for Brand, Gary Gray all held the portfolio of small-business minister during those six sorry years of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. The member for McMahon was there but for a short 49 days. The member for Dunkley, the current Minister for Small Business—in fact the 15th since the position became a ministry in 1988—has been there already one year 264 days and what a difference he has made. He has done more in that one year and 264 days, I would argue, than the previous six Messrs Emerson, Sherry, Arbib, Bowen, O'Connor and Gray did in the six years. Just today the Senate approved the cut of 1.5 per cent to the tax rate for small business— Mr Ripoll 83E Hear hear. Mr McCORMACK 219646 to 28.5 per cent, the lowest company tax rate since 1967, the lowest for almost half a century. That is going to provide great incentive to those many small businesses throughout my electorate of Riverina and, indeed, dare I say, those small businesses throughout the electorate of the Assistant Minister for Employment, the member for Cowper, who joins me here at the table. Whilst I mention him, I should also talk about the great work he is doing in the employment sector to create jobs, particularly for the engine room of our economy and that, we all know, is small business. The Superannuation Guarantee Administration (Amendment) Bill 2015 is another example of the coalition's commitment to small business. The new instant asset write-off provides an incentive for small business to invest in new equipment, to back small-business ingenuity and vision and as the Treasurer, the member for North Sydney, has said many times at this spot, to have a go. It will benefit small businesses regardless of whether they have employees or not. I heard the member for Oxley talk about those small businesses which in fact do not employ people and the encouragement they ought to be given to hire staff. I thoroughly concur with him in that respect. There is no doubt that employing staff is a significant step for any small business. It can help a business expand but it also brings with it new obligations, new complexities. Big business will typically have a human resources department. It can justify the expense of having a corporate area dedicated to activities such as payroll, workplace health and safety, and superannuation compliance. As someone who ran a small business for eight years, I know what it is like to be your own HR manager, your own chief financial officer, your own chief information officer and chief executive officer all rolled into one. Mr Hartsuyker 00AMM A small business superman. Mr McCORMACK 219646 Not quite, but we did turn a very small business operating out of three garages in Wagga Wagga into quite a profitable little business which is still going. Mr Ripoll interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 Thank you, member for Oxley. That independence is one of the reasons so many entrepreneurial Australians go into business for themselves—to be their own boss. The measures in this bill will make it easier for small businesses to comply with their superannuation obligations and that is so very important. We recognise that it is important for employers to do the right thing by their employees as far as superannuation is concerned. In my experience, most of them do. This bill does not lessen the obligation on any employer to do the right thing by those people who they take into the trust as their employees. But it will make the compliance task easier, more efficient. One of this government's early actions upon coming to government was to move the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House to the Australian Taxation Office, out of the Department of Human Services and into an agency which most small businesses are already familiar with in relation to tax and superannuation matters. In introducing this bill on 28 May, the Minister for Small Business, the member for Dunkley, informed the House that between 1 April 2014 and 30 April 2015 around an additional 42,500 employers have registered to use the service, bringing total registrations to 100,000. That is a very commendable and good result. One of the big attractions of using the clearing house is that if your employees belong to a range of different superannuation funds, which often happens when you have people moving around in and out of different jobs over a period of time, then you only need to deal with the clearing house—that is all. You do not need to interface with multiple superannuation funds. So that is going to make it more streamlined and simplify things, which, for time-poor small-business operators, is so important because they need to spend every precious moment doing what they do best—that is, serving customers, making things and getting on with the job of trying to eke out a living. They do not need to be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and unnecessary compliance. So that is why the coalition, which understands small business, which understands how important they are and which understands how time-poor they are, is getting on with the job of helping them in every single aspect of doing what they do best. As a small business, you have the certainty that once the clearing house has received your contributions then your job is started and you have complied with your obligations up to that point. The clearing house takes on the responsibility for dispersing contributions according to your particular instructions. Currently the clearing house is available only to businesses with fewer than 20 employees and that takes into account a lot of them. But from 1 July 2015, we are expanding access to this service so that any business with a turnover of less than $2 million—the definition of a small business for income tax purposes—will be able to use this service. So whether your turnover is less than $2 million or whether you have fewer than 20 employees, from 1 July this year you will be able to use the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House. A small business obviously needs to spend some time getting itself acquainted and registered with the clearing house, but compare that to having to register with multiple superannuation funds. Again, there is that level of cooperation that we are placing in small business, that level of simplification that we are bringing about in this policy change. I encourage any small business that is not yet using the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House to check it out online and think about what it might be able to do assist them. It is a free service offered by the government and just one way in which we are supporting Australian small business to have a go. It is one click away. Check it out online, and you will be amazed at how easy it is to access and to use and by the fact that it will give you more time to do what you do best in your small business. The key change that this bill makes is to amend the law so that employers no longer have to provide a standard choice of fund to temporary residents. Currently, a failure to supply a temporary resident whom the business employs with a choice of fund form can leave the employer liable for penalty. This bill does not remove a temporary resident's right to exercise choice in relation to the fund which they would like their superannuation directed into, but the reality is that many temporary residents do not already have an existing superannuation fund in Australian and are unlikely to exercise choice of fund in the relatively short time they are in this country. That has implications—certainly for the Riverina. I would like to point out that in the minister's 28 May introduction of this bill one of the changes he talks about is employers no longer having to provide a standard choice form to temporary residents. He said: A standard choice form allows employees to nominate their superannuation fund. Generally employers have to give this form to employees within 28 days of the employee starting their job. I would like to emphasise that the government is not taking away the right of a temporary resident to choose a superannuation fund. What we are doing is simplifying the paperwork requirements for businesses that employ temporary residents such as those on a working holiday visa. Under these changes, employers will no longer have to supply a standard choice form to temporary resident employees. It also means time-poor small businesses will no longer have to spend time explaining how to complete the form. This change will also make it easier for employers to pay their workers' superannuation on time. He went on to comment: The majority of businesses in these sectors are small businesses. Around 92 per cent of businesses in hospitality and 99 per cent of businesses in agriculture are small businesses. That affects the Riverina electorate I represent because many of them employ seasonal pickers. Once they have picked the apples in Batlow, they move west and into the Murrumbidgee irrigation area around Leeton, Narrandera and Griffith to pick grapes and do all the sorts of things that great food bowl of the nation does. Quite frankly, at any given harvest time in the Riverina they simply would not be able to get their crops off if they did not have those seasonal workers, many of them on short-stay holiday visas. Those backpackers are invaluable to the Riverina—indeed, to many rural and regional electorates right throughout Australia. This legislation is important. Mr Husic interjecting— Mr McCORMACK 219646 Be quiet, member for Chifley! It is important that people know of these changes and it is important that employers avail themselves of these changes, because it will mean a streamlining of the obligations that they currently have. The change is established to result in an annual compliance cost saving of $45 million. It removes the threat of a penalty on a business merely for failing to give someone a piece of paper. This means that employers can focus on doing the right thing by their business and their employees and less on ticking boxes dreamt up by bureaucrats. That is important. It might not mean a lot to the member for Chifley, but every dollar helps to pay down that debt and deficit legacy that his previous government left the country—not the government but the country, the fine taxpayers, the fine small business people of this nation. I am pleased to inform the House that this will make a big difference—it will make a huge difference—to business operating in the Riverina, particularly the fruit growers who rely— Mr Husic 91219 Mm-hmm! Mr McCORMACK 219646 I hear him go mm-hmm—so sarcastic! But he ought to come out to the Riverina, and I invite him to do so to have a look. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S The members will ignore each other across the table, and the parliamentary secretary can get on with his speech. Mr McCORMACK 219646 I would like to, but he's facing me! And we make a very good latte, let me tell you! I am very pleased to inform the House that, as I said, this will make a big difference to businesses operating in the Riverina—those operating the latte cafes and particularly those farmers who just want to get their crops from the trees and the ground, to get them into the trucks, to get them to port and to ensure that the food and fibre that my area produces gets to market as quickly as possible whilst at the same time protecting those backpackers who are picking those crops. Those fruit growers in particular rely heavily on temporary residents to meet their labour needs associated with their annual harvest. That is why it is so important not just for the Riverina but indeed for small businesses right throughout Australia. With that, I commend the bill to the House. 16:13 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2015. As speakers before me have said, the bill removes the obligation for employers to offer a choice of super fund to temporary resident employees or when super funds are merge. This bill is all about reducing the burden for employers. That is why both sides, whether it be the member for Oxley on my side or the member for Riverina just now, have spoken at length about the positive consequences of this bill for business in Australia and particularly small businesses. They are right to point to those advantages. I thought that, before I got into the various specifics of the bill, I might spend some time instead on the superannuation guarantee itself, because I think compulsory super and the SG, as it is called—the superannuation guarantee—are one of the most substantial public policy triumphs in Australia since Federation. I am proud to say that the labour movement—the Labor Party—was instrumental in setting up the first retirement income schemes in Australia a century ago. By 1945, the Chifley government set up the National Welfare Fund, which was intended to be the basis from which a national super fund could be operated. By 1973, the Whitlam government responded to the fact that only 32 per cent of workers were covered by super at that time, and they initiated the national superannuation inquiry, chaired by Keith Hancock. By 1983, the Hawke government reformed superannuation tax concessions to remove overly generous concessions for the wealthiest Australians—remembering that super was still not yet compulsory in 1983. It was the same for 1986. The Hawke-Keating Accord implemented a series of reforms so that, by 1986, awards stipulated that three per cent employer super contributions would go into industry funds. By 1991, Paul Keating, who was then a backbencher, delivered a speech that said: Unless we can move - and move rapidly - we will put the Commonwealth Government age pension system under unbearable stress and condemn an entire generation of elderly people to an unsatisfactory and poorly provided retirement. Around 1991, Keating proposed a compulsory super system. I quote from him again. He said: … I suggest that by the year 2000 we reach a national benchmark where each and every employee has a contribution to superannuation equal to 12 per cent of wage and salary income paid into his or her superannuation account. At the same time, he warned: It is the difference between a full, active life and a life governed by budgetary exigencies and the vagaries of politics. As you would probably recall, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, or members of this House will recall, Keating's speech kicked off a wave of support for universal superannuation. A few months later, the Labor government would announce a universal super scheme, which Keating would then improve on in the years after that. In the speech that he gave in 1991—and the member for Chifley, who is at the table, is also an avid follower of the words and deeds of one of our finest prime ministers and certainly one of the finest Labor treasurers we have had—he was both right and prophetic when he said the demographic challenges of an ageing Australia would put the Commonwealth budget under considerable pressure. That is one of the reasons why Labor under Prime Minister Rudd introduced a phasing in of a 12 per cent superannuation guarantee. I pay tribute to the work of the members for McMahon and Lilley for implementing that policy in their time in the Treasury portfolio—a very important change, a 12 per cent superannuation guarantee. And then, under Prime Minister Gillard, we had the MySuper package introduced to try to lower superannuation fees. But Paul Keating was also prophetic in that he said that, until the superannuation project is complete, until we reach a point where most Australians can depend on their own savings to retire comfortably, their retirement incomes will be under political attack from the members opposite. He was absolutely spot on. We have been seeing that in the first and second budgets of this current government. Indeed, right through the history of super, the Liberal Party have stood in the way of a stronger super system. In 1976, the Fraser government rejected the Hancock inquiry recommendation of a universal pension system. In 1996, the Howard government abandoned the plans to increase the super guarantee, costing the average Australian worker something like $250,000 over their working life. At the time, the now Prime Minister, Prime Minister Abbott, said: Compulsory superannuation is one of the biggest con jobs ever foisted by government on the Australian people. If you think about that, the current Prime Minister of Australia thinks that superannuation, one of the big public policy triumphs in Australian history, is a con job. That quote will sit on the record forever. It is a good illustration of what those opposite think about superannuation and the possibilities and opportunities of super for Middle Australia. Twenty years after that quote, his government announced a freeze on the super guarantee for another six years. They also announced that they are scrapping the low-income superannuation contribution from 1 July 2017. If you just take my communities for example, the cuts to that low-income superannuation contribution will affect 28,300 people just in my electorate alone. You can imagine the magnitude of the hurt that is being inflicted on people right around Australia when you consider that almost 30,000 people just in my electorate of 100,000 or so will be adversely affected. The aggregate outcome of these sorts of cuts and these sorts of decisions is that the national savings pool, Australia's national pool of savings, will be $45 billion worse off by 2021 and $983 billion worse off by 2055. Labor does recognise that there is a real need to improve the superannuation system in Australia. We can always do more to make it better, fairer and more sustainable. We do need to recognise that, with people living longer, they need to save more before retirement, particularly if they want to maintain an adequate standard of living. We do know that the current level of contribution is not sufficient to support Australians' lifestyle expectations for their future retirement, and that is why we think we need to increase the super guarantee to 12 per cent, which is what was initially proposed by Paul Keating, wound back by John Howard, reintroduced by the members for McMahon and Lilley and wound back by the current Prime Minister, Tony Abbott. The coalition alleges that any increase in the superannuation guarantee is not affordable for employers. The facts do not bear out that assertion. It is not the first time that the facts have inconveniently got in the way of a political strategy. But the past experience shows that any increase in the SG is not likely to have a negative impact on business, on employment, on the CPI or on any of the measures that we pay close attention to when we implement changes of this magnitude. So what is really going on here, when you take a step back, is that the coalition, when it comes to the super guarantee, is really trading off a short-term fiscal fix for long-term benefits for Australians. The net fiscal cost of compulsory super to the government, estimated by Treasury, will peak at less than 0.5 per cent of GDP before gradually falling to less than 0.2 per cent of GDP. In comparison, the current fiscal cost of the age pension is projected to increase from around 2.7 per cent of GDP to around 3.9 per cent of GDP by 2050 if no changes are made to the current superannuation settings. Increasing the super guarantee is also good for the Australian economy more generally. Modelling done for the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia has shown that an increase in the SG will—this is a 12-year horizon—increase investment by 1.3 per cent, increase exports by 1.04 per cent, increase capital stocks by 0.9 per cent, increase the real wage by 1.06 per cent and increase real GDP by 0.33 per cent. What that shows is that the government's attacks on the superannuation guarantee are not just bad for workers—especially young workers today, the vulnerable and people on low incomes—but also bad for our economy more generally. When Labor sat down to consider this bill, we did so knowing that this is a government and a Prime Minister who are not interested in improving the superannuation system more broadly, in growing super investment or in making the superannuation system fairer. On the two sides of the House we have vast differences about superannuation. We have had them for some time. When it comes to the big building blocks of super, those differences will continue. When it comes to this bill—a very specific bill which does not compromise the broader system of superannuation and indeed improves the situation for business, including small business—as the member for Oxley flagged in his excellent contribution, we will be supporting the specifics of this bill. The measures in this bill remove the obligation for employers to offer a choice of super fund to temporary resident employees or when super funds merge. Many temporary resident employees do not currently exercise choice of fund or complete the choice of fund form and are therefore placed in their employer's default super fund. Under the new arrangements in this bill, temporary residents maintain the right to choose a super fund but employers are not obliged to give the standard choice form to employees. Small businesses have identified this as a burden on their paperwork, so we are willing to do what we can to make this easier for them. This bill also removes this responsibility for employers when super funds are merged. We recognise that forcing employers to offer certain forms at that time is unnecessarily burdensome for small businesses. Importantly, as I said before, none of these measures will interfere with the responsibility of employers to provide superannuation guarantee payments for their employees. So Labor will support the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2015. Labor, as you know, is always looking for sensible ways to ease the administrative burden on small businesses, and these appear to be sensible proposals put forward by industry. Labor is the champion of super. We always have been and we always will be. So, more broadly, we will continue to oppose the Abbott government's attacks on super and we will continue to fight for a stronger, fairer super system for all Australians. That includes improving the superannuation concessions, which right now unfairly benefit the very wealthiest in our society at the expense of middle Australia. 16:25 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest Today is a red-letter day for small business, with the Senate approving the tax cut for small business companies. It has also approved changes to the small business instant asset write-off. We have seen the small business company tax rate cut to its lowest level in almost 50 years, since 1967, and all small businesses are given an immediate tax deduction on any asset they buy costing up to $20,000. This gives small businesses the capacity to invest further in themselves and also to offer more employment to both young and mature-aged Australians, which is what they do out in regional and rural areas. I want to acknowledge the commitment of the Minister for Small Business, Bruce Billson, and also the Treasurer, Joe Hockey, and the Prime Minister, in this process. There has been an absolute commitment to small business, and the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Amendment Bill 2015 continues that work. It introduces changes to simplify the superannuation choice regime used by employers and employees, reducing the business compliance costs by simplifying when a standard choice form must be provided to an employee by an employer. This is a further reduction in red tape for small business, something they are crying out for. Small businesses, as we know, do not have dedicated human resources people, and small business owners are extremely busy working in their businesses. So this is an important measure for them. The Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 requires employers to offer a choice of superannuation fund to employees. An employer satisfies this requirement where they make superannuation guarantee contributions to a fund chosen by an employee or, if the employee does not make a choice, to a default fund chosen by the employer and specified in a standard choice form provided to the employee. Employers must give employees a standard choice form within 28 days of their employment commencing. Employers who do not comply with their choice of fund obligations may be liable to pay the superannuation guarantee charge for given employees. The requirement to provide employees with a choice of super fund is particularly burdensome for employers who employ a large number of temporary residents. This includes many businesses in my electorate of Forrest. The horticultural industry have long been reliant on travellers and backpackers. They have just struggled so hard to get workers. They have needed these people simply to provide the basic labour to harvest their crops—to pick and to pack. They literally cannot harvest—they have not been able to harvest at times—without backpackers and travellers. When you look at other industries—such as the dairy industry, which is struggling to find those who will milk cows, and abattoirs—the same sort of situation arises. This is really apparent in my electorate of Forrest in and around places like Donnybrook, Busselton, Myalup, Harvey and Cookernup, where a range of fruit and vegetables that rely on labour-intensive hand picking are produced. The compliance burden on those small producers who use backpacker labour is extreme. Often these producers are simple small businesses—a couple or a family business. Many of the backpackers only stay in the region for a couple of weeks, and they are generally on good wages. Many producers are paying in the vicinity of $25 an hour for these workers. I compare this to what I read recently: the same sorts of workers in New Zealand are perhaps paid around $13.20 per hour, or $12 in Germany, or $7 in Israel, or $5 in Taiwan. This means that in Australia they earn a good wage for a relatively short period, grossing perhaps $1,000 for a 40-hour week. Employers have to pay 9.5 per cent superannuation when an employee is paid $450 or more before tax in a month. The worker staying two weeks and earning $2,000 is therefore due $190 in superannuation—perhaps not a large sum, but many producers are forced to set up numerous small superannuation accounts for temporary workers who simply do not have those accounts. Those accounts generally end up with a few hundred dollars in them, and those few hundred dollars can be eaten up by fees. So what we see here is a lot of churn, often for very little result. Many temporary residents do not have existing superannuation arrangements and, given the short-term nature of their employment, they are unlikely to choose a fund. It is similarly another burden for employers to be required to provide employees with a standard choice form when an employee's superannuation benefits are transferred to a successor fund under a fund merger arrangement. The amendments contained in this bill will simplify superannuation compliance obligations for employers in these circumstances as well. Employers will no longer have to provide a standard choice form to a temporary resident employee or when super funds merge, nor will they need to allocate time explaining the importance of completing the form and how to do so. Previously an employer who did not provide a standard choice form to employees in these situations may have been liable for the choice shortfall penalty. These changes will reduce compliance costs for businesses operating in industries that employ a high volume of individuals on working holiday visas, such as hospitality and agriculture, which are very prevalent in my Forrest electorate. Of course these people are prominent in tourism as well. I remember being in the little town of Augusta. A lot of tourists go there. Going back a couple of years, I remember going to the local bakery and them saying that they simply could not survive without these workers. They rely on these workers simply to keep their business doors open. They have to have these workers because there are none locally for them. It is the only way they can continue to operate their business. Employees in these situations though retain the right to choose a super fund if they wish to do so. Where benefits are transferred from an employee's chosen fund to a successor fund, the successor fund is taken to be the chosen fund for the employee and the original fund is taken to no longer be a chosen fund. This means, in simple terms, that contributions the employer makes to the successor fund for the benefit of the employee satisfy the choice of fund requirements and the employer will not need to give the employee a standard choice form. Where benefits are transferred from a default fund to a successor default fund, the successor default fund is deemed to be the fund specified in the standard choice form for a given employee. This means that contributions the employer makes to the successor default fund for the benefit of the employee satisfy the choice of fund requirements and the employer will not need to give the employee a standard choice form. A fund is a successor default fund if certain requirements are met. This includes that the employee's interest in the fund is transferred to a new fund without their consent, the original fund was a default fund specified on the standard choice form provided to the employee and the new fund is a successor fund within the meaning of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. These amendments do not affect an employee's ability to choose their own fund under division 4 of part 3A of the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992. When you are a small business anything that simplifies the processing of superannuation is a very good thing. Reducing that ongoing red tape burden for small businesses is a commitment that the coalition has made. Of course there is more to be done on reducing red tape. As I have said repeatedly in this House, small businesses often actually employ young people in their very first job and often they employ people at a very mature stage of their employment. They employ people throughout the ages. It is small businesses that often give these people a go. We see them in small rural and regional communities. So often these businesses are undervalued and perhaps under respected in the broader economic sense. They keep our small communities operating. I am a farmer and the small businesses in my community are always there when I need them. Their doors are open and they are there for me with whatever it is I need on my farm or in my home. Often they are also the people who support our local sporting clubs. They provide the prizes and sponsorship. They are committed to their local community. They support community service organisations and local volunteer groups. Emergency services groups rely on small businesses in their community to provide their employees. When there are emergencies people can bolt from a small business and take care of the emergency, whether they work as a volunteer ambulance operator or in fire and emergencies services. It is the people in the small businesses in our communities who support that sort of activity that keeps our small communities operating. Having a massive number of small superannuation accounts with almost nothing in them is really a concern and a waste of time and money for everyone, perhaps with the exception of the super funds that collect the cash. There have to be better ways. I am very pleased with the total of our jobs and small business package. As I said at the start, today is a red-letter day. We saw the measures go through the Senate. We saw the $5.5 billion small business package out there. Businesses will be able to deduct $20,000—the tax cut for small companies. It does not stop there. We will continue with a range of measures. All of us understand the commitment of small business people. We also understand the time it takes to work in the administration of small business. So often these people work endless hours. They have invested all of their own money, mortgaged their home, taken huge risks—often to follow their passion—and have done some pretty solid planning. They are often the same people who do not sleep at night. If you have a debt and you are employing people, there are some huge challenges when you are a small business operator. As always, I acknowledge and respect the work that these people do right through the whole of Australia, but particularly those who frequently have to survive and work hard to survive. They cut their costs. They do everything they can to stay in business and be such a strong part of our rural and regional communities. As I said, we are committed to continuing to support small business. Nothing shows that more clearly than our commitment not just to the reduction of red tape but also through the jobs and small business package that we introduced as part of the budget. To think that we have a small business minister now sitting in Treasury, in cabinet—he is a key part of every decision that is made. Small businesses know that we take them seriously and that we respect the efforts they make. We know that they employ nearly half of the Australians who look for work. Often young people get their very first job in a small business. It can be the people towards the maturing age of their commitment and ability to work who work in small businesses as well. On that basis I support the bill before the House. 16:38 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong First I acknowledge those members who have contributed to this debate. The bill is aimed at reducing superannuation compliance costs for businesses, particularly small businesses, by simplifying the superannuation choice regime. This bill delivers on the government's commitment to reduce superannuation compliance costs for small businesses. This bill simplifies when a standard choice form must be provided by an employer to an employee. Under this bill, employers will no longer have to provide a standard choice form to temporary resident workers. The bill also means employers will no longer have to re-offer a choice of fund form when a superannuation fund the employer has been making contributions into merges with another fund. Importantly, we are not removing an employee's right to choose a superannuation fund if they wish to do so. This bill is part of a package of measures which will fulfil the government's commitment to reduce the superannuation compliance costs of small business. I commend this bill to the House. Mr Husic interjecting— Mr FRYDENBERG FKL I am very pleased that the member for Chifley has had a momentary vision of prudence and sense and is supporting this important bill, together with his colleagues. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S I also thank the member for Chifley for his ongoing support in the chamber today. The question is that this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 72 16:40 Mr FRYDENBERG FKL Kooyong —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. BUSINESS 72 BUSINESS Rearrangement 72 16:40 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper I move: That order of the day No. 9, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S The question is that order of the day No. 9, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. BILLS 72 BILLS Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business Measures No. 1) Bill 2015, Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business Measures No. 2) Bill 2015 72

Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business Measures No. 1) Bill 2015

Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business Measures No. 2) Bill 2015

Returned from Senate 72 Governance of Australian Government Superannuation Schemes Legislation Amendment Bill 2015 72

Governance of Australian Government Superannuation Schemes Legislation Amendment Bill 2015

Consideration of Senate Message 72 16:42 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I appreciate that the Opposition has taken a constructive stance in relation to this bill, recognising that it makes sense to put the administration staff into the same structure as the trustee, rather than have an artificial single-client service arrangement. The main substantive issue that the opposition has raised is the question of APS mobility. The amendments to the bill moved by the opposition and adopted in the Senate would provide transferring ComSuper staff with mobility rights broadly equivalent to those they would have had if they had remained in the APS, for a three-year period. While the government would see a shorter defined period as being more appropriate, we do appreciate that these amendments have temporary effect only and cease to apply after three years. When this amendment was first contemplated and raised by the opposition with the government, the interim recruitment restrictions for the APS were still in place. On budget night, 12 May, this year the government announced that new arrangements would be introduced from 1 July 2015 providing greater latitude for agency heads to elect staff from outside the APS without extra vetting by the Australian Public Service Commission. As a result, ComSuper staff who transfer to CSC employment at commencement of the merger will, regardless of the opposition amendments, have opportunities to seek to return to APS employment if they wish to do so. The government will not consider this amendment to be a precedent for future cases. While our smaller government reforms are resulting in the merger of a number of agencies, it is not common to move APS agency staff to a non-APS general government sector body. The unique single-client relationship between ComSuper and the CSC was the reason for the current merger, and this model of merger is not a scenario which we see as likely to be readily replicated. Future governments should be able to reorganise functions between agencies on a case-by-case basis, without viewing the transitional arrangements for ComSuper staff as a precedent which creates a restriction to normal practices. To ensure the passage of the legislative amendments needed to give effect to the merger of ComSuper and CSC from 1 July 2015, the government will be agreeing to the bill as amended. I move that the amendment be agreed to. Question agreed to. Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment Bill 2015 73

Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment Bill 2015

Second Reading 73 16:45 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby The bill before the House, the Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment Bill 2015, is about the national joint replacement register. It is a bill that matters to all Australians but particularly those 100,000 Australians every year who have a joint implanted in their body. The National Joint Replacement Registry collects data on the implantation of prosthetic joint replacement devices. It reports on the performance of those devices and any revisions that are required. The work of the registry improves the health outcomes for many Australians. The learning that we have gained from this important body has reduced the rate of revisions of transplanted prosthetic devices. Revisions, by the way, are procedures involving replacement or repairs—and I know that is a matter well known to you, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke. For some patients, revisions require a longer time in hospital for recovery. They are generally more expensive and more complex, largely because they involve, to use the vernacular, reopening old wounds. The registry assists in getting better outcomes by tracking and providing an analysis of the best devices to use in the unique circumstances of patients. By avoiding revisions, we get better outcomes for patients and better outcomes for the health finances of both the private sector and the public sector. The registry provides invaluable post-market surveillance of joint replacement prostheses. Because of the registry, we know, for example, that there were 42,470 hips replacements registered in 2014, an increase on five years earlier, 2009, of well over 10,000. There were 53,624 knee replacements registered in 2014, an increase on five years earlier, 2009, of almost 10,000 again. Also, because of the registry we know that, for example, replacing the joint surface of the kneecap during a knee replacement lowers the rate of revisions. We know that what works for one class of patient may not work for another. For example, resurfacing the joints of patients with osteoarthritis works to reduce revision but does not appear to reduce the rate of revisions for those people with rheumatoid arthritis. We would not know this without the data available to us from the registry. The registry informs clinicians of the best and most appropriate procedure for particular uses. It ultimately saves the system a lot of money, but, more importantly, it improves the outcomes for patients, particularly by assisting in reducing the rates of revision and ensuring that an operation, once done, improves the quality of life of the patient. The registry requires funding certainty to enable it to operate properly, which is why in 2009 the Labor government, with the support of the Liberal-National coalition, applied a levy on all device sponsors. This ended years of ad hoc funding arrangements with industry and government. The measures implemented in 2009 by Labor have meant that the registry has stable funding for the critical work it does and ensured that it can continue to provide data to improve patient outcomes. We are pleased to see the government's ongoing support for the registry and the levy which underpins it. The feedback we have received on this bill from stakeholders shows that it has broad support, so Labor is pleased to support the ongoing work of the registry and will support this amendment, which will see a change in the way the levy is calculated and applied to device sponsors. Device utilisation and the value of the prosthetic device will now place a greater and determining role on the way the levy is calculated. The changes as proposed by the government will result in increased activity. The levy will, therefore, raise an additional $600,000 over the next four years to facilitate this, commencing with $100,000 this year and $200,000 a year for the following two years. Labor will, of course, watch with interest to see whether the government has got its settings correct. The levy must raise enough money for the Australian Orthopaedic Association to effectively run the registry, which supports improved quality of care for patients. We have legitimate reasons to raise doubts about the government's competence when it comes to matters of health policy. In less than two years, we have seen a system which has been studied and envied by countries all around the world driven into complete chaos. We saw over $57 billion worth of cuts to the health and hospital system in the previous budget, added to by an additional $2 billion worth of cuts from health services this year. We have seen four emanations of a GP tax by stealth. In its final emanation, we see the freezing of Medicare rebates, forcing doctors to pass the charge onto their patients. The Medical Journal of Australia estimates that this will cost patients in excess of $8 by 2018. We have seen the cutting of funds that provide rehabilitation and treatment services for people who have drug addictions, at the very same time as we are spending $20 million on a campaign to raise awareness about the dangers of certain drugs. We have seen cuts of $160 million in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health services and more than half a billion dollars cut from public dental programs. We have seen almost $400 million cut from preventive health programs and hundreds of millions of dollars cut from the health flexible funds that support vital services right across our health system. We have seen cuts to veterans dental and allied health programs and in the recent budget we have seen cuts to the Healthy Kids Check; cuts to the programs that will support the electronic health record; and cuts to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, including the proposal that is still before the Senate to increase the cost of medicines by $5 for all general patients and 80c for concessional patients as well as restricting access to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Safety Net. We have seen the axing of the Health Direct 24-hour health advice, which provides after-hours phone advice to patients in need. We have seen cuts to optometry programs and plans to make unfair changes to the Medicare Safety Net. Labor will support sensible measures. This bill is a sensible measure to ensure that we have a fair way of levying the industry to ensure that the important work of this registry is maintained now and well into the future. But against the backdrop of the chaotic changes to our health system, members of the public would well understand, as all members on this side of the House understand, that we have deep reasons to be very skeptical about the government's competence to manage this important area of public policy. 16:53 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper I would like to thank all members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. The Private Health Insurance (National Joint Replacement Register Levy) Amendment Bill 2015 implements the government's budget measure to amend the cost-recovery arrangements for the National Joint Replacement Registry, the NJRR, to a utilisation based calculation. Over time, consultations with industry have indicated a strong preference for changes to the cost-recovery arrangements of the National Joint Replacement Register to determine individual companies' contributions using a utilisation based calculation. The bill allows for the implementation of that change. This change to a utilisation based method will result in more equitable distribution of the cost recovery across the industry. It will mean that over 85 per cent of companies will be paying smaller individual contributions. These changes to the cost-recovery arrangements will ensure that this important resource will continue to be available into the future. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S The question is that this bill be read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 75 16:54 Mr HARTSUYKER 00AMM Cowper by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2015 75

National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2015

Second Reading 75 16:55 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2015 and to speak in favour of the following amendment. While not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes Labor's concerns about the potential unintended consequences caused by a lack of consultation during the negotiations for the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement. This government bill seeks to amend the National Health Act 1953 to implement measures in the Pharmaceutical Benefits Access and Sustainability Package. This includes changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, measures implementing agreements with the Generic Medicines Industry Association and Medicines Australia, and of course the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement, the new five-year agreement with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. I should note at the outset that at no stage was Labor consulted by either the government or indeed any of the parties to these agreements prior to this legislation being tabled. Indeed, the first time Labor was ever made aware of the substantive detail in the legislation was the night before it was tabled, in a briefing from the department. Yet here we are, less than a month before the existing pharmacy agreement expires, with the government insisting that we now have to get this through the House this week so that it can be taken to the Senate in time to pass before the 30 June deadline. This is entirely due to the government's own incompetence—and I say 'incompetence' quite deliberately, because the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement sets out a timetable, and it is very specific about this, to ensure that negotiations for a new community pharmacy agreement will commence 12 months prior to the expiry of the agreement and conclude by 31 March 2015. So, we have had 12 months notice, if not five years. And the agreements were supposed to conclude by 31 March. And while we are now standing here with a gun to our head being asked to vote on and send this to the other place so that it can be concluded before the deadline, it is an urgency of the government's own making and it speaks to the complete chaos which is the hallmark of this government when it comes to health policy. Instead of having 12 months, negotiations did not start until just four months before the expiry date, and they concluded only last week. Now, that is not understandable, given the complexity of this matter. But they have been in government for over 18 months—a fact that is often lost on many members of the public who tune in to question time and hear the Prime Minister and so many other members of the government spending so much time talking about Labor and not nearly enough time talking about their plans for the country. So, now the minister insists, because of her government's incompetence, that it is vital that the parliament rushes this straight through to the Senate without a proper debate. Well, when a bill commits a government that has ripped the guts out of health funding to spending another $18.9 billion, Labor believes that it is worth taking some time to have a good look at the detail. That is what I will be doing in the time available to me today and that is what all Labor members will be doing when they speak in relation to the bill and the proposed amendments. I also indicate that we believe, notwithstanding the urgency created by the government's incompetence, that this bill does warrant more detailed investigation in the Senate, and that is what we will be moving for when the bill goes to the other place. I will now talk about the PBS package. Unlike the previous pharmacy agreements, this bill seeks to bundle up a series of other measures that are not directly linked to the remuneration of pharmacists and what commentators have suggested was a deliberate tactic to put pressure on the government. The government is calling this the PBS Access and Sustainability Package, which it says aims to deliver a more sustainable Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, with better value for taxpayers, cheaper medicines for consumers and improved access to innovative medicines. Given the government's repeated claims that its massive cuts to health funding and the GP tax were also about sustainability, one could forgive us on this side of the parliament if the warning lights go off every time we hear members opposite talking about wanting to make any part of the health system more sustainable. This is a government, it is worth noting, which last week described a cut of $600 million out of the health flexible funds, which are devastating crucial health support groups and services around the country, as rationalising and streamlining health programs. According to the government, the Access and Sustainability Package contains more than 20 measures and is designed to achieve $3.7 billion in net savings over the next five years. It includes $6.6 billion in savings across the entire pharmaceutical supply chain, partially offset by $2.8 billion of these savings going back into the pharmacies as part of the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement. Of the remaining $3.7 billion, the government is proposing, though not at this stage, budgeting for some of this money to be invested in new drugs. In other words, cuts to the prices paid to the drug companies are being used to prop up the budget and fund the additional money going into the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement, with industry newsletter Pharma in Focus declaring that research pharma companies are by far the hardest hit in contributing $6.6 billion in total savings. Key components of this package are: one, a new PBS pricing policy to reduce the price paid by the Commonwealth for innovative drugs, which are F1 formula drugs, and generic drugs, which are F2 formula drugs and medicines; two, increasing pharmacy competition by allowing pharmacies to discount the co-payment; three, removing some of the over-the-counter medicines from the PBS; four, changing the structure of the pharmacy remuneration to remove the link to PBS prices; and, five, providing for pharmacy to expand its role in the community. The government expects the majority of the savings achieved by the measures to come from PBS pricing changes. The key pricing changes are discussed individually below. In terms of the F1 five per cent price reduction, around $1 billion of the cuts in this package come from the inclusion, for the first time, of a statutory price reduction for patented, or F1, medicines. The price paid for all patented medicines that have been listed on the PBS for at least five years will be cut by five per cent on 1 April 2016. This is expected to affect 400 medicines. Newer medicines that reach their five-year anniversary on the PBS following that date will take a five per cent price cut on the following April. The government argues that delaying the price reduction for five years after listing is intended to give the manufacturers time to recoup their investment costs. Prior to this agreement, Medicines Australia argued that drug companies had been forced to take significant cuts in recent years, most notably as a result of Labor's expanded accelerated price disclosure, and that reductions could put at risk Australia's access to innovative medicines. That was the argument of Medicines Australia immediately following Labor's introduction of accelerated price disclosure. The industry argues that this F1 phase is when it recoups its research investment. It says it would affect the listing price of new drugs because part of the price struck was directly related to the price of comparable drugs. It also warned that the proposals made it more likely that some medicines would be delisted and could impact on research and development worth $1 billion. However a 2013 report by the Grattan Institute found exactly the opposite: Australia is paying more than many Western countries for pharmaceuticals in general and more than New Zealand for patented as well as generic drugs. Against this backdrop it is appropriate that these matters be investigated and debated. A proper parliamentary process, not the process that we are currently enjoying, would allow this to occur. In the end, Medicines Australia signed on, though perhaps more because it had little choice and that, with a little hope, it might at least be protected from further cuts for some time to come. Medicines Australia CEO, Tim James, said: In return for providing the majority of $6.6 billion in cuts outlined by the Government, our members have been given a number of undertakings and concessions regarding any future price-related savings throughout the life of the Agreement. He goes on to say: The continuation of this social compact requires stability in policy making. While this agreement does contain cuts to medicines already proven to be cost-effective, we welcome the limited stability and certainty that this agreement will provide over the coming 5 years. I will talk about the F2, or generic, price disclosure. Generic and off-patented medicines, also referred to as F2 drugs, are, as a result of Labor's reforms, subject to accelerated price disclosure which requires the suppliers of these medicines to advise the Department of Health of the prices at which they are selling their brands. The government then uses this information to move the price paid by the government closer to the price at which the drugs are supplied in the market. It makes good sense. Under these changes, from 1 October next year the market price of medicines listed on the F2 for three years or more will no longer take into account the originator brand of the drug. This should see lower prices for both government and consumers as originator, or premium, brand names tend to maintain higher prices than their generic competitors, which draws the average price up. This measure alone is expected to deliver $2 billion in savings by the end of the agreement and is expected to reduce the price of generic medicines for consumers by as much as 50 per cent. Prices should also fall for general patients, though not concessional patients, who make up around 80 per cent of PBS prescriptions, as all PBS prescriptions are priced above the concessional co-payment of $6.10. Another change expected to save $610 million, over five years, is the closing of a loophole relating to combination drugs that allow them to avoid price cuts, from price disclosure, in certain circumstances. Price changes to the individual drugs in the combination generally flow onto the price of the combination drug. However, some companies have been able to avoid the price cuts required under price disclosure by rebranding their own combination drugs. The bill has provisions to close this loophole so that price-disclosure reductions for component drugs of combination drugs, on the F2 formulary, will flow onto the combination drugs, starting on 1 April 2016. Perhaps the most significant and least understood change in this package is what is referred to as a technical amendment relating to PBS listing for bioequivalent and biosimilar medicines, which is expected to save the Commonwealth another $880 million. This involves the insertion of a new subsection into the act, allowing bioequivalent and biosimilar medicines to be taken as having the same drug as a listed brand. Another technical amendment allows the minister to determine that a brand is equivalent to another brand, for the purposes of substitution by a pharmacist, and requires the minister to have regard to any advice on equivalence given by the PBAC. Exactly how this is going to operate is unclear, with even the industry at this stage unsure as to the full details of the move. On the surface, it appears to be designed to promote across-the-board substitution, which the industry magazine PharmaDispatch reports has 'shocked many in the industry, primarily because it would represent a profound and fundamental shift in Australia's approach to the regulation and reimbursement of medicines'. The magazine says: … if biosimilars are just generics, and the plan is to treat them as such, then why has every Government around the world, including in Australia, developed and implemented approval processes that dearly distinguish them from generics. This also appears to contradict the Therapeutic Goods Administration's biosimilar guideline. While this is currently under review, the existing July 2013 guideline specifically says that a biosimilar's product information should include a statement ruling out substitution. Stephen Murby, a former chair of the Consumer Health Forum and now biosimilar's spokesperson for the International Alliance of Patients' Organizations, has recently written to my office and that of the minister expressing concern over these proposed changes to the regulation and reimbursement of biosimilars. In the letter, Mr Murby says there are 'growing concerns' internationally over Australia's move to implement pharmacy-level substitution of biosimilars, which he warns 'is not only moving away from best practice but seemingly is about to set itself on a path that will see patients at unnecessary risk'. As always, Labor will support moves to make the PBS more sustainable and medicines cheaper for patients, but we do believe this issue has not been explained properly by the government and requires further investigation. That is something that should be ventilated in a Senate inquiry. Quite simply, if we have a different basis from which we approve a drug for substitution, in a pharmacy, this is a matter which requires further investigation. All of the pharmacy measures I have detailed to this point are, in effect, the lead-in to the real reason for this legislation—that is, the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement. This legislation encapsulates how the Commonwealth has, in the words of one commentator, 'basically, raided the drug company' to pay for the additional funding promised as part of the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement. However, it is deeply disappointing and of great concern to Labor that while the government boasts of how it has ripped $6.6 billion out of health as a result of these cuts across the pharmaceutical chain, just $2.8 billion is going back into the health system by way of increased payments to pharmacists. The government has made vague promises about some of that money being made available for new drugs, but there is no mention of this, whatsoever, in the legislation. The government has not been able to commit that this $3.7 billion will go to reinvesting into new medicines or to other areas of health where, we know, the government has already cut billions of dollars. These include more than $57 billion from public hospitals, half-a-billion dollars from public dental programs, $397 million from preventative health and a further $2 billion from health programs, generally, in this year's budget. It is a budget that also cut $125 million from the Child Dental Benefits Schedule; $144 million from the MBS, including halving the amount paid for child-health assessments; $70 million from the veterans' dental and allied-health payments; $214 million from e-health and, most cruelly of all, $3 million by scrapping a tiny $250-a-month payment granted to assist people who need special foods because of genetic disorders. This legislation—for all the fine words about pharmacists and drugs of the future—is, in the end, just another excuse to bash health as a savings exercise, with a net loss of $3.7 billion to the system. At no stage was Labor ever consulted about the details of this agreement and it had no involvement in any of the proposals that we now see before the parliament. The first time we received any details of this agreement was on Tuesday night, and on Wednesday morning it was before the parliament. With that disclaimer, I now turn to the details of the bill and how they apply to the pharmacy sector. I will talk first about the pharmacy-location rules. A component of the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill is the extension of the pharmacy-location rules for another five years. These rules generally restrict a new pharmacy from operating within a certain distance of an existing pharmacy, usually 1.5 kilometres in a metropolitan area or 10 kilometres in more remote locations. These rules also prevent pharmacies from being placed either within or in a position directly accessible from a supermarket. This is, in effect, a Coles and Woolworths rule which prevents big supermarket chains from directly competing with chemists by denying them the right to dispense medicines. In recent years, there have been a number of inquiries concluding that the location rule should be scrapped. Earlier this year, the minister publicly indicated she was considering this—although mainly it appeared as a form of blackmail in negotiations with the Pharmacy Guild. It did not go well. Labor support the retention of the location rules which we believe do play an important role in ensuring the viability of community pharmacies. Pharmacies are not just another store in the shopping centre; they play a vital role in our communities dispensing medicines and looking after their customers, and in particular the most elderly concession card holders, who make up the bulk of their patients. No-one here—no-one—could seriously argue that this sort of service could be provided out of a supermarket. There could be few more devastating blows to any town or suburb than if the local pharmacy closed up shop because the business was no longer viable. I do understand the arguments about competition and prices. But Labor believe community pharmacy does play a vital role in our society that goes beyond dollars and cents, and does deserve our support. As such, Labor do support amending the existing legislation which sets a 30 June 2015 expiry date for the location rules. We support the amendment which will extend the location rules to 30 June 2020. This, of course, is the main reason the bill is before the House and is being attempted to be rushed through the House. Were this bill not to pass this month, then the location rules would expire on 30 June. In theory—in theory at least—anyone could apply for the right to open a new pharmacy in any location. Once again, this haste highlights the competence—or, actually, the complete incompetence—of this government. The entire time it has been in office, it has known about this deadline. It has had nearly two years to do something about it but had done very little about it until February. Now, with just weeks left until the deadline expires, it rushes legislation into the parliament and demands that everyone else act with great haste to make up for its utter incompetence. The minister and, indeed, the explanatory memorandum note that a review of pharmacy location rules will be conducted within two years as part of a broader review of the pharmacy remuneration and other arrangements. Interestingly, there is no mention of this review in the bill, so I assume we will just have to take the minister's word on this matter—assuming, of course, she lasts in the position a little longer than her predecessor. I want to say something about the co-payment discount. Easily the most contentious part of this legislation is the proposal to allow pharmacists to discount the PBS co-payment by up to $1 for every dispensed medicine from 1 January next year—perhaps an attractive proposition at a superficial level. But, from the moment this proposal first became public, it has prompted a furious backlash from those who know the details of how it would work in practice, in particular from pharmacists who have argued that it will harm chronically ill patients as it will take them longer to reach the PBS safety net and will, thus, be paying more for medications for a longer period of time. This is because the safety net is not set, as many have assumed, at a certain number of prescriptions but at a dollar amount. In the case of a concession card holder, for example, that dollar amount is $366 per annum. Therefore, cheaper drugs mean it will take them longer to reach the safety net. It is this delay which explains how the government expects to save more than $360 million over five years from this measure alone—again, superficial on its face but, as we can see, it is actually listed as a savings measure. A reduction in the number of people reaching their safety net threshold means fewer free or concessional patients—or cheaper for general patients—medicines. A couple of points need to be made here. First of all, this discount is entirely voluntary. Unlike the cuts applied to drug companies, chemists can choose whether to offer their discounts to customers. Some will, perhaps, choose to do this because they want to offer their customers the best price. Others may be required to discount because of competition from a neighbouring chemist. But, ultimately, this will be their choice. It is not mandated by this bill. And, as the safety net is unchanged, ultimately no-one can be worse off. No patient can pay a cent more for their prescriptions under the proposal and many, indeed, may pay a bit less. The average concession card holder fills 40 scripts a year and 80 per cent do not reach the safety net. If their prescriptions were all filled by a chemist offering the discount, that is a saving of $40 a year—which, for many pensioners, is quite a significant amount. Notwithstanding the fact this is entirely voluntary, my office—as with, indeed, I know just about every other member in this place—has been deluged with emails, letters and phone calls and requests for meetings with local pharmacists, all urging us to block this measure. Even after the signing of the agreement last week, pharmacists continue to contact members urging that we reject this measure. I note that the Pharmacy Guild has indicated that it supports the package 'with the exception of the discounted co-payment, which is a matter for government'. But the fact is this co-payment is embedded in the package and cannot be dealt with in isolation. Were the Senate to attempt to remove this measure and this were rejected by the government, the entire package would be blocked, including the location rules, which expire in 30 June, as I have noted. There is very little room to manoeuvre on any of this, which, again, goes back to the last-minute, chaotic handling of this legislation which is seeing it come before parliament so late. It is leaving virtually no room for members of either house to properly scrutinise these measures and, perhaps, make the changes necessary. Again, I also highlight the fact that at no stage was Labor even consulted about any of these aspects before the bill was brought before the House. It is also worth noting at this point—and I am digressing slightly—to highlight the absolute hypocrisy involved here. The minister has boasted that the move to allow chemists to discount the PBS co-payment by $1 was making medicines more affordable for consumers, but at the very same time in the other place there is a bill before the Senate which proposes to increase the co-payments by $5 per prescription for general patients and 80c for concession card holders. This is a perfect example of the government with its foot on the accelerator and the brake at the very same time. Only an Abbott government minister could seek to make medicines more affordable for consumers by asking chemists to cut their own income by $1 a script while simultaneously jacking up its own charges by $5. And, with the discount unlikely to be taken up in many parts of Australia, the Abbott government's policy is for people in rural and regional areas to pay even higher prices. If the minister is serious about making medicines more affordable for consumers, she must immediately scrap plans to hike the cost of the PBS co-payment which, unlike the fee charged by chemists, will not be voluntary at all. Sadly, yet again the Abbott government's handling of this matter is complete chaos. Despite the price hikes being stalled in the Senate since last year, the budget recommitted to the increase in the PBS co-payment which, along with changes to the safety nets, will punish the most chronically ill by forcing them to pay for more and more drugs before the government sets in. But just nine days later the health minister blew a $1.3 billion hole in that budget by declaring that she would not proceed with the legislation, insisting that she was not going to waste time putting things through the parliament that are going to be voted down by my colleagues. Before the day was out she was forced into an embarrassing backflip by the Treasurer, who was not happy with having this hole blown in his budget, and told the minister: 'No, those savings definitely are back on the table.' So we are back in the ridiculous situation where we have one foot on the accelerator and one foot on the brake. We have one bill before the House which proposes to have a voluntary reduction in PBS listed pharmaceuticals and, at the same time, we have a bill before the Senate which proposes to increase the cost by a minimum of 80c for pensioners and by up to $5 for general patients. The government has got to make its mind up what it wants to do here: does it want to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals or does it want to increase them? This is just one example of the chaotic approach that this government has to health policy. It is why we have deep concerns about this matter, and we believe it requires full scrutiny in the other place. In conclusion, Labor welcomes the decision to recognise the hard work that has been done by chemists. We believe they are deserving of a living wage. We do believe that this bill requires full scrutiny, and that is why we are moving the following amendment to the bill, while not declining to give the bill a second reading: that the House notes Labor's concerns about what are potential unintended consequences. I move: while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House notes Labor's concerns about the potential unintended consequences caused by a lack of consultation during negotiations for the 6th Community Pharmacy Agreement. 17:25 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield Mr Deputy Speaker, I second the amendment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Throsby has moved as an amendment that all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. If it suits the House, I will state the question in the form that the amendment be agreed to. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 17:26 Dr SOUTHCOTT TK6 Boothby I am pleased to speak on the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2015, which implements a number of the measures from the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement. I think it is fair to say that it was a very robust negotiation between the Commonwealth government and a number of stakeholders, including the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and a number of others such as Consumer Health Forum, Medicines Australia and the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia. This is the sixth one; the first one was in 1990. They generally go for five years and they give some certainty to pharmacists and some certainty to the Commonwealth taxpayer. It is also true to say that the steps that we took 10 years ago mean that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is on a much more sustainable track. Having said that, the public accounts committee has commenced an inquiry into the performance audit report on the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement. We have put out a media release and we are seeking submissions on that to look at issues raised from that performance audit into the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement. I want to commend the Minister for Health on coming up with this package of reforms, which really did take months and months. It is a very complex negotiation involving the entire pharmaceutical supply chain, including consumers, pharmacists, medicines manufacturers, wholesalers and doctors. There is a number of new changes in the community pharmacy agreement—not only will the price of medicines be discounted for patients and access to new medicines improved but there will also be greater certainty for medicines manufacturers over this five-year agreement and a $2.8 billion investment supporting pharmacy and primary care. On a related issue, the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia were particularly interested to see measures within the agreement which related to better education and better training of the profession. They were happy to see that in the final agreement. All the stakeholders recognise the need to deliver a more sustainable PBS to ensure that the government can continue to list new medicines, and the package does have total efficiencies of $6.6 billion over five years across the entire pharmaceutical supply chain. One of the things that happened in the previous government was that we had the extraordinary situation where, previously, drugs would be listed and they had to go through the advisory committee, have a price set and then go to cabinet if they were over a certain threshold. I well remember the industry minister, Kim Carr, turning up to a Medicines Australia dinner and saying that the government, having already established that robust process, had decided that they would stop listing new drugs until there was a budget in surplus. We know what happened: there never was a budget in surplus. Luckily that decision did not stand, like so many others. I want to talk a little bit about some of the medicines which have been listed since the election, which include Mekinist, for melanoma. That would be $131,000 per patient if it were not subsidised through the PBS. Kalydeco, for cystic fibrosis, would be $300,000 per patient if it were not subsidised through the PBS. Herceptin, for breast cancer, would be $82,000 per patient if it were not subsidised through the PBS. I could go on. There is a whole list here. We are seeing an average of about 30 new and amended drug listings for patients each month, compared to an average of just eight under the previous government. One drug which I hope will be listed soon as Keytruda. Having sat on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health inquiry into skin cancer, I am well aware of the potential that the newer immunotherapy drugs offer. This is an anti-PD-1—anti-phosphodiesterase-1—immunotherapy agent also known as pembrolizumab. It has really crossed all the hurdles, so hopefully that will be listed soon. Having had family members who have died from advanced melanoma, I know that, with this disease, months really do count. I do not want to speak for long on this. This is an $18.9 billion agreement. There are a number of efficiencies here. There is also an investment which will help with infrastructure. I welcome this and welcome the way that the minister was able to conclude this negotiation with the Pharmacy Guild. 17:31 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield The one thing about this government is that it is pretty reliable in the way it goes about things, so, in health, we see cuts to the health budget, cuts to hospitals, cuts to doctors' rebates—an attack on the healthcare system. We see it constantly attempting to push costs onto consumers. We see savings made from health—and the member for Boothby referred to efficiencies in this bill of $6.6 billion—but we never see those savings or those efficiencies reinvested into health, which is what should happen. If you are going to make savings from health, they should be reinvested into health. We see no consultation with stakeholder groups, no consultation with the opposition, no consultation with the community. In this case, we saw this agreement as it rolled into parliament—no Senate committee. We have a government playing chicken with the parliament, wrapping this all up into a big package, presenting it at five minutes to midnight and expecting the parliament to sign off on it with an up-and-down vote, a yes-or-no vote, on the whole package. It is simply an attempt to obscure some of the consequences of passing this bill. That is what this government is all about. That is its modus operandi. That is the way it goes about things. We know that Labor had quite a different approach in government. We did not hack into health. We protected consumers. We had good consultation. We did good things for public health. And the savings we made—and in this area, the area of medicine, the savings were $20 billion to the PBS over 10 years—were reinvested into health. It was the same with means-testing the private health insurance rebate. That saving was reinvested into health. That is an important philosophical and practical difference between the way that the respective parties of the government and the opposition go about these arrangements. It is a very sad day for the community when the government behaves this way. It undermines certainty in the sector. It undermines certainty in the community. It adds to great consternation in the community. You feel it if you go to a general practice or if you go out in the community. I was doing one of my shopping centre stalls at Elizabeth Park shopping centre not so long ago, and the pharmacist came out and had a talk with me about their concerns about the way this government was going about things. They were very great concerns indeed, based around their very real desire to service the community. The National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2015, as other speakers have said, introduces a new PBS pricing policy to reduce costs for innovative F1 and generic F2 medicines; allows pharmacies to discount patient co-payments by up to $1; removes some of the over-the-counter medicines from the PBS; changes the structure of pharmacy remuneration to remove the link to previous prices; and increases the membership of the PBAC from 18 to 21 and introduces a full-time chair. Labor will support this bill is it moves through this House, but we do so with great concerns. As with this government's 'initiatives' in so many other areas of health, whether it be medical research or other areas, we worry about how the government goes about things in this opaque way, a way that does not present members of this parliament with enough time to properly scrutinise them, where it is done in a blind rush. Despite having had literally years to do something about some of these things—to give certainty to the pharmacists about location rules or other matters—the government wait till the clock is at five minutes to midnight before it rolls in here in a blind rush, in a chaotic mess, presenting the parliament with an up-or-down vote. That is a very concerning thing. It is a worrying thing. If you look at the media, there have been a number of articles about these matters. Sue Dunlevy had one on 20 May. It was quite hostile to the interests of pharmacists. Some of the commentary from Brian Owler in this is interesting. The article records him as follows: The deal has outraged the Australian Medical Association president Professor Brian Owler who says its "shows there is one approach for pharmacists and another for everyone else in the health system". That is a pretty interesting thing to put on the public record, I would have thought. And of course we have Medicines Australia saying: While the Pharmacy Guild was able to secure certainty with a significant increase in funding for their members, the sector that invents and manufactures medicines is being forced to provide more than $3bn in savings. So you have out there in the public arena very serious concern about the way the government approaches health and the way it approaches different healthcare groups in different ways. In other areas of the PBS listings, we see this government's health minister has knocked paracetamol off the PBS. That sounds on the face of it like a reasonable thing to do, but if you look at the ABC Fact Check of 13 May 2015, in its verdict it says: Paracetamol prescriptions cost the government around $73 million a year on the PBS, but 85 per cent of that cost comes from prescriptions for people in chronic pain from osteoarthritis. The high dose, slow release paracetamol formulation they are prescribed can't be bought from a supermarket for $2. It goes on to say: Ms Ley is incorrect. There are some important things the community might be concerned about and might well be flushed out in a Senate committee. This is traditionally the role of Senate committees. We are used to bills in this House being guillotined, not so much under this government because they have got such a lethargic legislative agenda, and what agenda they do have is stalled in the Senate, along with so much of their legislation. What has not stalled is abandoned after pressure from the backbench. Mr Taylor interjecting— Mr CHAMPION HW9 It is good to have an audience in the backbench here. We wonder if they are part of the 39 or the 61. I guess in the member for Hume's case it might not matter because he might not be with us too much longer, despite his grand ambitions. They might all be brought undone by the vagaries of electoral redistribution. We will just have to wait and see about all that, but he would be like a shooting star coming through this chamber—there he goes, then out again. I have seen it before, having lived through a change of government—but I wander off the topic, Deputy Speaker. I can see you are paying attention— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 83S Yes, you do; bringing a little latitude. Mr CHAMPION HW9 as I discuss these matters with the House. What do we say about this bill and the importance of having scrutiny of it? You would have thought the member for Hume might be a little concerned about the effect of some of these measures on rural Australia. I know I am. I have got a little part of rural Australia in my electorate— Mr Taylor 231027 You do not. Where? Mr CHAMPION HW9 I do. I have the Barossa Valley and the Clare Valley. I have some of the best farming land in South Australia in my electorate. I grew up in Kapunda, a wonderful wheat belt down. They used to mine copper many years ago. I have got a lovely bit of rural Australia. Mr Taylor 231027 Do you put a big hat on when you go out there? Mr CHAMPION HW9 I grew up out there so I do not have anything to prove. Government members interjecting— Mr CHAMPION HW9 I have got the backbench and even the front bench going now. I drop my hook in the water and they hop out like salmon. It does not take much. But how will rural South Australia fare under these changes to pharmacies? Laura Tingle had a good article in TheFinancial Review— Mr Taylor interjecting— Mr CHAMPION HW9 You might want to listen to this, so you can refer to it in your speech. Her 28 April 2015 article is titled, 'Sussan Ley says pharmacy changes may mean drugs are costlier in rural Australia'. That is the headline, and the starting line is: Patients in rural and regional Australia may have to pay more for medicines than their city counterparts if plans to deregulate the pharmaceutical co-payment go ahead … Sussan Ley says. Laura Tingle is a very respected journalist, and The Australian Financial Review is no socialist rag. It is a paper that represents the top end of town, and we have there an article talking about how the price of medicines might be higher in rural Australia than they are in the city because of these changes. That should be of concern. Whether it is true or not could be flushed out. The evidence could be brought before a Senate committee, but we will not see that happen under this government. We will not see the scrutiny of this opaque deal, so we will not truly know what the consequences will be, and that is what the member for Hume and others do not want to see. They do not want scrutiny of their deals. They do not want scrutiny of the fact that they are basically ripping $6.6 billion worth of savings out of health sector and putting it into general revenue. That is really what they are doing—tearing it out. And we have seen it with their cuts—$60 billion worth of cuts. We have seen them hack into the rebates that doctors get and the co-payment of $8 by stealth. We know that will happen and that bulk-billing rates will fall. It will hurt country people most of all, and we know that so many of the health determinants in this country tragically are determined by where you live. Mr Taylor 231027 Is the magic pudding in Wakefield? Mr CHAMPION HW9 I hear the member for Hume banging on about these things. He will get his turn. You will get your turn, Shooting Star. You will get your turn as you are in and out through the chamber. It was a stellar career, and I watched it with some interest! Before that redistribution came along, it was a fine career! The thing about the government's approach to Health is it is badly undermining people's confidence in the healthcare sector. You cannot find a GP in my electorate nor, I would imagine, in many others who is happy with the performance of this government who feels like it has a commitment to good public health. What we see is cut after cut after cut. What we see are opaque deals. What we see is cost being pushed onto consumers. What we see are cuts to public hospitals and other preventative health care—drug and alcohol counselling; you name it, they have cut it. It is a very, very serious thing. For this government to be lauding their record on Health is ludicrous. We know that, historically, this has always been the case. They have been hostile to universal health care, and they have been hostile to Medicare. But we have rarely seen such aggression from a federal government towards health care professionals, towards the basic infrastructure that keeps people healthy in this country. The opposition will be holding them to account for the effects of their legislation and their deals out there in the community. It does not matter whether it is in the electorate of Hume or in my home town of Kapunda, or anywhere else—people who can least afford it will often feel the sting of this government's budget, the sting of their policies in health care. That situation should not be allowed to stand, and I say bring on an election and let us have a proper referendum on what this government says and does. We know they were full of promises before the last election. I often refer to Real Solutions. If you look at Real Solutions— Mr Robert HWT You should—you'd learn something. You'd learn what a plan was. Mr CHAMPION HW9 What you learn is how disingenuous the Prime Minister really is—how disingenuous he was in opposition and how disingenuous he has been in government and how disingenuous this government has been in the area of health care. 17:46 Mr TAYLOR 231027 Hume We know health is an increasingly important issue for Australia, and it is an important issue for my electorate of Hume, so it was disappointing to have to listen to the speech of the member for Wakefield. He treated this issue in a facetious way, which is how he often treats important issues. He has been thrown out of this House more than any other member, because he shows no respect. He showed this issue no respect. He talked about shooting stars, but this is a member who lives on the dark side of the moon. We have seen one great example of transparency in the last government's health policy, and that was what the Auditor-General had to say about their pharmacy agreement. I recommend it as very good reading for anyone who wants to know how not to enter into a pharmacy agreement. The Auditor-General was scathing about the agreement that that government entered into. I do not want to talk about that today—I want to talk about our health policy. It is a health policy directed at better health outcomes and lower costs for consumers. That is what a government that understands productivity in health and health effectiveness can do that the last government was completely incapable of. Let us look at the situation left to us by the last government. We had a medical benefits scheme where costs were rising at nine per cent a year—these are the numbers from the Parliamentary Budget Office—and hospital costs were rising at seven per cent a year. You do not have to be Einstein to work out that if that keeps going, you send the country broke. When you look at the health outcomes, we were not making progress. We saw that in what the Auditor-General told us and we have seen it in a great deal of data coming through—more spending by Labor governments does not lead to better outcomes. I am sure union officials are very happy with it, but it does not lead to better outcomes. In my electorate of Hume we do have an older population, and this is an indication of what we are going to see right across Australia in the coming years. We have less access to the highly specialised health care that other regions, particularly metropolitan regions, enjoy. Central to our health system is the network of wonderful health practitioners who provide extraordinary outcomes in rural health—the community pharmacies, the hardworking general practitioners, the specialists and the local hospitals. All of them, as well as the allied health practitioners, combine to deliver extraordinary health outcomes. My central point is that traditional rural GPs, community pharmacies and rural hospitals, as well as specialists, can work together exactly as a health system should. If you want to know how a health system should really work, go to rural Australia because those practitioners know how to combine together as a team to deliver wonderful health outcomes. But we need to encourage more of this, not less of it. Much of what these people do is unpaid work—they do it because they are professionals totally dedicated to their communities and their patients' health needs. The PBS in community pharmacy in particular plays a role in rural areas which is less common in our cities. This legislation is part of a package which is making badly needed changes across the pharmaceutical supply chain—changes that the last government did not deliver; changes referred to in the Auditor-General's report but that the previous community pharmacy agreement did not get to. They are all focused on better health outcomes and lower costs for health consumers. Central to this government's strategy in this area is the creation of a more sustainable framework for payment to pharmacy, and a key part of this is the $18.9 billion Community Pharmacy Agreement. While not all areas of that agreement require legislation, the agreement is profound in what it is setting out to do and what it will deliver. Included in the agreement and in the amendments before this House are a number of features. The first is a shift from a margin-based model for pharmacists to a fixed dispensary fee. This is absolutely critical. We know there are significant savings to be found in the pharmaceutical supply chain but we do not think it is appropriate that pharmacists should bear the full burden of those savings. By moving them away from a margin-based model in their businesses we can ensure that they have a sustainable business model and yet we find significant savings that we can put into new drugs and better health outcomes. A series of pilots are central to the agreement. They will support a shift in pharmacy away from pure dispensary towards wrapping health services around the dispensary. It is a $1.26 billion set of primary health programs. It is a doubling of the previous investment, with scrutiny from the government's expert Medical Services Advisory Committee—scrutiny we did not see in the last agreement—to improve transparency and ensure programs are evidence based and cost-effective. Part of this package is a choice for pharmacists about whether to deliver a customer co-payment of up to a dollar, and that should see some savings at least to consumers, beyond those that are being achieved in the lower cost of drugs. We see in the agreement the continuation of the legislative provisions for pharmacy location rules. Then, on the drug side, we see significant savings—and this is where I have always seen big opportunities. We want to make sure that the drug companies do have sustainable business models. But I know, from watching other chemical and drug supply chains, that there were very significant savings to be made in the wholesale price of pharmaceuticals in this country. So we have a one-off statutory price reduction for single brand medicines after they have been listed as F1s for five years, and for F2 products we are implementing a change in the price disclosure for multiple brand medicines which have been F2s for three years or more by removing the originator brand from the brand calculations. So that means we will effectively achieve a lower cost of drugs. Then we will be applying a flow-on price disclosure series of reductions from drugs to multiple brand combination medicines. So all of this is designed to deliver to consumers a lower cost of drugs, and to ensure that the government burden is reduced for those drugs that are already listed and that will allow us to list further pharmaceuticals and further health solutions and deliver better health outcomes. I thought it was worthwhile talking to some of the pharmacists in my electorate about how they felt about this agreement. Mark Douglas is a community pharmacist with a pharmacy in Harden and also one outside of my electorate, or nearby, in Gundagai. He is the vice president of and a national councillor on the Pharmacy Guild. We have heard that the guild was somewhat critical of some aspects of this agreement along the way. Like most pharmacists, Mark does not love every aspect of this agreement, and he did voice real reservations about the co-payment in particular. But, like most pharmacists, he has evaluated this agreement in a mature and holistic way. As he says, this bill 'means that over the next five years we can plan—moving from six years ago when we were in a supply phase into a health solutions phase'. He wants to deliver health solutions, and this is an agreement that will support him to deliver health solutions. That is what pharmacists want to do—they want to deliver health solutions. They do not just want to sell products. Mark says that it is about a 'transition from one model of pharmacy to a new model.' He says: 'It means we have the heads up to change and, importantly, the time to do so.' The focus is about sustainability of the sector, leaving pharmacists, as Mark says, 'with enough petrol in the engine' to change, rather than continuing along a trajectory where there would be no capital left for the sector to adapt. So we are giving the pharmacists time to adapt to this health solutions model which they need to move to. As part of this, Mark says the government has approached this issue in a 'mature way', providing a 'clear vision' for pharmacy into the future. The government has been 'pulling the levers of transition', in conjunction with some 60,000 retail pharmacies, toward a focus on primary health care, recognising that pharmacists have an enhanced role to play in the needs of people with disease, being a 'tool in recovery' in support of GPs and in support of patients. I certainly hope that pharmacists like Mark will be central to the pilots we run around Australia. And I am very confident that, with the sorts of aspirations that he and others I have spoken to have, they will move into a role in the health system which will be enhanced, and I am very confident that this agreement is moving them in that direction. There is also much more to the government's health policy than just the pharmacy agreement. The minister is doing wonderful work not just in delivering this agreement but in other areas of reform. She has announced a chronic and complex illness review. We know that, in this area, we are spending as much as $300 million to $500 million each year additional to the previous year. That is extraordinary growth in expenditure on chronic and complex illness. We spend $850 million per annum on Medicare items for producing care plans and allied health visits for people identified as having chronic disease. That is growing at 25 per cent a year. It grew 25 per cent a year between 2006 and 2014—much of it under the previous government—and we did not see the reforms in this area that were necessary. We also know that much of this money is spent in ways which are not well targeted. In fact, we know from the data that more people in relatively low-risk categories are under care plans than people in high-risk categories. But the idea of this is to focus on high-risk patients. So the minister has put together a Primary Health Care Advisory Group led by former AMA president Steve Hambleton. The purpose of this is to provide better care for people with complex and chronic illness, as well as to look at innovative care and funding models, better recognition and treatment of mental health conditions and greater connection between primary care and hospital care. This is the future of our healthcare system. We know that an important part of this is to make sure that the money we are spending on care plans is well spent. I am confident that there will be significant changes coming out of that review—changes that will matter greatly in my electorate. We also have an MBS item review. The government has established a Medicare Benefits Schedule Review Taskforce led by Professor Bruce Robinson, dean of the medical school at Sydney university. We know that currently the MBS has 5½ thousand services listed, but we know that they do not all reflect clinical best practice and we know that not all of these items should be on the MBS. We have seen one example, that of vitamin D testing, where the government has spent an enormous amount of money in recent years: we went from spending nothing at all in 2001 to spending $146 million on vitamin D testing by 2012. Much of that increase was under the last government. And we know from the Medical Journal of Australia that the effectiveness of that testing is highly questionable. So these are the sorts of MBS items that we need to be reviewing, and we need to be focusing our money on outcomes that can really make a difference. Finally, we are looking at clearer Medicare compliance rules and benchmarks, working with clinical leaders, medical organisations and patient representatives to ensure that the Medicare system, the medical benefits system, is not being abused. It is true that the vast majority of practitioners provide first-class services. But I hear from GPs across my electorate that a small number do abuse the system, and we cannot afford for that to continue. The Auditor-General had a look at what the last government did in this area: the human services area recovered $18.9 million from these problems, having targeted $147 million. Again, the Auditor-General was scathing about how that program was executed. Let me finish with a comment on the role of pharmacy in the health system. Every pharmacist I speak to knows that they can do more. Many of them are doing more than they are paid for, because they believe in the importance of health. They know that the MBS is not, in some cases, getting the outcomes it needs to. And they know that with the right payments and the right incentives they will be able to deliver more for our health system at a reduced cost overall. I commend this bill to the House and I commend the pharmacy agreement to the House. I ask that all of us give our complete support to such an important set of reforms. 18:01 Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Perth We are supporting the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2015 here tonight. We realise that the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is an absolutely essential part of the social contract within Australia. It is a very critical part of our health system, and of course dealing with the rationing of resources in this area is always a matter of extreme complexity for government. We see that medical innovation is increasing constantly and that more and more drugs are coming onto the market. We see the move to personalise medicine, where more drugs are being targeted at a particular segment of the population that may have a particular gene. With that comes extraordinary capacity for dealing with cancers and other diseases that only five years ago would have been terminal. Now we are seeing some extraordinary results. I think just today that we heard of publication of a new drug to treat mesothelioma. Again we have seen an Australian drug that has been invented and that has shown some quite spectacular early success in the treatment of mesothelioma. Of course we want to ensure that our community has access to those drugs and that the ability to access those drugs is not constrained by one's personal means, and so there is always this enormous tension for government in trying to ensure that we have a Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme that is sustainable. On that basis, and notwithstanding a number of concerns that we have about the details of the legislation, we are prepared to offer our support for this legislation. In his address, the member for Throsby really outlined many of the areas of concern. I will not go through those except to say that we did not always see the same bipartisanship in relation to the agreements that Labor put forward, even though Labor did work much more collaboratively with the industry to come to a landing on these. I want to make particular reference to some drugs, and one in particular, that have been approved by the minister. I compliment the minister on doing that. These are drugs that we have been approached by members of our communities to support, in particular—and my pronunciation of this might be a bit off—crizotinib. This is a drug which successfully treats a rare cancer mutation—ALK4. We have been dealing with this on behalf of Julie Sackett from Western Australia. She is a lovely woman with three young children and who, despite being young, fit and healthy, has been struck with this particular cancer, as has the mother of Theresa Tan. Both of these families have been unable to afford the drug. The drug costs $7,500 per month, and they have been desperately awaiting its approval. So, we are very conscious of the need to make space constantly within the PBS for these new and expensive treatments that are coming down the line. But I also say as part of this that we have to be prepared to take on the pharmaceutical industry. I think one of the things that has most surprised me since arriving in this place is just how strong the pharmaceutical lobby is—how, on a daily basis, we have drug companies presenting us with new treatments. They are very skilful in their lobbying. They will often combine with groups; they encourage a 'Friends of' a particular illness to form and then through that vehicle promote their particular pharmaceutical. Or they will create third-party groups—extra-parliamentary groups—to support the promotion of their drugs. This is notwithstanding the fact that I believe we have in Australia a very strong system with the therapeutic goods provisions and the way in which we assess new products coming under the banner of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which very clearly looks at cost-benefit and opportunity costs of new treatments. Notwithstanding this, we have an enormous amount of lobbying on the part of the drug companies. Indeed, from time to time we have the situation where drug companies have a drug and go out looking for a disease for which they can use their drug. Of course, we see that no more clearly than in the instance of ADHD, where the use of the psychostimulants has, in my view, been extremely controversial and highly problematic in the outcome that it has for so many young people. It is always a challenge to rein in the aspirations of the pharmaceutical companies. We want to encourage innovation. We need that research and the development that goes on. But I am one that deeply regrets that we lost our ability, as a government, to do this. I think that the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories were a very important part of Australia's medical system, where we actually did have some in-house capacity to do that research. Recognising that it is a very expensive area, we want to encourage these pharmaceutical companies to engage in innovation, but at the same time we have to be very mindful that this can be a very avaricious beast and one that does need to be corralled if we are to be able to have a sustainable system. I do note that the government are claiming, and indeed has some case for saying, that they have progressed in relation to advancing the use of generics. It does need to be acknowledged that Labor did much work in this area when we were in government, but I acknowledge that the government are continuing that work. I do find it a little interesting that a lot is being said about the achievement in this agreement. Yet, at the same time, we look at the Trans-Pacific Partnership that we are contemplating entering into and, from information that has recently been found via WikiLeaks, we understand that there are provisions in the TPP that could undermine the work that is being done within this agreement. And indeed the— Mr Tehan 210911 Rubbish! We have shown you the agreement. Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Let's see. Show us the agreement. We are prepared to stand corrected, but what we see— Mr Tehan 210911 Complete rubbish! Ms MacTIERNAN L6P It is not complete rubbish. Exposure drafts have been released that show that the US is proposing measures that would delay the availability of lower priced generic medicines—enhancing the monopolies of the pharmaceutical companies. These proposals exceed the patent obligations of the World Trade Organization and far exceed the standards in other US free trade agreements, including the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement and the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement. I will quite happily provide the leaked medicines transparency annexe to the member if he has not seen it yet. The leaked medicines transparency annexe will give more rights to pharmaceutical companies and restrict the ways in which government can regulate the wholesale price of medicines and subsidise retail prices. We have bills, such as the one we have got before us, and legislation which purports and quite properly wants to make it easier for us to get generic and biosimilar medicines into the system to reduce the cost to the taxpayer. But at the same time we are negotiating an agreement which is going to undermine our ability to ensure that these generics get onto the market. I am amazed that the members are contesting that this is the case. Even the Republican Party in the Congress of the United States is acknowledging that there are many aspects in this Trans-Pacific Partnership that are problematic. I would say that for Australia there is no part of that agreement that is more problematic than that that is relating to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We need to have a very sophisticated conversation about this. The minister, who has been involved in negotiating this agreement, quite clearly is well and truly aware of the challenge of it. Opposition members interjecting— Ms MacTIERNAN L6P The member has asked if anyone had seen it. We would love to see it. What we are relying on is leaked parts of this document because of the secrecy— The DEPUTY SPEAKER LL6 Order! The member for Perth should try to ignore the interjections. Ms MacTIERNAN L6P I am sorry, but the sheer ignorance of the members opposite deflects me— Mr Tehan 210911 Unbelievable! Ms MacTIERNAN L6P It is not unbelievable. For example, let us look at the China free trade agreement. We know now that there is actually a fully authorised English translation of this document, but it has still not been made available to the community. It has still not been made available to the parliament. It has still not been made available. We see day after day government getting up and spruiking what a fantastic agreement this is. And we are supposed to say, 'Yes, it's fantastic,' but we are not allowed to see it. We have just got to say, 'Yes, we are going to support this agreement with site unseen.' We are not going to agree with provisions site unseen. We need a mature and sophisticated discussion about these agreements. As I said, it is ironic that here we have the minister exercising, and I think quite properly, all of her powers in order to ensure that we get generics and biosimilar medicines into the system at the earliest opportunity. At the same time, we have got the trade minister going over there and undermining the very essence of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in these provisions of the TPP. I go back to our original comment: this is an immensely important agreement. The PBS is a fundamental part of the social safety net that is available in Australia, a part of what makes us such an equal and fair society. We want to see it strong and we do not want to see it undermined by foolish interventions in trade agreements. 18:15 Mr CHRISTENSEN 230485 Dawson I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2015, which, I note, does not contain the words 'transpacific partnership' in it anywhere. But, for the benefit of the previous speaker, the Minister for Trade and Investment is on the record as specifically saying that he will not accept a deal which undermines the PBS. All of the stuff that we just heard is quite irrelevant once you take that statement on board. The bill before us comes as a result of negotiation with the Pharmacy Guild and other stakeholders for the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement. Negotiation with stakeholders across the medicine supply chain for this agreement was part of the government's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme access and sustainability package of reforms. The important thing about sustainability is that it does cut two ways. Firstly, the long-term future impact on taxpayer dollars must be sustainable obviously because taxpayers are not the unlimited ATM that some in this place, particularly on the opposition benches and over behind me on the crossbenches, think that they are. Secondly, the businesses that do provide these valuable health services must be sustainable. If those businesses were to become no longer viable, there would be no service provision, and that was a risk that the Labor Party was willing to make during negotiations for the previous agreement—actually not during those negotiations for the previous agreement but when they actually broke that agreement. They broke the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement. It was in place when Labor took the decision to change it without consultation with the industry during that time when the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government was creating havoc. I do not know exactly whose decision it was—the knifer or the knifee. Either way, they both ended up with their fingerprints on the knife handle, right alongside the opposition leader's fingerprints—and I bet he is looking forward to tomorrow night's viewing on the ABC. It was just before the 2010 election was called that the Leader of the Opposition had dispatched his first Prime Minister and Labor announced they would change remuneration to pharmacists under the PBS. The changes were made, as I said, without consultation and in breach of the agreement, so it was not surprising that the Pharmacy Guild was shocked by those actions. At the time, the guild issued a statement on 16 August 2013 which said: The changes may force some pharmacies to close their doors or slash important services for the elderly, very young or chronically ill with the risk particularly high for the more than 1,000 pharmacies in rural and regional areas, and for the 410 Australian towns which have just one pharmacy. It went on to say: The Pharmacy Guild of Australia national president Kos Sclavos said the unexpected change would leave each community pharmacy $90,000 out of pocket in 2014-15, when added to existing price change arrangements. I offer that short extract from Labor's 'How to destroy business and kill jobs' playbook for two very important reasons. Firstly, that betrayal by Labor made pharmacists very wary of what might be in store under the sixth agreement, which was being negotiated this year. I held numerous meetings with pharmacists in my North Queensland electorate of Dawson while those negotiations were going on. Pharmacists in Mackay, in the Whitsundays, in the Burdekin and up in Townsville did have a fear, based on what Labor had done, about this new agreement. They feared the worst for their business and the worst for the health needs of their local community. Secondly, I hark back to that Labor decision to show the perilous nature of the position in which pharmacists were placed under the previous Labor government to reinforce how important it is to get this agreement right from both sides of the ledger—sustainability for tax payers, yes, but also sustainability for important health care providers in our community. Fortunately the Liberal-National coalition government understands that business has to remain viable to stay in business. If pharmacies do not stay in business, we would lose an important first line of health provision for the community. If we look to what the health minister and the Pharmacy Guild have negotiated here, we can see there are benefits for pharmacy, which include: a more than doubling of program funding from $613 million to $1.2 billion; a continued growth in prescription volumes; the moving of dispensing fee growth from wage cost index to the consumer price index; and $1.5 billion for an administration handling and infrastructure fee. The administration, handling and infrastructure fee will bring pharmacy remuneration back to the average it was under the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement. By delinking that from the cost of medicines, the fee now recognises there are costs associated with the dispensing of medicines regardless of the price of those medicines. When I was talking to pharmacists in my electorate, they explained some of the valuable services they provide to the community that they simply could not perform if this government had not come up with a sustainable deal. One of those services is medicine deliveries to the elderly. There are many old people who do not have the means or the ability to get into the pharmacy to have those prescriptions filled. I went into a Dupuy's Pharmacy in Mackay and in the back room was a great team of pharmacists working on all of this. It was surprising to see what happens in the back end of a pharmacy that you do not actually see behind the counter. They were beavering away on all these home deliveries and also deliveries to aged-care centres. This is stuff that we do not see that pharmacists do every day, making sure those pills are correct, that the prescriptions are all laid out, that there is going to be no problem once it is delivered to a nursing home and someone else is administering it. It is sometimes, I have to say, painstaking stuff that they are doing. But that is all happening and now it is being recognised. There are many other maintenance programs, checks and testing that pharmacies provide the customers at no charge and at no expense to the taxpayer. Some of those now will get some payments. There are many benefits that the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement will provide to the community simply by making pharmacy more sustainable as a business. More specifically, the agreement includes a doubling of investment in pharmacy primary care support by taking funding to $1.26 billion over the next five years. This investment recognises how important pharmacies can be and are as primary healthcare providers. In so many ways these pharmacies can be the first port of call for minor ailments to get people out of the GP system, to get them off bulk billing, taking pressure off Medicare and the public health system by dealing with these minor problems quickly and efficiently. Pharmacies already deliver important services such as medication reviews and dose administration aids, but there is much more that they can do. Many member of the community already consult with their pharmacists as a first port of call for things like coughs, colds, bumps and bruises. This is not to suggest that pharmacists are replacing doctors when a doctor is needed, but it is recognition that pharmacists are very well qualified to recommend when a doctor should be consulted and when they can simply sort out a problem with the patient there in the pharmacy. Part of the new funding under this agreement will be specifically targeted at trials to provide evidence for both new and existing programs. The government's expert Medical Services Advisory Committee will be overseeing new and existing programs for greater transparency and to ensure the programs are both cost-effective and evidence-based. Another part of this agreement—it was probably a little bit more controversial in the lead-up to negotiations—is that, under this legislation, the government signed a five-year deal with the Generic Medicines Industry Association and the Pharmacy Guild as part of a broader package of measures. The PBS reform is one of the biggest proposals we have seen in the past decade, and the government has come to an agreement that will significantly reduce the price of generic medicines for patients and taxpayers. I would say that, as we go forward with that, we are going to have to be very careful that we are not simply changing around drugs that people might be accessing and end up costing more. I hope there is going to be some monitoring of this, because it was pointed out to me by pharmacies that sometimes there are false economies in this approach. But let's have a look and see how this goes a year down the track. The optional discounting is also one area of contention, and I have to say I am still a little bit unconvinced about it, but nevertheless it is part of the agreement, and we go forward with the agreement given the Pharmacy Guild has signed off on it. The pharmacy agreement includes an optional discounted co-payment that will, I admit, give savings to consumers. Where that optional discount is applied, concessional patients' co-payment will be reduced from $6.10 to $5.10. Where a patient uses, for example, 40 scripts a year, that apparently translates to an up-front saving of $40. I note the average concession cardholder uses about 17 scripts per year and could save about $17 per year. In the older age brackets, where more significant savings for consumers are made, the average concessional patient in the over-65 age group uses 43 scripts per year, making their potential saving $43 for the year. I worry about the impact that some of this may have on smaller pharmacies, particularly in rural and regional areas, and I hope we are going to monitor this to ensure that we do not see a lessening of competition as a result of this part of the agreement. The guild has agreed and signed off on this, but I think we need to monitor it. This government acknowledges that the health needs of some people are higher than the needs of others, and these people will continue to have the full protection of the PBS safety net. As result of this agreement, those patients could also benefit from lower monthly costs for their medicines in the lead-up to reaching that safety net. Once the patient reaches the safety net, all their medicines are free of charge. The cost of medicines can be very high for many families, and it is the role of the PBS to ensure medicines remain affordable. Since forming government less than two years ago the Abbott government has doubled the number of drug listings for consumers, making 652 new and amended drug listings on the PBS at about $3 billion. That is already double the 331 new and amended drug listings that were under the previous, Labor government. Among those new listings are new life-saving drugs for breast cancer, melanoma, blindness and the debilitating shingles virus. These are important measures for reducing the cost to consumers, but we cannot forget that there is a service provider in the middle who also faces cost burdens, and many of these pharmacies, especially in regional areas, are marginal and struggling. I really do say we cannot afford to lose them. I note that during this process there were a lot of attacks on the sector, not the least of which was an extraordinary attack by News Limited journalist Sue Dunlevy, whose partner, I might point out, is a senior adviser to the shadow health minister. Her article on 15 March this year, where she likened pharmacists to crooks ripping off the taxpayer, ran under the banner 'How a pharmacy monopoly pushes up your medicine price and makes pharmacies million dollar businesses'. She certainly has not been talking to Robert Di Marchio, who owns the Guardian Pharmacy in the Burdekin; Allan Milostic, who runs another small pharmacy in Airlie Beach; Lynne Dupuy and her pharmacy in Mackay; or Bill Brewer and his pharmacy at Annandale. These pharmacies are simply small businesses. It is not multimillionaires or billionaires running it; it is everyday people, good people, and they need to be considered in this process. It was important that the government underwent extensive consultation with this vital industry rather than simply taking a slash-and-burn approach to small business or an approach where they were completely ignored as Labor did or riding roughshod over them like they did with breaking the fifth agreement. I know that the government has tried to strike a balance between what is good for the consumer and keeping pharmacy viable—and I have to say that that is also good for the consumer—but I have to note that neither I nor pharmacies in my electorate are 100 per cent happy with this outcome. We have to remember that these businesses suffered a huge step backward under Labor, and it is going to take a huge step forward to get them back to where they were. In effect, what Labor did when they broke the fifth agreement was to slash health funding. What this government has done with the sixth agreement is to restore funding to health while making the system more sustainable for taxpayers and sustainable for the providing services. In the meantime, there are significant savings for consumers. All in all, I do support the bill, with some concerns. I hope that the monitoring of this will see those concerns not be concerns at the end of the day. 18:30 Dr GILLESPIE 72184 Lyne I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2015 because it is one of the more important bills that will pass through the House in this parliament because it affects so many people. In the food industry, they talk about how the industry takes raw product from the paddock to the plate. Well, this bill encompasses, in the pharmaceutical space, from the factory through to end organ physiology. It encompasses so many different areas of the health sector, and that is why it is so important. Overall, I think it is a good deal for the Australian taxpayer, and it is an okay deal for the pharmaceutical industry and the local community pharmacist. Everyone wanted more. The government wanted to save more. The pharmacies wanted more security for their high-employing, high-quality, service driven industry. And the pharmaceutical industry need to be on a sound footing when they are selling the products that they have spent billions and billions and billions of dollars investigating and bringing to market. As I mentioned, there are many elements to this. I will get to the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement at the end. First of all, there are some significant changes which will deliver reasonable cost efficiencies for the taxpayer, and they have been negotiated with the pharmaceutical industry, both the originator drug companies and the generics and biosimilars. But the first thing that is enabled through this is a one-off five per cent reduction in the premium price for single-brand drugs once they have been on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for five years. Sometimes this can actually shortcut the period of the patent because—as you are no doubt aware, Mr Deputy Speaker Randall—in the patent world, for primary drugs, you may not get your product developed and into a safe delivery system for 12 or 13 years of the 20 years, such is the length of time that it takes to get things through drug trials and through approval processes. But the government does not have a blank, unending funding vehicle. Like with everything, we have to be prudent with our finances because we have to be responsible for so many areas of life across Australia. There are also changes in a similar fashion on the F2 formulary, although it is involved in a different way by removing, particularly in combination drugs, the originator drug from any of the combination formularies. There was a price impact for including a new branded originator drug in a combination drug. It extended the premium price for a bit longer. This is an open way of removing that originator from the calculations and delivering a saving. As we know, the price disclosure mechanism has had major cost implications for the end dispensary system, but there were changes that were brought in at five minutes to midnight by the previous government which slashed an awful lot of money out of community pharmacies. The changes in this bill address some of that, but there are still price disclosure flow-on price reductions from component drugs to multiple combination formulations which will have an additional, once only, back-capture reduction on 1 October 2016. These negotiations are important because what we are trying to achieve is to have many more of the new drugs that deliver amazing results that have gone through the regulatory process, which are waiting to be approved and funded so that they can be accessed by Australian patients. If we have a bigger pie of new drugs available because there is money to get them onto the market, overall the patient base that depends on these new drugs will be better off. That is the essential dilemma with pharmaceuticals and health delivery, whether it is hospitals or primary care. There is an inexorable rise in the costs. As the federal government are directly liable for a large part of that cost, we had to have these difficult decisions made. This legislation is putting these changes into action. The PBAC also has some changes delivered to it because the volume and complexity of the drugs that are coming through now are increasing exponentially. This legislation allows more-skilled people, and more people, onto the PBAC to cope with this extra volume of assessment and work. The last thing I would like to talk about is the Community Pharmacy Agreement and the safety net. A total of about $3 billion is rolled into the Community Pharmacy Agreement in a variety of manners. First of all, there is an infrastructure and handling fee. The nuts and bolts of what was destroying the viability of pharmacy agreements were that there was a mark-up on the cost of drugs at various wholesale or retail levels, and that is what paid for all the costs of running a pharmacy and of formulation, but when this was accelerated overnight from the original 18 months to, I think, six months by the previous government—as I said, at five minutes to midnight—there were many people who were having to continually lay off more and more staff. So, instead of a consultation and high-service community pharmacy, you were getting fewer and fewer staff and more and more blank dispensing, without all the value-adding extras. But an infrastructure and handling fee is a bit of a relief for our colleagues in the pharmacy space from the vagaries of trying to run a business on an incredible shrinking mark-up that was putting the whole business model at risk. The other thing is that there is growth in scrip numbers, and dispensing fee growth has to keep up with the costs of delivering it. Many pharmacies have fixed costs and ever-increasing wage costs to deliver the service. Hopefully, with a reliable way for them to judge what their income is going to be rather than a continuous downturn in their income, we will not have the mass lay-offs or pharmacy closures that were threatened. Another significant change is that there is a funding stream for some pharmacies to deliver simple primary care. Pharmacies used to do this a lot in an informal way, and this is a way of recognising what I think they have been doing for a long time already without compensation except through previous funding and mark-up arrangements. This will be scrutinised. It will be analysed by the Medical Services Advisory Committee, because we do not know for sure whether it is going to deliver value for money or whether it is just going to duplicate what happens when people eventually go to a general practice if they do have a condition that needs medical care. Hopefully it will make simple, uncomplicated health advice and access available, particularly in the rural and remote areas where often the pharmacy is a much available source of health advice than a general practitioner. We know pharmacies are very widespread across regional and rural Australia, and nowhere more so than in the Lyne electorate. I think I have 36 different pharmacies across the electorate. Part of this agreement allows the geographic location to continue, which actually works pretty well, I find. Whether I am in Wingham, Taree, Lake Cathie or Port Macquarie, there is always a pharmacy nearby. There are a couple of new medical centres that have grown exponentially over the last five or six years. As well as location, there are allowances made for large practices with, I think, more than 10 practitioners all the time. It makes sense, if you have that many practitioners in one spot all the time, to have a pharmacy co-located. So there is flexibility within it. Hopefully, at the end of this period, all these things will be analysed, because one of the agreements was that there will be an analysis of the geographical locations and their effects. But pharmacies now are very widespread. There is hardly a shopping centre in my area that does not have some pharmacy. If you go to the big medical centres, you have a pharmacy. You have pharmacies at or very near the hospitals. You do not want it to end up being like bottle shops. If you free up the geographic location, there would be an explosion at the retail end of pharmacy, which I do not think would be a good manoeuvre. We cannot finish this discussion without mentioning the discounted co-payment. It is a win for consumers, but it is a loss for the pharmacist because it comes out of their bottom line. If they have fixed costs and that is where they make their remuneration, it will be at the expense of their bottom line. You might see some pharmacies that have huge retail spaces in them, with non-pharmaceutical stuff like shampoos, beauty products and perfumes, but not every pharmacy is like that. I have several pharmacies in my electorate right next to medical centres where they do not have the space to have all the fluffy retail stuff. They just do pure clinical pharmaceutical dispensing, and they do a great job at it, like the one at the base hospital, the one at the Hermitage Medical Centre or the one at Lake Cathie, which is not a big retail pharmacy; it makes its money purely out of dispensing. If the average pharmacy is doing 60,000 or 90,000 scrips a year and, through competition, having to take a hit of a dollar for every one, it will really challenge their business model. So you have to keep things in perspective, and it is horses for courses. Not every pharmacy is the same. I must say a word about competition. As the member for Dawson mentioned before, there was a lot of very aggressive, pointed commentary in the popular press and the newspapers, some of which was quite outrageous and quite incorrect. The fact of the matter is that pharmacies are already very competitive. There are, as you know, discount pharmacies where the prescription part of the business is really superfluous. They do not aim to make any money out of the scrips. Sure, they can and they will bank that, but it is a loss leader for the beauty products and all the other things in a supermarket. They are competing with the supermarkets as well. So you have competition from supermarkets and discount warehouses. There is the expectation that the pharmacist will speak to you to explain the drugs and give you advice and work on your drug combinations. They will give you pharmacological advice as opposed to just a price difference and other simple advice. You are getting a professional person who has been to university for four years and has to keep themselves up-to-date. So the consumer and the government are getting a professional service. I think the pharmacy community model is a good model. As I have mentioned, there will be a review of the geographical locations. If you look at it dispassionately and if that were to be changed, you would have quite a different landscape to what we have now, which is a very professional community pharmacy sector that gives good advice, takes a lot of care and does more than just lick and stick, which is what you get when you go to supermarket run pharmacies overseas. (Time expired) 18:46 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I am pleased to speak on the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2015. I commend the Minister for Health on her consultation with the whole of the supply chain and her work in this area. As we know, the PBS operates under the National Health Act 1953 and provides Australians right around Australia with timely, reliable and affordable access to necessary and cost-effective medicines. The PBS Access and Sustainability Package was announced by the Australian government in May 2015. The package establishes pharmacy funding, medicine-pricing arrangements and a range of sector improvements to ensure ongoing access to innovative medicine through a sustainable PBS. That is the critical issue—a sustainable PBS. I note as well that since coming to office the Abbott government has doubled the number of drug listings for consumers—a significant investment of over $3 billion in just over 18 months. This is a major achievement by the government. It has doubled the number of drugs in half of the time, compared to the previous government. This investment will continue to grow. There are new medicines listed. There is one for melanoma that would cost $131,000 per patient if it were not subsidised through the PBS. A cystic fibrosis treatment would cost $300,000 per patient if it were not subsidised through the PBS. A further one for breast cancer would cost $82,000 per patient if it were not subsidised through the PBS. A medicine for pancreatic cancer would cost $16,000 per patient if it were not subsidised. There is also a retinal treatment that would cost $10,000 per patient if it were not subsidised. The importance of these to the individual patients cannot be underestimated. I meet people all of the time who say to me that they would have had to sell their houses if these drugs were not available on the PBS. They tell me how grateful they are to the government for listing them. None of us should underestimate what this means for the people suffering from these diseases and conditions. As a result of this agreement Australians will benefit from cheaper medicines, a more competitive pharmacy sector and greater investment in new medicines, as I have discussed. This investment in new medicines is a key issue. There is also investment in patient support services as part of a balanced package of pharmaceutical reforms. This was developed after months of constructive consultation and robust negotiation across the entire pharmaceutical supply chain. That included consumers, pharmacists, medicine manufacturers, wholesalers and doctors. During consultations to deliver this package stakeholders all recognised the need to deliver a more sustainable PBS to ensure that the government could continue to list these new medicines I have mentioned and others to come. Each one is in its own way a life-changing and sometimes life-saving medicine. The consultations included the Consumers Health Forum, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, the Generic Medicines Industry Association, Medicines Australia, the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, the National Pharmaceutical Services Association, the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia, the ASMI and the Australian Medical Association. This resulted in a package proposing total efficiencies of $6.6 billion over five years across the entire pharmaceutical supply chain. The cost of the PBS over the next five years is expected to be $50 billion. As I said, since coming to office this government has doubled the number of drug listings for consumers. That is a significant investment of almost $3 billion in just over 18 months. As I mentioned when I started my comments, the people who are affected by this significant investment are extremely grateful that the government has taken this particular course. We are now delivering each month an average of 30 new and amended drug listings for patients. That is huge. I hope nobody underestimates the value of that to the individuals and families who are affected. Often that can be overlooked in a robust discussion. This government is certainly delivering. And of course efficiency is necessary to contain a blowing-out of costs. For example, removing originator brands from price calculations could save some consumers up to 50 per cent off the price of medicines, and taxpayers $2 billion over five years. To spend it, you have to have the money in the first place. Changes to price disclosure arrangements apply to medicines that are subject to competition, which will see the price of generic medicines for consumers reduce as much as 50 per cent from October 2016. This will be done by removing the originator brand version of the drug from pricing calculations. These cheaper medicine prices will also see taxpayers paying less, delivering $2 billion worth of efficiencies for taxpayers between October 2016 and the end of the agreement, which will assist the government's capacity to continue to list new medicines. We have to continue to list new medicines, and this is part of how we will deliver that. The package also proposes a $20 million awareness campaign to support the increased use of biosimilar medicines by patients, pharmacists and specialists. Biosimilars are complex biological medicines that are approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration as an alternative to an existing brand. The proposal to allow pharmacists to discount the price of medicines by up to $1 per script could save some pensioners over $40 per year while also delivering the government around $400 million worth of efficiencies over five years. This could see a concessional patient's co-payment drop from $6.10 to $5.10 and deliver someone who uses 40 scripts a year an annual up-front saving of up to $40. It will also apply to non-concessional patients, who pay a co-payment worth $37.70. The government is proposing a Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme access and sustainability package over the next five years which will include    the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement, a strategic agreement with the Generic Medicines Industry Association, and a $2.8 billion additional direct investment across the pharmacy sector. An in-principle strategic agreement with Medicines Australia is also being progressed. The proposal is to reduce the cost of these medicines for consumers and taxpayers. It includes a $1.5 billion investment in a new handling and infrastructure fee for pharmacists, to help restore pharmacist remuneration to average levels provided under the previous Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement and provide greater certainty by delinking remuneration from the variability of price disclosure—something important to the pharmacists themselves. They have not been asked to give up location advantages as part of this package. The head of power in the act for the pharmacy location rules and the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority will be extended until 30 June 2020. Because the details of the pharmacy location rules are determined separately, the effect of extending the expiry is that current arrangements can continue without interruption past the end of June 2015—the certainty issue. A review of pharmacy location rules will be conducted within two years as part of a broader review of pharmacy remuneration and other arrangements. Many members have spoken about the pharmacies in their electorates. I have one compounding pharmacy in my electorate that is particularly important to people with specific needs. There are some families who rely entirely on this particular pharmacy. It provides an invaluable service to many families who live in rural and regional areas. A lot of pharmacies in smaller communities play a really significant role in providing a range of services to communities that otherwise would not have them. There are small communities in my electorate that do not have a resident doctor. Frequently people will go to the local pharmacist and have a chat. Often that may result in them attending their general practitioner, but equally they rely on the pharmacy in that small community for practical advice on what their issues are. Mr Deputy Speaker Randall, you would have seen much of this in your own electorate. There are communities that rely very heavily on those small pharmacies. And of course these people are small business people and they have invested in those communities as well. That is certainly valued by those smaller communities. The one issue that I do not want to see overlooked is the significant investment in new medicines, the impact that has on individuals and families, and the commitment that this government has made to continuing that process. Many of us have met people who are profoundly impacted by the diseases and conditions that I spoke about and are incredibly grateful for the fact that this government has made very tough decisions in very difficult financial circumstances but is committed to the health and wellbeing of Australians in many ways, significantly through the additional listings of these medicines. There are a number of reasons why I support the bill before the House but very much a part of it is the ongoing listing of those medicines for Australians. I commend the bill to the House. 18:58 Mr RAMSEY HWS Grey The electorate of Grey covers the vast majority of South Australia and has many rural towns. I estimate by the Rowan Ramsey calculator—the thing that says that if the town has a licensed premise it is a town and if it does not have a licensed premise it is not—that there are about 134. Not all of these have pharmacies but most of the towns—anything over about 500 people generally does. In many cases these are very small operations. Often they belong to a cluster of pharmacies, where you might have one pharmacy with outreach networks. They are so important to our small rural communities. I know some pharmacists have more than five or six stores and they offer ongoing services. Even in the town I come from we have an in-house videoconferencing dispensing system, which enables the pharmacist to be remote. The drug bottle is held up by the staff and identified properly and dealt with in that manner, which retains a service where otherwise it would fail. It is very important, because our local hospitals rely on having local pharmacies, and our ability to provide ongoing medical services relies on having local pharmacies. There is hardly any point having a doctor in the town if, when he or she prescribes drugs for a person, that person cannot purchase them anywhere. So these are essential services. I have come to know many pharmacists and they have become my friends. There was quite a bit of concern in the negotiation of the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement, and they wore a pretty regular path to my door—or to my email and my telephone—to make sure that I understood what was at stake here. I must congratulate the Minister for Health, the Hon. Sussan Ley, who picked up this responsibility in December and had six months to come to an agreement over the sixth pharmacy agreement. All through that process, it was very comforting to my constituency that the minister comes from regional Australia and actually understands what impacts, in a small community, a reliable and, hopefully, profitable pharmacy can have—because, in the end, if they are not profitable, they will not be there. I was able to assure my constituents through that time that I had great faith in the minister. I must say that the agreement she has finally reached has absolutely justified that faith. It has been welcomed by pharmacists within my constituency. The fact that we have an agreement now for the next five years is good for pharmacies, it is good for all of Australia but it is particularly good for rural and regional Australia. Pharmacists have been increasingly expected to supply a growing range of services, at great net benefit to the customer. These are things that we just take for granted now, things like—I have dealt with aged parents in the past—blister packs, medication reviews, screenings for various ailments that maybe we do not have to go to doctors for anymore, whole-of-healthcare plans and even delivery of flu shots, I noticed last season. Pharmacists will be asked to do increasingly more as the health dollar becomes scarcer and harder to come by in Australia. All of these services have been supplied without a fee for service. Pharmacists have been doing good things for their communities, for the health of the general public, and have not been rewarded for it. In this period when pharmacists were contacting me, I became increasingly aware of how much they had been affected by the recent changes that shorten the period in which drugs remain at a cost when they came off patent. It had resulted in a fairly serious financial hit to many of these pharmacies, and they were telling me: 'We can't handle any more. Government might need savings in this area, but pharmacy cannot handle any more.' They were telling me it was close to the wire and they were already looking at lay-offs in their pharmacies. Of course, that would have led to a lessening of those services that we have now come to rely on pharmacies to provide—services that in fact they were not getting paid for. In that period, I had the privilege of having Minister Sussan Ley visit my electorate—about six weeks ago now—and I took her to a town called Kadina and another one called Peterborough. We had extensive meetings with pharmacists on those days, and I was very pleased that they were heard. One of the things the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement has done is provide a funding stream directly to the pharmacists to address this issue. It has delinked the income that pharmacists derive from the sale price of the medicines that they sell and actually now provides income via fee for service. That is a great move forward. It is something that they can build a business model on. They know that, as the price of drugs fluctuates in the market, their income will not be affected. The Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement was for $15.7 billion. The Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement is for $18.9 billion. I did some calculations on that, and that comes to about 20 per cent. Twenty per cent over five years is pretty good, I reckon, in the current economic environment. It is certainly better than CPI. In fact, it is better than our recent growth rate as well. So it is a good deal for pharmacy, and it is not greatly surprising that pharmacists have welcomed it. In that extra money, there is an extra $600 million to help pharmacies provide primary health care—these other services I have been talking about. This enables them to reach out to the community and, rather than just being a medicine retail operation, provide better service in those areas that I have talked about, where we sometimes have limited medical services. Pharmacies can take an increasing role. I have already spoken about the fact that pharmacists' incomes will be delinked somewhat from the cost of the medicines themselves. At the Pharmacy Guild's request, the minister was able to move the indexation of the dispensing fees from the wage price index to CPI. I am very pleased that that was also able to be delivered. When revolutionary new drugs come on the market, Australians want to have immediate access to them. There is very good reason for that. If you have someone close to you who is suffering greatly from a disease, an ailment—cancer, for example—and you know there is a new drug out there on the market, you want immediate access to that drug. This government has been very good at listing new drugs on the PBS. In May alone, $1.3 billion worth of new drugs were listed on the PBS. There is another $2.5 billion worth under consideration at the moment. It is entirely justifiable and understandable that the public would be demanding access to those drugs, no matter what they cost. But at the end of the day, while the government approves that process we have to find money to cover the costings of those new listings. One of the areas that has been targeted under this agreement is the supply of over-the-counter drugs under the PBS. This came as a bit of a surprise to me because I am like everyone else and go to the doctor from time to time. The idea of getting Panadol or one of its generic counterparts on the PBS had never occurred to me. I can understand why people might like to get their medicines that way, but something that can be bought quite simply at the supermarket without prescription hardly qualifies as a vital medical drug to me. I think that is the kind of tightening up we need in government. Sure—it might cost people a couple of dollars more than they had before, but it seems to be almost irresponsible to be going to the doctor for Panadol in the first place. If you need it, it is pretty cheap. These types of things are discounted in supermarket chains, and it just seems to be a rather strange place for the government and the taxpayer to be in. There are 20 million scripts a year written for things that do not require a prescription, and 6.7 million scripts a year for paracetamol. I should not name Panadol as such, but that is the name that so many of us recognise paracetamol by. It is right that we should move on this area, and I think the public will generally understand that if we want those magnificent new cancer treatment drugs and things that are going to help our kids with diabetes, or whatever it might be, then we have to accept that we might have to buy our paracetamol down at the shop. The other area the government has moved into is a variable co-payment. There has been quite a bit of discussion about how this might affect regional and rural communities. I am of the opinion that most of them that serve in communities where there is little or no competition will not pass this $1 variable deduction on to the consumer. I think there are pretty good reasons for that. If you said to those consumers, 'You have got a choice here, you can pay the extra dollar or you can lose your pharmacy,' I do not have much doubt what the answer would be. It is not as if they are going to pay any more. What it means is that in places in the city where there is normally genuine and multiple competition, we may see that $1 come off, and it will be a saving to the consumer. I do not think that is something we are going to see in regional Australia and I do not think it is something that is really demanded. Most of us that live in the country accept that there are some added expenses to living in the country. There are also some fantastic benefits to living in the country, and I wish I could drag half of those people from the city out to just give it a go. This is really where they should live to get their stress levels down and enjoy the wide open spaces. These are incredibly safe places to bring up their families. There are so many good things about living in the country. In fact, the only thing I can say against living in the country is that I have not got enough time to do everything. We all know that those people who live in rural communities have far busier lifestyles on average than those who live in the city. It is almost counterintuitive. I think the country residents will bear that in very good stead, and we look forward to the fact that we will continue to have pharmacies within our communities. This government is committed to having the pharmacy sector stand alone and to making sure that it not only survives but prospers and delivers more and better services for all Australians. 19:12 Mr ALEXANDER M3M Bennelong I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceuticals Benefits) Bill 2015, which establishes a sustainable direction for all players in the medicine supply chain and, most importantly, delivers some major wins for Australian consumers. As the member for Bennelong and chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Medicine, I have taken a keen interest in the progress of difficult and complicated negotiations between the government and the pharmacy, innovative medicines and generic medicines sectors. Of course, there is no magic pudding of taxpayer funding and therefore the result of this negotiation has not left every stakeholder happy. But this government has delivered something that those opposite were never able to: a stable and sustainable environment for each of these stakeholders to operate in. This bill offers pricing stability for the medicines sector and security to the Pharmacy Guild through the extension of the location rules. Many of my colleagues have spoken with great eloquence of the beneficial impacts of these changes on the pharmacy sector. I have held many meetings with hardworking local pharmacists and with Pharmacy Guild representatives throughout these negotiations, so rather than go over ground already covered, I wish to speak about other stakeholders. Bennelong is fortunate to host the head offices for a majority of pharmaceutical companies in Australia, which manufacture both innovative and generic medicines. Over the past nearly five years as the local member, I have been delighted to learn of the remarkable contribution made by these companies to both the physical health of Australians and the economic health of our nation. This is an industry that is responsible for over $3 billion in export earnings each year. That is more than the wine industry, which occupies a significantly greater role in our national consciousness and pleasure. This industry also brings in approximately $650 million for clinical trials—a vital employer of highly qualified and highly paid Australian jobs. More importantly, the innovative medicines sector has delivered extraordinary outcomes over recent years for Australians suffering with some of the ugliest, most debilitating illnesses, from heart disease to wet macular degeneration to diabetes. Tens of thousands of our constituents enjoy a significantly greater quality of life, and a more productive life, as a result of the contributions of this industry. Recently the health minister announced the PBS listing of the next generation of medicines, with $1.3 billion in the recent budget for new life-saving drugs to help treat breast cancer, melanoma, blindness and the debilitating shingles virus. Some of these medicines could cost patients in the order of $100,000 without government subsidy. This takes to 652 the number of new and amended drug listings on the PBS, totalling $2.9 billion in the 18 months since this government's election in September 2013. This is nearly double the 331 listings during the full three-year term of the previous Labor government. These listings include drugs like Lucentis, manufactured by Novartis, which will save some of my constituents from blindness. It would cost $10,000 per patient if not listed on the PBS. The costs to bring these drugs to market are significant because of the very long time period and complicated process required to get from the patenting of a molecule to a safe, proven product on the pharmacy shelf. On average this process can take up to 12 years and cost up to $1 billion, giving the company only eight years to make back their costs of investment before the patent expires and the generic manufacturers move in. As a result, time and again I have heard from these companies that the commodity they crave more than anything is a stable operating environment. When in government the Labor Party clearly did not deliver in this regard, with cabinet deferrals of listings despite PBAC approval and the existence of a memorandum of understanding that clearly set out an agreement to do otherwise. By comparison, this government has honoured its election commitment to lift the minimum amount required for cabinet approval and has signed a letter of intent with the industry that provides five years of pricing stability. This stability goes hand in hand with savings, delivering great benefits for both the consumers purchasing the medicines and the Australian taxpayer. This includes changes to the pricing of generic medicines, leading to as much as a 50 per cent drop in prices by October next year and giving pharmacists the ability to provide patients with a $1 per script discount, therefore delivering a direct benefit to consumers. I wish to thank Minister Sussan Ley for her tireless work in managing the complicated negotiations that have led to the bill we have before us today. On many occasions over recent months I have sought her assistance and her counsel, and she has always been willing and generous. I also wish to thank the many industry participants I have engaged with throughout this process—both pharmacists and medicine manufacturers. Whilst some may have felt a little battered and bruised as the negotiations wore on, all stakeholders maintained a sense of the greater good for the Australian taxpayer and a respect for the tough job inherited by this government to fix the budget. They recognise a partnership of common purpose with the government to, above all else, achieve the best possible health outcomes. Whilst some differences are still being ironed out, it is to the minister's credit that broad agreement with all participants, and even with those opposite, has been achieved.    I commend the bill to the House. 19:19 Mr RANDALL PK6 Canning I am pleased to speak on the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2015. This is a very important issue for my constituents and the pharmacies within my electorate. Like the member for Lyne, I have something like 36 pharmacies in the electorate of Canning. The key component of this bill is the federal government's ongoing effort to provide Australians with reliable and efficient access to necessary and affordable medicines. This bill will allow for the implementation of the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement and the PBS Access and Sustainability Package, which will bring about a wider range of improvements within the pharmaceuticals sector to ensure ongoing access to innovative medicines through a sustainable PBS. This bill provides for a considerable boost for pharmacy in this country. It includes $18.9 billion of investment negotiated as part of the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement. This is a landmark agreement which will ensure that the sector is provided with security for the next five years in terms of funding and pricing. What is the context of the debate on this bill? The fact of the matter is that every five years there is a renegotiation of the pharmacy agreement. Why? Because, as other members have said, many medicines are incredibly expensive. Some are not too expensive—as we have heard, paracetamol is not very expensive, and we have dealt with that in this bill by taking it out. It is unnecessary, because you can go into Woolies or Coles and buy yourself a pack of 24 paracetamol tablets and it will do the job. You do not need to get it from a pharmacist, but it was being used to help them with thresholds. I met in my office a delegation of some of these 36 pharmacists that either live in or have pharmacies in the electorate of Canning. They are small business people desperate to put together a business model for themselves but also to provide a service. Matthew Tweedie, the Western Australian representative of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia—Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, you may have met him when he came to see you in your electorate—is a fearsome advocate for the guild in Western Australia. Some might even say he is pugnacious, but he does his job very well. The stories that were coming from some of these pharmacists were quite heartrending. A lot of people think that because a pharmacist goes along to university and gets themselves a degree that allows them to be a pharmacist it is a licence to print money. It is not. Think about it: if they are a young person who has just left university with nothing they either have to go to work for another pharmacist, or, if they set up their own pharmacy, it is going to cost them an absolute fortune not only to set up a building but also to get the amount of goods in the office, and there are all the regulations that go with it. It is true that pharmacists have had to diversify. There is not a lot of money in providing scripts alone. So what do they do? They have almost become a pharmacy supermarket. Dare I digress, Mr Deputy Speaker? In Cuba, which I recently visited—which has one of the best health systems in the world, I might add—they have a whole range of things you can buy in a pharmacy, from coffees to other things; they are basically delis with pharmacies in them. We do not have that in Australia, but we do have a diversity of goods. So you go in there and, yes, you can buy the stuffed toys and aftershaves and all the trinkets that go with that, like hairbrushes, and that is what is needed. People say, 'Look at them now, though; they are able to give injections to people.' But, as this delegation of pharmacists said to me, the regulations surrounding that make it almost prohibitive to make an economic model out of it. If you give injections in your pharmacy, you have to get a separate room, you have to make sure you get a qualified person, you have to have a second person there administering and watching—it is a huge cost to do this. Do remember that not only do the pharmacists have to set up this incredibly large infrastructure to provide the full service, but also they have to deal with their landlords in the shopping centres. For goodness sake! Some of these landlords are some of the most voracious people in the world. They rip these poor guys off in terms of rents, and ratchets on their rents, and everything that goes with it. And they have got to try and turn a dollar before they go anywhere in terms of shopping centres. As somebody who has been absolutely torn apart in a business myself by the shopping centre management, I feel for these poor pharmacists. To give you an idea of it, in the Waterford Plaza shopping centre, not far from where I live, there is a large pharmacy. So what did the shopping centre management do? They decided to put another pharmacy in, just metres away in the other section of the shopping centre. That first pharmacy was battling to survive. Now the management have put another one in there to compete with them. The landlords are not interested in whether the pharmacy is going to make any money; they just want to fill their shops. The pharmacy then has to deal with things like the large pharmacy warehouses. I do not know if you, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough, have been into a large pharmacy warehouse, but writing scripts and giving medicine is not their core business. You go in there and you find all the other voodoo medicines—the pills and the vitamins and everything. There is one product that will give you hair and another that will take your hair away; there is one that will help you with sores and another that will create something else; there is one that will help you lose weight and another that will help you not lose weight. They have to sell all these diet products. They are festooned with all these things, but they do not provide a service. A genuine pharmacy in the suburbs, like those in my outer metropolitan electorate, is needed, because when someone goes to the doctor and gets a script they need to fill it. That is what people are really looking for. But these pharmacies do more than that. As we know, they help manage people's medicines. They even put together things like Webster packs which allow the elderly in particular to make sure they get the right medicines in the right dosage at the right time. But they not only do that; they also go and deliver them to the patient's house. Can you imagine the pharmacy warehouse doing that? They would have no idea. They would not be interested; it is all about bulk and turnover. I do not have a problem with large pharmacy warehouses. They have got their place. But it is the difference between going to a nice little boutique cafe on the corner and being willing to pay a bit extra to get a service, and going to the great cafeteria on the corner where you have got many tiny little restaurants housed inside some food hall and you can have a choice and have it as cheap as chips. This is the difference between a decent pharmacy and those. In my outer metropolitan electorate, sometimes, in the towns, as the member for Grey mentioned, you would be lucky to have one pharmacy in a small town and they are battling to survive. I have a town called Serpentine in my electorate. The local people there have been battling for years and years to get access to a doctor and get access to medicine at all. We were lucky enough to get a couple of Nigerian doctors to go down there, and they set themselves up in the local pony club of all things. But the problem was: when the doctors wrote scripts, patients had to go off to a town 30 or 40 kilometres away to fill the script. Dare I say it: as soon as these two doctors got their medical provider numbers, they went straight back to the city with them and left the town without a doctor. But, thank goodness, at the moment in Serpentine there is a pharmacist who has come there, selling pharmaceutical products largely, because there probably is not a lot. When you put all that other stock in—the stuffed toys and the vitamins and everything—you have got to have a fair old bank overdraft to make sure you carry that sort of stock. Those are the realities of trying to set up a pharmacy in an outer metropolitan area and make it work. One of these gentlemen who came to see me, along with Matthew Tweedie and the people from my electorate, was telling me that, by the time he pays all of his bills and the set-up costs and the loans, he is battling to make $40,000 a year. That does not pay the bills. That does not feed the kids. That is battling to run your car. So there has to be a decent pharmacy agreement. This is what this sixth agreement was about. Those opposite have been saying in their speeches in the House today that there has been no consultation from this government side of the House. That is totally untrue. The previous minister, Peter Dutton, began the consultation process on the sixth agreement. And the current minister, Sussan Ley, is doing an outstanding job. She is somebody who is incredibly approachable and somebody who has a great disposition to dealing with people and consulting. I have rung the minister on this issue and she is going to come to my electorate, along with the member for Hasluck, and sit down and meet with a delegation of these chemists. Even though the agreement is finished and over, she is committed to doing that. That is the sort of person she is: she is interested in the minutia of the detail. She is interested in making sure that she is taking a practical measure. As another speaker said, it probably has something to do with coming from the bush herself, from the seat of Farrer. There is no vast metropolitan area there. People need pharmacists in their area not only to hold the town together but to make sure there is a decent service. So, when we hear about lack of consultation we just need to remember and put into context that on the eve of the last federal election, the Labor Party cut $800 million of funding from the pharmacies without any consultation whatsoever—not at any point in the discussion. That is what are dealing with: one who has had the discussion and one who took the money without a discussion. That is the difference between us. As I said, this bill does put about 20 per cent more into the agreement over five years—to $18.9 billion. The member for Lyne, who is a doctor himself—an eminent doctor; he has probably taken a huge pay cut to come into this place—pointed out the business about the concessional co-payment dropping from $6.10 to $5.10. For those who use 40 scripts a year there is a potential saving of up to $40. That is a concern for pharmacists. As he said, if somebody does 60,000 scripts a year—which is not unreasonable—that is $60,000 off the bottom line, trying to make that work. Remember: it is not mandatory, it is negotiated. So if you actually want to do this and be sure that you are viable then I am sure the person is quite happy to pay the extra dollar—sorry about that noise, Mr Deputy Speaker Goodenough! I was getting so excited that I pointed this out too strongly! This is voluntary, but it will affect the chemists. To all the chemists out there, I have spent a lot of time talking about the pharmacists themselves—the practical measures without a lot of the detail. I know that a lot of my colleagues have done that so there is no point in me rehashing what has been said before. What I do need to say in the last few moments is that this pharmaceutical agreement is something that the rest of the world holds in high regard. We deliver affordable medicines to the Australian people because we can. We are a rich and affluent country, but we have to be careful about how we use our taxpayers' money. We do it in a proper way, where we renegotiate with the major pharmaceuticals, and at the end of the day we deliver a good result for the constituents in our electorates. As I said, we had the delegation in Canning. One of my local pharmacists, who owns two pharmacies near my electorate office—Natalie Smart, who owns the Wizard Pharmacy and another one—felt that this pharmacy agreement has gone a long way. Obviously, in an ambit claim you are not going to get everything. But they got a lot, thanks to the minister and the negotiation that the minister did on this agreement. Ms Smart, the local chemist, said that she was particularly happy with the additional government investment in patient care programs and dosage delivery aids, such as Webster-paks. We are delivering real benefits to the community and that is what we intend to do well into the future. This is a government that is interested in value for money and in providing a decent and proper service. I commend the bill to the House. 19:33 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2015—pleased, because this bill is yet another example of our government getting on with the job of responsible governance by providing stability and certainty to the millions of Australians who access medication through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, or PBS, each year. This bill will implement the government's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Access and Sustainability Package. It will also legislate the outcomes of the successful negotiations on the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement. The bill will ensure that Australians will benefit from cheaper medicines, a more competitive pharmacy sector and greater investment in new medicines and patient support services. It is the result of a consultation process that has taken many months, and which has for the first time involved consultation with a much broader range of stakeholders. In addition to the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and Medicines Australia, the government has also consulted with the Generic Medicines Industry Association, the Consumers Health Forum of Australia and other stakeholders, including consumers and consumer advocacy groups. The end product is an agreement that strikes the best possible balance between the interests of consumers, producers, retailers and government. Not all stakeholders will agree with all components of the package—it is a requirement in negotiations such as these, with so many divergent and competing interests, that all sides make concessions in some areas in order to achieve an outcome that works for everyone. An agreement has now been reached that achieves the best possible outcome for Australians. That a suitable agreement has been reached is a testament to the work of the Minister for Health, and I commend her and her office for their no-fuss attitude in getting the job done and the agreement signed. This agreement puts health consumers first. It will see the price of medicines discounted for patients, improved access to new medicines, greater certainty for medicine manufacturers and an additional $2.8 billion in direct investment across the pharmacy sector. Savings to the PBS will be delivered under this agreement that will ensure its sustainability, and will allow the government to continue to list new medicines under the scheme as we have done successfully in the 2015 budget. It is also worth noting that the Treasurer indicated when introducing the Medical Research Future Fund Bill 2015 that once the fund is established, future savings from the health portfolio will be contributed to the fund. What this means is that savings to the PBS implemented in this bill will be retained and reinvested for the health benefit of all Australians. As the minister has outlined, the majority of savings achieved by these measures will come from PBS pricing changes. For the first time, on 1 April 2016 there will be a one-off five per cent reduction in the price of what are termed under the National Health Act 1953 as 'F1' or single-brand drugs. This reduction will only apply to drugs that have been PBS listed for at least five years. The change will reduce the price paid by government for these drugs, and for some lower cost drugs, that already sell for less than the co-payment amount, it will mean a reduction in the price paid by the consumer. For F2 drugs—that is, drugs sold under multiple brands—the price of the originator brand will be removed from the weighted average disclosed price after a period of three years. As the price of the originator drug tends to be higher than that of its generic competitors, the effect of this will be to reduce the price paid by government and consumers after three years. To allow for industry adjustment, this policy will take effect from 1 October 2016. The net effect of these policies, as well as the closure of other loopholes in the price disclosure framework, mean that the government and consumers are getting a better deal for medicines already listed on the PBS. These savings will be reinvested into new medicine listings that will improve the lives of more Australians. From my perspective, one of the best parts of the 2015 budget package was the $1.3 billion over five years that the government will be spending on the listing of new drugs on the PBS and the additional $2.5 billion set aside for consideration of new listings of drugs to treat conditions such as hepatitis C and cancer. These drugs will change lives. New items listed in May include a new treatment for melanoma, expected to assist approximately 1,000 patients who would otherwise have been required to pay $131,000 per treatment. A further 590 patients a year will benefit from a newly listed breast cancer treatment that would have cost $82,700 a year without subsidy. The existing drug Lucentis will now be PBS subsidised to treat a wider range of blindness-causing eye conditions, that will assist approximately 18,000 more patients, set at a cost of $541 million over four years. I was particularly pleased that Zostavax, a vaccine for the prevention of shingles, will be subsidized for Australians aged 70 to 79 through the National Immunisation Program. Shingles is a painful, blistering rash that can occur on any part of the body and can also cause long-term nerve pain, vision impairment, facial paralysis and hearing problems. The new listing will help vaccinate up to 240,000 older Australians, on an ongoing basis each year, as the unsubsidised price of over $200 per dose is beyond the means of many older Australians on fixed incomes. These new listings would not be possible if the costs of the existing PBS were not kept under control. It is the coalition government's responsible management of the PBS, encapsulated in the measures proposed in this bill, that will enable more new listings to be made in the coming years as newer and more effective drugs come on to the market. I now turn to the measures of the bill that address the outcome of negotiations regarding the 6th Community Pharmacy Agreement. The negotiations were followed very closely by pharmacists in my electorate of Ryan. Throughout the negotiation period, I received correspondence from many pharmacists raising a variety of concerns about the progress of negotiations. Most of the concerns related to the proposal to allow pharmacies to discount the patient co-payment for PBS medicines by up to $1 per prescription. These are concerns that I understand and acknowledge, and I raised them with the minister at the time. As a former business owner myself, I know that margins can be tight and that every dollar discounted comes off the business bottom line. Pharmacists in my electorate know that I am a strong supporter of community pharmacies. In fact, last year in this House I presented a petition on behalf of the Pharmacy Guild of Australia of more than 1.2 million signatures—the largest ever tabled in the history of the House of Representatives. The petition called on the government to: … take whatever action is needed to ensure that community pharmacy receives the funding support it needs to stay in business, serve patients, employ staff and remain open after hours. As a government, I believe that we have done this. And certainly the feedback I have received from the industry is favourable. I quote from a letter received from prominent Queensland pharmacy owner Terry White AO, who says: At the end of the day the industry has ended up with a 5 year agreement that will give certainty for small business like pharmacy to invest, and at the same time, give comfort back to the banking industry to continue to support an industry employing over 60,000 staff. But even more importantly, he also says: The Minister has certainly done her job looking after the interest of Australian taxpayers. For a government there is no higher praise than that. While I accept that not all pharmacists will be satisfied with all aspects of the agreement, it is the view of both the government and the Pharmacy Guild that this agreement achieves an appropriate balance. The $1 discount is included but it is not mandated. Pharmacies can choose whether to offer a reduction and they can decide on the level of discount up to a maximum of $1. The coalition government believes that this measure will improve competition in the sector and reduce the prices paid by some of the most vulnerable members of our society for vital medication. For pharmacy owners, this agreement also offers the renewed certainty of a five-year extension to current location rules. These rules offer protection from competition. The National Commission of Audit, the Competition Policy Review and the Productivity Commission have all advocated for their revision or removal. However, the government will retain the existing location rules pending a comprehensive and publicly accountable review to be conducted over the next 18 months. The review will also cover pharmacy remuneration and wholesaler arrangements, as it is important that future pharmacy agreements are informed by a full understanding of the PBS supply chain. As part of the new agreement, some low-cost, over-the-counter medicines will be removed from the PBS. These medicines can be sold directly to a consumer without a prescription. For example, the government spent $73 million in 2013-14 subsidising paracetamol that only costs a few dollars. The government believes that this is not an effective use of PBS funds that could instead have been used to subsidise life-saving drugs, costing thousands of dollars per treatment. In total, the 6th Community Pharmacy Agreement will deliver up to $18.9 billion to community pharmacy and wholesalers over the next five years. This is an increase of over $3 billion compared to the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement, recognising that this is a time of transition for the sector and that pharmacy owners need to have confidence to invest for the future. In implementing this agreement we must avoid the mistakes made by Labor when negotiating the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement in 2010. The Australian National Audit Office conducted an audit into Labor's pharmacy agreement and identified glaring deficiencies in its design and administration. For instance, the audit office found that the agreement did not clearly document expected net savings under the agreement, nor did it provide a mechanism for parliament or other stakeholders to be informed of the actual cost of various components. Shortcomings in performance reporting meant that the department was unable to effectively assess whether the Commonwealth received value for money from the agreement. And the Department of Health did not obtain key PBS data from pharmacies—data collection that Labor Ministers at the time considered to be 'non-negotiable'. I am confident that the minister and the coalition government have learned the lessons from Labor's mistakes and taken steps to improve the design and monitoring of this pharmacy agreement. As a result of consulting widely, this bill strikes an appropriate balance between competing interests and offers a better deal to health consumers and taxpayers while providing regulatory certainty and necessary protections to pharmacy owners. I congratulate the minister and I commend the bill to the House. 19:46 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer I thank members for their contributions to the debate on this bill. I can assure all members of the parliament that this government understands the importance of community pharmacy, access to the PBS and health more broadly. Like you, we know first-hand from the people in our electorates the expectations that patients and families have of the PBS. They want affordable access to the treatments they need regardless of their income, family make-up, health status or location. The PBS comes at a price. We have an ageing population and increasing rates of chronic disease. New medicines are increasingly complex and expensive. In 1991, there were no listings over $1,000. Now, there are almost 600 listings for medicines that cost over $1,000 for each prescription. Only last month we announced a $1.3-billion investment in new medicines, most of which would cost consumers in excess of $10,000 a year without the PBS subsidy. The government used the negotiation of Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement as an opportunity to consider a wide range of ways to improve access to medicines and improve the sustainability of the PBS. Consultation occurred across the PBS supply chain with the involvement of over 20 stakeholder organisations and has resulted in a supported package of measures. The consultations and negotiations for the package and the resulting agreements with pharmacy and industry were conducted in a way that took into account the recommendations from the ANAO review of the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement. The responses to those recommendations benefited the consultation process in a very positive way. I am aware that not all stakeholders agree with all components of the package. However, all components have a solid body of support from across the stakeholder groups. While on the subject of consultations, I know those opposite raised issues of time lines and consultations with the Labor Party. Perhaps members opposite have forgotten that they announced their simplified price disclosure changes—an $800-million hit on pharmacy—on 2 August, at five minutes to midnight, before the election and with no consultation whatsoever with affected parties. This is the kind of hypocrisy that we have come to expect. I also note that Labor introduced legislation for the Fifth Community Pharmacy Agreement on 12 May 2010, I am advised, with no prior consultation with the opposition at this time. If the government is guilty of anything, it is of having a similar time frame for finalising this agreement as Labor did when they were in government. On 24 May I was pleased to announce that the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and the Generic Medicines Industry Association had signed agreements with the Commonwealth committing their support to implementing the measures in the package. I thank the guild and the GMIA for their hard work and collaboration in achieving their respective agreements. Medicines Australia has also signalled its intention to make an agreement, and I expect that process to be finalised soon. These agreements recognise that everyone must contribute to a sustainable PBS in order to share the benefits. The measures in the package will deliver up to $18.9 billion to community pharmacy and wholesalers over the next five years, an increase of over $3 billion on the fifth CPA. This is a fair investment in pharmacy and a balanced investment in these current fiscal circumstances. The measures also deliver net savings to the PBS of around $3.7 billion over five years. But, equally, these measures also deliver savings to consumers through cheaper medicines under price disclosure and cheaper medicines through allowing discounting of the patient co-payment. Importantly, the government continues to invest in new medicines with more than $1.3 billion invested in the May budget, with more high-cost drugs currently before government. The changes in this bill are required to implement seven of the measures contained in the Access and Sustainability Package. Savings from price reductions in F1 and F2 will continue to support subsidies for new and innovative products. Changes to the operation of price disclosure for originated brands and combination items will deliver benefits from competition at the generic end of the market. For the pharmacy sector, the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement provides revised remuneration arrangements that will enable pharmacy to innovate and transition from a focus on medicine supply to medicines management and pharmacy services. There is increased funding for new pharmacy programs with evaluation to ensure they are clinically appropriate and cost-effective. For consumers, the ability of pharmacists to reduce co-payments moments by $1 will lower out-of-pocket costs. The safety net will still be there to protect individuals and families who require a lot of medicines. The government, for the PBS, relies on the expert advice of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. I recently announced the appointment of Professor Andrew Wilson as the new chairperson for the committee. The revised PBAC membership structure provided for in the bill will allow for more streamlined processes and provide the flexibility required to handle the committee's increased workload. The measures in the package focus PBS funding towards treatments that would otherwise be out of reach for individuals, important advances in therapy and expensive, complex medicines for serious conditions. It is no longer in the interests of patients or taxpayers to continue to subsidise relatively low cost items available directly from pharmacies. The proposed delisting of certain over-the-counter medicines from the PBS reflects this. The cost of paracetamol for one year is equal to the cost of funding ipilimumab for late-stage melanoma for one year. One costs between $2 and $7 a packet and the other tens of thousands of dollars per injection. Affordability is a paramount consideration in the future of the PBS. I thank members for comments and thank the stakeholders involved in working with the government to develop the proposals and agreements. This is a balanced package of measures which provides fair outcomes for pharmacy, the medicines industry, patients and the Australian community. These changes deserve to be supported. They will help to strengthen the PBS into the future. They are reasonable, they are necessary and they are needed now. I commend the bill to the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 74046 I put the question that the amendment be agreed to. Question negatived. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 101 19:54 Ms LEY 00AMN Farrer by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Crimes Legislation Amendment (Penalty Unit) Bill 2015 101

Crimes Legislation Amendment (Penalty Unit) Bill 2015

Second Reading 101 19:55 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Penalty Unit) Bill 2015. The measures contained in this bill are not controversial and they reflect an appropriate contemporising of the legislation. This bill amends the Crimes Act 1914. It increases the amount of the Commonwealth penalty unit and provides that the amount will be automatically adjusted every three years in line with inflation. These amendments increase the Commonwealth penalty unit amount from $170 to $180 and provide a mechanism for the amount to be indexed every three years according to the consumer price index. Penalty units are used to describe the amount payable for monetary penalties imposed for criminal offences in Commonwealth legislation and territory ordinances. Commonwealth penalties are generally expressed in terms of penalty units rather than specific values to assist with the adjustment of penalties across the Commonwealth statute book. The penalty unit mechanism allows the maximum monetary penalty for all offences under Commonwealth law or territory ordinances to be automatically adjusted with a single amendment to section 4AA of the Crimes Act. This removes the need for multiple legislative amendments and ensures that monetary penalties in Commonwealth legislation and territory ordinances remain comparable. Maintaining the value of the penalty unit over time is necessary to ensure it reflects changes in real terms. This ensures that financial penalties for Commonwealth offences keep pace with inflation and continue to remain effective in deterring unlawful behaviour. When the penalty unit was introduced in 1992, its value was set at $100. This value was adjusted to $110 in 1997 and to $170 in 2012. Both increases were made in line with changes in the CPI. The 2015-16 budget included this measure to increase the value of the penalty unit from $170 to $180, with effect from 31 July 2015. This increase is broadly consistent with inflation since the value was last adjusted in December 2012. The budget measure also provided that the government would introduce ongoing automatic indexation of the penalty unit value based on the CPI. Indexation will occur on 1 July every three years, with the first indexation occurring on 1 July 2018. In summary, Labor supports this bill, which is non-controversial, reflecting an appropriate contemporising of the legislation. Maintaining the value of the penalty unit over time is necessary to ensure it reflects changes in real terms. This ensures that financial penalties for Commonwealth offences keep pace with inflation and continue to remain effective in deterring unlawful behaviour. When the penalty unit was introduced in 1992, its value was set at $100. Labor passed legislation in 2012 to adjust the value to $170 in line with CPI. Prior to this the value had not been adjusted since 1997, when it was adjusted in line with CPI to $110. This was part of Labor's commitment to cracking down on serious and organised crime. Labor wants to ensure that the courts have the ability to impose appropriate penalties to deal with these types of offenders. We support this increase and the mechanism to index the amount every three years according to CPI, which sends a strong message to criminals that crime does not pay. 19:59 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Penalty Unit) Bill 2015 will ensure that Commonwealth penalties keep pace with inflation and continue to provide an effective deterrent to criminal activity. The bill amends section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914, which applies across the statute book to set the value of monetary penalties in Commonwealth legislation and Territory ordinances. The bill will increase the value of the penalty unit from $170 to $180. This is broadly in line with the increases to the consumer price index since the value was last updated in 2012. The bill also provides a mechanism for indexing the penalty unit value every three years, beginning in 2018, according to the CPI. By instituting an automatic indexation process, the bill provides an efficient mechanism for maintaining the penalty unit value into the future while still ensuring that value is made clear for members of the public, enforcing agencies and the court. Strong penalties are an essential component of an effective justice system. By maintaining the value of the penalty unit, the bill ensures that Commonwealth offences will continue to operate as intended in deterring unlawful behaviour and punishing offenders. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 102 20:00 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment and Other Measures) Bill 2015 102

Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment and Other Measures) Bill 2015

Second Reading 102 20:01 Ms MACKLIN PG6 Jagajaga I am very pleased to be speaking on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment and Other Measures) Bill 2015. The measures in this bill continue the Abbott government's attack on young Australians by seeking to introduce a one-month wait period for Newstart allowance. This bill seeks to give young job seekers under 25 nothing to live on for a month. It represents, yet again, an abandonment of young Australians by this Liberal government, and it reflects the continued unfairness at the heart of this government. It makes clear that this budget is just as unfair as the last. Labor will oppose this latest cut to young Australians, just as we opposed last year's attempt to leave young job seekers with nothing to live on for six months. Whether it is one month or six, Labor will not support a measure which pushes young people into poverty and hardship. Leaving young job seekers with nothing to live on for a month is cruel, unfair and unjustified. What does this government honestly expect these young people to live on for a month? How will they buy food to eat? How will they pay their rent? How will they pay their train fares? All of our citizens should be afforded a basic standard of living, no matter how old they are. It is a fundamental pillar of the social contract in Australia. Australians do not want to live in a country that abandons young people who have fallen on hard times. Labor knows young people want to work. They want to be able to find work. They do not want to be on welfare. They want to take responsibility for their lives. Young people want to be independent. They want the self-respect that a job can give—to know that they are making a contribution to our society. If we cut this money from young job seekers, we rob them of the ability to look for work. We rob them of the opportunity for self-respect. Young job seekers will be too busy trying to work out how on earth they will live and how they will pay their rent and eat, not how they will look for work opportunities. The Minister for Social Services cannot say how this cruel cut will help young people find a job. Over the last 12 months, the Abbott government have argued unsuccessfully that a six-month wait period for unemployment benefits is essential. That is what they told us last year. They had no evidence that this would help young people, whether it is one month or six months. What evidence do the government point to to put this proposal forward? According to the former Minister for Social Services, New Zealand has a one-month wait period. The former minister basically argued for much of last year that if it was good for New Zealand then it must be good for Australia. Of course, we found out that it simply was not true. New Zealand does not have a mandatory one-month waiting period, and it never did. The former minister just made it up. He made it up because there is no evidence that making young people wait for Newstart will help them get work. It was nothing more than a cynical attempt by this government to try to con the Australian people into accepting its harsh plan to leave young job seekers with nothing to live on for six months. And the current Minister for Social Services is no better. He prefers to demonise and belittle young Australians, to create the outrageous fiction that somehow welfare is a 'career choice', to use his words—as if young Australians desperate for work around the country would rather be on Newstart than have a job; as if the young Australians attending job interview after job interview, only to be told they are unsuccessful, need the added stigma of being labelled a dole bludger by this Minister for Social Services! The measures in this bill reek of the divisive politics that are the hallmark of this government, and Labor will not have a bar of it. But it is not just Labor that thinks this measure is cruel and unfair. Most major welfare organisations across the country have condemned the policy. The National Welfare Rights Network said the one-month wait period: … will place young people in severe financial hardship, leaving them without food, medicines, money for job search and rent. No income means no income — whether it's for six months or four weeks. There is no place in our social security system for such a harmful approach. The Parliament should reject this plan outright. John Falzon, CEO of St Vincent de Paul, said: This change is a clear admission of the cruelty of this measure without actually abandoning it. ACOSS, the Australian Council of Social Service, said: The Government now proposes to reduce the six month wait for unemployment payments for young people to one month, yet neither policy has been justified, especially at a time when unemployment is rising. This last point is particularly important. The government's own budget papers forecast unemployment to peak at 6½ per cent. This just shows how harsh and unfair this measure is and how bad it will be for the economy. On top of that, we know youth unemployment is around double the national average—the highest in a decade. In some parts of Australia, one in five young people cannot find a job. According to the Brotherhood of St Laurence, the number of young people facing long-term unemployment in Australia has tripled since the global financial crisis. In 2008 there were 19,500 long-term unemployed young people aged 15 to 24 in Australia, compared to 56,800 in 2014. Kate Carnell, the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said: … unless the youth unemployment issue is addressed—and it will need to be addressed quite aggressively … we will end up with a generation of young people on the fringes of the economy. But this Liberal government has no plan for jobs and no plan to deal with the youth unemployment crisis. Its preferred approach is to demonise and belittle young job seekers who would love nothing more than to get a job and to get ahead in life. This bill also seeks to change the eligibility age for Newstart, pushing job seekers who are between the ages of 22 and 24 onto the lower youth allowance. This is a cut of around $48 a week—$48 a week this government wants to take off these young people, around $2,500 a year, a very significant amount of money for a young person. Labor will oppose this measure, as we have done for the last year, because it is wrong. We will oppose the pauses to indexation changes of income free areas. These changes too will hurt the most vulnerable people on income support payments, and over time these changes will only hurt these vulnerable people more. We will also oppose the measures in the bill that apply a one-week waiting period to all working age payments. This is nothing but a shameful cut by the government that will leave people on income support with nothing for a week. There is one measure in this bill that we will not oppose. We are prepared to make sensible decisions when they are not fundamentally unfair. In fact, following last year's budget, Labor agreed to around $20 billion in savings. In this year's budget, Labor so far has announced support for more than $2 billion in savings. This shows that we are prepared to be fiscally responsible while making sure that we support those who are most in need. We understand just how important it is to be both responsible and socially just. Labor will support the ceasing of the low income supplement in this bill. We call on the government to split the bill when it gets to the Senate, separating out the low-income supplement measure so this can be agreed. If the government is not willing to split the bill, Labor will oppose it in its entirety. This Liberal government is knowingly pushing young people into poverty as a result of these measures. We will always do everything we can to protect the most vulnerable Australians. At a time when we see the US President, Barack Obama, talking about poverty and inequality being the 'core challenge of our time', this Australian Liberal government is attacking the most vulnerable people in this legislation, with cruel and unfair cuts that will diminish the living standards of young people, drive our young Australians into poverty and tear up the social contract that has served this country so well for so long. Labor will continue to oppose measures that push young people into poverty. We will stand up for these young people by opposing these cruel and unfair cuts, just as we did the six-month wait for Newstart. 20:12 Mrs MARKUS E07 Macquarie I rise to speak on the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment and Other Measures) Bill 2015, as I am passionately and absolutely committed to ensuring that our young people have every opportunity to obtain work and invest in the future. The government wants people to have jobs. It is having a job and earning an income that provides young people with opportunities. It is about setting them up for a future where they have a strong foundation and where they can make choices. We believe in the young people of this nation, and we believe that they indeed are our future. With this year's budget, we have announced many measures that will assist businesses, the backbone of our economy. As businesses grow and flourish, in turn creating jobs and employment, opportunities will be created not only for our young people but for the broader community. I have spoken several times in recent weeks in this House on some of the measures that this government has announced in the budget in order to perpetuate positive change. It is unfortunate that those opposite do not have youth unemployment high on their radar, as evidenced by the failure of the opposition leader, during his recent budget reply, to mention any strategies of any significance for 18- to 25-year-olds. In fact, Labor to date are only committing $21 million towards tackling this issue—startling news when you hear the opposition employment and workplace relations spokesman, Brendan O'Connor, criticising this government in relation to youth unemployment. As a mother of two young adults, I understand and have observed the challenges that our young people face as they seek work. It is vital that young people are encouraged to make every effort to look for work and maximise their chances of finding a job. A job provides the foundation and security that facilitate a young person's capacity to plan for their future. The purpose of unemployment benefits is to provide a safety net, so those who require the safety net are able to look for work. As of 1 July 2016 young people under the age of 25 who are the most job ready and who apply for Newstart, youth allowance or special benefit will serve a four-week waiting period before becoming eligible for payment—that is, those who live in an area with good employment opportunities, have reasonable language, literacy and numeracy skills and have recent work experience. This government has heard the concerns in the community and has now reduced the original recommended six-month waiting period to four weeks. What is important about this measure is that we are saying that the first choice, the first opportunity, for a young person is to find work and an unemployment benefit is a safety net for those who may not be able to find work quickly and easily. 'Work is not a curse or labour a misfortune'—those are the words of Kahlil Gibran. The ability to work and earn an income is a foundation for future prosperity. This measure should not be seen as a negative or as some form of reprimand. Negativity is produced when people, or in this case young people, are not given the chance or the assistance that they require to seek opportunities. They will experience fulfilment by using their abilities, talents, aspirations, dreams and attributes to contribute to their community and this great nation whilst earning money that will give them so many choices. Our young people indeed have talents. They have abilities, skills and creativity that are potential assets to any employer. During the first four weeks young job seekers will be meeting with the newly announced jobactive provider, agreeing to a job plan, developing an up-to-date resume, creating a job seeker profile on the job seeker website and providing evidence of satisfactory job searches with up to 20 job applications. Jobactive is the new employment service recently announced by this government. It will improve services for job seekers and employers focusing on results. These early measures will ensure young job seekers are provided with the skills and the assistance that they require to enable them to step into the job market. This government recognises that there may be hardships, barriers and challenges so it has made available $8.1 million in emergency relief funding to provide assistance to job seekers affected by the measure who may be experiencing hardship. Other exemptions include students, in recognition of the importance that education and training play in assisting future employment. Young people who return to full-time study, whether it be vocational or university study, will be able to apply for more suitable assistance, such as youth allowance. Education and learning new skills or enhancing existing skills play an important role for job seekers in becoming more sought after by future employers. Ben Franklin stated that 'an investment in knowledge always pays the best interest'. Additionally, this government understands that there are young job seekers who have been assessed as having significant barriers to finding a job. They will, therefore, not be required to serve the four-week waiting period. This will include stream B and C jobactive clients. A barrier could be, for example, an undiagnosed or unmanaged illness. Another important exemption to the four-week waiting period will also occur if someone has served a four-week waiting period in the recent six months. Exemptions will also be available for those with a disability or an activity test exemption. These exemptions ensure that, while job seekers are given opportunities and encouraged to work when they can, those who face challenges will be supported. There is also ministerial discretion to draft new exemptions as may be required. This government will not abandon our young job seekers. In contrast to Labor's paltry $21 million commitment, we aim to assist youth through the government's $331 million employment strategy by providing $18.3 million for additional work experience places to provide job places. Most young people will say to you when asked about finding a job that they are continually asked about their experience, but they have no experience and they need experience. A young constituent in the electorate of Macquarie, who resigned from her position on the Monday, told me that she handed out her resume locally on the Tuesday and Wednesday, received six interviews on the Thursday and Friday and started in a new position the following Saturday. She explained that that was purely because she had five years industry experience in hospitality. Of course this will not be the case for many, but providing valuable work experience for up to 25 hours per week for four weeks will provide young job seekers the advantage they need to at least get a foot in the door and connect with an employer. One hundred and six million for new pilot programs to test innovative approaches is also part of the government's package, with $55.2 million to run intensive support trials for vulnerable job seekers and $19.4 million to provide support for youth with mental health conditions. According to Beyond Blue, sadly, currently 26.4 per cent of Australians between the ages for 16 and 24 have experienced a mental health disorder in the last 12 months. There will also be $22.1 million available for vulnerable young migrants and refugees, and $8.9 million to continue to support parents for employment. These trials will focus on the most disadvantaged and help them to prepare for work, to stay in work when they find it and also to experience opportunities. A new $212 million Youth Transition to Work program will assist young people who have disengaged from work and study and are at risk of long-term welfare dependency by providing services such as mentoring, coaching, communication skills and teamwork skills. Additionally there will be $14 million for early school leavers, which will help them to improve educational outcomes by ensuring they are either working or studying. Only the coalition government has a fully funded plan to help grow the economy and create more jobs, and only a coalition government will commit to and invest in our future generations by investing in our young job seekers, giving them the opportunity to find and keep a job and opening the door to future possibilities. 20:24 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I oppose this bill on a number of grounds. I am cognisant of the fact that my colleague the member for Jagajaga has covered the field in response to the opposition's concerns in relation to this bill. I have to refute much of what was said by the member for Macquarie. I do not accept as fact that the government is doing enough to assist young people to find work. I think it is fair to say that youth unemployment in this country is very high: 13½ per cent—well in excess now of double the national unemployment rate. That is unacceptable. It is an unacceptable rate that has to be attended to by the government. The government has an ally in the opposition in dealing with this issue; we want to work with the government on measures. But measures have to be effective and the government has to be genuine about its concern for young people. Whilst the government has introduced some small measures that I can support, I do not think enough is being done. I do not believe that you can assist young people by introducing some of the measures that are in this bill. That is why we oppose it. We oppose it because making it hard for young people for even a month—to receive no support whatsoever when they are genuinely looking for work—is not the answer to youth unemployment. We accept that the government was embarrassed by the fact that its original proposal of cutting off any support whatsoever for people under the age of 30 was never sustainable and would never have been accepted by the parliament and so it changed its position—I think largely due to the prosecution of that case by the opposition. We made it very clear that it was an outrageously unfair measure introduced in the budget last year and was never going to be accepted, and as a result the government had to change its tune in relation to that. Whether it be six months or one month—one month is too long for a person under the age of 25 to have no support at all—no support whatsoever—when they are genuinely looking for work. Labor supports the principle of mutual obligation. Indeed we would argue that we introduced it during the very difficult times in the early nineties under the policies of Working Nation. Then Prime Minister Paul Keating and the minister for employment, Simon Crean, introduced that principle. That principle was maintained through the Howard years—not that we would agree with all the things they did. We did not believe that work experience applied to every unemployed person. The Work for the Dole program can be useful but it can be counterproductive for some workers who spent years in the labour market; you want to find other ways for them to be getting back into the labour market, in particular accredited training in areas of demand. But let us just say there has been a bipartisan position on how to look after people, particularly young unemployed people, in this country until this government was elected and then chose to remove any support whatsoever for everyone under the age of 30 who was genuinely looking for work. That was a bridge too far; we did not support it. And we will not support this measure now in relation to the one-month suspension of any support whatsoever. We would understand that if people are not genuinely looking for work, if they are not putting in their side of the bargain—and there is a bargain here: the mutual obligation is that you must be genuinely seeking work. In return the nation—the government on its behalf—will be providing some support to you. It would not matter, if this bill were to pass, if a person under the age of 25 was looking for work genuinely; they would not receive a cracker from this government for a month. It is not acceptable and therefore the opposition will not be accepting that provision in this bill. The other measure which has been maintained by this government—it was introduced by the Treasurer in last year's budget—is also too harsh. It is too harsh to expect 22-, 23- and 24-year-olds in this nation to lose almost 20 per cent of their income—of the modest income they are receiving while looking for work—by converting their current income from Newstart to Youth Allowance. There are reasons why people receive Youth Allowance and there are reasons why people receive Newstart. It seems to me that an independent person at the age of 24 who is looking for work, and genuinely so—that is absolutely critical to this principle—should not lose almost $50 a week, nearly 20 per cent of their income, by this measure. That is harsh. The government likes to talk about people sharing the burden. We do not believe it is sharing the burden to impose a 20 per cent cut to the modest income of a person of the age of 24 from 1 July next year. We do not think that is acceptable at all. I notice the government has moved that back until 1 July next year. Originally it was going to be 1 July this year—in the hope that something might intervene between now and 1 July next year perhaps. But the fact is: young people are not foolish; they know when they are being had; they know when they are being treated unfairly. To remove that amount of money—that remarkably large proportion of a very, very modest income—is unfair, and we do not support that measure. We would like to see the government articulate a jobs plan for this nation, and that would include engaging with business, working out measures that work and having regional policies in place. Look at Far North Queensland. It is a great place to visit but it has a very high unemployment rate among young people. If we are going to ever have a bipartisan position in this area of public policy, you would hope it would be on youth unemployment. You would know, Deputy Speaker Ewen Jones, given the area you represent, that these challenges should be beyond partisan politics. I would suggest to the government that some of the measures could include working with businesses in regions and working with other tiers of government as well, to make sure that the policies that are being developed at the state level and even at the local government level are working in tandem with Commonwealth investment in this area. That is critical. I will be asking the Minister representing the Minister for Employment about these estimates tomorrow afternoon in the Federation Chamber. I will be asking him about where they managed to get $300 million from. Some of it seems to have come from the current contract. In other words, it is not new money at all, but this has been dressed up as new youth policies. But we will examine that in more detail, hopefully, if the Minister for Education and Training actually answers the question when I put it to him tomorrow. We believe that more can be done in this area, but we do not believe that you increase the likelihood of young people getting into work if you remove all support whatsoever. Yes, you can have Work for the Dole programs for young people. Work experience programs can be very helpful if they are properly structured, and preferably if there is accredited training that goes with them. For many people who may not have entered the labour market, understanding about working in teams, working under supervision, turning up for work, the importance of not being late and the fact that people are relying on them to turn up and work is really important experience. The opposition would agree with the government on that. We would say, however, that there are other types of approaches that should be taken for older workers who, for example, might have had 30 years in the labour market and have just been retrenched because of changes in our economy—perhaps changes in manufacturing, where we are seeing terrible job losses. I do not think you should be telling a 45-year-old worker that they should go off and work for the dole. It might be better to say: 'You've shown yourself to be working for 30 years in the labour market—every day, every week, every month, every year, since you left school. You don't need to show us you can work. You don't need a work culture, because you have all of that. What you might need is skills in areas of demand.' What we need to do, therefore—and I am not pointing the finger at the government; this is a complicated area, but we should work this out—is to identify more precisely what areas in the labour market are in growing demand, where the skill deficiencies are and how we can attend to those deficiencies by providing training for people who have got great work experience, real work experience, but unfortunately, through no fault of their own, have found themselves victims of economic transition and change. The idea that one size fits all for 800,000 unemployed people is not right. We do need to have different types of approaches for young people—to inculcate them with a sense of work and what it means and turning up and presenting yourself. These are not soft skills; these are core skills. You have got to present. You have got to show that you are part of a team, part of a community, part of a society. That is what turning up for work is—and feeling good about it and feeling that you are a productive part of your community. That is really important, and work experience, whether it be called Work for the Dole or anything else, can be very effective. But Labor thinks there are other ways to help workers who have enormous experience but who just need some new skills to join the set of skills they have so that they can find themselves back in the labour market as quickly as possible. The government should consider how much money has been taken out of training and skills and whether we can reinvest in that area. That is really important. The area that we invest in needs to match the demand in the labour market. That is why we need to engage with business, industry, unions, training providers and others and make sure that the investment that the taxpayer's dollar is being spent on is in areas of skills that are in demand. We all know stories of young people, in particular, undergoing training that really has not suited the opportunities that are in the labour market. How frustrating would it be for a person who is desperate to find work to undergo training and find that the acquisition of those skills has left them no better off in terms of their opportunities at work? We need to do better as a parliament in this area. We are letting down young people if we are not doing our bit as legislators to provide the right support. That means training and work experience when required, but we do not think using the stick in the case of young people is particularly helpful. I do not believe that. I believe that if you do not genuinely look for work there should be consequences in terms of your income. That is where the mutual obligation comes in. I believe if you wilfully do not genuinely look for work, of course there should be consequences for your Newstart allowance. That is the mutual obligation. But I do not believe that, if you genuinely are seeking to find work and you are under the age of 25—you might be living on your own, trying to pay rent—somehow the government can say, 'You're not getting any support from us for a month.' I do not think that is fair, and not only do I not think it is fair, I think it is counterproductive. I think it is more likely that that person will not find work. I know the government is thinking, 'Surely, if they are desperate enough, they will just find work.' But I think you have to give a little bit of support. You have to help a person up so that they can get on their feet and have a chance. That is what it is about—not a handout but a hand-up. A hand-up means giving them a modest level of support while they are genuinely looking for work, and I think the government therefore should reconsider the provision. They have reconsidered the six-month suspension of any support at all. Why don't they go the whole way? Say, 'Provided they are genuinely looking for work, people under the age of 25 should be given support at the commencement of that time.' That is the commencement of the mutual obligation principle, a principle that started under Working Nation during the Keating years with the then minister for employment, Simon Crean, and carried on by John Howard and indeed future governments. It was torn up for the first time, I would argue, in last year's budget, when they said there would be no support. I think elements of that are still here—this removal of the mutual obligation principle. Saying that a government has no obligation to provide any support for someone under the age of 25 for the first month is wrong, and it is in breach of what has been bipartisan policy for more than 25 years. There are other measures in the bill that the member for Jagajaga has addressed. Unemployment is too high and is forecast to go higher—a 14-year high. Anything the government can do to attend to this major challenge, the opposition will be willing to work with them on. We want to see fewer people lose their work and more people find opportunities in the labour market. 20:39 Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 Lyons Listening to the member for Gorton's contribution, I have no doubt at all that he is as passionate as any other person in this place about seeing the unacceptable level of 13 per cent youth unemployment end in this country. Indeed it is not easy, and in the six years of the previous government the challenges were there as well, and this government is trying a range of measures. It was interesting, when I elected to speak on this bill, to start looking through the safety nets to see all the considerations and all the exemptions to the four-week waiting period before there is eligibility for Newstart for those people under the age of 25. When you take into account all of those exemptions, the areas of disadvantage and the preconditions for being required to wait that month, really there are so many exemptions that it means the number of people who will be subject to this measure will be a modest number. Even if you look at the broad number of 13 per cent across the country, it does imply that the majority of people are getting on with their life like young people all around the country are getting on. I think we are actually doing a disservice as much as anything else to the young people of our country, who in the main get on with life—whether they take up study or take up the sometimes difficult search for employment for the first time. But part of the reason why this four-week period is considered important is that it does provide an incentive, and it is a clear message. The member for Gorton spoke at length about the concept of mutual obligation, and I think we all understand and appreciate that there is fundamentally in our welfare system a mutual obligation piece. But we must also provide the incentive for young people to see that it is just simply unacceptable to finish school and go straight onto Newstart, and get them to see there is a range of things that they might consider. For example, some of the exemptions include their access to Youth Allowance if they are going to take up study. The vast majority of young people do get on, and whilst 13 per cent is absolutely unacceptable, the vast majority of young people that get on with doing what they do. There is a range of commitments that the government has made in terms of investments. One that I am particularly interested in work experience provision, where $18.3 million has been invested by the government to encourage young people to take up opportunities that already exist under the law as they stand today. In fact, there is potential there for three 28-day placements under work experience. I do not like the analogy of 'try before you buy', but it is a reality, particularly for small businesses. It is an absolute reality that putting on that first employee, and even to put on a second or a third, is a hurdle for a small business. To get somebody right for the job is critically important to employers, and, at the end of the day, it is to the benefit of the employees as well. I am particularly interested in this area and I think it is something that we perhaps overlook sometimes. There is opportunity for young people if they have got a particular interest, whether it be in a mechanical trade, a printing area or working as a lawyer's clerk, or whatever it might be. If we are able to get young people who are looking for work into those placements, give them the opportunity to show what they are capable of and to show the employer that they are worthwhile and worth a job offer, the likelihood will be that there will be a higher proportion of employers that will give them that opportunity—and goodness knows, that is what we want to see. There are challenges of course for young people at the moment, and particularly I think of areas in my electorate in the south-east, in and around Sorell and the Tasman Peninsula. There, that 13.1 per cent youth unemployment figure is actually a dream. I know in other parts of my electorate, on the north-west coast—and the member for Braddon would agree—there are enormous challenges, where the youth unemployment rate is well above the figure that is quoted there as an average, and it does not always give a clear indication of the difficulties that young people have in finding opportunities. But I think using that work experience model gives employers the chance to show those young people who show some initiative, who want to get into that work experience position in an area where they have interests and some passion, what they can do. It is something that we often underestimate. There are safety nets, as I mentioned, in this bill. This measure will only apply to people that are job ready. Effectively, that means somebody who lives in an area with good employment opportunities, has reasonable language, literacy and numeracy skills and has had recent work experience. With the whole range of safety nets in place, the obligations that we expect those young people to meet during the first four weeks are: meeting with a Job Active provider, agreeing to a job plan, developing an up-to-date resume, creating a job seeker profile on the Jobsearch website and providing evidence of satisfactory job searches with up to 20 job applications during the four-week period. I am not a hard person, but I do not think they are unreasonable expectations of young people. As I say, we have safety nets and many people are not obliged to participate in that four weeks, such as all those people who will be taking on study, so I do not think they are unreasonable expectations to have of anybody. Also, 6.5 million young people under the age of 25 live at home with either one or both parents, so there is that support network. I do not have any big cities in my patch, but the cost of living for some of these people in these big cities can be a factor. It is a conversation as a nation that we are having at the moment, about the cost of living particularly in Sydney and Melbourne. But the family network is there as a support mechanism for, as I say, 6.5 million young people under the age of 25. Further, as part of these measures we have made $8.1 million available in emergency relief funding to provide assistance to job seekers affected by the measure and for those who may be experiencing hardship. This funding will be available through emergency relief providers. The measure encourages young people to make every effort to look for work and maximise their chance of finding a job. That is all we are asking here—and, with the criteria I mentioned before and the exemptions, this is not unreasonable. Students will not be subject to the four-week waiting period. Further, in recognition of the importance of education and training in preventing future unemployment, young people who return to school or take up full-time vocational education or university study will be able to seek more suitable payments for their circumstances such as Youth Allowance for students and therefore would not be subject to the four-week waiting period. On Friday last week I had the pleasure in Bridgewater, in the south of my electorate, of going along to meet with Adam Bone, who owns a business called the Tasmanian Cask Company. They import wine casks, sherry casks and port casks from all around the world. They come in deconstructed, and they are cleaned and used for the growing number of whisky distillers that populate the state of Tasmania. It was a real pleasure to meet Adam on Friday. The highlight for me was Trevor Percy, who had attracted one of the Tasmanian Jobs Program incentive payments to Adam, his employer. To be brutally honest, Trevor was the right man for the job. Adam would not have hesitated, I do not think, with or without the job incentive payment. I do not think Adam would have gone past Trevor because he clearly was the right man for the job. It was fantastic. I also met with Pat Kluver from Workskills in Bridgewater. As it happens, the Workskills office is right next door to the Tasmanian Cask Company in Hurst Street, Bridgewater. It was a particular pleasure to speak to four or five people employed in Adam's business, and particularly to speak to Trevor. He lost his job about 12 months ago, and during that time he had a marriage break-up. He has children, but he is a man who knows the value of work. He has worked all his life and he has had a tough trot in the last 12 months. It was fantastic to listen to him and to hear how pleased he was to again be back in the workforce. This will be a fantastic opportunity—it is a great business; it will be a growing business. Adam is doing a fantastic job. There are other young people there—I met Jarrod, as well. It is a fantastic place to work, and I do not think they are going to be able to keep up with the demand that is growing around the Tasmanian whisky industry. The member for Gorton also talked a little bit about not just those people in the youth area but also those more mature job seekers. Trevor was one such more mature job seeker. Had he been 50 years of age—he was not—and unemployed for 12 months he would have been able to access the Restart program, which is part of this government's substantial investment in the Jobs and Small Business package, which has been so broadly welcomed right across the country, particularly with the focus the budget has had on small business. The Restart program of course, combined with the Tasmanian Jobs Program, would allow an employer to access up to $16½ thousand to employ somebody over the age of 50 who had been unemployed for 12 months. Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 96430 Order, members interjecting across the table! Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I do appreciate that. It is a generous incentive. One of the roles I think we have as parliamentarians is to make employers, as much as employees, aware of these programs. As I say, if the right person walks through the door, it is not going to be that job incentive money that is going to make the decision, and no employer in his right mind would choose the fellow that was not right for the job with the job incentive over somebody who was right for the job without the job incentive; nevertheless, it is a substantial incentive for employers to contemplate—the $16½ thousand for a Restart person over the age of 50. As I say, this is a balanced measure. We listened, and we have made changes. I think most Australians would understand that, particularly for young people, this is a critical area. We do want to see more young people in the workforce. They are our future. And this government is absolutely committed to supporting young people to either get into study or do the very best that they can, within the context of mutual obligation, to find work. At the same time, with the incentives that we have put in there for small businesses, and with other measures within the budget this year, there is the support there for employers to look again and consider putting on another employee, and that is what we want to see. 20:54 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield I do not want to bring the House to outrage at five to nine at night, but this bill, the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Youth Employment and Other Measures) Bill 2015, really does continue in the long list of acts of policy bastardry that I have seen in this place towards young people by this government. Where they started from was: cutting young people off unemployment benefits for six months—six months! They made that outrageous bit of policy—that outrageous bit of policy bastardry—and now they wheel in here and they say, 'Oh, we listened and we learned, and now it is just down to a month.' Like everybody, I can cast my mind back to 1989 when I left school, when I was a young person, and I went out there to the job market. I was thinking about this as I sat there and listened to those opposite, and I thought about just how tough it was to leave school at that time in South Australia. It was a very tough labour market. If you look at the Brotherhood of St Laurence's youth unemployment snapshot of 2014, they go back that far—they have got all the figures from that point. And they are not that different from today, particularly in northern Adelaide, and particularly in places like where I grew up at Kapunda. I worked at a heap of jobs. I worked at the Gawler racecourse. I worked at the Kapunda trotting track. I picked fruit—grapes, apricots and peaches—up in the Riverland. The member for Riverina, who is at the table, would like that. I worked on farms. I was a cleaner. I was a trolley collector. I was the world's worst industrial hose salesman. I did all these jobs. I was in and out of work the whole time. And I just remember how precarious it actually was. It was really precarious. And I am grateful that I never had to go on unemployment benefits in that whole time, but it was nice knowing it was there and I had many friends who did have to rely on it. So when I think back to those times, I think about just how tough it was. Unemployment, particularly high youth unemployment, does not just affect the individual. It affects their friends and their families. It affects other workers. When I was a union official in the early nineties in South Australia, I saw workers who would put up with all sorts of abuses from their employers—sometimes just their line managers—in supermarkets and retail stores because they were so scared about being made unemployed. When I later went and worked in Darwin it was completely different because unemployment up there was so low that workers had a particularly different attitude. So high unemployment is a bitter thing to inflict on a community. And it affects everybody—particularly working class communities. Now the government rolls in here and starts talking about young people and about getting the balance right, when they are not going to give young people any income for four weeks. So, as you can imagine, if you are in and out of precarious employment—and employment has only got more precarious in the last 25 years—and then they talk about extending the youth allowance from 22 to 24, saving them some money but hacking 2½ grand a year out of a young person's income, potentially—$48 a week—this makes all the difference. These are acts of absolute policy bastardry. If you look at the statistics from my area, in Adelaide's north, from the Skills for All website, and you look at the 2015 figures, they are 8.3 per cent for total unemployment and 17.9 per cent for youth unemployment in Adelaide's north, and of course in the Barossa-Yorke-Mid North area they are 6.8 per cent and 15.8 per cent. So these figures are still very high. We know that that is so, no matter how hard many young people look for work. And the experience of many is to just send out their resume over and over again. With many employers, you cannot just rock up at the door and impress someone because what they will tell you is to go and apply through the internet, because everything is put through HR systems, or to go to the local employment agency. So, as to the days when you might have been able to rock up and hawk your resume around and impress someone by knocking on doors, that avenue is being closed to young people. What we have here is a system where a lot of the jobs are being removed from the system—a lot of the entry-level jobs are being removed. A lot of the demands for people to be trained and work-ready are going up, not down—sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker! I thought the member for Solomon was going to make a speech when she stood up just then! The DEPUTY SPEAKER 96430 You have a few seconds left to finish yours! Mr CHAMPION HW9 I have a few seconds to go—I was holding the House in suspense! It is very difficult— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 110 ADJOURNMENT Employment 111 21:00 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney It is always such a pleasure to see you in the chair, Mr Deputy Speaker! Last week's unemployment figures showed a very modest drop in the unemployment rate. Of course Labor welcomes that, but we saw today the extraordinary scene of the Treasurer crowing about an unemployment figure with a six in front of it. During the height of the global financial crisis unemployment never reached that height. In fact about 750,000 Australians are unemployed, and youth unemployment is still extraordinarily high at 13½ per cent. And in many places it is much more than that—even above 20 per cent. In some parts of Australia more than one in five young Australians cannot get a job. The unemployment rate since this government came in has actually been higher than at any point during the global financial crisis. I think it is an extraordinary thing that we have a Treasurer who thinks that this performance is something to be proud of and something to boast about—that we actually have higher unemployment now than during the global financial crisis. Long-term unemployment is at a 16-year high, and indeed one in four unemployed people have now been unemployed for more than a year. It was one in eight in 2008. The budget papers say that things are going to get worse. In fact, the budget papers predict an unemployment figure of 6½ per cent, the highest figure in 14 years. In this context, that same Treasurer is telling young Australians to go out and get a good job and earn a good wage so they can buy a home of their own. It is a stunning lack of understanding of the effects of his own contractionary policies on the Australian economy and on the real economy—the real budgets—of Australian families. Last year we saw wage growth drop to its lowest level since the data series began in 1997. We have high unemployment, very low wages growth and a Treasurer who not only does not have a plan to fix this but who does not have a clue that it is happening. He does not have a clue about what is happening in ordinary people's lounge rooms and dining rooms as they are making decisions about the loans they might take on to buy a property of their own. According to the ANZ-Roy Morgan survey and the Westpac-Melbourne Institute survey, consumer confidence has certainly taken a hit and not recovered. It is at the lowest level that it has been at this year at the moment, despite two cuts in the RBA cash rate. Curiously, we have the contractionary policies of the first Abbott budget, with its extraordinary cuts to the livelihoods of ordinary families—$6,000 cut from a family on $65,000 a year—and still spending at GFC levels of 25.9 per cent of GDP. So you have high unemployment, low wage growth and high spending, but cuts which hurt the confidence of Australian families. Compare that to what has happened to cleaners today. One year ago in this parliament, last June—one year ago tomorrow, in fact—Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, said that abolishing the Commonwealth Cleaning Guidelines would not affect cleaners' pay. He said: I want to make it absolutely crystal clear that no cleaner's pay is reduced. He said, 'No cleaner's pay is reduced,' in question time a year ago. Many of my colleagues joined cleaners out on the front lawns of parliament today as they were striking to make the point that cleaners cleaning Commonwealth offices—including the office of the Prime Minister, no doubt—have seen extraordinary cuts to their take-home pay. There are programs that are designed to help young Australians find a job if they are unlucky enough not to have one—programs like Youth Connections. But the Treasurer said: … I haven't seen that particular program. All I can say is, whatever was happening previously wasn't working … In fact 93.4 per cent of those who got help from Youth Connections were still in a job or in education six months later. The Treasurer does not even know what he is cutting: he has no plan for the future and no clue about today. Moorebank Intermodal Terminal 111 21:05 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I would like to continue from where I was speaking this morning on a few mistaken concepts surrounding the Moorebank Intermodal Terminal. The first is that it takes trucks off the road, the second is that it reduces pollution and the third is that it will save costs—all simplistic, motherhood statements, but when you dig down to the facts they are all completely misguided. Firstly is the idea that it takes trucks off the road. You need to look at where the containers actually go in Sydney and you also need to look at where the goods from those containers go to work out that this will not take trucks off the road. It will simply relocate the starting point for those containers from Port Botany out to Moorebank. The goods still have to get on the road and there are two ways that can happen. Firstly, the containers will be transported and relocated from the site. Rather than currently, where a container goes directly by truck from Port Botany to, say, Eastern Creek or to the Wetherill Park area, where most of the containers go in Sydney, the idea is that it will actually go on a train all the way around to Moorebank. It will then be unloaded from the train, put on a stack and then put on another truck and trucked from Moorebank up to Wetherill Park or Eastern Creek. This does not take trucks off the road; it puts trucks on the road. It increases the congestion in Western Sydney. The other possibility is that the containers are actually unpacked on site and distributed from Moorebank. Again, that fails to take trucks off the road because Moorebank is too far away from the demographic centre of Sydney. The demographic centre of Sydney is around the Parramatta area. If you look, that demographic centre actually becomes a proxy for where the centre of distribution of goods will be. This is why we see the majority of the containers going into Eastern Creek, or going into the Wetherill Park area, because they are the closest major industrial areas to the demographic heart of Sydney. Instead of distributing those goods from a warehouse in those areas, if you move your distribution point down to Moorebank, your smaller trucks have more miles of Sydney to cover than they otherwise would. By all accounts, the idea that it takes trucks off the road is simply and completely mistaken. The second failed concept is that this somehow reduces pollution in Western Sydney. It is true that if you move goods on rail, as compared to road, you use less diesel fuel. In fact, using the proponents' own numbers, you use half the diesel fuel. So, yes, it is true that with just the container movement compared to road movement, you will reduce carbon dioxide emissions—that clear, odourless, harmless gas that makes the plants grow. The real dangerous air pollution is fine and coarse particulate matter that causes lung cancer, heart disease and childhood asthma, and kills thousands of people in Sydney every single year. By taking a container off a truck and putting it on these old locomotives, these 40- and 50-year old locomotives, without any pollution controls actually increases the pollution almost tenfold. It does not double it. It does not triple it. It is almost a tenfold increase in particulate matter pollution for moving that container into Western Sydney. The third failed logical idea of this is that it will save costs. An intermodal concept of shuffling goods out to Western Sydney is simply a case of double-handling. You have a second lift. You have to lift at the port and you also have a lift at the intermodal. We also have the costs. Moorebank is located almost on an island around the Georges River. For this project to have any hope of working—for the containers to have any hope at all of getting out of that side of Moorebank—we need almost a $750 million upgrade to access the M5. The current bridge across the M5 takes 120,000 cars a day. Compare that to the Sydney Harbour Bridge, which takes 160,000. Can you imagine fully laden semitrailers trying to merge into traffic on the Harbour Bridge and then merge across lanes? This is the insanity that they are trying to do at Moorebank. Without that $150 million, at least, upgrade the terminal will simply not work; it will be a white elephant. And there is the opportunity cost. This money should be invested for the benefit of the nation either at Badgerys Creek, where the airport is, or out at Eastern Creek. Magna Carta, Australian Human Rights Commission 112 21:10 Mr GILES 243609 Scullin Today, of course, we mark the 800th anniversary of the foundation stone of our democracy in the Magna Carta. This document established the rule of law against the logic of ends always justifying the means and offered the prospect of ending the exercise of unfettered executive power. Members of the present executive attended today's Magna Carta ceremony. The Prime Minister noted at the ceremony that the Magna Carta was 'perhaps the most important constitutional document of all times' and that acknowledged 'a grand tradition of which we are today's custodians, and we pledge to build on this magnificent legacy.' Despite these words, the actions of the Prime Minister and other members of the executive betray no such sense of tradition or commitment to build on the legacy. Let us think about Minister Dutton's 'whatever it takes' remarks in question time today. Furthermore, the ugly and highly personalised attacks that we have seen on the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, Professor Gillian Triggs, are also not in keeping with building on the legacy of the Magna Carta. Indeed, it is worth touching on the purpose and role of this commission as there seems to be some confusion amongst government members on this. One of the commission's statutory responsibilities is policy and legislative development through the provision of advice and submissions to parliaments and governments to develop laws, policies and programs. The commission is, of course, independent of government. Australia has always enjoyed a separation of powers, which ensures that there are checks on executive power. This is part of the tradition that the Prime Minister alluded to. The Human Rights Commission provides useful, indeed vital, scrutiny of government policies through its investigative powers. Yet, when the commission performs its legislated role, the Abbott government reacts with petulance and vindictiveness. How extraordinary to hear of the Attorney-General refusing to engage with Professor Triggs in a fit of pique—this from the first law officer whose job out to entail defending independent statutory office holders like Professor Triggs. That the United Nations has formally urged the Abbott government to stop attacking Professor Triggs is a sign of how out of hand these attacks have become. I found the official government response to the UN concerns interesting to say the least. The letter sent by John Quinn, Australia 's Ambassador to the UN, stated: Though the government will not always agree with the Commission's recommendations, it welcomes a vigorous and diverse human rights debate in Australia, and the commission plays a constructive role in that debate— Mr Quinn's letter stated that the Australian government had not, 'Sought to remove any member of the commission'. Fine sentiments; however, Mr Quinn must have been unaware of the repeated calls by the Prime Minister, the Minister for Immigration and other government members for Professor Triggs to stand down and its attempts to silence any semblance of a human rights debate in Australia. There is obviously a huge cognitive dissonance between our official position adopted at the UN and the Australian government's domestic position. This dissonance extends to the vital matter of respecting and, in so doing, upholding the role and independence of the commission and its officers. Inquiries by the commission, like for instance its inquiry into children in detention, provide an opportunity for both sides of politics to step back, reflect and reassess our policies in the context of human rights. The children in detention inquiry makes for very troubling reading. Its remit covered the policies of both major parties' time in government. However, rather than assess the merits of the commission's report, the Abbott government went hard and went personal against Professor Triggs. Recently, Professor Triggs gave a speech on women and leadership at a Committee for Economic Development of Australia function. In an answer to a question, the professor stated: Boats have got to stop. But have we thought about what the consequences are of pushing people back to our neighbour Indonesia? Is it any wonder that Indonesia will not engage with us on other issues that we care about … Michelle Grattan correctly pointed out that: Triggs in her answer had spoken about the pursuit of regional agreement on stopping capital punishment, not the execution of the two Australians. Neither the questioner nor she mentioned them. It would have been wise, if not politically convenient, for the ministers to have more carefully checked out the context. Unfortunately, this is a government that does not do wise let alone check for context. Government members did not want to know about the context. It was much more in keeping with their agenda to invent an excuse to attack Professor Triggs all over again and, by extension, shut down any discussion of its policies and about our upholding human rights. Our country greatly benefits from the independence and scrutiny of organisations like the Australian Human Rights Commission and its officers. When the Prime Minister, the Minister for Immigration and the Attorney-General attack Professor Triggs simply for fearlessly and frankly doing her job, they are attacking our democracy and they are diminishing our society. Illicit Drugs 113 21:15 Mrs McNAMARA 241589 Dobell Across Australia we are witnessing the devastating impact of methamphetamine or ice. Ice usage can cause psychosis, out-of-control aggression, and lead to long-term psychological issues. It has been linked to road fatalities, robberies and violent criminal acts against innocent citizens including health and law enforcement personnel. Methamphetamine and ice usage on the Central Coast has increased by 112 per cent over the past two years. This frightening statistic highlighted the need for urgent action on addressing the ice epidemic. Recently I facilitated the Central Coast Ice Summit. The Central Coast Ice Summit was attended by over 350 community members from a diverse range of backgrounds and each brought their own personal story about the impact of ice. From speaking with local health professionals and local residents, I have heard first-hand the effects caused by this despicable drug, ice. Its presence is wreaking havoc on our community. Families are being torn apart, lives are being lost and futures destroyed. I found no shortage of concern amongst my community. From my conversations with local law enforcement agencies, health professionals, community organisations and members of our community, the need to take action and address the issues stemming from ice use was identified. By working together on a local level, we had the opportunity to develop a coordinated strategic approach to begin tackling the devastating consequences associated with ice usage. Addressing the Central Coast Ice Summit were a range of front-line experts with first-hand experience of the impact of ice use. Following the ice summit, I received feedback from those who had attended and liaised further with our expert panel as to how best address the ice epidemic. From this feedback, three key recommendations were identified to assist the Central Coast in combating the ice epidemic. Firstly, rehabilitation centres are essential in breaking the cycle of ice usage. Unfortunately on the Central Coast, these essential services are in short supply. We need to look at maximising the effectiveness of current providers and direct funding to effective programs delivering proven outcomes. It is also crucial that there is a mixture of rehabilitation styles offered to accommodate the varying needs of the individuals and community. A comprehensive analysis of current rehabilitation centres on the Central Coast should be undertaken to identify what is currently working, what is not working and what gaps exist in the current system. Only then can a baseline be identified and appropriate funding and service allocation speed developed and implemented. Second is the need for a drug court on the Central Coast. Currently in New South Wales there are only three specialised courts which deal with the issue of drug offences. Specialist drug courts require non-violent offenders to plead guilty and enter into treatment as an alternative to incarceration. The extension of the specialised court program should be extended into the Central Coast region for those deemed suitable. More discussions are needed with the New South Wales government in regard to this particular recommendation. With a 112-per cent increase in the use of methamphetamine on the Central Coast, the implementation of a specialised drug court would ensure eligible community members are referred and receive the rehabilitation help that they need. The third recommendation relates to the need for early education and intervention in schools. Students should be taught about the realities of illegal drugs, especially ice. While there is a current aware-not-scare focus on educating children from primary school level to make the correct health choices in life, thought must be given to the actuality of situations on the Central Coast where, tragically, some young children are exposed to illegal drug taking as a norm. A specific primary education campaign should be developed and implemented in all schools, especially those identified as at risk areas to begin the awareness process from an early age. Analysis needs to be completed in regards to the effectiveness of the aware-not-scare education focus against a realistic and transparent campaign regarding the drug ice and the effect on the user. Community consultation is only the start of the process to stop the scourge of this insidious drug. The complexity of the ice epidemic knows no bounds. The Central Coast submission is a small snapshot of the thoughts, ideas and suggestions of the Central Coast community. These views have formed the basis of our submission to the National Ice Task Force. I vow to continue working with my community to tackle the insidious ice epidemic. Asylum Seekers 114 21:20 Ms BURKE 83S Chisholm The Abbott government likes the mantra they have stopped the boats. They may have stopped the boats but they have not stopped asylum seekers. They have not dealt with the issue of refugees. People in my community are sick and tired and really are over the treatment and the language around people, desperate people, seeking a better life. One such group is the Outer Eastern Asylum Seekers Support Network. They recently sent me an email that indicated a day in the life of members of their group. 'Yesterday was a very dark day but even darker for Akbar, who pleaded with me to accompany him to his immigration appointment. As I went with Akbar at his request I had to be identified as someone with a purpose title so I signed in as his pastoral carer, which earned me the title of Pastor. His case worker was Jill filling for Jane his usual case worker. We had the first session, locked in a room with a security guard outside, with a young lady, Rosa-marie, who was gentle, but frank. She explained after hearing our story and attempts at legal action et cetera that she had to hand over to a senior staffer, Nicole. Nicole came in, arranged for a translator, and then asked us to wait outside as she wanted to talk to Akbar alone. Ten minutes later she came and said Akbar was detained and would be transferred to detention and we could go home. Or we could ring him now—on the other side of the wall—but we could not see him. 'You must leave.' I rang Akbar and he was very distressed and said, "John, I cannot take anymore. I want to die. I have swallowed all of my sleeping tablets that the doctor gave me. John, I do not want to live." I pleaded with him in vain but alerted the staff. Jill, the fill in-case worker, called out to those at the front counter, "You have locked him in so he will kill himself—why?" Sitting in this area watching were about 12 to 15 people of many nationalities, some with children, waiting their fate of their application re their visas. When we were asked to leave, I said, "Not until I know Akbar is alright."   We met with the manager later and protested the method, process and aggression. After we went downstairs, we were summoned back to talk again to the manager, who told us they had called the medical team and Akbar was sent to RMH. He said I had permission to visit him. We made a very heavy point of how unprofessional were their methods and pointed out it must not only effect asylum seekers but would cause enormous stress and damage on staff. I visited Akbar about an hour or two later at Royal Melbourne Hospital emergency, where he was all tubed up and really out of it. The two immigration staff let me sit with him for quite some time and said they were waiting for the security guards to take over. Akbar's housemates had called me re the outcome. I did not have much option but tell them. They came into the city immediately to visit Akbar at the Royal Melbourne Hospital but were refused by the new security guards that immigration must have ready for these situations . They waited at the hospital, hoping to see him. I went back into the city, knowing they may be stranded. We met at the Royal Melbourne Hospital at 6 pm, but the security guards would not let us see him. I gave the guys a lift home, but both are very, very distressed. I've learnt from this experience what collective evil means in this context. Here is a fine man—mature, intelligent, qualified, sensitive and a Christian who through birth circumstances has an unacceptable ethnicity; therefore, he has to suffer. He was adopted at age six by a Muslim family with a kind father. Soon after his father died, his step-brothers made life hell for him. He is married with a wife and 3 children. He has had many setbacks in his life, but he has also been incredibly successful. Because of his difficult teenage years, he has studied and become independent of his family. Since he has come to Australia he has been baptized and attends the Persian church which meets at New Hope Baptist in Blackburn. What does Australia do to him but treat him like a criminal, an outcast, a leper? What I saw yesterday was just plain disgraceful. One positive thing I've learnt is that the asylum seeker community network is amazingly vibrant and connected.' And so writes one of my constituents about an experience with a human being—not some entity that has arrived here on a boat to be condemned but a human being. At the same time, another constituent wrote about the forced deportation of a mother and her baby back to Nauru. At the same time, another of my constituents has written to me about the plight of an asylum seeker family who have been granted status on Nauru and their ability to get their child's arm fixed—to have medical treatment on Nauru for their son's arm. The Australian government is refusing to allow him to come to Australia for treatment. And on and on it goes in our name. At what stage do we say as a community, as a society, as an Australian people: 'Enough is enough. Not in my name'? Surely there has to be a better way of dealing with the situation that is only growing in magnitude. We can keep talking about stopping boats, but we have not stopped refugees. Budget 115 21:25 Mr EWEN JONES 96430 Herbert This year's budget was a cracker for Australia and for North Queensland. When Treasurer Joe Hockey delivered his speech, I knew instantly what he was trying to achieve; jobs, opportunity and growth are central to what this government wants to provide. It also fits the narrative of living within your means and doing more with less. We no longer have the rivers of gold from the mining boom and we must adjust. He recognised that we have real issues surrounding our budget sustainability into the future and addressed them with a carefully crafted plan which backs our strengths. We must stretch our tax dollar as far as we can and get as many uses out of it as possible. We must also look at how business is conducted in this country and work with it as much as possible. Government does not create wealth, but it does supply the infrastructure which facilitates commerce. In particular we need to look at the government tender process across all levels of government so it better reflects the nature of our regions and the nature of business. We need government funds to wash through our economies more than once. Government tenders have become massively complex. My question and the question being asked of me by my business sector is: does this tender process produce better results? It is frustrating when, after forcing compliance with all these items, there is then a 100 per cent weighting on price, making the rest of the tender document worthless other than to disqualify people from participating. This is the bugbear of my city's businesses. It is my strong belief that the tender process has become convoluted and confused over a long period of time. Instead of the core principles of respect for the taxpayers' dollar and value for money, we seem to have entered a world where centralised decision and conflict resolution processes have outweighed the core tenets of the tender. When you end up with roads for local councils costed at $9 million that end up costing the state government using their own tender mechanism $27 million with not one cent flushing through the local regional economy, it is time to have a fair dinkum think about what we are trying to do here. Are we trying to get the best value from our taxpayer dollar? Are we trying to facilitate commerce on a local, state and national level? Or are we allowing someone in a building in a capital city somewhere in Australia to ensure that his or her job is easier at the expense of the first two questions I posed? We all have heard stories about the subcontractor who has failed in his bid to secure a part of a tender and who has then been approached to do the work at more than his original price. These stories abound. We have to do better. It does not just affect the big tenders for the major jobs; it is the centralisation of decisions which causes heads to be scratched. When a gearbox has to be wrapped in plastic, put on transport and sent from Townsville to the New South Wales-Victoria border to be repaired, you shake your head. When you have locals who can supply the service quicker and better locally but do not qualify for the work, you know you have a problem. When you have a government fact sheet that shows that the trip to Victoria is more efficient, you know you are in trouble. What we as a government and supplier of funds must do is simplify the process to allow the local contractors to have a chop at part of the tender. Please do not go down the line that the centralisation of supply and existing tender processes is reducing paperwork. There are entire floors of major businesses now fitted out with tender officers whose job is to ensure that the minutiae of their bid is compliant with the tender document. We have small businesses which can do the work, provide value for money and extend the life of our taxpayer dollar. We owe it to them and all taxpayers to ensure that we are doing our best to maximise value. The nature of the builder has also changed. It used to be that the builder had tools and was on the job. Today the builder or lead contractor is more of a project manager and does not carry a great deal of risk. All the risk is carried by the subcontractor—through my eyes, anyway. I am pleased to hear that we are moving on unfair contracts with the small business ombudsman and on the nature of government tenders and the exposure that subcontractors experience. It is vitally important that the federal government play a major role in supplying confidence to the business community. I am proud to stand next to my Treasurer and say that we know there is always more to do but we are heading in the right direction and supporting my community. I thank the House. The DEPUTY SPEAKER YT4 Order! It being 9:29 pm, the debate is interrupted. House adjourned at 21:29 NOTICES 116 NOTICES

Monday, 15 June 2015

The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mrs Griggs ) (took the chair at 10:30.

CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS 118 CONSTITUENCY STATEMENTS Greenway Electorate: Community Aid 118 10:29 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I rise this morning to express my deep disappointment and to condemn the Abbott government on its decision not to reverse its funding cuts to Blacktown Community Aid and Holroyd Community Aid. Just days before Christmas last year, the Abbott government cut funding to these organisations, forcing them to close their doors. At the time, this was condemned by the community with many voicing their outrage at the government's petty and short-sighted decision. You only have to look at the work that Blacktown Community Aid and Holroyd Community Aid did to realise how important they were. Blacktown Community Aid had operated for 41 years. It had worked with victims of domestic violence, the homeless and other vulnerable and disadvantaged people in Blacktown, offering services such as emergency relief and electricity and food vouchers. The centre serviced up to 60 clients each week. You only have to do the maths to know how many people throughout Blacktown had been assisted by this wonderful organisation over 41 years. It was very disappointing to read that Coordinator Corine Raymond received this news only three days before Christmas and that, as she said, the department refused to give a reason for why the funding was cut. After meeting with Blacktown Community Aid earlier this year, I wanted to make sure that we got to the point where we could not say that we had not done everything possible to keep them open. I respectfully wrote to the Minister for Social Services in March and invited him to reconsider this decision, offering to arrange a visit to Blacktown Community Aid to see first-hand the work they do and so that he could meet volunteers. It is now the middle of June. I am happy to stand corrected but I have still not received a response from the minister or his office. Last week the minister announced that the government will reverse its cuts to 100 community organisations around the country 'to address gaps in frontline community services'. Holroyd Community Aid and Blacktown Community Aid did not receive such funding. I can tell you there will be enormous gaps in these two local government areas as a result of their demise. In his media release on the announcement, the minister thanked his parliamentary colleagues for bringing these gaps to his attention and said: Their representations have been a critical part of this process to ensure that services will continue to be there for those who need them. Blacktown Community Aid had been serving the local community I represent for over 40 years. It had worked tirelessly on a shoestring budget with considerable volunteer input and community support, but according to this government, Blacktown Community Aid should be shut down after such outstanding service. This is an utter disgrace. It highlights everything that is wrong with this government—petty, short-sighted and unfair, from an unfair government. I condemn this decision. It will have an ongoing, detrimental impact on those that are the most vulnerable in our community. I repeat my thanks to everyone who has worked with Blacktown Community Aid and Holroyd Community Aid for the difference you have made in our society. Bradfield Electorate: Palliative Care 118 10:32 Mr FLETCHER L6B Bradfield Palliative care and dying at home are issues that can be confronting to talk about, but with our ageing population and more people living longer with cancer and other terminal diseases, these are issues that we, as a community, need to discuss. All too often there is an urge to provide even more medical interventions when a patient is dying, when it can be more important to give the patient the safest and most peaceful and comfortable path in their last days. In my electorate of Bradfield, we are lucky to have several services available to help people who wish to receive palliative care at home. As the North Shore Timeshas state: … more than three-quarters of people referred to a community palliative care service in northern Sydney have fulfilled their wish and died at home. HammondCare, based in my electorate, runs a home support program with the Northern Sydney Local Health District which has been accessed by 150 people since late 2013, with 77 per cent dying at home. This is in contrast to figures from Palliative Care Australia showing that while 70 per cent of Australians would prefer to die at home, only 16 per cent do so. Palliative care campaigner and resident of Bradfield, Dr Yvonne McMaster, is a tireless advocate for end-of-life care and adds her voice to all those who call for greater community engagement on the issue. In a fairly recent Sydney Morning Herald article, Dr McMaster said that the demand for palliative care services is growing and she encouraged government to look at funding programs that are working so they can be expanded. I recently met a constituent, Mrs Sarah Bloom. Mrs Bloom wanted to see me to discuss her wish to die at home and her belief that more needs to be done to facilitate the wishes of palliative patients. Sadly, I was advised just a few days ago that Mrs Bloom recently lost her battle with lung cancer but she died knowing that she had shone a light on matters relating to palliative care for me. There is a huge call on palliative care services, with more and more people wanting to die at home. It is perhaps human nature that we find this a difficult topic to engage with, and we can be tempted to bury our heads in the sand, but it is thanks to the tireless campaigning work of people like Dr Yvonne McMaster, who is a specialist in this area, as well as Mrs Sarah Bloom, who was herself suffering from a terminal disease, that awareness of these issues is going to be raised. I want to acknowledge the important work of Dr McMaster, and the courage of Mrs Bloom in raising this issue with me in her last weeks. I want to also acknowledge the very important work done in the electorate of Bradfield and elsewhere within the Northern Sydney Local Health District by HammondCare. I want to add my voice to those who say that we need to engage more seriously with palliative care so that those in their last days can have the safest, most peaceful and comfortable path. Hekmat, Ms Latifa 119 10:35 Mr ALBANESE R36 Grayndler Recently I had the honour of meeting Latifa Hekmat, her brother Abdul, and local community activists in my electorate office. Latifa asked me to share with you her story, which is as follows: "Imagine that on one day you have a beautiful and peaceful life. You live in the countryside of Ghazni province in Afghanistan on a big farm sprawling with different crops, vegetables and animals. Your parents weave carpets and rugs under the trees during spring and you love to eat sweet grapes plucked from the nearby vines. Imagine that on the next day, you go to school. But on this day your school principal reads aloud a letter. It is from the Taliban. It says all girls' schools must close. You are only seven years old but, because you are female, you cannot go to school. You cannot see a doctor. You cannot leave your home. You become paralysed by fear. And, before you know it, you become a refugee stripped of your identity, passport, and basic rights." Latifa met with me because she wanted to know how she could bring humanity to the discussion on refugees, an issue many constituents have raised with me. Australia has always done its part as part of the international community, and hundreds of thousands of former refugees have made extraordinary contributions to their new nation. The government should not simplify the discussion needed in our community by using three-word slogans. You can be opposed to people smugglers, which I am, but we need to be very careful about drawing a distinction between them and people themselves. The government must respond to the claims that it used taxpayers' funds to pay people smugglers. These are extraordinary claims, and the government simply needs to be transparent with the Australian people about these events. Today Latifa is completing her honours degree in social science at UNSW. She already has a bachelor degree in social research and policy. In her spare time, Latifa helps first-year students transition to uni life by working as a volunteer mentor. She also volunteers at the Auburn Salvation Army as an interpreter and works at UnitingCare Burnside as a casual caseworker. Her brother Abdul came to Australia by boat. Today he works at the Migrant Resource Centre, helping the most vulnerable immigrants and refugees integrate into their local communities. The story of Latifa and her family, while exceptional, is not the exception. Every day refugees and migrants give back to the nation that they are proud to call home. This week is Refugee Week. The 2015 theme—'With courage let us all combine'—is taken from the Australian national anthem. While this reminds me of the courage shown by refugees like Latifa, it also makes me think that, by coming together as a community, we can bring dignity and compassion to our discussion on refugees. Small Business 119 10:39 Mrs ANDREWS 230886 McPherson I want to speak today about small businesses and to put on the record how very well received the small business reforms that the government announced in the recent budget have been, particularly in my electorate of McPherson on the southern Gold Coast. I took the opportunity in the week after the budget to visit many of my local small business owners, and I would particularly like to mention Selena and Linda from Golosi Food Emporium, Tom from Threeworlds at Burleigh, Bruce and his team at the Byron Bay Candle Company, Michelle at Home Sweet Home, the lovely Linda at Burleigh Baker, and Vanessa from Country K9's Grooming. Each of those small businesses—and they are just a few of the businesses that I have spoken to recently—were buoyed by the fact that small business is at the heart of this budget. They are optimistic that our package will boost consumer confidence and help create a better local economic environment. At the end of Labor's term the small business share of the private sector workforce fell from 52 per cent to 43 per cent of all employees. The coalition government knew that when we came to office we needed to turn that around, and we have been working very hard to do so. It is very true that small business is our economic powerhouse. Ninety-six per cent of all of Australia's businesses are small businesses, employing over 4.5 million people and producing over $330 billion of our nation's total economic output. The Gold Coast has a reputation as the small business capital of Australia, and in my electorate of McPherson we have around 15,000 small businesses—a significant number. On the Gold Coast we are a fast-growing and enterprising region, which is why the 'have a go' budget has been so well received locally. I would like to take a moment to acknowledge and thank the very active chambers of commerce and other business advocate groups that collectively campaign and provide a voice for small businesses on the coast. The Gold Coast Central Chamber of Commerce, headed by Peter Yared; the Creek to Creek Chamber of Commerce with president Hilary Jacobs; the Mudgeeraba Chamber of Commerce with John Forrester as president; and the Southern Gold Coast Chamber of Commerce, headed by Gail O'Neill. We also have some very committed local advocacy groups including Connecting Southern Gold Coast, headed by CEO Peter Doggett; The Business League, headed by Ed and Bec Plant; and the newly formed Robina Business Alliance, chaired by Nic Rone. We announced when we came to office that Australia is once again open for business and we set out to create the right settings for businesses to grow and thrive. Small business on the Gold Coast will continue to benefit from the $5.5 billion Growing Jobs and Small Business package, which is the biggest small business package in our nation's history. I am proud to be part of a government that is supporting small business to have a go and create the right settings for businesses to grow and thrive. Lilley Electorate: Hummingbird House 120 10:42 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley Yesterday I was lucky enough to attend the first ever Rotary duck race and water festival at Shorncliffe on the banks of Cabbage Tree Creek. With the rainy weather it was a very good day for ducks, but nonetheless it was a fantastic day for families and it was a brilliant way to raise funds in support of Hummingbird House, a joint initiative of Queensland Kids and Wesley Mission at Chermside to build and operate Queensland's first and only children's hospice. Earlier this year I had the privilege of attending the sod turning of Hummingbird House, and it was inspirational and moving to hear from the co-founders of Queensland Kids, Paul and Gabrielle Quilliam, on their experience as parents of chronically ill children. I would like to extend my congratulations to the Rotary clubs of Brisbane Airport, Geebung, Hamilton, Nundah and Sandgate on organising such a fantastic day for such a worthy cause. In particular, I would like to congratulate Diane Ray, president of Sandgate Rotary; the local SES; Thomas Grice and the volunteer Marine Rescue; the Sandgate Canoe Club; the Sandgate Yacht Club; and the Sandgate Police, for their support of the event. The second event that I would like to update the house on is the World War 1 Queenslander Challenge, which aims to raise money in support of Mates4Mates. I was honoured to participate in the trek on 23 May, which begins at Enoggera Reservoir and proceeds through D'Aguilar National Park, finishing at the Woodford RSL. I issued the challenge in this place a few weeks ago for more politicians to get involved with this great cause. I am happy to say that on the north side we have put together a great team of Dr Anthony Lynham, Leanne Linard, Stirling Hinchcliffe, Councillor Victoria Newton and Anthony Chisholm. For anyone looking to get involved there is an information session on 2 July at 6 pm at the Kedron-Wavell RSL, and I urge people to get involved with this great cause. I would also like to congratulate and acknowledge one of the members of that team, my good friend Councillor Victoria Newton, who has announced that she will be retiring at the end of her current term. Since her election in 2000, she has been a very strong voice for the community, and I wish her all the best in her future endeavours. Getting involved at the local level with local RSLs, local environment groups, and particularly with community service groups such as Rotary, is one of the most important things that a member of parliament can do. In particular, we have the Einbunpin Festival coming up in Sandgate next month where all of the community groups will be there talking to the community about the services that they can provide. This is the essence of a strong community: strong service organisations who are there to provide a voice for our community. I am proud to be associated in particular with what Rotary has done on the north side, and what Victoria Newton, our councillor, and so many other dedicated volunteers in our community have done. Green Army Program 121 10:45 Mr TEHAN 210911 Wannon It is wonderful to be here in the chamber with you this morning to talk about the Green Army and what a wonderful project the Green Army is. It is a federal government commitment of $525 million budgeted over four years. The program will encourage, and is encouraging, practical action to help local environments and conservation projects across Australia, providing training to 15,000 young Australians by 2018. That is practical, on-the-ground environmental training for 15,000 young Australians by 2018. Madam Deputy Speaker Griggs, I would like to inform you that the program is up and running in Wannon and is running successfully. I have been and visited two of the projects. One is the Basalt to Bay Landcare Network project, which is doing wonderful work on the protection of endangered species and ecological communities and is increasing remnant health and resilience of some of the native flora and fauna. Participants have been undertaking fencing, weed control and revegetation surveys, and have been working with Landcare and project stakeholders. There have been great participants—young individuals who have taken on this challenge with relish. I would like to mention their names: Jesse Wilson, Deniz Fidan, Alexandra Edwards, Luke Doeven, Alex Edwards, Joseph Atkinson, Alex Kydd and Nick Grae. They have all taken on the responsibilities of being part of the Basalt to Bay Green Army project and have done a terrific job. It was wonderful to visit these young people and to see the enjoyment they were getting from being participants in this wonderful project. The Greening the Goldfields project in Maryborough has had equal success in weed control, erosion control, revegetation and working with Landcare and project stakeholders, and, once again, it has involved wonderful young Australians: Clint Chandler, Harley Rogers, Nathan Wilson, James Fenton, Kris Goodman, Tye Bakker, Kade Bench, Josh Stanton and Luke Jansen—all doing important work for the local environment and getting wonderful training skills in doing it. To see the self-satisfaction, self-confidence and joy that they are getting from actively participating in this training and looking forward to using this to prepare themselves to go on and get future employment shows how successful this program is. I congratulate the minister for the job that he has done in promoting and encouraging the Green Army in this nation. Isaacs Electorate: Mentone Community Assistance and Information Bureau 121 10:48 Mr DREYFUS HWG Isaacs Just over two weeks ago, I was in the beautiful suburb of Mentone in my electorate to meet with representatives of the Mentone Community Assistance and Information Bureau. The Mentone Community Assistance and Information Bureau is located on Florence Street, Mentone, about 200 metres from the train station. It is a few hundred metres from the bureau to the beach and barely 50 metres to the office of Senator Fifield, which is just down the street. For many years the Mentone CAB has offered emergency relief in the form of food vouchers and occasional emergency accommodation, as well as advice, for people in need, about local service providers. I met with representatives of the CAB, Cathy Hassall, Bill Pimm and Pauline Abourizik, to discuss the Abbott government's drastic funding cut to the CAB. The CAB's federal funding has been slashed from over $50,000 in 2014-15 to just $20,869 for the 2015-16 financial year—a cut of well over half of its funding compared to the previous financial year. I have twice written to the Minister for Social Services, Scott Morrison, about this issue and await his reply. Make no mistake, the Abbott government's cut to the Mentone Community Assistance and Information Bureau will hurt our community. It will hurt some of the most vulnerable members of the Mentone's community and surrounding suburbs and it will mean that the Mentone Community Assistance and Information Bureau will have to reduce services and turn away needy clients. It must be hugely frustrating for the Mentone CAB located, as they are, just 50 metres from the office of the Assistant Minister for Social Services but, even with the evidence so obvious, they cannot make this the government see the value in fairly funding local providers of emergency relief. The CAB will press on, providing less and less as their funding is slashed. With reduced coordination it will possibly lose some of the great volunteers that make the CAB the priceless community organisation that it is and has been for many years. Ultimately, though, it is the neediest members of our community who will lose, because of the Abbott government's decision. This decision is wrong. Cutting funding to providers of emergency relief—providers that already get by because of the time and often the money of volunteers—is wrong. I invite the Assistant Minister for Social Services, Senator Mitch Fifield, to make the 50-metre journey from his office to meet with me and the representatives of the Mentone Community Assistance and Information Bureau to see what they do and to see why it is so essential that the Abbott government reverse these cruel funding cuts to emergency relief providers. It is not just the Mentone CAB; it is other emergency relief providers right throughout South-East Melbourne that suffer from these cuts. (Time expired) Medical Workforce 122 10:51 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck In Western Australia there is currently a medical workforce shortage and, in particular, we are short 950 doctors. WA's medical workforce has not kept pace with the rapid population growth and has a higher reliance on overseas trained doctors than the rest of Australia. Last month I was pleased to host the Prime Minister in my electorate of Hasluck to announce support for the Curtin University's proposal to establish a new medical school in Midland. The WA government has partnered with Curtin University to offer a new five-year undergraduate medical program that will select and train students to work in areas of need around Western Australia. The coalition government is ensuring that the health needs of our local community are met in the future by initially providing 60 Commonwealth supported medical places in 2017, with an increase to 110 places by 2022. Some people are saying this medical school is not needed. There are many who are opposing it as well, and I equally can tell you that the Hasluck community needs this school. WA needs this school. Despite the two existing medical schools in WA delivering over 300 medical graduates per year, the WA government has consistently raised with the Commonwealth the current and predicted ongoing shortage in its medical workforce, particularly in general practice. The medical shortage in WA is having large implications on the community such as higher costs for medical services, longer waiting times, increased pressures on health workers and poorer access to medical services, particularly in rural and regional areas. Many GPs are closing their books to new patients and, in turn, placing heavier demand on the public hospital emergency department. The WA state government has supported the introduction of a third medical school based at Curtin University as a measure to address this severe shortage over the medium and longer term. Under the proposal, it will ensure that any increase in students is matched by increased intern places and registrar places in WA public hospitals into the future. This confirms that there will be training places for the new medical graduates. The most obvious of training location choices will be the new Midland Public Hospital which is on track to open at the end of this year. The new health campus will be located opposite the Curtin Medical School and will provide new educational pathways for our students. Midland is fast becoming a key location in Perth, and I am pleased to see this infrastructure put Midland on the map and the service often forgotten in eastern metropolitan region. I would like to commend some key people who have been there with me on this fight for the Curtin Medical School in Midland—my friend the Hon. Alyssa Hayden MLC along with Premier Colin Barnett and the WA state government; the City of Swan, the Swan Chamber of Commerce; and the Hon. Christian Porter MP. Their support has been invaluable in making this Medical School happen. The medical workforce shortage in WA is too compelling to ignore, and I would like to acknowledge Curtin University for their vision and recognising the needs of our state. Housing Affordability 122 10:54 Mr THISTLETHWAITE 182468 Kingsford Smith Last week when the Treasurer stated in respect to housing affordability that people should just, 'get a good job that pays good money' he was demonstrating just how out of touch he and this government are. Housing affordability is a very serious concern for many in my community. Not a week goes by when someone does not express to me their concern about whether or not their kids will be able to continue to live in the community in which they grew up or be able to afford a deposit for a home. The statistics bear out that concern. Currently our economy is growing at about 2½ per cent on an annual basis. Wages growth is at about two per cent. Inflation is at about 1.3 per cent, but over the last three years prices in the Sydney housing market have increased by 39 per cent. Over the last year alone, there has been a 15 per cent growth in capital accumulation in the Sydney housing market and there have been similar results in Melbourne. That is why people are concerned about house prices. This explosion of growth in one particular market is of concern. That is why the Governor of the Reserve Bank has described the situation as 'crazy' and that is why the Secretary to the Treasury has described the situation as 'a housing bubble'. And what was the response of the government and the Treasurer? It was to insult people by saying they should get a better job. If you are a teacher, a nurse or a childcare worker, you simply cannot walk into the boss's office and say, 'Pay me more money!' particularly given that many of these workers rely on penalty rates and on overtime payments to earn a liveable wage, to ensure they can earn enough money to pay their mortgage. What do those opposite want to do to penalty rates and to shift allowances? We all know there are many elements within the Liberal Party who want to cut penalty rates. The last architecture of a scheme to cut penalty rates was none other than John Howard with Work Choices. This government is unwilling to consider reform when it comes to housing affordability. They have said that they will not look at measures to improve housing affordability. They have abolished the Housing Supply Council. Their claims of talking about supply are rubbish—in the context of this government abolishing the very body that was set up to advise government about improving affordability through increasing supply. When it comes to housing affordability, this government is hypercritical and is all at the sea once again. Moorebank Intermodal Terminal 123 10:57 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes Last week, there was a great deal of fanfare and hoopla about the announcement between the Moorebank Intermodal Company and the SIMTA Consortium on a financial deal for the proposed Moorebank intermodal terminal. It should be noted that this is not the final go-ahead; it still has to go through all the environmental and planning approvals. During the last week there has been a lot of talk about the premise that this is going ahead which is based on three simple ideas. Firstly, it will take trucks off the road; secondly, it will reduce pollution costs; and, thirdly, it will save costs to the economy. If you do any type of analysis of those three premises, you will find that they are all completely and utterly misguided and mistaken. Firstly, take the concept that it would take trucks off the road. That is a very simplistic idea—that you take the trucks off the road and put them on rail. That seems to be a wonderful solution but that occurs only if you are taking containers and dumping them in a big hole at Moorebank. You have to consider where the containers are actually going and where the goods are actually going. When it comes to an analysis of those questions, the Moorebank Intermodal Company put out a map of Sydney showing where the containers go which was simply and utterly misleading. The map creates the false impression that there is a large and existing market for containers in Sydney to go to Moorebank when any further analysis of where the containers go simply shows that that is factually incorrect. The majority of the containers from Port Botany that are distributed around Sydney currently go to three basic areas: they go around the Enfield area, they go to the Eastern Creek area or they go the Wetherill Park area. Moorebank as an area for containers currently being delivered to has simply been rejected by the market. Very few containers actually go today from Port Botany to Moorebank. By locating the intermodal terminal at Moorebank, the idea is that the containers would go from Port Botany to Moorebank, be unloaded and then put onto the road and taken out to Wetherill Park or Eastern Creek. This is simply completely illogical. It will not take containers off the road; it simply transfers the starting point from Port Botany and transfers that to Moorebank. Port Botany, yes, there is road congestion there, but there is far greater road congestion in the Moorebank area and in Western Sydney. This is a very bad idea. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249127 In accordance with standing order 193, the time for constituency statements has concluded. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS 123 PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS Bowel Cancer 123 11:00 Mrs McNAMARA 241589 Dobell I move: That this House: (1) notes that: (a) Bowel Cancer Australia ran an initiative throughout the month of February titled 'Prevent Bowel Cancer' to raise awareness of bowel cancer and encourage more Australians to screen for the disease with the tagline 'Don't Wait Until It's Too Late'; (b) bowel cancer:    (i) is the second most common type of newly diagnosed cancer in Australia affecting both men and women almost equally;    (ii) is Australia's second biggest cancer killer after lung cancer with more than 15,000 Australians diagnosed each year; and    (iii) claims nearly 4,000 lives every year; and (c) when found early 90 per cent of bowel cancer cases can be successfully treated; (2) acknowledges the Government's free National Bowel Cancer Screening Program initiative and the inclusion of people turning the ages of 70 and 74 in the program; and (3) notes the requirement for greater awareness and promotion of available bowel cancer screening tests and the need for people from age 50 to undertake regular screening to prevent this disease. In June, we acknowledge Bowel Cancer Awareness Month. This annual initiative of Bowel Cancer Australia raises public awareness of a disease that claims the lives of approximately 80 Australians each week. In February, Bowel Cancer Australia ran an initiative titled, Prevent Bowel Cancer to raise awareness of Bowel Cancer and encourage more Australians to screen for the disease, with the tag line, 'Don't wait until it's too late.' Bowel Cancer is the second most common type of newly diagnosed cancer in Australia, affecting both men and women. It is Australia's second biggest cancer killer after lung cancer. Tragically, Australia has one of the highest rates of bowel cancer in the world. The lifetime risk of developing bowel cancer before the age of 75 is approximately one in 19 for men, and one in 28 for women. Whilst approximately 80 Australians die each week from bowel cancer, if diagnosed early it is one of the most curable types of cancer. Eighty per cent of cases have no known hereditary genetic associations, yet for some families the tragedy of bowel cancer repeats through generations. My father-in-law Kevin was only 55 years old when he lost his battle; my sister Kerry was only 39 years old. Watching a loved one struggle to beat this disease is heart-breaking. Kerry was in her prime at 39 with a successful career and future aspirations. In Kerry's situation, the period of time from feeling unwell, diagnosis, surgery and chemo, until she lost her brave battle, was only three months. Young Central Coast resident Hollie Fielder was 24 when she was diagnosed with bowel and secondary liver cancer. At such a young age, Hollie never thought that for one minute she may have bowel cancer. After living with severe stomach cramps and bloating for two years, Hollie was diagnosed with bowel cancer and advised that she had a five per cent chance of survival. Hollie was given the all-clear in December 2012. I had the privilege of recently speaking with Hollie about her commitment to raising awareness of bowel cancer screening. Since her treatment, this inspirational young women has worked with Bowel Cancer Australia and is one of the faces of the 'You are never too young' campaign. Hollie was recently quoted in the Central Coast Express Advocate as saying, 'I'm trying to put bowel cancer on the radar as I feel that a lot of people get embarrassed about talking about it and consider it to be an older person's disease.' Hollie and I discussed the challenges of removing the perceived embarrassment element of the screening process, and we both agreed that open discussion of bowel cancer should be encouraged within the community. According to Bowel Cancer Australia, the majority of young Australians diagnosed with bowel cancer are seeking diagnosis too late. Bowel cancer rates doubled in young Australians aged 20 to 29 and have increased 35 per cent in 30- to 39-year-olds in the period 1990 to 2010. This disease does not discriminate and symptoms should not be ignored. Bowel Cancer Awareness Month has a positive message: saving lives through early detection. While those who have a first degree relative who has been afflicted with bowel cancer are more likely to be aware of the importance of screening. But it is important to note that this accounts for approximately only 20 per cent of cases. Therefore it is important that more Australians be aware of the screening options available and, of course, the symptoms. Australians should also be aware that a number of things, including smoking, high alcohol consumption, physical inactivity, obesity and type II diabetes are increasingly recognised as independent risk factors for bowel cancer. Screening using a non-invasive test is available through the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. The National Bowel Cancer Screening Program, introduced in 2006, is helping to save lives every day. The program provides free screening for bowel cancer to eligible Australians, and plans to expand the program are currently underway. By 2020, all Australians aged between 50 and 74 years of age will be offered free screening every two years. This means that about four million Australians will be invited to screen each year, and more than 12,000 suspected or confirmed cancers will be detected each year. According to the Bowel Cancer Australia atlas, for Wyong Shire within the electorate of Dobell in the period 2011-12, of those eligible for screening, 30.6 per cent of males and 35 per cent of females participated. So the challenge is to increase the number of participants. Of screened participants, 7.1 per cent were positively detected. Without the support of many individuals and organisations that raise funds and awareness, Bowel Cancer Awareness Month and the work of Bowel Cancer Australia would not be possible, and to you all: thank you on behalf of all Australians. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249127 Is the motion seconded? Mrs Griggs 220370 I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 11:06 Ms HALL 83N Shortland I move: That the motion be amended by the addition of the following words: (4) notes that: (a) June is Bowel Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM), during which Bowel Cancer Australia seeks to raise awareness of a disease that claims the lives of 77 Australians every week; (b) BCAM has a positive message—saving lives through early detection—as bowel cancer is one of the most curable types of cancer if found early; and (c) in 2014, about 16,980 Australians were diagnosed with bowel cancer (9,250 in men and 7,730 in women), and an estimated 19,960 are expected to be diagnosed in 2020; and (5) recognises that: (a) bowel cancer can develop without any early warning signs; (b) if bowel cancer is detected before it has spread beyond the bowel there is a 90 per cent chance of surviving more than five years; (c) regular screening every two years for people aged 50 and over can reduce the risk of dying from bowel cancer by up to 33 per cent; and (d) more than 12,000 suspected or confirmed cancers will be detected through free screening, saving between 300 and 500 lives each year; and (6) encourages Members to continue to support efforts to raise awareness of the importance of early detection as well as the signs and symptoms of bowel cancer. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249127 Is the amendment seconded? An honourable member: Yes, it is. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249127 I thank the member. The question is that the motion as amended be agreed to. Ms HALL 83N I would like to congratulate the member for Dobell on bringing this motion to the House. It is a motion that I think is very close to the hearts of many people. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may notice that the member for Dobell and I are both wearing bracelets that have been made just for bowel cancer month because the colours of red and green, the colours of the apple, are the colours that signify bowel cancer. Bowel cancer is one of those diseases that hits people from all walks of life. The member for Dobell has shared her personal experiences with the House today. My father died of bowel cancer before he was 55 years of age. Also, previously I had an elected officer who worked in my office whose daughter, aged 33, succumbed to bowel cancer. So it is a disease that affects people of all ages. It is also a disease that is very silent in its early stages. In Australia the lifetime risk of developing bowel cancer before the age of 75 is around one in 19 for men and one in 28 for women. That is one of the highest rates of bowel cancer in the world. Eighty Australians die each week from bowel cancer. And it is one of the most curable types of cancer. Last week I had a Biggest Morning Tea. Out of the 140 people in that room, there were a number who had had bowel cancer in the past. I would like to share the story of Shaun. Shaun had had the bowel cancer screening test; he had sent it away. He received a letter back saying, 'Go and see your doctor.' He saw his doctor and he had the cancer removed and it was all contained within the bowel. Consequently, he has not needed to undergo chemotherapy or ray treatment, and his doctor has deemed that he is completely cured. This demonstrates the importance of undergoing screening. Screening is the best way to ensure that you do not have bowel cancer. The screening test is free for people aged between 50 and 74. I strongly recommend that people undertake the test. Each of us, as members of parliament, need to go back to our electorates and publicise the fact that bowel cancer is curable. It is one of the most curable cancers there is. There needs to be more awareness amongst people. People need to be checked regularly for screening and, for people who have a family history, they need to undergo a colonoscopy. My sister and I both have regular colonoscopies. On every occasion bar one, I have had polyps—and my sister had polyps too. It shows that they were removed100 per cent; no problems whatsoever. I am sure the member for Dobell needs to have a similar test to me, because it is only by screening and making sure that you do not have those polyps that you can ensure good bowel health. There are many risk factors, and the member for Dobell mentioned them: family history, which I just concentrated on; being aged over 50 years of age—but, once again, do not discount the fact that you can develop bowel cancer prior to that age; any bowel diseases—if in the past, you have had close relatives with bowel diseases, 75 per cent of cancers though do not relate to family history. Just because no-one in your family has had bowel cancer, do not believe that you are free from developing it. Make sure that you lead a healthy lifestyle, look for symptoms such as bleeding and undertake screening when it becomes available to you. 11:11 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon I would also like to congratulate my good friend and colleague the member for Dobell for bringing this motion to the House. Fifteen years ago, I was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. Thyroid cancer is relatively rare with rates of about 13.5 per 100,000 people per year. It requires a biopsy to diagnose and, often in its early stages, there are no symptoms. When symptoms do occur though, they often include conditions which are similar to the common cold. However, bowel cancer is a very different beast. It is more common and much more dangerous. The bowel cancer occurrence rates are higher and, unfortunately, survival rates are a lot lower. The flip side is that, compared to thyroid cancer or almost any other cancer, bowel cancer is so much easier to screen for. Leading a healthy lifestyle can go a long way towards preventing it. Most people who develop bowel cancer have no family history of the disease and, as we have heard, the cancer can form without any symptoms. As I said earlier, I would like to thank the member for Dobell for bringing this motion to the House to provide me and others an opportunity to rise here today to raise the awareness of bowel cancer and to encourage people to get screened for it. As the member for Shortland has said: we want to encourage anyone over the age of 50 to take up the opportunity to have the free screening, because it is available. We know that prevention is better than the cure. Government research suggests that, if everyone between 50 and 74 were screened for bowel cancer every two years, 35,000 lives could be saved over the next 40 years. That is something that I think is worthwhile investing in. Our national road toll is around 1,000 people per year, and so think of all the effort that goes into reducing that number—the road upgrades and the redesigns; the cars; the public education campaigns; law enforcement registration; and compliance checks. We can nearly save as many lives by having everyone between the age of 50 and 74 give a few moments of their time to do a simple screen test in the privacy of their own home once every two years. So it is important for everyone, even outside this age group—and we have heard the other speakers say that—to know the signs and the symptoms. When we were talking about this motion in my office, one of the staff said that when he was in his early 20s his partner at the time had a serious health issue. She had abdominal bloating, she had bowel issues and she had fatigue. This dragged on for a few years. They did not know it at that time but all of those were signs of bowel cancer. Not many 21-year-olds know that these are the symptoms of bowel cancer. They went to the doctor and, unfortunately, she was diagnosed with bowel cancer. The message from that is that it is really important that everyone knows that if you have blood in your bowel movements, if you are feeling anaemic, if you have changes in your bowel activity, if you have abdominal pain, cramping, bloating, unexplained weight loss and unexplained fatigue, they are all symptoms of bowel cancer and you should make an appointment with your doctor. Do not be alarmed. Just make an appointment with your doctor, explain the symptoms and, if in doubt, ask about bowel cancer. The young woman that I just mentioned did have a tumour the size of a golf ball removed from her large intestine, and it was major surgery for a 21-year-old. The recovery period was quite intense. She had a follow-up course of chemotherapy and now, ten years later, she has the best health that she has ever had. Bowel cancer can be a killer. But with simple screening it can be diagnosed early and with early diagnosis 90 per cent of cancers can successfully be treated. I would like to publicly acknowledge the excellent work of Bowel Cancer Australia and encourage anyone who wants to find out more information about bowel cancer go to the Bowel Cancer Australia website. Once again, I would also like to thank my good friend the member for Dobell for bringing this motion here and allowing us to raise awareness. 11:16 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I too would like to use this opportunity to thank the member for Dobell for bringing this motion to the attention of the House. It is a particularly important issue. I think that all of the speakers have mentioned that the level of awareness is relatively low across the Australian community. So I commend the member for bringing this motion before us. As an ambassador for ovarian cancer, I know that we have had challenges in raising awareness about the symptoms of ovarian cancer over the years since I was appointed ambassador. In some ways, like bowel cancer, the symptoms are invisible or they get associated with some other disease. One of the symptoms of ovarian cancer is abdominal bloating and abdominal pain, and that can be associated with so many other illnesses. So the fact that we are having this conversation in the House on this issue is particularly important and, again, I commend the member for bringing it to our attention because, for a cancer that claims nearly 4,000 lives every year, it is not a cancer that we hear enough about. I welcome this motion so that the parliament can recognise and raise awareness of the illness. According to Bowel Cancer Australia, bowel cancer is a malignant growth that develops most commonly in the lining of the large bowel. Most bowel cancers develop from tiny growths called polyps. Over time, some polyps can become cancerous, and cancer can narrow and block the bowel or cause bleeding. In more advanced cases, the cancer can spread beyond the bowel to other organs. As most bowel cancers start as polyps, all polyps should be removed to reduce the risk of developing the disease. Once removed from the bowel, the polyp can no longer develop into cancer. Even if a polyp develops into cancer, in its early stages it can be cured by surgery. In fact, when found early—and this is a really important message that we need to send and, again, this is why I commend the member for bringing it to our attention—90 per cent of bowel cancer cases can be successfully treated. That is a very profound and powerful figure. It is so important to catch this cancer in its early stages. In February this year, Bowel Cancer Australia ran a campaign to raise awareness of bowel cancer and encourage more Australians to screen for the disease with the tagline 'Don't wait until it's too late', particularly given those success rates if it is caught early. That is why the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program is so important, offering Australians turning 50, 55, 60 or 65 a free at home bowel cancer test and, from this year, people turning 70 or 74 will also be invited to screen. Other age groups will be added progressively so that, by 2020, all Australians aged 50 to 74 will be able to be screened every two years. The program has enjoyed bipartisan support for decades, which I hope will continue. It is important for those aged over 50 to undergo regular screening for bowel cancer. It is also important that people are aware of the risk factors and symptoms. The member for Solomon pointed out that a young woman aged 21 had all the symptoms. You are at higher risk of bowel cancer if you are over 50, have a significant family history of bowel cancer or polyps, have an inflammatory bowel disease such as Crohn's disease or colitis and have previously had polyps in the bowel. The symptoms include bleeding from the rectum or any sign of blood in a bowel motion; a recent and persistent change in bowel habit; unexplained tiredness, which is a symptom of anaemia; and abdominal pain. Importantly, people can lower their risk of developing bowel cancer by having a healthy diet, by exercising regularly and by reducing alcohol consumption. Australia has one of the highest rates of bowel cancer in the world. I really wonder why that is the case. Is it our diet? Is it our lifestyle? Around one in 23 Australians will develop bowel cancer during their lifetime. It is the second most common type of newly diagnosed cancer in Australia and affects men and women equally. It is Australia's second biggest cancer killer, with more than 15,000 Australians diagnosed each year. These are scary statistics. I encourage all Australians to be aware of the risks and symptoms and to undergo regular screening tests if they are over 50. Walking past my chemist the other day, I saw a sign about regular testing and I thought: I've got to go and do that. So this weekend is the time. 11:22 Mrs PRENTICE 217266 Ryan I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this very important debate, and I commend the member for Dobell for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. Bowel cancer is a disease that kills more people than prostate cancer and breast cancer. It affects women and men almost equally and is second only to lung cancer among cancer killers in Australia. Every week, 77 Australians lose their lives to bowel cancer. Many Australians would be surprised by these figures. In my experience, bowel cancer is a disease that is not as widely understood by Australians as some other cancers. So it is appropriate that Bowel Cancer Australia has designated June as Bowel Cancer Awareness Month for 2015. The facts are confronting. One in 12 people will develop bowel cancer in their lifetime and 15,000 people are diagnosed each year. And bowel cancer does not just strike the elderly; 1,000 of these diagnoses are for people under the age of 50. However, there is some good news. Ninety per cent of bowel cancer cases can be treated successfully if found early. But herein lies the problem: bowel cancer is detected early in fewer than 40 per cent of all cases. So the solution is clear: we need to do more to raise awareness and to educate Australians about the symptoms of bowel cancer. According to Bowel Cancer Australia, the symptoms can include blood in the bowel movement, unexplained weight loss, persistent change in bowel habit, and severe abdominal pain. Bowel Cancer Australia recommends that people suffering from any of these symptoms should see their general practitioner. This month is all about awareness. Thankfully, experts do understand many of the risk factors that can explain the onset of bowel cancer. They can, therefore, recommend a range of simple, common-sense lifestyle changes that can reduce the risk of developing bowel cancer by up to 75 per cent. For instance, there is evidence that higher levels of physical activity protect against colon cancer. Bowel Cancer Australia recommends at least 30 minutes of moderate intensity physical activity on most, if not all, days—and 60 minutes per day is preferable. Maintenance of a healthy body weight is also important. In terms of diet, there is evidence that consumption of garlic, milk and calcium—not all together!—probably also protects against bowel cancer, as does a focus on high fibre foods, including wholegrain cereals, nuts, seeds and beans. Further evidence, albeit weaker, also suggests a link between the consumption of non-starchy vegetables, fruits or foods containing vitamin D and a reduced incidence of bowel cancer. Bowel Cancer Australia recommends consumption of at least five servings of non-starchy fruits and vegetables every day. It is also recommended that alcoholic drinks should be limited to no more than two drinks a day for men and one drink a day for women, with two alcohol-free days a week. And, as is the case with many other cancers, smoking is a risk factor for developing bowel cancer. Studies have shown that the smoking of 40 cigarettes a day increases the risk of bowel cancer by 38 per cent. Risk factors that we cannot avoid include family history. In around 25 per cent of all bowel cancer cases, there is a family history or hereditary contribution. It is therefore important for people with a family history of bowel cancer to pay particular attention to the symptoms and to make the lifestyle decisions necessary to minimise risk. Age is also a risk factor. Bowel cancer risk increases with age, so for people over 50, Bowel Cancer Australia recommends undertaking a screening every one to two years. The National Bowel Cancer Screening Program offers free screening for people aged 50, 55, 60 and 65. As part of Bowel Cancer Awareness Month, this Wednesday 17 June is Red Apple Day. On Wednesday, Australians are encouraged to wear a green and red bowel cancer awareness ribbon and host apple themed fundraisers. For those who want to get involved, information is available at http://www.bowelcancerawarenessmonth.org/. There are details on the website to assist individuals, workplaces, patients, healthcare professionals and schools to all get involved. Bowel cancer is a disease that can be prevented in many cases and, if detected early, can be treated effectively. But the first step is awareness, and I commend Bowel Cancer Australia for all the work they are doing to make Australians more aware of the symptoms, risk factors, screenings and treatments available for bowel cancer. I commend the motion to the House. 11:26 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield Thank you to the member for Dobell for bringing this motion to the House. I certainly also endorse the amendments by the member for Shortland. It is nice to see bipartisanship on this issue, as I am sure we would expect. Of course in this area of health, as in so many areas, partisanship does not help you. We all suffer these things to one degree or another. Our communities and our families all suffer from these things, and bowel cancer is certainly a very serious condition and, obviously, a very serious cancer which affects communities right around Australia. It is the second most common cancer diagnosed in Australia in 2010, excluding non-melanoma skin cancer—14,860 new cases. In 2011, there were also almost 4000 deaths. This is a very serious cancer. One in 12 Australians are likely to develop it at some time over their lifetime. Men are slightly more likely to be diagnosed than women, but it does affect both sexes. While no cancer is preventable, it is estimated that changes to diet and physical activity can reduce the incidence, and we heard some excellent contributions from the member for Ryan. It seems like a good diet and avoiding alcohol—or at least accepting it in moderation—are good for our health in so many areas. We know that age, health history and certain genetic factors do place people at risk of having bowel cancer. Fifteen thousand Australians are detected with bowel cancer every year, including more than 1,000 who are under 50 at the time of detection. Twenty five per cent of all bowel cancers are shown to be linked to previous diagnoses in the family. It is recommended that everyone above the age of 50 be screened every year for bowel cancer. If it is detected early—and this is critical—then 90 per cent of bowel cancers can be treated. The great tragedy at the moment is that fewer than 40 per cent of cases are actually detected early enough. The difficulty, with this widespread cancer, is that we are not having screenings early enough even though they are widely available. People do need to look for the signs: blood in the bowel movement, unexplained weight loss, persistent change in bowel habits and severe abdominal pain. And of course there are associated risk factors—alcohol consumption, dietary factors, smoking, obesity, physical inactivity, family history and genetic susceptibility. Those things combined, obviously people need to see their general practitioner. A relationship with a general practitioner is a very important step to good overall health, and I would certainly encourage people to have that relationship so that they can raise what are sometimes embarrassing, or seemingly embarrassing, health related things with their general practitioner, things that do need to be raised. The National Bowel Cancer Screening Program was initiated by the Australian government in 2006 in partnership with state and territory governments. It helps detect bowel cancers early and reduce the number of Australians who die every year from this disease. So by 2020, the aim is to get all Australians aged 50 to 74 to be invited to screen once every two years. Patients will receive a screening invitation and a free screening test kit and other program information through the post around the time of their birthday. So they are sent this free, home-based screening kit, and once the bowel samples are collected, patients can send them off to a pathology laboratory in a reply paid envelope. Participation is voluntary but it is certainly recommended. In my own home state, bowel cancer is the second most common cancer. It is something that certainly affects an ageing population, which South Australia has. I certainly commend those who brought the motion and amended the motion to the House. It is very important that we do pay attention to cancers which are prevalent, and that we take every action both through encouraging people in their own health and through their relationship with a general practitioner to get it early, and that way it can get fixed earlier. Debate adjourned. Live Animal Exports 129 11:31 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter I move: That this House: (1) notes: (a) that Australia has the most stringent and effective live animal welfare regulatory system in the world that is underpinned by the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System; (b) recent alleged breaches of Australian's animal welfare standards in the live export sector; and (c) the Government's:    (i) abolition of the position of Inspector General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports; and    (ii) failure to increase regulatory and supervisory resources to keep pace with growth in trade; and (2) calls on the Government to build public confidence and to protect the sustainability of the live export sector by: (a) appointing an independent Inspector General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports; and (b) providing quarterly ministerial reports to the Parliament on:    (i) any new markets;    (ii) the number of head exported;    (iii) any allegations of breaches of animal welfare standards and investigations undertaken; and    (iv) any sanctions or other action taken against those who have breached or should have prevented breaches of Australia's animal welfare standards. Recent reports of unacceptable abuse of Australian cattle in other countries remind us how difficult a task it is to maintain in other, and often developing, countries the animal welfare standards Australians justifiably demand. But it is a task worthy of our continuing efforts. There are two very good reasons. Firstly, our live trade exports are providing much needed protein in markets which would otherwise be filled by those not so committed to animal welfare standards. Secondly, it is a trade which is critical to Australia's economy, earning around $1.5 billion in foreign exchange each year while maintaining the livelihoods of hundreds of producer families. Each year Australia sends around thee million cattle and sheep to 26 countries to meet the food needs of their people. I am often asked why we don't slaughter the animals here in Australia. That, it is suggested, would surely mean adding value and creating jobs here. It would also, it is argued, give us total control over the treatment of the cattle and sheep. To find the answer to that question, we need to first understand that for many reasons there is a market for live animals begging to be filled, ranging from cultural preferences through to logistical and infrastructure issues, including refrigeration. Further, in some markets, including Indonesia, the buyers are looking for lighter cattle which they can fatten and add value to in their quite efficient feedlots. If we do not fill these markets, some other country with lower animal welfare standards surely will. That is the demand side, but what about supply? Here, there are at least three key points. Firstly, cattlemen in Australia's far north do not have the feed and conditions to grow cattle all the way to slaughter weight at this time. Without the live trade industry, producers in the far north would not be viable. Secondly, climatic issues like the north's wet season and transport difficulties make slaughter, storage and transport to port difficult. Having said that, new abattoirs are emerging in our far north, and I certainly welcome that. Thirdly, the live trade sector provides producers with alternative selling options, bringing competition to the equation and often better prices for producers. Australia's live trade sector is feeding the globe's growing population in a food constrained world. It is creating wealth and jobs here and raising handling and slaughter standards elsewhere. It is also putting pressure on exporters from other countries, and the importers they deal with, to raise their own standards. Can Australians have confidence in our industry? That, more than anything else, is what this parliamentary motion is all about: building public confidence. We have the world's best animal welfare standards. The positive outcome of the regrettable 2011 live export pause was the introduction of the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance Scheme, otherwise known as ESCAS. This regulatory regime forces exporters to show they have a plan to treat the animals humanely and provides a monitoring and auditing system all the way from port to abattoir. Heavier sanctions and penalties can be applied for breaches of ESCAS. They range from financial penalties, the suspension of an export licence, the cancellation of a licence or indeed imprisonment. It also provides exporters with incentives to do the right thing, because breaches tend to bring more oversight, regulatory burden, more regulatory delays and more cost. It is also worth remembering that incidents like higher than acceptable mortality rates on a voyage result in significant additional costs for exporters. It is in their interest to deliver the goods to the other end in good shape. Despite the robustness of our regulatory system, reports of animal mistreatment continue to emerge. These events undermine public support for the trade, and this motion puts forward some initiatives designed to maintain and build upon that support. I have learnt that one of the things which undermines the sector's image is a lack of publicly available information about alleged breaches, action taken and sanctions imposed. That is why I want the minister to, in the future, regularly report to the parliament, and it is why Labor wants the Abbott government to revive our plans to establish an independent inspector-general for animal welfare and live animal exports. The minister's report will place on the public record any easy to access and understandable account of the state of the sector, any animal welfare incidents and how they have been dealt with. As an independent statutory officer overseeing of the work of the department, the inspector-general will be critical to building and maintaining public trust. Labor also wants the government to provide reassurance that the resourcing of the animal welfare system is keeping pace with growth in the sector. No system can ever guarantee an incident-free industry, nor can we expect it to. But we have a responsibility in this place to ensure the system is the best it possibly can be and that people can have confidence in it. The motion is about transparency and accountability and in the interest of the community and the sector alike. I urge the government to embrace it. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249127 Is the motion seconded? 11:37 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes I second the motion. I rise to speak on the motion brought into the House this morning by the member for Hunter. I would like to point out that livestock exports are important to the ongoing trade in Australia. The industry employs around 10,000 people and contributes significantly to the country's economy, supports many rural and regional communities, and underpins the economic returns to farm gate. In the first full year of this government, the value of live animal exports has exceeded $1.4 billion and continues to grow. Our international market share and reputation has been built on our ability to supply international markets with a high-quality, reliable and safe source of protein. The livestock trade contributes to the food security of millions of people in importing countries across the world. The member for Hunter did not mention this: in many parts of the world, live trade and fresh meat are the only option of supply in protein to communities, because of a lack of infrastructure, lack of refrigeration, and the lack of ability to get chilled or frozen produce into those parts of the world. Australia's leadership in this trade has provided significant opportunity to positively influence animal welfare conditions in importing countries and continues to do so. After the debacle that we saw back in 2011, the Australian government put in the place the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance Scheme, ESCAS, and it is now a leading piece of regulation that is world-class. The review that was put in place showed that, since the introduction of ESCAS, Australia has exported eight million head of livestock to 18 countries with only 22 incidents of animal welfare. I have to say, any incidents of animal welfare are a concern and, as someone who has worked with livestock all their life, no-one wants to see that. But 22 cases out of eight million head is a vast improvement on what we have seen before. The review also indicated that 99 per cent of Australian animals that were exported were treated humanely and in accordance with the standards set out by the World Organisation for Animal Health. In fact, the OIE has said that the Australian livestock export industry is leading the world in animal welfare and the industry's investment in approving implementation of OIE welfare standards had its full and unequivocal support. So it goes back to the provision of training under ESCAS for the livestock industry to more than 8,000 people working in the supply chains in Asia and the Middle East, including managers and animal welfare officers, who help improve animal handling and husbandry techniques and increase the use of stunning equipment. The department has already introduced the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System regulatory performance report, which is available on its website. The report offers a more efficient approach to providing information on reviews into both alleged and substantial noncompliant activity across the livestock export markets. The department intends to publish this report at least twice a year. This report is in addition to a report by Minister Joyce to the parliament every six months on livestock mortalities on every sea voyage. So the industry has to manage a unique challenge of ensuring appropriate animal handling and welfare practices from paddock to plate. We have a robust regulatory system to deal with issues when they arise, and that is the ESCAS system. The ESCAS system is the only system in the world which ensures that international animal welfare standards are met throughout the supply chain. No system is perfect, and this industry needs to continue to manage the risks that occur when you move livestock across borders. The mover mentioned a change to have an inspector-general of welfare and export. The current legislation of livestock export is designed to minimise the risk, and I am confident that we do not need to establish another level of bureaucracy such as an inspector-general of welfare. The inspector-general was a classic example of another layer of bureaucracy, without any real practical outcome. In conclusion, the mover acknowledged this and I will reinforce what happens when governments do not understand the full complexities of this: the removal of the live cattle trade back in 2011 caused not only untold economic hardship to the cattle industry but also a lot of pain to animals that were left stranded on drought-affected properties. 11:42 Mr ZAPPIA HWB Makin Firstly, I commend the member for Hunter for bringing this motion to the chamber. Once again, Australians are confronted with images of Australian cattle being brutally killed; once again, footage is from an approved overseas facility; once again, the livestock export company LSS is a party in the supply chain; and, once again, the evidence mounts that Australia cannot ensure the humane treatment of animals once they leave Australia. What is additionally disturbing about the latest image from an Israeli abattoir is that Israel is an advanced economy and the abattoir at the centre of the allegations is a large, modern facility. It is also obvious from the person who revealed the cruelty that this was not an isolated incident. It was normal practice, and the horrific treatment would have continued had not the cruelty been exposed. This appeared to be everyday practice that authorities, auditors, inspectors, agents and others who are parties to Australia's Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System should have known about. It is difficult to believe that they did not. This latest event highlights a secondary matter, and that is that kosher slaughter does not live up to the claims that it is not cruel. I understand from my colleague the member for Melbourne Ports that, following the footage of cruelty, some abattoir employees were dismissed, the abattoir was temporarily closed and the Israeli government is set to substantially increase penalties for acts of animal cruelty. I welcome those responses; however, if authorities seemed oblivious to the cruelty in the past, it does not fill me with confidence about the future, nor does the response from the Abbott government or the Minister for Agriculture reassure me. The Abbott government has shown little interest in animal welfare, which it treats as an unnecessary inconvenience to the live export trade. When it came into office, the first decision it made was to abolish the Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and then cut $2.3 million of funding for the live animal export business assistance program. It also flippantly dismissed Labor's proposal to appoint an inspector-general of animal welfare and live animal exports. Why? Because it did not want any additional oversight of the live export trade. The appointment of an inspector-general of animal welfare and live animal exports would have been a step in the right direction. Better still would be the establishment of a federal office of animal welfare that is independent of the agriculture minister and not conflicted by simultaneously being responsible for promoting meat exports and for animal welfare. Only then will the Australian community have confidence in Australia's animal welfare system. I also reiterate a concern I raised when I spoke about animal welfare only two weeks ago. That is my concern about the process where auditors are being appointed by the export companies and where industry is forewarned prior to an inspection taking place. That is a process that cannot be relied on. If the process cannot be relied on, animals should not leave Australia, and the focus and effort should be on exporting Australian processed meat. The live export trade accounts for seven per cent of Australia's meat exports. I accept that is a reasonable value to this country, but I also accept that most of our meat leaves this country once it is processed. I also note that New Zealand has managed well without live exports since 2006, and nine years later it does not appear that there is any intention of ever resuming the trade in that country. I know that the response from the industry has been that Australia's presence in the live export trade is raising animal welfare standards. With the latest revelations from Israel, those responses are far from convincing. As I said earlier, the best response would be to establish an independent office of animal welfare. I certainly support the member for Hunter's motion in this respect. At the very least, the government should be providing information back to this parliament on a regular basis with respect to the number of incidents that are reported to the government, what measures are being taken to ensure that those incidents do not continue, and what other actions and penalties are being applied to those who quite wilfully and deliberately breach the ESCAS conditions that we have put in place. I also accept that the ESCAS conditions introduced by Labor have made a difference, but we can do better still. If we do, that will give the community confidence to support the Australian cattle and meat growers of this country, irrespective of whether the cattle and sheep are processed here in Australia or exported overseas. As I have said time and time again, our ability to control standards once the animals leave Australia is indeed limited. 11:47 Ms PRICE 249308 Durack I rise to speak today on the private member's motion regarding animal welfare. I want to start by stating categorically that I do not support animal cruelty in any form. Australia is regarded as a world leader in welfare standards for livestock exports. The Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System, known as ESCAS, which was rolled out in Australia in 2012, is a system which not only maintains but also reinforces Australia's solid reputation as a world leader in animal welfare. Australia is the world's second largest exporter of live sheep and the fifth largest exporter of live cattle. To hold that mantle is something that we should be proud of and should support. I am proud to say that Australia's leadership has positively influenced animal welfare in other countries. It is imperative that we support our local farmers, and I repeat once again that I do not support cruelty to animals. Following the review of ESCAS released in January, it is clear that Australia sets a bar in animal welfare standards. Since ESCAS was introduced, Australia has exported eight million head of livestock to nearly 20 countries, in 1,139 consignments, with just 22 incidents of animal welfare noted. I want to repeat: that is 22 incidents in over eight million head of livestock, which equates to 0.000275 per cent. I will admit that no percentage is acceptable, but I think it is worthwhile keeping this number in perspective. The report also found that an awareness of animal welfare issues in livestock handling and slaughter facilities overseas has been improved, and ESCAS has provided a valuable source of previously unreported data about the movement and the treatment of animals. Importing countries have said that the implementation of ESCAS has led to a greater efficiency in processing animals at the point of slaughter. The World Organisation for Animal Health, OIE, said the Australian livestock export industry is 'leading the world in animal welfare'. They also said the industry's investments in improved implementation of OIE standards have its 'full and unequivocal support'. WA and Durack's contribution to Australia's live export market is significant. Last year WA contributed a whopping 84 per cent to Australia's sheep exports and a very large proportion were from Durack. During the 2013-14 financial year, WA's live exports rose by 56 per cent, the equivalent of an additional 300,000 head and again, a large portion were from Durack. I am not convinced that appointing an independent Inspector-General of Animal Welfare and Live Animal Exports, as proposed by this motion, is going to help farmers or the industries. This could simply be adding another layer of bureaucracy, when the report found the system is already 'costly to administer for both industry and the Department of Agriculture'. It is worth noting that the live export industry is currently working on an alternative or an amendment to ESCAS which would dispense with the need to have every single link in the supply chain audited on every single occasion. What they are proposing seems very sensible. I applaud the industry for showing such initiative and I wish them well with their deliberations with the Department of Agriculture. It is imperative that we support farmers, particularly when they are at their most vulnerable. I am committed to the farmers and pastoralists of Durack and the Abbott government is committed to farmers around Australia. Hence we have seen the Farm Finance Concessional Loans Scheme and the Farm Management Deposits Scheme. More recently we have seen significant drought assistance and also the farm household allowance, for which I have supported the government in delivering since we came to office nearly two years ago—together with the latest budget announcements with respect to small business and primary producer instant tax deductions. I conclude by referring to the bill proposed recently by Senator Chris Back, the Criminal Code Amendment (Animal Protection) Bill 2015, which makes it a criminal offence for people in possession of film footage showing cruelty to animals who fail to bring the information to the attention of authorities as soon as practicable. The objective of this bill is to cease the practice of withholding such important information by so-called animal welfare groups who release the information at a time which suits their own political agenda, while, due to the time delay, the perpetrators of the apparent animal cruelty are not held to account. I commend Senator Back's bill to the House. 11:52 Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Perth The live export industry has to realise that it is in its best interests for the industry to lift its game and to ensure that ESCAS is not only properly enforced but also is strengthened. I was amazed by the comments by the member for Durack that in fact in her view and in the view of the government we should be reducing the strength of that supply chain assurance. The growers and all of those in the export chain cannot stick their heads in the sand just because they have a minister who is prepared to ignore the problem because the community will not stay quiet. Time and time again we continue to see major breaches in ESCAS. In the past months it has gone beyond leakage of animals from the approved supply chain to cruelty exposed within an ESCAS approved abattoir. This is eroding community confidence in the trade. Let us get these numbers right. An Essential Media poll in 2013 found that one quarter of the country does not support live export at all. Importantly, the same poll found that 50 per cent of people were prepared to support the practice if appropriate safeguards were in place to guarantee that Australian animals are treated humanely both here and overseas. This morning I have seen a more recent UMR research poll which showed that 59 per cent of respondents disapproved of live exports, including interestingly 53 per cent in Western Australia. It is in this context that the reality of this situation has to be understood. Every time footage emerges of our cattle being treated cruelly in an overseas abattoir, the community loses faith in the safeguards we have put in place to protect these animals. The minister has claimed that ESCAS is working and that 99 per cent of exported animals are treated humanely but there is absolutely no transparency around this claim. The only time the public ever hears of action being taken against breaches in the supply chain is after the barbaric treatment has been exposed by animal welfare groups. Exporters have admitted that thousands of animals are outside the supply chains in Vietnam. When footage of sledgehammering emerged in April, the minister said about the matters that the incidents had been under investigation for the previous two months but the treatment continued on a regular basis. Then we saw—and it was extraordinary—when the latest information came out about the mistreatment in an accredited Israeli abattoir, the minister said that it is a problem relating to stunning; whereas stunning is not part of the practice of kosher slaughter, and so of course was not in play in the Israeli abattoir. We can not continue to have these regulations in place and claim that the industry is doing just fine. We need to ensure that these regulations are properly enforced. The auditing process has been conducted by the exporter, and clearly is unsustainable and literally incredible. That is why we need to strengthen the system. That is why we need an independent inspector-general of animal welfare and live exports to ensure that we do have some independence in the auditing, and that we have this information brought before the parliament and the public on a regular basis. I also want to say that it should be understood that we have got to make sure that we have got resilience in our industry, and I am particularly concerned about northern Australia. We are very dependent on live exports to Indonesia. The Indonesians have indicated that they want to move out of live exports, they want to be self-sufficient. We have got alternatives. Last week, I was with Yeeda pastoral company and saw that their new abattoir is almost complete. When it is opened in October they will soon be able to process 70,000 head of northern cattle per year. They have already signed a contract with Burger King in the USA for half the meat they are processing in that facility. The abattoir will employ 80 people from the day it is open; creating enormous opportunities for the local community, including the local Indigenous community. So we have got the capacity to have alternatives to live export, but if those people in the live export industry want this industry to continue they have an obligation to enforce— (Time expired) 11:57 Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 Lyons I congratulate the member for Hunter for bringing this motion forward. Indeed, nobody condones cruelty to animals, of any sort. No abattoirs are nice places. No abattoir in Australia or in other parts of the world are nice places. But we have become so sterilised as a society to the fact that sometimes you actually have to kill animals so that you can use them as food—it is terrible, I know. I represent the electorate of Lyons, which takes up about 50 per cent of the state of Tasmania and a big proportion of it is arable agricultural land. Whilst not directly exporting live sheep or cattle at the moment, the decisions made by the previous government impacted on farmers and businesses in my electorate and in the state of Tasmania, as it did across much of eastern Australia. My constituents and I know how vital agriculture is to the Tasmanian and Australian economy. I have had many representations and indeed genuine concerns, and I do respect and understand those concerns that are raised. But these are isolated incidents and they are not reflective of a well managed trade. As a nation we are a net exporter of agricultural produce, estimated to be worth more than $40 billion this financial year. Our produce is among the best in the world. Our enviable pest- and disease-free status gives our farmers a unique advantage over many of their competitors. The member for Hunter, in raising this issue this morning of Australia's animal welfare standards in the live export sector, and his criticism in fact of the sector is nothing more that classic Labor window dressing. The facts are that the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System reported this year that Australia has been exporting livestock for more than 100 years. We are the second biggest exporter of live sheep and the fifth biggest exporter of live cattle in the world. We produce some of the highest quality sustainably produced livestock in the world. The reality is that we are providing some of the highest quality, safest and most affordable protein for millions of families all over the world. Since the introduction of the ESCAS scheme, Australia has exported eight million head of livestock to 18 countries in 1,139 consignments, with 22 incidents of animal welfare concerns being raised. None, of course, is acceptable, but any realistic person would have to admit that it is an outstanding record. Nobody condones animal cruelty. No country invests more than Australia in improving animal welfare outcomes in the markets that we supply. Take Australia out of that system and animal welfare outcomes will be poorer. Nobody cares more for animal welfare than our farmers. The live export animal trade is essential to the livelihood of thousands of Australian families and underpins the economies of many communities across the country. The trade is essential to providing competition in the domestic meat processing sector and is an essential source of income for the farming communities involved. The government and the industry have been working together to open new export markets and to improve the market access for Australian livestock in existing markets, such as the free trade agreements that we have signed in China, Japan and South Korea. Since the government came to office in September 2013, the value of live animal exports has risen from $1.4 billion and continues to rise. We understand that our customers value continuity of supply so we have worked particularly hard to repair the damage done to our international reputation as a reliable supplier by the previous government. Goodness knows the damage that was done and the knock-on effect to Tasmania. Never again should we allow policy to be dictated by social media populist campaigns with no regard for the farming families, no regard for the businesses that support those things and no regard for the customers that we supply. Government and industry continue to work hard with our trading partners to improve animal handling and husbandry skills and improve animal welfare outcomes; we are doing it all the time. Industry is in fact reporting many of these breaches. We have trained more than 7,000 people. Industry is continuing to upgrade facilities in the countries we supply to meet international animal welfare standards. Our shared commitment to this work is ongoing. No country invests more in our markets than Australia. Australian livestock exports are an important economic contributor to regional Australia, adding significantly to the total value of Australian farm exports. Australia's leadership in the trade has provided a significant opportunity to positively influence animal welfare conditions in importing countries and continues to do so. In fact, the World Organisation for Animal Health has said that the Australian livestock export industry is leading the world in animal welfare and that the industry's investment in improving implementation of OIE welfare standards has its full support. I welcome the investment by the AACo in northern Australia to open the abattoir there. Indeed, for some customers that is going to be appropriate, but for many it is not. 12:03 Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Hunter Mr Deputy Speaker, as it is my obligation to do so at the first opportunity, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. The member for Lyons, throughout his contribution, accused me of being critical of the live export trade in my contribution. An honourable member: Not much! Mr FITZGIBBON 8K6 I was never critical of the sector. Therefore, that is patently untrue and he should reflect on his comments. Debate adjourned. Small Business 134 12:03 Ms MARINO HWP Forrest I rise to strongly support this motion by the member for Mallee, particularly in relation to acknowledging small business as such a major contributor to the national economy and one that should be noted for its innovation—as we see constantly in our electorates—and for the entrepreneurship of small business people. Really, we must commend the small business minister, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister for the decision on the accelerated depreciation for assets purchased under $20,000. As we know, of the two million actively trading businesses in Australia, almost 96 per cent are small businesses. That is part of the reason they are so important to a coalition government and why the federal government has such a strong focus on the needs of small business. As we know, these are the people who invest their own money, take extraordinary risk and have a go. They are exactly the sort of people investing, and investing often, in the opportunities for young people to have their first job. They support many of our communities right around Australia. We saw, unfortunately, that with the previous government there were five or six small business ministers. They certainly did not take this seriously, but we do. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 12:05 to 12:28 Ms MARINO HWP I was talking before about the number of small businesses not only around Australia but in my electorate. There are 12,716 small businesses in my electorate, and of those 3,551 are in business services, 2,766 in construction and another 1,990 in agriculture. There are also a range of others in distribution services, personal services, social services, manufacturing, mining and utilities. Many of those businesses have been in touch with me to talk about the measures in this budget that have really proven to be very useful for their business. Not only that; it shows a lot of respect for the small businesses themselves, with the fact that the 2015 budget delivered $3.25 billion in tax cuts for small businesses and $1.75 billion in accelerated depreciation measures and cut the company tax rate for up to 780,000 incorporated businesses with an annual turnover of up to $2 million to 28.5 per cent—that is the lowest since 1967. From July, as we know, the government is providing the five per cent discount for 1½ million sole traders, trusts and partnership structures that are unincorporated with an annual turnover of up to $2 million, capped at $1,000, through to their end-of-year tax return. Of course, this $20,000 immediate deduction is particularly important to each small business. They each have their own specific needs within their business. This gives them the flexibility and also it provokes them into taking the next step in their business. As I said when I first started, these small business people are the ones who invest their own money and who have a great passion for what they do. As I have said in previous speeches, not only do they often provide young people, particularly in rural and regional areas, with their first job; they often provide people with their last job. They are an integral part of those small businesses. They are also an integral part of a small community. Frequently, small businesses are all we have out in our electorates—very small businesses. They support the whole community—community service organisations and sporting clubs. They provide all sorts of gear and equipment for any local community service. They are the heart and soul, frequently, of our small rural and regional communities—often undervalued and under-respected in that space. You will see that they are the ones who have their doors open whenever you need them. In a small community, that can be quite difficult, because their profits may not always be what they could make in a much larger community. But they stay with their small regional community; they are committed to it. Such is the commitment of small businesses not only to what they do but also to the communities that they serve so well. As someone who, with my husband, started a business—we literally bought the first property on the day we got married—I understand the issues of debt and interest rates. During our time we saw interest rates move from 17 to 23 per cent. That is the risk that small businesses take. They have a go, no matter what the circumstances. They actually invest; they employ people. This is a very good measure. The decisions that this government make and continue to make support such a critical part of our economy, which is small business. 12:32 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to respond to the motion moved by the member for Mallee in support of small business. Obviously, any member of parliament would support endeavours that make sure small business flourishes. Despite the rhetoric from those opposite, I am proud to go through the strong connections the Labor Party has with small business. I have nearly 19,000 small businesses in my electorate, many of them doing great things. In fact, last week I went out and toured EGR—not really a small business, I suppose, with 600 or 700 employees throughout the world. They develop automotive products, building products and retail display products. If you look on my Facebook page, you will see a photo of me standing there with Rod Horwill and Shane Butler. We are looking at a fender for a Volkswagen car, made on Evans Road in Salisbury in Queensland and then sent over to Germany. It goes on German cars that are then distributed throughout the world. I am looking at that fender, because inside it it says 'Made in Australia' in proud writing. It was great to meet with Rod and understand that we should do all that we can to make sure that Australia continues to manufacture and to compete with the world. That is why I am here with the member for Lilley. I was proud to be a part of the government that did so much for small business: the instant asset write-offs, the loss carry-back, the accelerated depreciation for cars—all those great business initiatives that were rolled out under the Labor government. However, I am sad to see that the Liberal Party, when they came to power, automatically got rid of those initiatives. Small business thrives on certainty. What did they do? It was not mentioned before the election, but after the election there was a complete turnaround, a volte-face, and they cut certainty for small business. And we saw how that flowed out. We have seen consumer confidence and business confidence dry up after that horrific budget visited on the people of Australia. Why did they do that? We have had no apology. After 20 months of this horrific policy being visited on small business, we have seen their response today; they have taken Labor Party policies back to the Senate. For 20 months, we have had small business suffering. We had a budget last year that effectively put the foot on the throat of small business. And then they walk around saying, 'We have restored what Labor had in place'—without an apology. This was only a political act. Why would the Liberal Party, supposedly the friends of small business—we have had speaker after speaker talking about the small business measures bill and how friendly the Liberal Party is with small business—bring in a piece of legislation that wreaked havoc on small businesses in my electorate and throughout Australia. Why would they make such a political, opportunistic decision unless they are only concerned with power. I know that is a horrible accusation, but when I see this sort of political chicanery I think the Liberal Party is a soulless husk of a party encasing only the idea of power motivating their decisions. I would like to have one member of the government apologise for what they did to small business back in last year's budget. Mr Craig Kelly interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 249127 Order! Member for Hughes, you can have your turn. Mr PERRETT HVP Why would they do that when small businesses are trying to do the right thing? We have not had any single member of the Liberal Party apologise for that policy. Nevertheless, we will see. Obviously, when you had a budget that was committed to austerity, rather than something that they articulated before the election in 2013, small business suffered. Obviously, the numbers of successful small businesses are a problem. You might argue that many people in small business—such as the bricklayer working for the brickie—are not actually a small business. My brother has done something like that. He is not really a small business. He is certainly not a small business like EGR which I visited last week. Nevertheless, we should do all we can to make sure small business gets a chance and support the government's policies that were rolled out in the most recent budget. 12:37 Mr BUCHHOLZ 230531 Wright I would like to acknowledge and thank the member for Mallee, who brought this motion to the House. This is a most important opportunity for members of this House to speak on the importance of small business nationally and the importance of how small business affects each member and their electorate. In my electorate of Wright, I have over 10,000 small businesses currently operating. The estimated turnover of all the small businesses in Wright is roughly $1 billion a year, making them the largest contributing sector to the gross regional product of my electorate. I am very proud of the strength of the small business sector in Wright, and I would like to take this opportunity to highlight some of the recent achievements of some of those small businesses. Before I do that, I welcome the member for Moreton's support for the recent budget measures of the government. I know that those measures have been received extremely well throughout the small business sector right across the entire nation. I have stood in this House and spoken of small businesses on many occasions. This morning I have the opportunity to speak about ScenicRim 4Real Milk, a business which is innovative in the most advanced of ways. It is a dairy herd, a local family owned operation, with full robotic dairies and a value adding process of bottling and distributing milk. The farmer, Greg Dennis, was recently awarded Dairy Farmer of the Year at the Kondinin Group-ABC Rural Australian Farmer of the Year awards and is doing an outstanding job locally. In the west of my electorate is Stark Engineering, which makes the Warwick Cattle Crush. Stark Engineering is an agricultural manufacturer in the Locker Valley which has already experienced the benefit of the government's small business package. Last month they employed an extra couple of staff in order to meet their demand on the back of putting an additional three staff on the month before. As a result of the budget's small business package and agricultural package, they are advertising for even more positions as we speak. There is a small cafe over in the Mudgeeraba area. I recently hosted one of my regular mobile offices at the Two Little Bakers cafe in Mudgeeraba. This relatively new cafe is a labour of love from a mother and daughter duo, Kris and Ashley, who have always dreamed of running their own cafe and decorating operation. Since opening over a year ago, it has become a Gold Coast hot spot, receiving rave reviews in dozens of local food publications. I had the opportunity to go over to Mudgeeraba last week and I popped in to say 'hello' to Kris. I was delighted to have them tell me that they are going from strength to strength, posting back-to-back monthly profits. Isn't that a great news story for any small business? Behind our small business sector is a very motivated chamber of commerce sector. I would like to quickly acknowledge the Mudgeeraba Chamber of Commerce and President John Forrester; Logan Country Chamber of Commerce and President Kelly Cousins; the Lockyer Chamber of Commerce and President Paul Emmerson; Tambourine Mountain Chamber of Commerce and President Tony Lambert; Kooralbyn Chamber of Commerce and Vice-President Barry Cook; Springbrook Chamber of Commerce and President Gail Geronimos; Beaudesert Chamber of Commerce and President Cheryl Worsick; and of course the Boona District Chamber of Commerce and President Matt Wright. To each of them, I acknowledge their contribution to small business in my area. Finally, when I first became a member of the House, the member for Canberra, Gai Brodtmann, and I partnered to start the Parliamentary Friends of Small Business group. Prior to coming here, there was no Parliamentary Friends of Small Business group. However, with the help of Gai and others, we started this group and it is shining a light on some incredible small businesses around Australia, as well as offering support to new businesses. In relation to the small business package that we have rolled out, 96 per cent of all Australian businesses are small businesses. They produce over $330 billion of our nation's economic input per year and employ over four and a half million people, which accounts for almost 43 per cent of non-financial private sector jobs in our country. There is no doubt that small business is at the forefront of Australian jobs and growth. It is the engine room of Australia. The new $5.5 billion jobs and small business package is the biggest small business package in our nation's history. I welcome the support from those on the other side of the House for this legislation and trust that it will have clear sailing through the Senate so that our small businesses can be the recipients of some great legislation. 12:42 Mr SWAN 2V5 Lilley I certainly welcome the small business package in the budget. It is badly needed. Confidence is low; growth is weak and anaemic. Private sector investment is well below what it ought to be so we are not making that transition from mining sources of growth to non-mining sources of growth. The consequence of that is that many small businesses are up against the wall. They are doing it tough. When it comes to small business, confidence is king, and confidence relies upon an assessment that there will be a continuous and sustainable level of demand in local communities and across our national economy which will enable them not only to continue to employ staff and to buy capital equipment but also to expand. Sadly, at the moment, none of those things are the case. The economy is far weaker than it ought to be, so I welcome the initiatives in this budget. They have been made necessary by actions of the government, which have damaged confidence and damaged future investment so much so that private sector capital investment is down dramatically and demand is down as a consequence. Confidence is down because the government has been damaging the economy by exaggerating a budget and economic emergency. The consequence of that has brought an about-face by this government in this budget because, whilst it will not admit it, it is really saying: 'We damaged the economy over the previous 12 months. We have to do something about it. There is a need for fiscal stimulus and the way in which we are going about it is to return to a Labor policy of an instant asset write-off'—a very good policy by the way, which was a recommendation of the Henry inquiry. So I am delighted to say that the government is reaching for a Labor initiative to try and stimulate demand in our economy. But the real question is: why are we here this week having a conversation in the House about this measure, when it should have been in the Senate this week? We had the farcical situation in the last sitting week of the government voting against their own measures for small business, which they claim are the biggest package for small business in the history of the parliament. They voted against them in the last sitting week. It should have been in the Senate this week if we were really concerned about confidence. Confidence, as I said before, is king. We need this measure up and through the Senate. Instead of patting themselves on the back with rubbish like, 'This is the biggest set of measures ever for small business,' why aren't they getting on and just doing it, and why aren't they, for example, apologising for abolishing the instant asset write-off in the first place? Confidence has been down dramatically. Consumer confidence was down 13 per cent prior to the budget. Business confidence was down a staggering 22 per cent. That is why this measure needs to be put in place. Certainly it is welcomed by the 12,000 small businesses in the electorate of Lilley, but it is only a shadow of the package that the former government had in place for small business. Loss carry-back, for example, put in place and abolished by this government, was one of the most significant business tax reforms of our generation. It was wiped away precisely at a time when disruption occurs in business models. It was absolutely needed. Loss carry-back should be brought back by this government if it is serious about economic reform. And, of course, there was accelerated depreciation for the purchase of motor vehicles, and so on. That package that was abolished was worth $5 billion over the forward estimates, when the deficit was far lower than it is now. According to the government, it was not affordable back then with a far lower deficit. There is a far higher deficit now, and the government comes forward with a small business package which is supposedly affordable. So we did have a plan for small business and jobs. That is why unemployment had a 5 in front of it when Labour was in power, and now it has a 6 in front of it. This is a really big problem for small businesses—a very, very big problem. And the sad part of this package is that the instant asset write-off and the other changes are not enough to make up for the lack of demand in our economy at the moment. What this budget desperately required was a fundamental injection of funds into building economic capacity and infrastructure across the board, and most particularly into urban public transport. Those initiatives are what is required given how weak demand is at the moment, but for ideological reasons the government will not go there, so they have gone to an instant asset write-off. But it will be nowhere near as effective as it ought to be, because it is not a boost to underlying demand in the economy through investment in infrastructure—which the government claim they are making, but they are not. In making those claims they are damaging confidence. 12:48 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid It is nice to stand and support the member for Mallee in this motion about the importance and significance of small businesses in our economy. At the age of 21 I started work in my family business, and I ran the Crossways Hotel in Enfield from that age until I decided to enter parliament. I was blessed to be able to give thousands and thousands of people a job. There is nothing better than looking into the eye of someone at a job interview and telling them that yes, there is a spot for them, whether it is a university student that is looking to pay board at home or have pocket money of a weekend to go out with friends or to supplement while they perform their studies to ultimately start their career—as is so often the case in the hospitality business and as was the case when I was growing up—or whether it is a single mum who is looking at ways to earn a wage from 10 am to 3 pm, when the children are at school, before going back and picking them up, or whether is it people at the other end of life. I was blessed to employ a lot of very experienced people from the hospitality industry that were finding it tough to find a job at that particular time in their life. We are all ultimately local federal members of parliament. We may rise to be something in the ministerial rank or parliamentary secretary rank, but we are ultimately local federal members of parliament. It is our job to ensure that our local communities have the work they need for the stage of life that they are at, and the role that small business plays in that is vital. The measures were actually passed—for the information of the member for Lilley—this morning, so there was no delay on the timing of it. The measures that were passed were so important. I want to give you one local example, as we have just had a week back in our electorates. There is a gentleman in my electorate named Pino Salerno. Pino and a group of his friends have agreed to take out a lease on a closed down rowing centre, an old function room. They come from a hospitality background; they run restaurants around other parts of New South Wales, but this would be their first operation in my electorate. Before our budget, he had a planned to open up his facility in a staged manner, which would mean there would be an increase of local employment over time. When I ran into Pino last week he told me our decisions—that were supported by those opposite, that have passed the Senate this morning—have facilitated him, now safe in the knowledge that the asset write-off is there, to ramp up the opening process. So instead of employing in the vicinity of 12 to 15 people in 12 to 18 months' time, there will be 12 to 15 people employed within the next three to six months. What does that mean as a local federal member? It means there are 12 to 15 more people in my electorate who are not only earning a wage, earning a living and enjoying a better standard of life but, more importantly—and I know Pino's operations from elsewhere in Sydney—also forging a career with Pino and his business. I know that many of the people who run the establishments that my family owns, who run them day-in day-out, started as casual bar attendants—that is how they started a career. Small and family businesses are so often overlooked, but they give you a career path. Why these packages are so important is not only for that local aspect but also in the sector itself. I say this a lot: if a PAYE wage earner loses their job it is a tragedy, and they do all that they can to get another job; if a small or family business owner loses their job, they most likely lose their home. The reality is they mortgage against their home to open and invest in their business. Like the tradie who is today's apprentice, who makes a pathway to buy his own van, tools and whatever he needs to have a go himself, these are the traditional pathways of small business—and over time some of those small businesses have become medium to big businesses. This sector employs around 4½ million people—that is almost as much as medium- and large-sized businesses added together. There is no doubt that it is vital to our community. I am not interested in standing up here and bagging anyone; I am standing up here to praise the efforts of all of those involved. I hope that our package inspires more people to take the step from PAYE to business operator, because our country ultimately needs it. 12:53 Ms BUTLER 248006 Griffith I am so pleased that the Abbott government has finally learnt something about small business, because it was pretty clear last year that the Abbott government had no idea about small business. In fact, under Labor we had the instant asset write-off, we had loss carry-back provisions and we had accelerated depreciation of motor vehicles, but the Abbott government did not understand these measures, and took an axe to them as one of their first orders of business when they took government at the end of 2013. And what did they announce for small business, to great fanfare? A 1½ per cent cut to the company tax rate. If they had actually realised anything at all about small business, if they had any idea about how small business works, the Abbott government would have realised that most small businesses are not incorporated. A 1½ per cent cut to the company tax rate does not help an unincorporated business. Unfortunately, the government had no idea about this and so, in wandering around the countryside claiming that this measure was somehow going to be great for small business, they looked like complete buffoons. Thankfully, the Council of Small Business Australia, led by Peter Strong, came to their aid. The council sat them down and explained to them how small business worked—sat them down, and said, 'Look, guys, you might have heard of this thing called sole traders, ABNs; I know it sounds really complicated.' So you have the small business peak body actually explaining it to this government. Thank goodness that now, at least—belatedly—they are starting to introduce some pro-small-business measures. They have come to the realisation that Labor's policy of having an instant asset write-off was good, sound policy aimed at assisting small businesses with their finances. Of course, cash is very important in small business. That is why we in government had such strong pro-small-business measures. The other thing that is really important for a small business is, of course, a good economy in which to operate. Sadly for the small businesses of Australia and for the working people of Australia, the Abbott government's first budget was an utter catastrophe for this nation's economy. They come in and they make cuts: cuts to higher education; $80 billion in cuts to the states for education and health; cuts to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission; cuts to the Australian Taxation Office; cuts to the CSIRO; cuts to pensions; the cuts to the ABC; the cuts to the SBS—all of the cuts. In fact, name one program in this country and it is pretty likely that it was cut by the Abbott government in its first budget or—I should say quite rightly—that the Abbott government attempted to make cuts, because Labor stood up strongly against this government's attempts to take an axe to public finances, and we have been really successful in things like stopping them from taking the axe to pensions in the way in which they intended. We have been really successful in doing that, because we have campaigned so strongly and the people of this nation have stood up and said, 'No, you cannot cut pensions.' The people of this nation have stood up and said, 'No, you cannot cut funds to higher education.' It is just ridiculous. At a time when our competitors in Tokyo and in Beijing are increasing public funding to higher education to bump their universities up the charts, what do the Abbott government want to do to higher education in this country, our biggest export industry? They want to take an axe to it. But I digress. Thankfully, the Council of Small Business Australia and other expert groups and small businesses themselves have explained to the Abbott government that in fact what you really need to do is have measures that support small business. One of the really important things for small business, as I said, is finance. The previous speaker in this debate spoke about the fact that a lot of small business owners mortgage their house to get access to finance in order to start up. That is a massive difficulty on people who want to start small businesses, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, not everyone has an asset the size of a house to mortgage. Secondly, there are a lot of entrepreneurs in Australia who will tell you that small businesses and start-up businesses in Australia are more risk averse and more cautious than people in, say, Silicon Valley. Of course they are. Their house is at risk here in Australia. That is often the case for small businesses, and that is why on budget reply night Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, made a fantastic announcement of benefit to small business. He talked about providing access to finance for start-ups without people having to mortgage their homes. What is the consequence of that? It is not just the increased access to financing, and therefore the encouragement of new small businesses, but the fact that it is going to encourage people once they are in business to be able to take more risk and to be more innovative and entrepreneurial. That is why it is such a fantastic measure. We will always support small business, as we always have. Debate adjourned Homelessness 139 12:58 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I move: That this House: (1) recognises that: (a) over 105,000 Australians are currently defined as homeless throughout the nation; (b) on any given night this translates to 1 in 200 Australians homeless or sleeping rough; and (c) great work is done by organisations such as Homelessness Australia and countless local charities in their support for homeless people right across the country; and (2) notes that: (a) the current Government has made significant cuts to front line youth services putting more young people at the risk of homelessness; (b) the current Government has made significant cuts to domestic violence services putting more woman and children at risk of homelessness; and (c) more needs to be done to address homelessness in Australia. I rise today to speak on the very shocking fact that at this present moment over 105,000 people within Australia are defined as experiencing homelessness. That is a huge number. It is indeed a very sad indictment on our nation. In fact, if you break down that very large number it translates into one in 200 Australians—men, women and children—on any one night who are experiencing homelessness to some degree. That figure does in fact take into account everything from sleeping rough in our cities and towns across the nation right through to people who are forced to rely on others or who may be couch surfing. It encompasses all of those particular situations. All ages and backgrounds are vulnerable to homelessness; however, some are more vulnerable to this than others. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, for instance, account for over a quarter of all Australians who are experiencing homelessness, despite making up only 2.5 per cent of the population. What is also very disturbing is the ever-increasing number of women and children who are experiencing or are at risk of homelessness. The single biggest cause of this is domestic violence. Can I say as a former police officer I witnessed such outcomes firsthand, all too often in relation to women and children who were fleeing domestic violence situations. The reality for many women and children is that they do become homeless because they have no other options in those situations. That is why, particularly in my area, the North Coast of New South Wales, there has been a lot of criticism of the New South Wales government's cuts to services that provide support for victims of domestic violence. Indeed, it is why there has been so much criticism of the Abbott government's cuts to community services and to services for those who have been impacted by domestic violence. Quite frankly, the statistics on homelessness are shocking and alarming, with women, children and younger people being disproportionately represented, but in saying that I would like to acknowledge the work by many organisations throughout the country, such as Homelessness Australia. I especially acknowledge the many groups in my electorate of Richmond who respond to this problem in our communities on a daily and nightly basis. Some of those individuals and groups are Dennis Pommer and Lunch with Friends, John Lee and You Have A Friend, Tweed Valley Women's Service, St Vincent de Paul and the Salvation Army. They do an incredible job assisting people who are homeless or are at risk of becoming homeless. Also, I wish to acknowledge groups such as Byron Community Centre, Byron Youth Service and the Cottage Drop-in Centre, which also do really committed and important work for the people at risk of homelessness on the North Coast. We have also seen the impact of the Abbott governments cruel cuts in relation to youth services, particularly at the Byron Youth Service. Cuts to funding programs like Youth Connections, mean that that service may have to close. People are so reliant on that service. Now the Byron Youth Service is desperately raising money through the community, but they should not have to do that. This government has no plans to replace programs like Youth Connections, which is a really important program that really does help younger people in so many ways, particularly in finding other ways for them to finish year 12. Other participants, who are now engaged in study or work after they have completed that program, have had a great success rate. When you talk to service providers around the country they will tell you a number of things in relation to homelessness. They will tell you that the Abbott government, and its cruel cuts to youth services, particularly domestic violence prevention programs, is pushing ever-increasing numbers of people towards homelessness and marginalisation. As I have said, cuts we have seen on the North Coast have meant many of those organisations are close to closing their doors. We have had many service providers tell us that the Abbott government must act immediately and work with the states and territories to implement policies and programs to increase the supply of affordable and social housing stock across Australia. Instead, the government is cutting all these programs and cutting measures designed to address a significant and growing reality of homelessness. They are hurting those that are most vulnerable within our community, particularly with their cuts to family violence services and to homelessness and crisis accommodation services across the country. Altogether, those cuts are worth a staggering $300 million. That is a huge cut that we are seeing to some vitally important services. The fact is more, not less, needs to be done to reduce homelessness in this country. The government needs to stop cutting services and start doing more. It should be listening to all those service providers right across the country. It should provide funding for emergency support and crisis service, but it also needs funding to reduce some of the causes of homelessness as well. It requires a really complex approach to address all of those issues. So I call on the government to do a lot more and to do that right now. (Time expired) 13:03 Mr WILLIAMS 249758 Hindmarsh I second the motion. I rise today to speak on this important motion from the point of view that homelessness is a national issue for our country. As we know there are over 100,000 people that are currently defined as homeless. I start my contribution by making the points that the government recognises this and is responding to this in the appropriate way. That is why earlier this year the Minister for Social Services announced the government will continue to fund frontline homelessness service through the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. This program funds around 180 different programs and services for people who are experiencing or are at risk of homelessness. These programs assist 80,000 people each year and employ more than 3,000 staff. The government will provide $230 million over two years from July 2015 to continue this program. This offer is subject to the states and territories matching our commitment to homelessness funding through the national partnership agreement. The previous government, as we know, did not provide funding in the forward estimates, which questions their commitment to this important area in our society beyond 30 June 2014. I do question the member for Richmond's commitment, being a member of the former government. We know homelessness is not a choice. It can happen to anyone. People who are experiencing homelessness are among the most marginalised people in Australia. It is one of the most potent examples of disadvantage in the community. This is why the work of groups such as the Hutt Street Centre in Adelaide, Fred's Van in Semaphore, Anglicare, Salvation Army, Uniting Care, St Vincent de Paul Society and OzHarvest are so important. I would like to take the opportunity to thank and recognise these important organisations. The Hutt Street Centre is one of the leading front-line agencies providing essential services such as a meal and day centre to people facing homelessness and disadvantage in Adelaide. They provide basic services, such as a bathroom and laundry and locker facilities, but also look at housing assistance and medical support. I want to congratulate Ian Cox and his team at the Hutt Street Centre for their ongoing dedication and commitment to fixing this complex issue and providing for those in need. Fred's Van at Semaphore, just on the northern part of my electorate, is another organisation I have supported and volunteered at during Anti-Poverty Week. They work with Vinnies and support some of the most vulnerable people in our community, who experience a range of issues such as homelessness, social isolation and unemployment, providing approximately 500 meals a week. I want to congratulate the work of the volunteers at Mary's Kitchen, an outreach program supervised by Uniting Care in Glenelg. Operating from St Andrew's hall in Jetty Road at Glenelg, they do a wonderful job providing meals and fellowship for those in need. Last year, I arranged the Hindmarsh Christmas Appeal, which called on the community to provide non-perishable items to Mary's Kitchen. It was a great success, and I thank the community for their support of this initiative. I have recently doorknocked for the Salvation Army around Glenelg, where donations were received to help finance the Salvo's vast network of social and community services, such as the 50,000 meals they provide each year for the hungry. No doubt, we all want to end homelessness in Australia and we all want to see improvement on the current situation. According to Homelessness Australia and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, there are numerous reasons why people are experiencing homelessness. It is no secret that mental health and substance abuse are significant contributors to this complex issue, as is the impact of domestic violence. We are not just talking about this. We are rolling out initiatives and dedicating resources and focus, such as the National Ice Taskforce, in this area. There is $87 million worth of funding for drug and treatment front-line services. In terms of addressing the scourge of domestic violence, we have made a $100 million contribution to the second action plan under the national plan and we have recently announced the $30 million national awareness campaign. As previously stated, we have $230 million going to the NPAH program. We will also continue funding for the youth homelessness Reconnect program, a community based early intervention program for young people from 12 to 18 years of age who are homeless or at risk of homelessness and for their families, and the federal government announced a youth services program in the recent budget. We know that employment is important and we need to provide incentives and support for young people, just as we need to do for others, because the best form of welfare is a job, employment and opportunities. In finishing, I would like to talk about the Hutt Street Centre's walk a mile in my boots initiative, and I encourage everyone to get involved in this great initiative. 13:08 Ms CLAYDON 248181 Newcastle I am very pleased to speak today to this motion raised by member for Richmond and I thank her for her tremendous advocacy of these front-line support services for homeless people and for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. As outlined in the terms of the motion, over 105,000 Australians are currently homeless, meaning that on any given night one in 200 Australians are homeless or sleeping rough. In their latest report on homelessness, the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated that in my electorate of Newcastle and the surrounding Lake Macquarie region 97 people are living in improvised dwellings, tents or sleep-outs, 253 people are in supported accommodation for the homeless, 270 are staying temporarily with other households, 271 people are staying in boarding houses or in other temporary lodging and 182 people are living in severely crowded dwellings, making a total of 1,073 in and around my electorate being identified as homeless. Unfortunately, as outlined in the Salvation Army's annual Economic and social impact survey released just last month, rather than improving, homelessness is in fact getting worse. The Salvation Army's research found that, in the past two years, rates of homelessness and couch surfing were increasing, with the number of Australians accessing homelessness services in 2013-14 increasing by four per cent and the rate of couch surfing increasing by an astonishing 26 per cent, compared to the 2012 figures. The Salvation Army has defined the situation for individuals and families experiencing housing stress and homelessness as dire. I recently visited one of the frontline service providers in my electorate, Wesley Mission Services, and met with the operations manager, Paul Procter. Their support services have been under particular stress recently in the aftermath of the devastating storms in Newcastle. Their regular breakfast service, staffed entirely by volunteers now, often sees more than 40 people gathering for a meal. Fridays are especially busy as many people know this could well be their last meal before Monday, with all of the community-kitchen services in my region now no longer able to operate over the weekend. Mr Procter told me that they had a steady increase of people accessing their services, but unfortunately they have been compelled to let go of staff and cut programs. Organisations like the Salvation Army, Wesley Mission, Homelessness Australia and countless other small and large community based groups are doing everything in their power to address this dire circumstance, but the Abbott-Liberal government are not making their job any easier. In fact, you could argue they are making life a lot more difficult for the support-service organisations and, consequently, those people in need. I do of course welcome the government's back-track on the cuts to direct homelessness funding and the two-year extension of funding announced in March, but it must be asked if the government really understand the issue at hand, with their cuts to other programs that go to addressing and supporting those at risk of homelessness and the lack of any new funding in this year's budget. The government has made significant cuts to frontline youth services, putting more young people at risk of homelessness. This is in addition to their ongoing plans to leave young jobseekers with no support for four weeks. They have made major cuts to domestic violence services, putting more women and children at risk of homelessness. A partially funded awareness campaign was the only domestic violence measure announced in the federal budget, leaving frontline workers aghast at critical funding gaps. The government's lack of commitment was questioned by independent community organisation Fair Agenda, who consulted experts prior to the budget to determine what funding was required to address family violence. Not one of the nine crucial funding areas that they identified were addressed in this year's budget. In my own electorate, the Hunter Community Legal Centre have raised serious concerns at their capacity to meet the growing needs of the most vulnerable in our community in the face of ongoing funding uncertainty. Likewise, this budget contained no funds for the Newcastle Domestic Violence Resource Centre, which fills a service delivery gap to meet the needs of people experiencing domestic violence. This service is run entirely by volunteers, receives no government funding whatsoever and exists solely as an initiative of Jenny's Place—a women's refuge service in my community. It is time this government stepped up to the mark and addressed the root causes of homelessness, and the existing needs, and committed to funding these vital services in our community. 13:13 Mr CRAIG KELLY 99931 Hughes I welcome this opportunity to speak on the member's motion on homelessness. One of the biggest factors affecting homelessness in Australia is the issue of housing affordability. A good place to start, to see where we are today, is to go back to 'The Forgotten People' speech of Sir Robert Menzies back in 1942. Menzies said: The material home represents the concrete expression of saving 'for a home of our own'. Your advanced socialists may rage against private property (even whilst they acquire it); but one of the best instincts in us is that which induces us to have one little piece of earth with a house and a garden which is ours, to which we can withdraw, in which we can be among our friends, into which no stranger may come against our will. We understood the social and economic importance of home ownership. In the 1950s, around 50 per cent of the Australian population owned their own home. But in the 1960s and 1970s, because we understood the importance of home ownership, that numbers increased to 70 per cent and stayed there for around 20 years. In fact, in 1981, we got to almost 74 per cent of people owning their own homes in this country. But since then we have gone backwards. From the high of 73.4 per cent, today we are down at just 64 per cent of Australians owning their own home. That is a nine per cent fall over the last couple of decades. That means around 900,000 Australians now rent a place and do not own their own house. If you drill down into those numbers, the facts are even worse for people aged 45 to 54. Their numbers have fallen even further. Their numbers have fallen 15 per cent in terms of home ownership. Of course, even for those with a home, a far greater percentage have a mortgage and owe more on their mortgage. Why have we got ourselves into this problem? It has not been the cost of housing construction. Where the free market has been allowed to work in housing construction, entrepreneurs have worked out how to build things more cheaply, how to make things more cheaply and how to make furniture more cheaply. But we have had government interference in the market, limiting the supply of new land releases, which has caused an increase in housing prices. The complete absurdity of the situation! There are around nine million households in Australia. If we wanted to, we could depopulate the mainland, move every household to Tasmania, give each household a one acre block and still have almost half of Tasmania left aside for national parks. In our country, with our landmass, the fall in housing affordability and increase in housing prices is a complete crime against our younger generation. And it has been done for failed ideas—the idea that it is somehow better that we congest our cities, crowd everyone into them and pack them into high-rise apartments. In fact, there was a great report several years ago called Children in the Compact Citythat showed the detrimental effects on children living in high-rise apartments. Studies have shown that you actually use more energy, more electricity, living in a high-rise apartment than you do in a detached house. We need to go back to those principles that we had in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and put housing affordability back on the priority list. The Treasurer has been misquoted, but if we look at his comments, he is right. He said we need to build, build, build. That is exactly what we need to do. We need to ensure that we are releasing land in this country and that there are jobs in our regional centres by moving government departments to our regional centres. We need to look at stamp duty—the absurdity that, in Sydney today, if you want to move from, say, the Sutherland Shire to the northern suburbs, you will pay stamp duty of around $35,000. That is a $35,000 tax on someone who wants to move internally. That has gross economic effects on the nation. Also what we need to do is ensure that we get the housing supply back, because that is what will affect housing affordability. If we can get housing affordability for our younger generation, that is the best way that we can also affect homelessness. 13:19 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser The degradation and inequity caused by homelessness are a blight on our civilised society. As the motion reflects, on any given night over 100,000 Australians are without a home. Here in the ACT we have the second-highest rate of homelessness in the country, behind only the Northern Territory. On census night in 2011, 1,785 Canberrans were homeless. The total homeless numbers were up since the 2006 census, albeit that the number of rough sleepers for the ACT was down. I want to speak to two common misconceptions about homelessness and to use evidence from my own home town to provide clear illustrations as to why those notions are false. The first misguided perception is that homeless people have no-one to blame but themselves; if they could just work harder, some say, then their lot would improve. But people fall into homelessness for a variety of reasons as compelling as they are indiscriminate: domestic violence, housing unaffordability and mental illness are common drivers of homelessness. Understanding the real drivers of homelessness demonstrates that any of us can find ourselves without a home for reasons out of our control. The shafts of fate can strike into any household and that is why we need a strong safety net to catch those who fall. Another misconception is that all homeless people conform to the image of an older man sleeping rough on the street, but that too presents an incomplete picture. While rough sleepers can feel the effects of homelessness most acutely, many homeless people are neither middle aged nor male and nor are they rough sleeping. Joseph Walker, an intern in my office who assisted in preparing these remarks, compiled statistics from the ACT's FirstPoint showing that 67 per cent of the ACT's homeless are under 25 and that children, together with women, form the ACT's largest homeless cohort. Only two per cent of the ACT's homeless sleep on the streets. Most live in supported accommodation or with family and friends. They are couch surfing in fragile home circumstances. The question remains of what can be done. Governments, community organisations and the private sector need to work together to combat the causes and consequences of homelessness. We need to recognise too that the providing of a sustainable social safety net is part of tackling homelessness. The Rudd government's decision in 2009 to boost the single age pension by over $1,600 a year reduced relative poverty by a fifth. That, in itself, improved the ability of many people to afford accommodation. Alongside government solutions, community organisations offer an important lifeline to those who might otherwise fall through the cracks. Organisations such as Samaritan House-St Vincent De Paul Society in Hackett, the Early Morning Centre in the city and Common Ground in Gungahlin, which will soon open, provide vital services to Canberra's homeless. But they need funding to survive and the Abbott government's decision to rip $44 million out of homelessness services in last year's budget, without restoring it in 2015, has left many of those organisations on the brink. That the government could slash those services, yet refuse to ask multinationals to pay their fair share of tax, suggests to me warped priorities in a nation as affluent as our own. Homelessness is part of the broader conversation around inequality and housing affordability. The member for Hughes spoke about the issue of housing affordability and made some statements with which I would agree. It is important that we encourage states to follow the lead of the ACT in making a transition from stamp duty—a tax on mobility—towards land tax. It is important that we have resources available to encourage developers to carry out infill. The O'Farrell government's short-sighted decision to cancel medium-density developments along the North Shore train line is one of those policies that will act to make housing more unaffordable. We also need a federal government prepared to invest in urban public transport. The Abbott government's decision not to invest in urban public transport, again, makes it more difficult to tackle the challenges of housing affordability. This is also part of the big challenge of inequality now at a 75-year high in Australia. If Australia is to successfully tackle inequality it will involve us dealing with the most vulnerable, among whom are Australia's homeless. 13:24 Mr WYATT M3A Hasluck Access to safe and secure housing is a basic human right. More than 105,000 people are defined as homeless throughout the nation. Homelessness is not a choice but is, in fact, one of the harshest manifestations of disadvantage and a genuine marker of social exclusion. I acknowledge the work done by Homelessness Australia in supporting vulnerable people not just in WA but also across the country. In Western Australia, nearly 10,000 people are homeless at this moment. Domestic violence is the most prevalent reason for the homelessness in WA, followed by financial hardship. It is established that, more broadly, domestic and family violence is one of the top five pathways to homelessness, alongside other indicators which include mental health and youth. In relation to the government's commitment to reducing the scourge of domestic and family violence, I want to make it very clear that, contrary to the member for Richmond's assertion, there have been no cuts whatsoever in funding to services to assist vulnerable Australians. To suggest that is the case is totally deceptive and misleading. I will put on the record here that the government has in fact not cut funding to family violence prevention legal services or to frontline family law services and that there have been no cuts to the National Partnership Agreement on Homelessness. In fact, my colleague Minister Scott Morrison has announced that we are providing $230 million to extend the NPAH for two years to 30 June 2017, with a specific focus on women and children affected by domestic violence. This includes projects that support women to remain safe in their homes. This is after Labor failed to make any plan for the future funding of homelessness services, with no allocation for continued funding of the NPAH after 30 June 2014. The accusation that government has cut funding to domestic violence services is totally false. I will also take this opportunity to point out that it was the coalition who acted, after coming into government, to restore $115 million in funding for the homelessness partnership for that current year. The commitment, as I have indicated, has been extended for a further two years. In March, the government announced a $30 million campaign to further raise awareness of this scourge on our community through jointly funded programs between the Commonwealth and states. Last month, the Prime Minister announced an advisory panel to reduce violence against women which will report by the end of the year on a number of criteria. What is important are the underlying issues that impact on families. In my own electorate, in working with Rotary and another number of other organisations and also working with the knights of St John's Order, there is a focus on homeless people whose circumstances have arisen through a number of factors and reasons, and in the process we as a society need to reach out. When we argue over funding and when we argue over differences in political stances or political positioning, we often forget to take a position that is humanitarian in the way that we re-engage people back into pathways. Mental illness is a particular challenge for us in terms of how we consider those who are homeless and experience mental illness, those who are in transition from prisons and those whose family circumstances have changed—including couch surfing. In a sense, I take issue with the member for Richmond's comments because what we should be focusing on is the root causes and looking at how we change those. It is through that process that we can start to seriously think about how we provide those pathways that will better re-engage people into those things that they once aspired to do. Every human being has in their aspiration a pathway that as a child and in moving forward they want to take. The sad part is, the reality is, that we do end up with those whose journeys, choices and decisions lead them to a state of homelessness, including through the influence of drugs. In my own electorate there are a number of organisations who provide incredible services and there are agencies working to assist people facing hardships. I thank them for their efforts in working with young people and with adults who already feel potentially lonely and desperate and may be on the verge of disengaging with family, friends and the community. In those instances, those programs provide a bridge that gives them comfort, gives them some certainty and gives them the opportunity to be part of the community in which they live. Debate adjourned. STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS 144 STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines 144 15:59 Dr LEIGH BU8 Fraser Fanny Andriolo and Cveta Krsteska are two Commonwealth cleaners who have worked hard in the industry for nearly 40 years. They came to see me recently because they were worried about their wages and conditions as a result of the Abbott government's decision to repeal the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines. Born in Italy, in 1964, Fanny moved to Australia in 1985. She worked as a cleaner from the time she arrived while learning English at the Canberra Institute of Technology. She currently cleans a Commonwealth government building while caring for her injured husband. Born in Macedonia, Cveta came to Australia when she was six. She has been cleaning since 1977 and also cleans a Commonwealth government building. Fanny and Cveta are good and hardworking people. They personify the rich economic and cultural threads that migrants have woven in our social fabric. The reduction of Commonwealth cleaners' pay as a result of this government's decision has caused needless stress and hardship to Fanny, Cveta and hundreds of their colleagues in Canberra. And for what? It is a sad indictment on this government that it is so reluctant to act on multinational tax avoidance yet barely bats an eyelid when deciding whether to cut the pay of the people who clean their own offices. Live Animal Exports 145 16:00 Mr RUDDOCK 0J4 Berowra Aside from those constituents who write to me passionately about the government's performance in bringing the budget back under control and creating new opportunities for young Australians, I get a number who write to me about live cattle exports from Australia. I wanted to take this opportunity to say that live exports are an important and ongoing trade for Australia. The industry employs around 10,000 people and contributes significantly to the country's economy and it supports many rural and regional communities. In the first full year of this government we have the value of live animal exports exceeding $1.4 billion, and it is succeeding to grow. Australia's leadership in this trade is significant because we have been able to influence in other countries—importing countries, in particular—welfare conditions. The Australian government and industry share a strong commitment to animal welfare. Australia has exported a very significant proportion of cattle consignments—I understand, in 18 countries, 1,139 consignments and only 22 incidents of welfare concern. We do address these issues seriously and my constituents should be reassured that the government is taking a positive role to address this question. Richmond Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours 145 16:01 Mrs ELLIOT DZW Richmond I congratulate all of the Queen's birthday awards recipients and acknowledge all of those on the New South Wales North Coast who were recognised for their great work. In particular, I note health campaigner and nurse Anne McGovern, who received an Order of Australia medal. Anne divides her time between her home at Tuntable, near Nimbin, in my electorate, and remote Aboriginal communities in Central Australia. The Queen's birthday honour was awarded to Anne for her services to the Indigenous communities of Mintabie and Mimili. She worked as a nurse at the Mintabie clinic frontier services in the early 1990s and cared for disabled and elderly members of the community in remote towns. That was between the years of 1991 and 2011. She was involved in the establishment of a community centre in Mimili and implemented health and welfare programs there as well. A great achievement. I would also like to congratulate Jim Banks of Pottsville, who has been awarded an Order of Australia medal for service to veterans and their families, and to the community. Jim was in the Air Force in World War II and has been a member of the RSL for more than 70 years. Jim is very highly respected and greatly admired by his local community. He is such a very worthy recipient of this award. He said he was totally surprised and honoured to receive it. Jim also said helping out people is the most rewarding thing you can do. He is an outstanding person and a great contributor to our community. Congratulations to Jim and Anne and all of those recipients of the Queen's birthday awards, and I thank them for the wonderful work they do in my community and, indeed, right throughout the country. Lindgren, Senator Joanna, Kelly, Mrs Clem 145 16:03 Mr BROUGH 2K6 Fisher I would like to be the first in the lower house to congratulate the newest Queensland and Australian senator. Today, Senator Joanna Lindgren was sworn in, in the other place. She follows in the great tradition of her wonderful relative Neville Bonner, whom we all hold in great regard in Queensland. We wish her a long and successful time, advocating on behalf of Queenslanders in the federal parliament. This also gives me the opportunity to thank the Friends of Bankfoot House. I mentioned this in the main chamber earlier today but did not get the opportunity to particularly thank Mrs Clem Kelly. Just yesterday, on behalf of her father—who was a pioneer of the Glasshouse Mountains—we launched a little booklet on the life of Jack Ferris. I was there at his 100th birthday and he would have been 114 years of age this year. Today, the track around Beerburrum and Tibrogargan, in the mountains, is named after Jack. He was there when we opened the lookout over what is such an iconic part of Australia. Clem brought to it only what a direct descendent can, and that is, those insights of what it was like to live with kerosene lanterns, to have Bakelite radios, to have chaffcutters in the backyard and no power. They are bringing all of that back to life for the children of the Sunshine Coast. So to Mrs Clem Kelly and the Friends of Bankfoot House, thank you for what you do. Asylum Seekers 146 16:04 Ms PARKE HWR Fremantle On a day when we celebrate the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta, there is an issue of fundamental democratic accountability before the Australian parliament. A government that has spent much time and negative energy hectoring and lecturing to the Australian community on the evils of people-smuggling is now accused of itself participating in or aiding people-trafficking. Allegations made by the Indonesian crew and asylum seekers of a boat recently turned back to Indonesia that the crew were paid around $38,000 in cash to do so by Australian Customs officers have been denied by three cabinet ministers. Yet the allegations have not been denied by the Prime Minister, despite repeated questioning by the media. The Prime Minister has said the government will stop the boats 'by hook or by crook'. Facilitating people-trafficking presumably falls into the 'crook' category. This is an extremely important matter that cannot be dismissed with this government's usual secretive blather about on-water operations. If the allegations are not true, the government needs to say so. If the allegations are true, they expose potentially serious criminal activity sanctioned at the highest level, warranting an independent investigation and potential criminal charges. Indonesia is now investigating the allegations. The head of the UN refugee agency has said that any action that rewards criminal behaviour is unacceptable, while refugee lawyer David Manne has pointed out that turning people back who may be in need of protection would also be a flagrant violation of the refugee convention. It is time now for the government to actually reveal what has taken place. Eight hundred years of the rule of law has to mean something. Richo Cup 146 16:06 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks On 8 June I had the privilege of attending the inaugural Richo Cup, which was held at Gannons Park in Peakhurst in my electorate. The Richo Cup was organised by the Forest Rangers Football Club and also Lugarno Football Club. It was held in memory of Matt Richardson, a Forest Rangers player who tragically passed away during a football match last year. The purpose of the day was to raise awareness regarding health issues and also to raise funds for defibrillators to be used at the 24 football clubs within the St George Football Association. There were more than 800 people there on the day. There was a huge crowd and lots of great games were played. I would like to congratulate the winning clubs on the day and, in particular, the Lugarno Football Club and Forest Rangers for their tremendous efforts, especially John Taylor, the President of Lugarno Football Club, and Tony Karahalias from Forest Rangers. The day raised over $20,000 to help put defibrillators in local parks, and it was a great credit to all involved. Macedonia 146 16:08 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham It is a great privilege to join my colleagues the member for Throsby and the member for Perth today in our call for the government to take action to recognise the Republic of Macedonia by its preferred name. I also want to acknowledge the member for Cowan, who has made the same points in a contribution he has made on this issue. For many decades I have worked closely with our wonderful Macedonian community of the Illawarra. I have joined them for festive dinners, attended many of their cultural events and shows and met with them in formal delegations about issues of concern to their community. I would particularly like to recognise the work of Lou Stefanovski and his committee members on these issues. I was very pleased that we were able to join them in showing my colleague the member for Perth their beautiful church in Wollongong and to join them for lunch on her recent visit to our city. I have also had the opportunity to meet and discuss the matters with the ambassador, Vele Trpevski, in recent months. Across all aspects of our local life our Macedonian community members have enriched our local story—from the first arrivals after the Second World War, who toiled at the steelworks, to the second and third generations who now run local businesses, lead local organisations and star on our sporting and artistic stages. Despite this wonderful story of migration and the determination with which they have adopted their new country, the persistent issue of heartache to them is the ability to be referred to by the preferred name of their home country—the Republic of Macedonia. It is surely now time for a bipartisan resolution of this matter. Moore Electorate: Northern Compassion Incorporated 147 16:09 Mr GOODENOUGH 74046 Moore I wish to recognise the valuable work of a not-for-profit organisation in my electorate, Northern Compassion Incorporated, which runs a life skills mentoring and accommodation support program for young men who are seeking to rebuild their lives. The organisation runs a voluntary residential and personal development program for individuals who have completed rehabilitation programs to enable them to transition back into mainstream society as good citizens. Participants are provided with support and accommodation in a semirural environment to avoid the pitfalls of poor lifestyle choices and negative peer influences that are more readily encountered in an urban setting. The program is designed to empower young men to take control of their lives, giving them a pathway to employment or education. Participants are encouraged to set personal goals for their future study and workforce participation. They are mentored to acquire essential life skills such as healthy living, managing their finances and conflict resolution, which will assist them with independent living at the completion of the program. The name of the residence is Tenacious House, in recognition of the tenacity required to improve one's life and not to relapse into poor lifestyle choices. Northern Compassion is seeking a combination of community support, government funding and corporate sponsorship to expand its valuable work within our community. Macedonia 147 16:11 Mr STEPHEN JONES A9B Throsby I am pleased to be here in the chamber today with the member for Gellibrand, the member for Cunningham, the member for Perth and many others across the political divide who support a rethink on our views towards the Republic of Macedonia. The Republic of Macedonia is a new country but with an ancient history. It was part of the socialist republic of Yugoslavia between 1945 and 1993, a total of 48 years. Since that time, a whole 22 years, we have had a disagreement in the international forums—sometimes reflected here in Australia—over the proper form of referring to that country. It would be ironic indeed if we were to be referring to the republic by this anachronistic title for longer than it had actually been a part of the republic of Yugoslavia. If we make the sensible and overdue change, we certainly will not be the first. 135 countries have recognised Macedonia under its constitutional name, including our close allies such as the United States of America, the United Kingdom and Canada. In 2012, I was fortunate enough to travel to the republic. I met with the President, Gjorge Ivanov; I met with Mr Poposki, the foreign minister, and I was lucky enough to go to Krusevo on their important national day of Ilinden. I have to say it reminded me a lot of Anzac Day. I think it is time that we completed the picture and recognised them as the Republic of Macedonia. Corangamite Electorate: Employment 147 16:12 Ms HENDERSON ZN4 Corangamite I rise today to speak about the hundreds and hundreds of new jobs which have been created across the Corangamite region because of our government's policies and investments. We have finalised three free trade agreements, got rid of the carbon tax and just today, of course, passed our small business budget measures, which are so important for jobs of the future. The Geelong Region Innovation and Investment Fund has created some 750 jobs. The full $15 million of Commonwealth money has been delivered by our government—not a cent from the previous Labour government. There are a whole range of other job creation programs, such as the Next Generation Manufacturing Investment Program. I am very proud of our $1.8 million Geelong Employment Connections program, for which I have fought so hard. It is now helping to fund local grassroots programs to help get people into work, particularly those who have lost their job in the manufacturing sector. I am very pleased that one of these initiatives is the Jobs4Geelong jobs fair, which is to be held this Friday and Saturday starting at 10 o'clock at Deakin University on the waterfront. Our government is very proudly contributing $95,000, working in partnership with Enterprise Geelong, the Geelong Advertiser and K Rock/Bay FM. The jobs fair will bring together job seekers and employers large and small, as well as training and employment organisations. Our government is working very hard to get people into work, so please come along. The jobs fair could make your day and change your life. Macedonia 147 16:14 Ms MacTIERNAN L6P Perth There are strong links between the Macedonian community of Perth and that of Wollongong. It was with great pleasure that I had the opportunity a couple of weeks ago to meet with the community in Wollongong. I thank them for their extraordinary warmth and hospitality. Accompanied by my colleagues the member for Throsby and the member for Cunningham, we committed to working towards Australian recognition of the Republic of Macedonia's preferred name. We heard once again from Macedonian Australians that they believe it is very disrespectful to lumber the country of their ancestors with a manifestly absurd name. Their request is simple. They want Australia, in its bilateral dealings, to use the name the country itself uses. We should be on the side of a sensible solution. The geographic area occupied by the republic has long connection with the evolving political entity known as 'Macedonia'. It is my understanding it was incorporated into Macedonia at the time of Philip II some 2,000 years ago. The connection of Greece with historic Macedonia is not in any way diminished by recognising that another nation also has a connection. Modern boundaries of nation states are the result of millennia of history; they are not neat. This is not about choosing between Macedonian Australians and Greek Australians; it is about a bipartisan, common-sense, 21st century solution that respects all. Blue Mountains Historical Society 148 16:16 Mrs MARKUS E07 Macquarie Recently I met with the President of the Blue Mountains historical Society, Wayne Hanley, and society member John Lowe, about a project that was made possible under the coalition government's Community Heritage Grants program. In Glen Street at Woodford in the Blue Mountains there is a horse trough which has special historical significance. It represents a time when horses were a common form of transportation over the mountains. Horses also played a crucial role in the first successful crossing of the Blue Mountains in 1813 by Gregory Blaxland, William Lawson and William Charles Wentworth. The $1,000 government grant was used to install a commemorative plaque at the trough so that visitors would know its historical significance. In the 1930s, Blue Mountains resident Bernard Schleicher formed a local branch of the RSPCA and was elected chairman. To ensure working horses have adequate access to water, the branch built a trough in Hazelbrook, which unfortunately no longer exists, and the one in Woodford, which remains. I congratulate the Blue Mountains Historical Society, a not-for-profit community group, on their commitment and dedication to ensuring that our rich history in the electorate of Macquarie is preserved. Shortland Electorate: Disney, Mr Bill, OAM 148 16:17 Ms HALL 83N Shortland Today I would like to bring to the attention of House the awarding of the Order of Australia to Bill Disney. Bill Disney is a remarkable man. He received his OAM in the Queen's Birthday list for services to the community of Dudley. Every single thing that has happened in Dudley Bill has been involved in. One of the organisations he is still involved in is the Dudley Combined Pensioners and Senior Citizens Association. He has run that group along with other residents of Dudley for many years. It has been one of the only pensioner groups to have a waiting list to join. This is a credit to Bill to a large extent. The Dudley Vintage Hall was renovated under his leadership. He has also been involved in the Dudley War Memorial and the Charlestown and District Meals on Wheels. Bill is an example of what it means to give your life to the community, to be absolutely committed to where he lives and the people who live there. Everything Bill does in his life is directed towards making the Dudley community a better place, ensuring that people have the services and resources they need. Congratulations Bill. Asylum Seekers 148 16:19 WYATT ROY M2X Longman In the parliament today, we are seeing something rather bizarre—the Labor Party wanting to set the agenda. They want to talk about border security! I would be very happy if the Labor Party were to talk about border security every single day between now and the next election. My colleagues might be able to help me out. In 2007, when the coalition last left office in that year—does anyone know how many boat arrivals there were? Government members interjecting— WYATT ROY M2X Only three in the last year—you missed it by that much. How many people were in detention when we last left government? Government members interjecting— WYATT ROY M2X Two? Zero. You could have got it right the first time—not a single person in detention. This is a very serious policy issue. Nobody wants to see deaths at sea. Nobody wants to see people going into detention and, under us, there were none. We went out of government. The Labor Party came to power, and we saw over 700 boats. We saw over 1200 deaths at sea. We saw tens of thousands of people go through the detention process and thousands of children go into detention centres. We came to government and we are removing that backlog. We are getting people out of detention, increasing our refugee intake and stopping deaths at sea. But of course, if the Labor Party was elected, we will go back to the policies of the former Labor government and we will see more deaths at sea, more boats arrive. Our country does not want to see that. Brown, Mr Frank 149 16:20 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra I rise today to remember and pay tribute to a great Canberran. Frank Brown was born in Northern Ireland in 1940 and immigrated to South Australia in 1968. Five years later, Frank moved to Canberra to take up a public service job with the Navy. He later worked in the Department of Aviation, Veterans' Affairs, the ACT Schools Authority and the Australian Federal Police. He lived in Kambah where he was known and loved by his community and nowhere more so than the Kambah Lions Club. Last month I was invited by the Kambah Lions Club to help present the Lion Frank Brown memorial award for community service to the Tuggeranong Valley, and there wasn't a dry eye in the room. The inaugural award was named in Frank's honour after he passed away this year from motor neurone disease. Frank was a charter member of the Kambah Lions Club when he began in April 1977. He was a life member, president on two occasions, secretary and he held various other board positions. He was Lions Youth Haven Board Chairman from 2007 until 2014. During that time, he oversaw the reconstruction of Westwood Farm after the 2003 bushfires and was fundamental in setting up the Lions Youth Haven, which is a 70-bed hostel in Kambah. That is where the event was held just a few weeks ago. The Canberra community has lost a legend in Frank Brown—a major contributor to the community—and I extend my condolences to his family and friends. Budget 149 16:22 Mr HOWARTH 247742 Petrie A good education is crucial to the personal development of Australian children and it is crucial to our progress as a country. Today I had 75 children from my electorate of Petrie from a local school who came down here. As a father of three children in primary school, I do understand the importance of a great education. That is why I am absolutely thrilled that, in the 2015 federal budget, schools in my electorate of Petrie are big winners—they will be much better off. The budget delivers record funding for schools across Australia, including needs based funding of more than $69.5 billion over four years. My local schools will also see record funding provided to both government and non-government schools under the Students First arrangements. Total Commonwealth funding for schools across Australia will increase by almost 30 per cent over the next four years. Importantly, students with a disability will receive extra support with a record $1.3 billion being provided this year through the funding loading for students with a disability. Over the last 12 months, I have seen schools in my electorate as big winners with this extra funding received from us. This record funding of course is passed onto the Queensland state government and, when the state Labor government bring down their budget next month, they will have no excuses for passing on record funding to schools within the Petrie electorate. Housing Affordability 149 16:23 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand Many Australians are concerned about housing affordability in our nation. The government has suggested that the issue could be tackled by cracking down on foreign buyers of Australian homes. This is a theme that has been getting traction in the media in recent times. Indeed a recent article in the Herald Sun titled 'It's not racist to point out home truths' claimed Asian buyers were making property unaffordable in Australia. The article even made the extraordinary claim that: … Australian-born children are outnumbered 10 to one by newly arrived Chinese students— in some Australian schools. This is frankly nonsense. I challenge the author to name just one Australian school that fits this description. My electorate is one of the most diverse in Australia, and I do not know of a single one. On the broader claims made in this article, the RBA has stated that 'Foreign residential purchases do not appear to have a major presence in the Australian property market' and that 'the degree of competition with foreign buyers is still likely to be fairly small'. Most disturbingly, this article frequently conflated foreign nationals and Asian-Australian citizens, drawing a distinction between 'Australian born children' and 'new residents' and the 'newly arrived'. As we engage in a citizenship debate that has been kicked off by the Prime Minister, it is important that a country like Australia recognises that where someone is born is irrelevant to their Australian citizenship. We do our Asian Australian community a great disservice when we allow ourselves to buy into this kind of baseless scaremongering, and we distract ourselves from the very real issues in the Australian housing market. Sarina Art Extravaganza 149 16:25 Ms LANDRY 249764 Capricornia Recently I had the honour of standing in for the federal Minister for the Arts to officially open the Sarina Art Extravaganza. The three-day extravaganza marks one of Sarina's biggest cultural events, and is highly valued by both artists and the local community. Importantly, the even offers a significant boost to the local economy by attracting hundreds of visitors to the town, who in turn spend money in local shops and on food and accommodation. It was also very heartening to see the level of support received from local businesses themselves, some giving as much as $1,500 towards awards and prizes. The extravaganza has been running for 26 years. It highlights that the arts are not just something for city people to enjoy, but an important part of culture in regional Australia. To help regional areas, the Australian government has introduced regional artists' development fellowships to support the professional development of artists in regional communities. In addition, the government continues to work closely with key regional arts organisations to invest over $3 million every year through the Regional Arts Fund. I congratulate the organising committee of the Sarina Art Extravaganza and I wish them all the best for the 27th event next year. Same-Sex Relationships 150 16:26 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo On Saturday, 6 June, in my local paper the Bendigo Advertiser, 21 small businesses had got together and jointly funded an ad. Now, it was after the sitting week, so some here might have assumed it was a thankyou letter to the Prime Minister for the Small Business Package, or to the parliament, thanking them for the changes. Far from it. The ad that was in the paper that was taken out by the 21 small businesses was in support of marriage equality. Twenty-one small businesses in my electorate, a country electorate with a regional town, got together and funded an ad calling on all of us to support marriage equality. These small businesses included The Dispensary, Jools for Jim and Robe. It was the idea that a young cafe owner, Jays, of Cortille, decided that, just like big businesses around Australia getting together to show their support for marriage equality, so should small businesses. It has sparked a wave of support. Over that long-weekend these small businesses were in turn supported by customers. People were going in and congratulating them on taking this public stance. It is time for this parliament to get behind the people in our communities calling for marriage equality. It is time that this parliament had a free vote so that every single MP can do what I am doing and support their local small businesses. I congratulate Jays and the small business community of my electorate. Lyons Electorate: Willow Court 150 16:28 Mr HUTCHINSON 212585 Lyons I had the pleasure last week of announcing a significant step for Tasmania's historical Willow Court, at New Norfolk, towards achieving the national recognition it deserves. I met with Derwent Valley Deputy Mayor Ben Shaw, the Friends of Willow Court and the Friends of Frascati to tell them the good news that Willow Court would be assessed by the Australian Heritage Council for possible inclusion on the National Heritage List. I want to particularly thank Tony Nicholson, from Friends of Willow Court, for his passionate contribution, Anne Salt, Mark Krause, Sharon Hutchison, Vivienne de Bressac, and, from the Friends of Frascati, Sandra Hetherington and Warwick Evers. Mayor Martyn Evans was unable to attend, as he was attending the funeral of local government identity Barry Jarvis, in Scottsdale that day. Willow Court pre-dates the iconic Port Arthur as one of Tasmania's oldest public buildings. Tasmania has more heritage buildings than anywhere else in the country, but the huge restoration job at the Willow Court precinct is beyond the reach of the community and its council. The national heritage listing assessment, one of only a handful to be carried out nationally, will not only provide a comprehensive reference document, for the first time, on the historical and social significance of this first mental health institution in Australia, but it opens the way for future federal government funding. I want to thank Greg Hunt for taking a particular interest in Willow Court over the years and congratulate the mayor and others in New Norfolk on their passion for what is significantly important to communities of New Norfolk. (Time expired) Ahmadiyya Muslim Association of Australia 150 16:30 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway Tomorrow I will be hosting a group of around 40 young delegates from the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association of Australia. They are coming to Parliament House to participate in a non-partisan roundtable about how parliament works and how they, as young people, might contribute to Australia in future, perhaps even in public life. Other members of parliament who are here are welcome to come along, of course. It is going to be led Mr Mirza Ramzan Sharif, the national external affairs executive of the community. I am proud to say I have had a long involvement with the Ahmadiyya Muslim Association, who are based in Marsden Park just outside of my electorate, but many of their community are indeed my constituents. The Rouse Hill Times headline from 11 March 2014 sums it up very well: 'Ahmadiyya Muslim Association prove their faith in community'. It goes on to say: The Ahmadiyya Muslim Association's regular community works are much a part of their faith as their commitment to improving life around them. …   …   … They pride themselves in doing good in the community and their efforts in the recent Clean Up Australia Day underlines this facet of their faith: they held the top four spots Australia-wide for the highest numbers of volunteers for event and also topped NSW for donations. These are exemplary young people. I participate regularly in their Australia Day celebrations. Their mottos, 'Love for all; hatred for none' and 'Love of God equals love of one's country', certainly stand as testaments to their faith in community. (Time expired) Reid Electorate: Maronite Catholic Society 151 16:31 Mr LAUNDY 247130 Reid I rise today to speak about the Maronite Catholic Society and congratulate the new executive committee members recently elected at their annual general meeting. The Maronite Catholic Society is the officially recognised lay organisation in the Maronite Catholic Church and it has done great work over many years in Reid. I have no doubt that the same good work will continue under the leadership of the new executive committee. I know they look forward to serving the Australian community generally and the Maronite community in particular. I would like to congratulate the new executive committee: president, Tony Khattar; first vice-president, Ghassan Awit; second vice-president, Lichaa Chidiac; honorary secretary, Raymond Abi-Arraj; assistant secretary, Fahd Gitani; treasurer, Chafic Saade; advisor, Khalil Tartak—Khalil is a good friend of mine; advisor and chair of events subcommittee, Bakhos Georges; consultant of special projects, Sarkis Nassif; chair of women subcommittee, Anne Farah-Hill; chair of international relations in immigration subcommittee, Joe Baini—I actually grew up in the same street as Joe and his family; chair of planning and development subcommittee, Anthony Hasham; and chair of registration of Maronites and Lebanon subcommittee, Dani Geagea. The Maronite community in Reid are just one of a great number of local communities, always working on how they can give back and do more, and it is an honour to be their federal member of parliament. I look forward to seeing them at St Joseph's, Croydon, soon. (Time expired) Spencer, Mrs Thelma 151 16:33 Ms HALL 83N Shortland Yesterday I was privileged to attend the birthday party of Thelma Spencer. It wasn't just an ordinary birthday party. Thelma Spencer turned 108. The party was held at the 16 Foot Sailing Club and Thelma walked into that club unaided. She lives independently at home with her son, whom she has lived with since she was 65 years of age. Recently, Yasmin Catley, during the state election campaign, knocked on her door. Thelma came to the door and said, 'Excuse the way I'm dressed. I was just repairing the washing machine.' This is an 108-year-old woman who is vibrant, physically active and has a very keen intellect. Thelma was born in Redfern and she is very involved with her family. She had 30 members of her family surrounding her yesterday at the 16 Foot Sailing Club. I felt very privileged to be able to visit her there and be part of her special day. I know that my colleague Yasmin Catley, the member for Swansea, visited her on Friday and enjoyed many stories and a long talk with her. So, congratulations, Thelma, on reaching the age of 108—something that not too many people do, and certainly not too many people reach that age being as fit and healthy as Thelma. Happy birthday, Thelma. Hinkler Electorate: Elliot Heads Surf Life Saving Club 151 16:35 Mr PITT 148150 Hinkler It is with great pleasure I advise the chamber of the 50th anniversary dinner for the Elliot Heads Surf Life Saving Club, which I attended on Saturday night. There were over 300 attendees for this small family based club and it was quite a history that they presented. There are stalwarts of the club like Bob and Shirl Holden, their sons, Craig and Brett, and Craig's wife, Christine, who are all life members of the club. Some of the parents helped build the club over many decades, like Len and Sue Lynch, Geoff and Jan Baldwin, and John Polson, and there were even some former Surf Girls winners like Nicky Wakefield. I must say they all look fairly spectacular still, many years after they were successful in those events. It was a great pleasure to be there. The two big awards for the night are the John Barlow Memorial Award—and I knew John well—and the Mugs Cup. The Mugs Cup is a hospital bed pan, which has been used over many years to give to the biggest mug in the club for the year. Simon Collin, whose nickname is Pie-cart, of all things, is a regular winner. This time around the John Barlow Memorial Medal went to a very deserving winner in Ian Winnie. I was very pleased to be able to represent the electorate at the Elliot Heads Surf Club. I was a past member. One of the things I did notice in their history was that the beach that they patrol on never actually existed. They rolled down there with some excavators and a bulldozer and created one, which I think would be incredibly difficult in current situation. It is a club with a long history, a very proud club, and I congratulate them on their 50th anniversary. Canberra Electorate: Tara Costigan Foundation 152 16:36 Ms BRODTMANN 30540 Canberra Yesterday I joined with the Leader of the Opposition and the ACT Attorney-General for the launch of the Tara Costigan Foundation. Members may recall that Tara Costigan was killed by her partner in February, one week after the birth of her third child, a beautiful little girl. Her death sent shock waves throughout the Canberra community and generated an overwhelming level of support for her children particularly, and an overwhelming level of concern and awareness about the filthy little shameful secret that is domestic and family violence. Tara Costigan was the 15th woman to be killed by her partner or ex-partner this year in Australia. That figure is now up to 43—that is, one woman being killed by her partner or ex-partner every four days. It is a national disgrace. The foundation will employ a social worker to empower women to take them from being victims to victors. They will be helped through that process by Erin Regan, whose sister was killed by her partner more than 20 years ago. I would like to congratulate Michael and Maria Costigan and the Costigan family for their hard work in establishing this foundation and delivering something positive, a tangible legacy from something so terrible. I would like to thank Canberrans for their support to date, and I also encourage them to donate to the foundation. The children are okay. The children have got plenty of financial support. We now need to donate to those who are victims of domestic violence— (Time expired) Bass Electorate: Queen's Birthday Honours List 152 16:38 Mr NIKOLIC 137174 Bass Sixteen Tasmanians were recognised in this year's Queen's Birthday honours list for outstanding service. I would like to mention two people from my electorate of Bass who received awards. Mrs Margaret East was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for her service to the performing arts. Mrs East has given long and valuable service to the Launceston Competitions, having been the organisation's secretary for the past 35 years. What a marvellous achievement. I know that many talented young people have benefited from participating in the Launceston Competitions who greatly value her experience and mentoring. Mrs East has also been involved with the Tasmanian National Dancing Association and Tasmanian State Committee of Highland Dancing. Mr Mervin Whybrow was also awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia for serving the Launceston community, principally through his long membership with the City of Launceston Lions Club. As a member of the Riverside Lions Club, I know what value that these Lions of our community can bring to worthy causes. Mr Whybrow has also given wonderful service to other organisations, like the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol, the RSL, the Low Head Progress and Heritage Association committee and the Low Head Pilot Station Support Group. It is wonderful to see people like Mrs East and Mr Whybrow recognised in this way. I congratulate them and all of the other Tasmanians on this year's Queen's Birthday honours list. Lions Club of Brisbane Chinese 152 16:39 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton I rise to acknowledge and praise the great contribution by the Lions Club of Brisbane Chinese. I went to their changeover dinner on Saturday night at the Landmark Restaurant in Sunnybank, which has the best food in Brisbane. I am sure the member for Forde would agree with that. I was there with Peter Russo and Duncan Pegg, the state members, and a few other elected representatives. We saw the outgoing president, Ron Yap, hand over to the new president, Johnson Chen, and the installation of a new committee. The Lions Club of Brisbane Chinese is 20 years old. It does a great service to our community, and not just around Brisbane. It has also had links to an orphanage in Sichuan Province. It has a real international focus. As anyone who is a Lion—I know many MPs are; I am a member of the Lions Club Macgregor, although not the best member—would know, the Lions clubs do great work around the world. The 1.4 million Lions Club members are able to serve their communities in all sorts of ways. I particularly commend Johnson Chen, who said he was going to have a focus on international work. This is significant at a time when, unfortunately, the aid we are delivering overseas has decreased. Johnson Chen has made a commitment to having a focus on reaching out internationally to do good—to look after our local community but also reach out to the Sichuan Province orphanage. (Time expired) Northern Territory Police Force: Mobile CCTV Units 152 16:41 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon I went to the last election promising to fund some mobile CCTVs in my electorate and I am pleased to say that two of these units were delivered to the Northern Territory Police Force and are now operational. These units were designed by the Northern Territory Police and I have to commend them for their work. It is absolutely excellent. They are the first of their kind, mobile CCTVs that are towable by any vehicle. They are solar powered. They have a battery backup which lasts for a week. They feature a camera which can be remotely panned, tilted and zoomed. They also have two fixed CCTV cameras and one infra-red, high-definition camera. All of these can be operated remotely and have the pictures viewed in live time, allowing police to react to crimes as they occur. We found, when we were inspecting the units, that they could broadcast very sudden and very ominous warnings. We were quite shocked when we had the 'Caution! You are now under police surveillance!' warning. That was enough to make a group of innocent politicians and journalists jump, so I would love to see the effect of these sounders on people who are doing the wrong thing. I am very pleased to have worked with the Northern Territory government to deliver this excellent initiative that was funded under the proceeds of crime fund. (Time expired) Victoria: Regional Rail Link 153 16:43 Ms CHESTERS 249710 Bendigo Yesterday I was quite proud to join a number of parliamentary colleagues, both state and federal, at the opening of the Victorian regional rail link, the first new rail project—90 kilometres of track—to be opened in the state of Victoria for over 80 years. This new regional rail link will allow up to 54,000 new passengers per day to travel into Melbourne. It will help the west, some of our largest growing communities. It will help them get to Melbourne in times of 30 minutes. In my own area, the area of Bendigo, it will allow for more and faster trains, because it is a regional rail link with a dedicated regional service. It means that our regional trains will not get stuck in the metro traffic of trains. It means that our regional trains will go direct from their last regional port into Southern Cross, allowing people to get there in faster times. This project was funded by the former state Labor government and the former federal Labor government. It was a commitment to public transport. Our solution to the chaos in the cities and the traffic congestion is investing in public transport. Yet all we have seen from this government is no talk about public transport. In fact, it is cutting funding that was allocated to vital public transport projects, projects that will help the regions and projects that will help people around Victoria get to and from faster. (Time expired) Forde Electorate: Beenleigh Quilters 153 16:44 Mr VAN MANEN 188315 Forde It gives me great pleasure to speak about a wonderful group in the local Beenleigh community, the Beenleigh Quilters, and their annual show. The timing was perfect for the Beenleigh Quilters show, with the winter cold snap finally catching up with Queensland. I would like to thank Beenleigh Quilters president, Kaye Hutchinson, for showing me around the event and pointing out the detail and technique that went into the 160 quilts on display. Beenleigh Quilters have more than 150 members and do a terrific job in our local community. They held a raffle to raise funds for Mates4Mates, a charity supporting wounded, injured and ill current and former Australian Defence Force personnel. The Beenleigh Quilters club also donated 70 quilts to two different charities, the Brainchild Foundation and the Pyjama Foundation. The Brainchild Foundation is a charity that supports families of children who have been diagnosed with brain or spinal tumours. The foundation is a community of medical professionals, dedicated parents and friends of children affected by tumours of the brain. They mostly work out of their own homes and offices. The Pyjama Foundation aims to make a positive impact on the lives of the most vulnerable children in our communities. The quilts were being donated to homes with foster children. It goes to show that community organisations, no matter how big or small, can make a difference to the lives of others. By simply donating the quilts, the Beenleigh club is supporting families and children through their hobby. Well done to the quilters on a fantastic show. (Time expired) The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM In accordance with standing order 43, the time for members' statements has concluded. BILLS 153 BILLS Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016 153

Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-2016

Consideration in Detail 153 16:46 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I suggest that the order agreed to by the Federation Chamber for the consideration of proposed expenditures be varied as shown in the revised schedule that has been circulated to honourable members. The schedule read as follows— Communications Attorney-General's Attorney-General's—Arts Attorney-General's—Justice Finance Foreign Affairs and Trade—Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs and Trade—Trade Employment Social Services Social Services—Human Services Industry Immigration and Border Protection Prime Minister and Cabinet Prime Minister and Cabinet—Indigenous Affairs Defence—Defence Defence—Veterans' Affairs Education Environment Agriculture Treasury Treasury—Small Business Infrastructure and Regional Development Health Health—Sport The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM Is the suggestion of the minister agreed to? There being no objection, that course will be followed. Attorney-General ' s Portfolio Proposed expenditure: $3,651,808,000 16:47 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling It is with great pleasure that I rise in this consideration in detail on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2015-16, specifically in relation to the Attorney-General's portfolio, because this portfolio encompasses a key priority of the Abbott government, which is to protect the safety and security of our citizens and our interests. That is why this budget has included $205.2 million within the Attorney-General's portfolio for key measures that support the government's national security, border control and criminal justice priorities. The measures in this budget will help to protect us from terrorism, protect our national borders and continue the ongoing fight against people-smuggling while promoting a stable, peaceful and prosperous community. We will do this by contributing $131.3 million to industry to help us with the up-front capital costs of data retention. This will ensure that law enforcement and national security agencies have the information that they need to keep the community safe. This has been a key priority that has been consistently raised with us by our agencies. We will invest $40 million in initiatives that counter violent extremism, including $21 million to limit the impact of terrorist narratives on domestic audiences. The vast majority of that money will be spent in the online environment, where we know that people are receiving these messages. We will provide an additional $12.9 million over four years to the Australia Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity to fight corruption enabled border crime. This will double ACLEI's investment capability. We will also provide them with $2.9 million over four years so that they can continue their important work in relation to AUSTRAC, the CrimTrac agency and the Department of Agriculture. We will also be creating a dedicated, multiagency, serious financial crime task force, which will build on the success of Project Wickenby, which has collected over $865 million worth of outstanding revenue and led to a Commonwealth operational response to high priority serious financial crimes. We will also spend $12½ million over three years for the continuation of the disruption and deterrence task group, which forms part of the Operation Sovereign Borders policy, a policy that has been so successful in helping us deal with Labor's failed legacy on our borders, where we saw over 50,000 people arrive illegally into our country. This budget is also focused on ensuring an efficient and effective civil justice framework as part of the government's ongoing commitment to improving law and justice outcomes for all Australians. The government is bringing forward a number of measures to ensure that resources are targeted to where they are needed most and to protect the most vulnerable members of our society. These key measures include $3.1 billion in funding for legal aid commissions and community legal centres over five years delivered through a new national partnership agreement. This agreement will support an integrated, accessible legal assistance sector that is responsive to the legal needs of the most disadvantaged people in our country. Also, to ensure sustainable access to justice, we will be delivering an additional $22.5 million into our court system over four years to enhance capability to provide services in areas such as family law, with $16.5 million to be injected into the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court and $5.9 million to be injected into the Federal Court. Injections into each court will remain as per the budget papers for 2015-16, but the following years will be adjusted as necessary when the courts become a single administrative body from 1 July 2016. This also includes $30 million in funding for critical infrastructure maintenance for works on our court buildings. In this budget, very importantly, we will also be allocating $5.8 million over four years to continue to support native title respondents to resolve the interests of native title claims. This extends an election commitment that we made in 2013 to provide increased financial assistance for native title respondents beyond 31 December this year. Finally, the Attorney-General's portfolio is contributing $76.6 million over five years in savings for this year's budget. The portfolio is also providing over $100 in additional revenue over four years. (Time expired) 16:52 Mr PERRETT HVP Moreton While I would be interested in pursuing the 'cash for tow-backs' matter, I am instead going to focus on my part of the shadow portfolio dealing with the Family Court of Australia. I note that, in the minister's opening remarks, where he talked about where the expenditure for Appropriation Bill (No. 1) would be going, he mentioned the safety and security of our citizens. As I am sure the minister is well aware, unfortunately there has been a significant number of domestic violence victims this year. I would turn the minister's attention to, in particular, the money being appropriated to the Family Court of Australia. The Family Court of Australia is approaching its 40th birthday. It was always designed to deliver services for children, families and parties when they are going through a difficult time. When families are separating, it is never an easy time, it is always a difficult time. The minister referred to $16 billion being injected into the court system. But I would turn the minister's attention to the proposed changes to family law fees which come into place in 15 days time. I am not sure how familiar the minister is with family law. I m not sure whether he has been in the Family Court and seen the process. For example, there is a change in the fee for amending an application. Previously the cost was zero, but the new fee will be $120 for every amendment of an application. I wonder if the minister has ever seen such a proceeding. Where a husband is being tricky and hiding information, every single time a wife has to amend an application it will cost $120. I have seen cases where the woman has no access to money in any event. Subpoenas are a very important part of child abuse and family violence matters. Subpoenas are often used in those matters. The charge used to be $55, but in 15 days time it goes up to $120. So, with the injection of money that is coming into the court system, you are taking blood from the desperate and those who are experiencing dire straits and are in their darkest moment and saying that that is an injection of funds from the Attorney-General, whereas you are actually imposing a divorce tax on those in society who are experiencing the most difficult time. The Federal Circuit Court of Australia is supposed to be a cheaper option if you are applying for a divorce. If you went for a divorce today you would pay $845 as a filing fee, but now there has been a 40 per cent increase, overnight, to $1,195. So, we actually have divorce lawyers, family lawyers, advertising, 'Come now and get a divorce done before 30 June'—before the divorce tax kicks in. This was actually in the weekend paper in Brisbane. We know it is already difficult if you are going through a divorce. If your marriage breaks down at the moment and you file in Brisbane it will take you until not next year but probably at least the year after that before your matter is heard. And as you know, Minister, when there are children involved, and property matters, there can be further delays—all delays compacted by the fact that these fees have been hiked up and there is an absence of Family Court judges prepared to hear matters. I notice that it took 580 days for Justice Bell to be replaced, and now in Brisbane, where we are still down a Family Court judge, barristers are already complaining that we are awaiting an appointment. If we have to wait another 580 days for a Family Court judge to be replaced in Brisbane, that would take us through to 29 September 2016. So, I ask the minister whether he can explain this hike in fees in the Family Court of Australia and also the Federal Circuit Court and whether there is any proposal to appoint a Family Court judge. (Time expired) 16:57 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I thank the member for that series of questions. On the final question he asked me, about the appointment of a Family Court judge in Brisbane, I will try to get him some advice about that before the close of this session. But on the main point he was making, about fees in relation to Family Court matters, I first want to remind the member of what I said at the outset in my opening statement, and that is that we are actually injecting a significant amount of money into the Federal Court system: $22½ million is being injected over four years, and of course that will go to enhancing services in family law. In fact, $16.6 million will be injected into the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court and then $5.9 million into the Federal Court. Also, $30 million is being provided to the courts for critical maintenance and infrastructure works. We are merging the back office functions of the Federal Court, the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court, and that will provide efficiencies. But unfortunately it does not provide enough efficiencies for us to move forward with the other elements of this package. The elements of this package in total are designed to avoid any cuts in services. I think the very important point to make here is that only those who can afford to pay will be levied these fees. It is not the case that everybody who appears before the Family Court, particularly if they cannot afford it, will be levied these fees. That remains a vitally important point. The member invited me to comment on the Family Court system in general. I personally have not experienced any matters in the Family Court, for which I am deeply grateful. But obviously as members of parliament we are exposed to people who are involved in Family Court matters on a regular basis, and I think most members would agree with me that they can be some of the most difficult meetings we take. And people who do find themselves involved in protracted Family Court matters can often come to us in great degrees of distress, because the Family Court system is a difficult system. When you are going through a difficult divorce it can be extraordinarily hard, particularly where it involves the distribution of assets or, more significantly, access rights to children. We are very mindful of our responsibility to make sure that the family justice system works well, but we do need to make sure that the funding available to that is appropriate. We do not want to cut services to people who are involved, particularly in protracted Family Court disputes, so we do need to make sure that the court's funding is on a sustainable footing. That is what this package is designed to do. It comes with significant investments that we are making in the Federal Court system and, in particular, the Family Court system. Overall, we have got the balance right. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM I call the member for Bass. 17:00 Mr NIKOLIC 137174 Bass Thank you, Deputy Speaker. Mr Feeney I0O Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is, of course, impossible that another government member speaks at this juncture, because Minister Keenan very proudly boasted from opposition that he would not be in the business of taking any Dorothy Dixers in this session. I assume that is a promise that he intends to keep. Mr NIKOLIC 137174 Deputy Speaker, this is not a point of order. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM I thank the member for his point of order. It is not a point of order. Mr Feeney I0O I was just seeking to bring the government back to its commitment. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM The member will sit down. I call the member for Bass. Mr NIKOLIC 137174 Can I just reflect on that intervention from the honourable member: to think that there are not people in my electorate who are very interested in what this minister has to say about resurgent terrorism, who are not interested in what this minister has to say about law and order issues. I am personally offended by that and I know that members of my electorate would be offended by the suggestion, because the minister, this excellent minister, has not only visited many places around the country; he visited my electorate on 30 April. He had an opportunity to listen to people in my electorate about what their concerns are—things in his area of portfolio responsibility. As you know, Honourable Member, strategy without resources is an illusion. So the funding required to respond to those concerns is absolutely essential. Thank you for the call, Deputy Speaker. I will now take this opportunity to speak to the minister about the concerns in my electorate. He will recall from his visit to Launceston on 30 April—which was a very well attended ice forum—that a number of people also expressed to him their concerns about resurgent terrorism. When we talk about terrorism today, what we are saying is that about a quarter of the arrests that have happened in the last 15 years have happened in just the last 18 months. We are talking about resurgent terrorism as something that is a concern to everyone in our community, including people in my electorate of Bass. There is a very strong view in northern Tasmania that we need to act resolutely. An honourable member interjecting— Mr NIKOLIC 137174 The honourable member interjects, but I can remind him that, during six years of Labor government, when one piece of legislation was passed in response to terrorism, including requests from our defence and security agencies and requests from our police, what did those opposite do to respond to resurgent terrorism? One piece of legislation. We have passed four in the last 18 months. They cut funding for counter-terrorism operations by a third. When I stand up here and say that people in my electorate are concerned, they are not only concerned about what we are doing today but are also very concerned about the fact that, during six years of Labor and Labor-Greens government, funding for counter-terrorism operations was cut by a third. What the people told the minister in Launceston on 30 April was that we need to do more to target those who engage in terrorism. We are talking not just about those people who make that decision to go overseas to Daesh-held areas in Iraq and Syria; we are talking also about people here in Australia who inexplicably recruit and provide funding for some of these acts. That is why their requests to this minister were that we do more in that area, and that is exactly what we have been doing. They talk about border security matters, Minister, and I know that it is in your portfolio, but resurgent terrorism is at the forefront of their thinking. What they are looking for is strong leadership; what they are looking for is substantial legislation to be passed, and that is exactly what has happened. Also, as terrorism adapts, as it impacts more in our community, they are asking us to do more. They are saying that we need to respond in a very positive way to those police and security agencies— Mr Perrett interjecting— Mr NIKOLIC 137174 The member says 'police state'. Mr Perrett HVP No, I didn't! Mr NIKOLIC 137174 I remind him that the legislation that we have passed to date has been bipartisan legislation. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM There is no point of order. The member for Moreton will sit down. Mr Perrett interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM There is no point of order. Mr NIKOLIC 137174 As a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I am very proud to have worked with other honourable members across the chamber in delivering the legislation that our people demand. We are talking here about listing terrorist organisations. We are speaking here about prescribing areas like Al-Raqqah and Mosul. We are talking here about enhancing the agency powers so that they can respond to the needs of our community and keep us safe. The need for that is very, very clear—passports suspended, cancelled and refused; arrests, sadly, using those new powers; and too many citizens fighting with Daesh. It is important to me, and that is why I have responded in the way that I have. I talked about reinvigorating citizenship in my maiden speech. I have written opinion pieces on this issue. It is a huge concern to my community, and I ask the minister: what decisions have been made in the budget on counterterrorism and how will they assist our agencies in keeping our community safe? (Time expired) 17:06 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I thank the member for Bass for that question. I appreciate his deep interest in matters in relation to national security but also, importantly, the experience that he brings to this parliament from an enormous number of years serving in the Australian military—and in conflict zones, of course, during that period. This government takes its responsibilities for national security extremely seriously. Indeed, keeping the Australian people safe is the primary consideration of this federal government. As the member said, we have taken significant legislative measures, in conjunction with the opposition, to make sure that our legislative regime is now fit for purpose—because the threat that we are facing now is very different to the threat that we have faced in the past. What we have found, due to a significant deterioration of the security situation in Syria and Iraq, is that terrorist organisations there, even though they are mediaeval organisations, are using modern social media to reach into the lounge rooms and bedrooms of our young people in particular and radicalise them. Part of that radicalisation process is in urging them to go and commit a terrorist act using the materials that are available to them. Some are just referred to as lone-wolf attacks—we do not always use that terminology, but the point is that the security situation has been significantly degraded. The threat is different than it used to be and we need to now respond appropriately by making sure we have the legislative balance right but also by making sure, as the member suggests, that our agencies have the resources that they need to do this job. The parliament has done a good job in updating the legislation. We will continue to monitor that and update it as required based on the operational advice, in particular, that we get from our agencies. But the government must also provide the resources that our agencies need, and this budget has certainly done that. One point three five billion dollars has been provided to keep Australians safe from the threat of terrorism. One point two billion dollars, which is part of that $1.35 billion, supports our efforts specifically to combat terrorism, comprising $450 million in this budget to strengthen our intelligence capabilities and to counter extremist messaging; $296 million to strengthen the capabilities of the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, including updating its IT systems; and $22 million to counter terrorist lies and propaganda online. We need to make sure that, when that propaganda is out there, we are working with Twitter, Google, Facebook and other internet service providers to tear that propaganda down as quickly as we humanly can. We also need to make sure that, if you are getting propaganda online, other, more positive messaging is available to you. One point three million dollars will assist telecommunications providers to upgrade their systems so we can retain a limited set of metadata for a prescribed period of time, in this case two years. We are doing that, of course, to make sure that our agencies have certainty about the information that they need to access in pursuit of both national security investigations and also other criminal matters such as rapes, murders and child online exploitation. This metadata is an absolutely vital part of the investigative methodology that law enforcement, both federal and state, is required to use. In this budget we are spending $152 million to strengthen border security against terrorism, crime and other threats, which comprises an $88.5 million rollout of the latest biometric identification eGate technology so that our border officers can rapidly identify departing extremists and returning foreign fighters. We are also spending over $50 million to equip the Australian Border Force officers and give them the specialist training they need to do their job. There is $13 million to improve risk assessment capabilities and develop options to enable the rapid biometric identification of suspect travellers. This additional funding builds on the $630 million that we announced last August, which is already making a significant difference to our counter-terrorism capability, and there is a further $96 million for deployable secure communications and protective security arrangements, some of which, of course, is applicable to Parliament House. In addition to these CT capability enhancements, the parliament has, as I have said, passed four tranches of legislation that modernises the tools that are available to our agencies to deal with this threat and the way this threat has evolved. This threat is new and we need to respond appropriately. This government is making sure that our agencies can do that. 17:11 Mr FEENEY I0O Batman I think it is fair to say that, in his time as a minister of the Crown, this minister has carved out a very formidable reputation for himself as an enabler of Labor legislation and Labor ideas. Mr Keenan interjecting— Mr FEENEY I0O Notwithstanding his feigned hilarity, again and again he has come before this parliament with Labor legislation and, of course, in that vein bipartisanship is very easy indeed. We find it very easy on this to support legislation that was written by the previous Labor government. When the member for Bass makes his appeal for substantial legislation to be passed, let him rest assured that substantial legislation has been passed, that it was authored by the previous government and that it was very happily supported by both sides of parliament in this place. But not content with simply bringing Labor legislation to this parliament and having it pass, this minister has also rushed to embrace other key Labor initiatives. I wish to talk to him about Operation Polaris. Operation Polaris was the first multiagency waterfront task force to combat organised crime on the waterfront in New South Wales. It was a joint task force which included the New South Wales Police Force, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service, the Australian Crime Commission and the New South Wales Crime Commission. It was of course established in 2010 under the former Labor government. Operation Polaris was commissioned to carry out waterfront-related investigations and to respond to organised crime in the maritime port areas. This was of course a critical initiative. Due to the success of Operation Polaris and the success of that model— Mr Nikolic 137174 Mr Deputy Speaker— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM I call the member for Bass. Mr Nikolic 137174 This does not appear to be a question; it appears to be Labor propaganda. I am not sure what point— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM I ask the member to sit down. Honourable members interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM Order! The member will be seated. Thank you. I call the member for Batman. Mr FEENEY I0O You would have some credibility arguing for higher standards if it had been reflected in your earlier speech. Mr Nikolic interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM Member for Bass, there is no point of order. Mr Nikolic 137174 No, it is a new point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM There is no point of order. Mr Nikolic 137174 The member is reflecting on other members' speeches. The DEPUTY SPEAKER HYM The member will be seated. There is no point of order. I call the member for Batman. Mr FEENEY I0O The success of Operation Polaris is known to all and, on the basis of its success, similar models have been replicated across the eastern seaboard—Taskforce Trident established in Melbourne in July 2012 and Taskforce Jericho established in Brisbane in July 2013. Forget this being a matter of Labor propaganda. This is a model that has been successful; indeed, so successful that, consistent to type, the minister has rushed to embrace it. Only a few months ago, the Minister for Justice, Michael Keenan, said: Operation Polaris is vital in the Coalition Government's ongoing commitment to detect and disrupt and undermine the business models of organised criminal syndicates … The Polaris Taskforce has been successful in identifying significant vulnerabilities in the criminal supply chain and has achieved major seizures of drugs, guns and other contraband resulting in numerous arrests and the disruption of organised crime syndicates. And 'Hear, hear!, I might say, Minister: you are precisely right, and it is tremendous that you speak so highly of an initiative under the previous Labor government. That of course brings me to the key point here and that is the future of Operation Polaris, because I noted with some concern that in March Channel 10 reported that the government was not committed to continuing its funding for Operation Polaris. So this of course means that a very successful multiagency approach, embraced by you and used now in other states, faces the very real threat of being crushed under your watch. I note that, on 15 May 2015, the most recent Illicit Drug Data Report, drawing on data from law enforcement, health services and academic material, concluded that for amphetamine-type stimulants, which include crystal methamphetamine, drug arrests are up 18 per cent and seizures of the drug are up 27 per cent—the number having doubled in the last five years. There were some 112,000 illicit drug arrests in the reporting period—the highest on record. Over 27 tonnes of illicit drugs have been seized nationally—the highest on record. The purity of ice in Victoria was the highest ever recorded in Australia, with the price having dropped by as much as $100,000 per kilogram. So, Minister, given the success of this program, given the success you have trumpeted, I would like to hear from you about what the future of Operation Polaris is. Have the AFP received any indication that Polaris will have its funding renewed in the post-2015 period? Have there been any discussions with your office regarding the future of Operation Polaris; and, if so, can you please provide the parliament with details? When does the AFP expect to receive confirmation that Operation Polaris will continue to be funded? And do the AFP believe that the continuation of Operation Polaris is essential for fighting organised crime across Australia? 17:16 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling It gives me great pleasure to rise to talk about Operation Polaris. We have just seen a very good indication that this is a shadow minister who does not have any idea about what he is doing. This is quite remarkable for him to get up and waste five minutes telling me about the importance of Operation Polaris—an operation that I am very committed to supporting, an operation that I have supported very publicly in the past, an operation that I have discussed with my New South Wales counterpart—when it was Minister Ayres and now with Minister Grant—on several occasions, and an operation that I have been very pleased to announce over a month ago that I was going to continue to fund. We made the announcement in a letter to the New South Wales Deputy Premier that was actually reported in the paper, but it does show you that this shadow minister has absolutely no idea what is going on. Three million dollars will be allocated to Operation Polaris, as per the announcement that was made and as per stuff that appeared in the media. What do you do in your office? Do you actually have anyone helping you who might advise you on these matters before you walk into this chamber and put on such an embarrassing display? You had no idea that the government had already addressed this question over one month ago, even though we had done it a very public way. Operation Polaris exists to make sure that our waterfront is secure. One of the reasons that we have problems on our waterfront—obviously, airports and ports remain very significant vulnerabilities for any country—is when we came to government that the Labor Party had savaged the resources that were available to Customs to screen cargo and do their job at our ports and airports. On top of that, of course, because some of the unions involved in ports in particular are constituent members of the Labor Party, the Labor Party has its hands tied about taking action against people on our waterfront who, quite frankly, should not be there because of their criminal history. An honourable member: You are walking on very thin ice with that. Mr KEENAN E0J This is from a shadow minister who apparently has no idea what is going on in the justice portfolio whatsoever, who comes in here and spends five minutes lauding Operation Polaris, which we have already announced that we are going to fund via a $3 million injection. The point I was making is that our ports are vulnerable, because of the cuts that were made by the Labor Party when they were in office. This is the point that the NSW police have made to me repeatedly, and they were very concerned during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years that the resources available to Customs to protect our ports from infiltration from organised crime were consistently being degraded in budget after budget by the incompetence of the Labor government that preceded us. The funding cuts that were made to Customs were not just money—700 staff were cut from Customs at a time when their responsibilities were increasing because of Labor's border protection debacle. What happened was that, in the north-west of the country, Customs officers had their attention diverted to dealing with the people-smuggling crisis that had been precipitated by Labor's policies. Then we had Customs trying to backfill, dealing with the savage cuts that had been made by the Labor government to their funding and to their personnel. An opposition member: Talk about Polaris! Mr KEENAN E0J I am very happy to continue to talk about Polaris. After that incredibly embarrassing display where you would walk in here and say, 'Are we going to continue funding Polaris?' when we made a public announcement a month ago that we were going to do exactly that. Seriously, if you have no idea what is going on within the Justice portfolio, then for goodness sake relinquish your responsibility and give it to somebody else who shows an interest. 17:20 Mr WOOD E0F La Trobe I heard with great interest Labor members saying that they have always been firmly committed to countering terrorism and supporting the police. Sadly, back in 2007, when I was the shadow parliamentary secretary for law enforcement, I highlighted the major cutbacks to the AFP when it came to counter-terrorism and also the Australian Crime Commission. One of the big issues I had back then was that state police were no longer getting the funding to be seconded to the Australian Crime Commission, which left it as a toothless tiger. Moving forward, tragically we have now seen terrorist attacks in the Lindt Cafe and also the awful incident outside Endeavour Hills police station where two police members were stabbed by Numan Haider, a young person who had been radicalised. It was amazing that one of them was not killed. First of all, I congratulate the member for Holt, Anthony Byrne, who has been truly strong on the issue on countering terrorism not only in his electorate of Holt but also in La Trobe. Jointly, we have been fighting for the cause right across Victoria. Sadly, in the outer suburbs of Melbourne we have had planned attacks for Anzac Day and Mothers Day and young Australians who have been radicalised travelling overseas where they believe they are becoming martyrs by blowing themselves up to support the awful cause, the pursuit of Daesh. One of the great concerns I also have is outlaw motorcycle gang members who are now being converted in Barwon Prison in Victoria, where we have extremists who have been convicted of terrorist related activities, patching over with the Mongrels Motorcycle Club. This is of great concern to me and to members of Victorian police. This will bring the might of the outlaw motorcycle gangs together with the extremists where anything can happen, so I strongly support the laws when it comes to dual citizens and those who are dual citizens being removed from this country. Also, when it comes to community protection intervention orders, Labor members are raising that they are opposed to kicking out dual citizens involved in terrorist related activities. Is that what you are saying? An opposition member: I asked you if you have read the legislation. Mr WOOD E0F I am supportive of when the legislation comes in, and I find it hypocritical of Labor members espousing that they are strong on counter-terrorism when they make allegations like that. The other issue I have raised is community protection intervention orders, and I am sure the Labor members— An opposition member interjecting— Mr WOOD E0F Are you saying you are not supportive of these, too? The situation is this: we now have young Australians being radicalised. To me that is a very serious issue. The situation is that we need community protection intervention orders. This is the missing gap between control orders and where police have no powers to stop young people being radicalised on social media and then going towards extremist preachers. One of the issues I have raised with Dr Anne Aly is a proposal to have what is called a MYHACK program in my electorate. This will involve a hackathon where young people engage with other young people to come up with ideas and concepts to stop them from being radicalised. We will have this program in place. I again thank the member for Holt, who has agreed to be a judge with me on this program. It will be right across the state, and this is something I greatly look forward to. But, in contrast, I am greatly concerned about the Labor candidate in my federal seat of La Trobe. When I announced this program, in a very run-of-the-mill speech in parliament, he came out and said that it was 'irresponsible scaremongering'. Well, we have had these awful incidents with the planned Anzac Day attacks in Melbourne, the Mothers Day attack and the Lindt cafe attack and two police officers stabbed. So, for him to say that is totally irresponsible itself. He has since come out and said I made false and misleading statements. Well, he made those statements to the journalists; I did not. He is now backtracking. It just shows that he is weak on terrorism. Finally, I ask a question of the minister: Minister, what measures have we included in the budget to counter violent extremism? Thank you. 17:25 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I thank the member for La Trobe for that question, and I acknowledge that he is somebody who is very experienced in these matters through his former life as a police officer. It is very deeply concerning to hear about his Labor opponent denigrating the Countering Violent Extremism program that this government is pursuing. The Hackathon initiative that he mentioned, which I know he has hosted in his electorate and will continue to host, was actually demonstrated to the group of international delegates who came to the Countering Violent Extremism regional summit in Sydney last week. It is a program that I know he is deeply committed to, and I congratulate him for that. It is very important that we do all we can to counter the violent narrative that is coming out of Daesh in the Middle East and the way they utilise modern social media to send their propaganda deep throughout the Western world, really in quite a remarkable way—100,000 pieces of social media per day emanating from Daesh, which is quite extraordinary. Both the Australian government and our partners—in the region as well as our traditional security partners—need to find innovative ways to tackle this. We are investing in this budget to allow the Australian government to respond to this. We have situations, as have been mentioned by the member for La Trobe—sadly, very close to his electorate; in fact, I think it was in the electorate of Holt—where we have had two home-grown terrorist attacks since September last year, at Endeavour Hills police station, and in December, in Martin Place. But I think what is less well understood is that there have been a further six plots within that time—six plots since September—that were disrupted by our authorities. That is a rate of one every five weeks. It is a great testament to the skill of our police and our intelligence community that they have the wherewithal and the ability to disrupt these plots. But clearly they need support from the government, and this government is determined to provide that support. The member for La Trobe asked about our CVE program. We will allocate $40 million for that, which will be allocated to countering the violent narratives that young people in particular can be exposed to online. This has tripled what the Labor government funded through CVE programs, and it is in addition to the extra $650 million that I have already referred to in my previous answers, which supports social services and social cohesion. The $5.2 million specifically will go towards the diversion team, and $13.4 million will go to the Living Safer Together diversion program. That program seeks to identify young people who might be at risk of radicalisation or be susceptible to these violent ideologies. The idea behind it is that, in a targeted way, we intervene to mentor, counsel and do everything we can to put that young person back on the right path. That is not an easy process, and unfortunately there is not a template anywhere in the world that we can use that has been 100 per cent effective. But we do need to keep trying different things within this Countering Violent Extremism program to make sure that where it is identified that people are moving down a very dark and violent path we can correct their behaviour. And we are investing very significantly to be able to do that. We are also allocating money to the Living Safer Together program, and the Attorney-General announced recently that 34 community groups were funded to the tune $1.6 million. I was very pleased to update the House that we were allocating another $400,000 to a further eight organisations through the Living Safer Together program. The idea behind that program is that we allow community groups to develop the skills they need to move people away from these ideologies of violence and hatred. As I also mentioned, we will be spending $21.7 million specifically to counter violent propaganda online. We know that it is in the online environment that terrorists can recruit vulnerable young people, in particular. They literally do it like a paedophile would groom a young person. Sadly, we are finding that the people being groomed are getting far younger. Initially we were concerned about people in their 20s, then we were concerned about people in their late teens and now, sadly, we are concerned about people in their young teens. We know—and it is a matter of public record—that some of the people our agencies have had to deal with recently have been as young as 14. So, I thank the member for La Trobe for that important question. These investments in CVE programs have— (Time expired). 17:30 Mr PERRETT ( HVP Moreton ) ( ): In my travels, due to my shadow responsibilities, I have met with family lawyers and barristers from Cairns to Adelaide and everywhere in between. Many family lawyers are complaining of these increasing delays in the Family Court that I touched on in my earlier question. In fact, Family Court judges have apologised to litigants in their judgements because of these delays. I read from Justice Forrest where he says: 'My judgment in this matter has been reserved for almost a year. I attribute that to the obligation to hear and determine so many other matters in this court in that time. I regret any distress the delay in delivering the judgment may have caused to the parties additional to that which they would likely already be experiencing being involved in parenting proceedings in this court.' Obviously delay causes stress, heartache and perhaps even damage to children. I note that tomorrow the Honourable Rob McClelland, the former Attorney-General, will commence his work with the Family Court, 580 days after the vacancy was created in Sydney. I am a big supporter of the Honourable Rob McClelland. I wish him well in his new endeavours. But I am giving you the opportunity to respond to my earlier question about when there will be a replacement to the vacancy in Brisbane. The Chief Justice of the Family Court, in Family Court Bulletin issue 13, in December 2013, said that there was a full complement of the Family Court judges and that a full complement of judges would enable the court to work effectively and efficiently. Any gap means that there is greater delay. There has not been that full complement for a long time. As I said, we wish of Rob McClelland well tomorrow, but 580 days is an incredible time for an Attorney-General not to make a decision. I am sure that he is not waiting for someone in Brisbane. I am sure he will be able to find someone from the distinguished ranks in Brisbane to fill that vacancy. But I have a couple of questions. Has there been a decrease in the final and interim orders that was finalised in the Family Court last financial year? Has the workload, reflected by the amount of applications filed, increased? What percentage of litigants appearing in the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court are unrepresented? As I am sure the minister will know, matters where the parties are unrepresented can take longer, be more complicated and involve extra guidance provided from the bench. What percentage of litigants appearing in the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court are legally aided? Is the percentage of unrepresented litigants who appear in the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Courts increasing? What percentage of cases that come before the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court involve children? What percentage of the cases that come before the Family Court and the Federal Circuit Court involve family violence? As I touched on earlier, that combination of family violence and children means that delay can compound decisions and the implications of decisions. How many judges sit on the Family Court of Australia? Has the workload of the of the Family Court been increasing over recent years? If a judge retires and then is not replaced, what is the impact on the court's capacity to hear cases in a timely manner and to give timely directions? I take you back to your earlier comments, Minister, where you said there was an injection of money such that it would put the courts on a sustainable footing. But it is my understanding that the fee increases that will flow—this so-called divorce tax, as written up in the media—will actually go back into consolidated revenue, not to services in the Family Court. So the people who are divorcing and the people who are trying to amend some applications will actually be sending money to the Treasurer rather than the services in the Family Court. Minister, could you respond to these questions? 17:35 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling Madam Deputy Speaker, welcome. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 220370 Thank you. Mr KEENAN E0J I am very happy to respond to the member for Moreton's questions, although a lot of the issues that he raised were similar to the issues that he raised in his first intervention, and the answers remain substantially the same—that is, we are making a significant investment in the Federal Court system, including into the Family Court system, in this budget: $22.5 million. That is a significant sum of money and obviously will enhance the capacity of the court to provide services. We are making a significant investment in the capital budget for the Federal Court system so that they can do important maintenance. In terms of the timeliness of court matters, clearly that is vitally important. People who are involved in Family Court matters need to get their matters resolved in a timely way. I have been advised that, in the 2013-14 annual report of the Family Court, 87 per cent of applications were finalised within six months and 93 per cent were finalised within 12 months. So the delay that the member referred to would be an extraordinary delay, based on the annual report that the court has provided about the timeliness with which it deals with matters before it. The Federal Circuit Court, in the same, reported that 82 per cent of applications were finalised within six months and 94 per cent were finalised within 12 months. It is the case in family law, as I am sure the member will be very aware, that some matters are intrinsically very complex, and therefore they can take a longer period of time to reach conclusion. The Family Court does specialise in dealing with what can be extraordinarily difficult matters to adjudicate. It is a matter for the Chief Justice of the Family Court and the Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit Court to allocate judges resources to meet the workloads in the different registries. I appreciate the question that the member has again raised with me about a Family Court judge in Brisbane. I am just awaiting some advice from the Attorney. I hope the member appreciates that this is not the general part of the portfolio that I deal with on a day-to-day basis. I will endeavour to get back to him with a sensible answer. But of course the appointment of judges to the Family Court or to any court around Australia does require careful consideration. I am afraid I do not even have the background for that matter, so I am not suggesting that we are necessarily doing this, but I will get him a sensible answer—but, if we are looking for judges, then clearly we need to make sure that we are going to find the right person. We do not want to make rushed appointments. We need to make sensible appointments. I am sure that, if the Attorney is looking at appointments at this stage, he is proceeding in his usual careful and deliberative way. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 220370 I call the member for— 17:38 Mr RANDALL PK6 Canning Canning. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 220370 Canning, sorry. Mr RANDALL PK6 Thank you, Deputy Speaker. It is nice to be recognised so promptly! Honourable members interjecting— Mr RANDALL PK6 Well, I have only been here for 16½ years. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 220370 My apologies, Member for Canning! Mr RANDALL PK6 Thank you, Deputy Speaker. I say to the minister that Australia is a bountiful country, but we suffer from many natural disasters. As you would be aware, Deputy Speaker, whether it be cyclone, fire or other natural disasters that we are confronted with, this government is very aware of its need to help where possible. In my electorate, for example, Minister, we have had a number of fires over the last few seasons. The Kelmscott-Roleystone bushfire was the prime example, and just recently we have had the fires in Oakford and of course down in Waroona and further. In fact, the fire in Waroona came to the town and actually burnt out some houses in the town, having come from the bush. And, of course, along the Darling scarp there are many fires. So, Minister, what is our government doing to improve the way we fund national disasters in Australia? It is very important to the people receiving that help that we know how we are going to improve our funding mechanism. 17:39 Mr KEENAN E0J Stirling I thank the member for Canning for that question and compliment him on the robust way that he always represents his constituents in this place and has done so for 16½ years. It is a very important question about the way we fund natural disasters in Australia, because there is a consensus among anyone who has ever looked into these arrangements that we are not doing them as well as we can. In Australia, we spend billions of dollars every year on dealing with the after-effects of natural disasters. Unfortunately for Australia, we are uniquely vulnerable to natural disasters of all types—fire, cyclone and flood. Nature has a way of getting at us in many different ways in this country, and we need to make sure that we have arrangements in place that can appropriately respond to that. Of the billions of dollars that we spend on natural disasters, we spend 97 per cent on dealing with the after-effects of a natural disaster—so dealing with rebuilding infrastructure and payments to individuals—and we only spend three per cent on actually trying to mitigate the effects of a disaster before it occurs—for example, building a fire shelter to actually save people from the effects of fire rather than just dealing with the after-effects and building a flood levee that stops things from being flooded in the first place rather than just rebuilding the infrastructure time and time again after it is washed away in floods. Often, the same infrastructure can be washed away on a yearly basis. When we came to office, we recognised the problems with our arrangements and we asked the Productivity Commission to have a look into them and to give us some advice about how we can do it better. They found what we generally knew—that our current disaster funding arrangements are inefficient and ultimately unsustainable. They also suggested a whole series of measures that we might be able to take to address that issue. I thank the Productivity Commission very much for this work. It is very useful work and it has provided a very good framing of the problem for the government. But the government will be responding in a way that does not take into account some of the harsher aspects of the recommendations that the Productivity Commission made, particularly in relation to funding cuts. We will not be cutting funding to the states in the wake of a natural disaster. Indeed, the government proposes to implement a system that will actually make sure that no state will be worse off—in almost every case, an individual state afflicted by disaster will be better off—while still making sure that we address the fundamental concern, which is that we are spending all of our money on recovery and a tiny fraction on resilience and mitigation. I have been consulting with the states and territories about how we are going to implement the recommendations from the Productivity Commission and also reassuring them that they will not be disadvantaged by what the Commonwealth will be doing. What we have proposed to do is to shift to a model where we fund the states up-front. At the moment we have a model that is mired in red tape and in constant arguments with the states after a disaster about who should pay for what. We want to move to a model that we can establish over the next few years. When a disaster occurs, we price the infrastructure that has been destroyed or damaged up-front and we make a payment to the states on a one-off basis so that they can then spend the money in the way that they see fit in remediating after a disaster. For example, if a bridge in Queensland is washed away, we have already priced what that is going to cost in advance. We pay that money to the Queensland government. We think that they are best placed to decide how that money is spent. So they could build that bridge back better, safer and stronger if they wanted to. They could build that bridge back in a different location if they thought doing so was appropriate. But that expenditure will not be micromanaged by the Commonwealth anymore in the way that it currently is, which requires constant oversight, constant red tape and constant duplication of effort. We believe that that money can be better spent at the state level with this new up-front assessment model that we will, in a collaborative way, establish with state governments. We also want to make sure, though, that more money is being spent on betterment and mitigation, and not just spent remediating after a disaster. The way that we are going to ensure that is by quarantining part of the funding that we give to the states to actually spend on mitigation. In the case of a disaster—and members will know this—the Commonwealth funds based on a scale. At least 50 per cent is funded by the Commonwealth after a disaster, while in the most severe cases we fund 75 per cent. We want to quarantine part of that money to explicitly be spent on mitigation and betterment projects that we have worked with the states in identifying. In that way, as I hope the member for Canning appreciates, we will improve the way we fund natural disaster arrangements in Australia. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Finance Portfolio Proposed expenditure, $676,496,000 17:46 Dr CHALMERS 37998 Rankin Thanks very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in the consideration in detail on the Finance portfolio with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and colleagues from both sides of the House. One of the best things about economic policy is that it is measurable, so when one side of the House promises, for example, to improve consumer confidence or business confidence, and they promise an adrenaline surge, it is measurable after that when confidence does not go as the government promised. It is the same for unemployment, for example. The government promised to improve the unemployment situation in Australia, and we know that unemployment is higher now than during the dark days of the global financial crisis. The same goes for fiscal policy, and one of the reasons that the budget is so eagerly anticipated each year and that the colleagues from the Department of Finance and the Treasury put so much effort into the annual budget is that it gives us a good opportunity to see in black and white how the government is travelling when it comes to commitments like the Treasurer's original commitment that there would be a surplus in every year of an Abbott government, for example, or all the other various commitments that have been made—all the rhetoric around budget emergency and all of that. We can see it in black and white in the budget documents, so it is a good chance today to confirm and clarify some issues that jump out at us from the budget. The first one relates to the underlying cash balance—or, in the parlance of the debate in this place, the situation around the deficit in the budget. So I want to ask a series of questions about that. I will go through them all for the parliamentary secretary, and then he can respond in detail after that. The first one is: after promising that the deficit would be fixed or improved by the Liberal government, will he confirm that the deterioration from the last budget, the first Hockey budget, to the second Hockey budget is something like $56.1 billion across four years, which is constituted by a deterioration in 2014-15 of $11.3 billion; a deterioration in 2015-16 of $18 billion, which represents a doubling of the deficit in the coming year; a deterioration in 2016-17 of $15.2 billion; and a deterioration in 2017-18 of $11.6 billion? That is how we get that enormous deterioration from one Hockey budget to the next—not from a Labor budget to a Liberal budget but from the first Hockey budget to the second Hockey budget. Can he confirm that even from MYEFO, the mid-year update, there has been a $12.5 billion deterioration in the budget deficit over those same years? The same goes for debt. Can he confirm that the debt situation has deteriorated substantially? Can he also confirm that, after the Liberals promised to decrease the tax burden in Australia, the tax-to-GDP ratio—tax as a proportion of the economy, which is the commonly accepted measure of the level of tax in this community—is higher every single year of the Abbott government, in this budget in black and white, than it was in any year of the former Rudd and Gillard governments and, indeed, is at the highest level since the Howard government? Also, when it comes to spending, can the parliamentary secretary confirm that the level is the highest level of government spending in the budget since the darkest days of the global financial crisis? 17:49 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina It is interesting to take the very first question from the member for Rankin, who in a previous life was chief of staff to none other than the former Treasurer and member for Lilley. The member for Rankin would know that under the six sorry years of Labor from 2007 to 2013 we experienced six of the worst budget deficits in our nation's long history. And what we inherited from those opposite were cumulative deficits as far as the eye could see—$123 billion—that is, debts which if left unchecked were going out and potentially reaching $667 billion and, of course, interest that we had to pay back amounting to many millions of dollars a day—interest that we had to pay back to overseas countries. We have had to keep that in check. We have had to take measures—and drastic measures: last year's budget, I acknowledge, was necessarily tough. This year's budget, however, has an infrastructure program which is the largest in this nation's history. It has a small business package which is going to reinvigorate the confidence which was so sorely lacking when Labor were on the government benches. Small-business people tell me that they are now confident to be able to hire staff. They now have the confidence that they did not have from 2007 to 2013. And when we took over in September 2013, it was not the Liberal-National government but the taxpayers of the nation; the small businesses, the families, the farmers—they were the ones saddled with Labor's legacy of debt and deficit. They were the ones who were going to have to pay back this debt. And it was not just them, it was their children, and their children's children—and had we not been elected in 2013, goodness knows how far that debt was going to go out. We are getting on with the job—the very difficult job—of fixing up Labor's mess. That is what good coalition governments do. That is what the Howard government did when it was elected in 1996—and what was Labor left with when they resumed government in 2007? They were left with a bank balance which read: black. They were left with a bank balance; they were left with reserve funds to be able to avoid those headwinds of the global financial crisis. And look, I recognise and I acknowledge that the GFC had an impact on Australia's bottom line. But without the shrewd financial stewardship of John Howard, and a succession of National Party leaders, as well as Peter Costello as Treasurer, we would have been in a far more parlous situation than we were. As a consequence, we were able to cushion the blow of the GFC and to get on with the job of governing Australia. 17:53 Dr HENDY 00BCM Eden-Monaro Parliamentary Secretary, I recall that when we came to government we were faced with the prospect that we would eventually have a debt burden of some $667 billion, and that we were faced in the short term with $123 billion in cumulative deficits—and the government has been able to address those issues in the past two budgets; in fact, the deficit that we inherited on coming to government was some $48 billion, and the deficit for the budget year is now estimated to be $35 billion. We have able to address the $123 billion in cumulative deficits that were in the forward estimates, and we have been able to reduce Labor's legacy by some $40 billion, and in the out years we have been able to address the issues that the Intergenerational report raised, which is the significant megatrend challenge that we have in Australia—that is, an ageing population. If you go to the Intergenerational report, back in 1975 there were 7.3 people of working age that were providing tax income for those who were aged over 65—that is, there were 7.3 people of working age for every person who was aged over 65. The projections are that that will fall to some 2.6 persons of working age for every person over the age of 65 by the year 2055. It is a significant issue and it means that we need to address the deficit problem that we inherited from the former government. I have been conducting listening posts in my electorate of Eden-Monaro over the last few weeks. An issue that comes up all the time is the debt problem that needs to be addressed. Another is the problem of the Senate, which has been through the obstructionism of the Labor Party and the Greens. They have been blocking some tens of billions of dollars in proposals that will get the budget into a much better position. With respect to the portfolio of Finance, which you look after, Parliamentary Secretary, I note that my electorate has a large number of public servants. Queanbeyan, which is just over the border from the ACT, has some 2,335 workers in what is classified by the ABS as 'central government'. That is some 11.1 per cent of the working population of Queanbeyan. That is a very large percentage when you consider that for New South Wales as a whole in that category the number is only 0.9 per cent and that for Australia as a whole the percentage is 1.3. In Queanbeyan it is 11.1. Across the whole of the electorate of Eden-Monaro some 2,000 people work in defence. I am very interested in how things occur in Canberra in your portfolio. So I ask you, Parliamentary Secretary, whether you can explain how the government is taking action to get better value from its leased office accommodation in Canberra. What are some of the expected financial and non-financial benefits of this approach? What steps will the government take to progress the divestment of properties in the parliamentary triangle and what are the potential benefits to the Commonwealth and the local community of this decision? 17:57 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina At the outset I acknowledge the tremendous role that the member for Eden-Monaro is playing in his electorate. I have had the good fortune to visit his electorate and to be with him on those listening posts. I attended a tourism conference in his electorate and saw the warmth with which he was greeted at that conference, given the fact that finally people in Eden-Monaro are seeing some real action being taken by their member. The one he replaced was missing in action. I can tell you that the breath of fresh air that he has brought to his electorate is very welcome, as well as many of the policy ideas that he has brought to the coalition. I know that the member for Eden-Monaro has a very diverse electorate because I am one of his near neighbours. He points out that he has 2,000 defence people in Eden-Monaro. I too understand the unique responsibility that comes with representing defence personnel. He does a very good job just of that. He also talked about the Intergenerational reportand what an important document that was in establishing the time frame and what we need to do as a government and as a nation to understand the challenges that we will face over coming years, indeed over decades. What we need to do now is make sure that the economic decisions we take acknowledge the great impost on future generations. The good member asked me what action the government is taking to get better value out of its leased office accommodation space. That too is very important for him because of the number of public servants he represents. I can tell him that the Commonwealth currently leases around 30,000 square metres of office space in the Australian Capital Territory surplus to its long-term needs. Filling existing surplus Commonwealth lease space before committing to new long-term leases is a sensible use of Commonwealth property resources. By reviewing upcoming leases of Commonwealth agencies, it has been possible to identify opportunities for selected agencies to move into this vacant surplus office space as current leases expire. This approach has the potential to save an estimated $200 million over the next decade. There are likely to be other benefits, such as the potential for increased collaboration between agencies and the sharing of facilities in the areas of ICT platforms and property service providers. I understand that discussions between the Department of Finance and their agency counterparts are progressing very well and that, in almost all cases, agencies will be moving into buildings with a high commercial quality. The amount of underutilised office space across government is constantly changing as organisational needs change. When major leasing decisions are taken on a whole-of-government basis—that is important, and I know the member for Eden-Monaro in his various roles on committees and in his discussions with me has always stressed the need for whole-of government decision making to take place—and they involve coordination between agencies, there is a greater scope to reduce underutilised office space. Our smaller government agenda will see the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Migration Review Tribunal, the Refugee Review Tribunal and the Social Security Appeals Tribunal merged into a single Commonwealth merits review tribunal. I will shortly be referring to the public works committee a project to fit out office accommodation for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Sydney in the same building where the Migration Review Tribunal and Refugee Review Tribunal are already located. This will give the amalgamation, which has already occurred in law, an appropriate physical dimension. I will also be referring to the public works committee a project which will see the ATO relinquish excess accommodation in Penrith, New South Wales and undertake a new fit-out on a reduced footprint at the same site. These are important measures. The smaller tenancy in this case is estimated to save the Australian Taxation Office $38.9 million in operational costs over 10 years. These are just some of the ways in which we are striving to obtain better value from our leased office accommodation. The job is by no means finished. When we announced this initiative on 11 May, the minister and I also stated that agencies will be required to consider local impacts when assessing options to meet their future accommodation needs. 18:02 Mr WATTS 193430 Gellibrand I am pleased to have the opportunity to engage with the parliamentary secretary today because there are a few points of confusion that I would like to have cleared up. One relates to tax as a percentage of GDP and the other is with respect to the Asset Recycling Fund. I heard the parliamentary secretary talking earlier about the government's commitment to lowering taxes and it jogged my memory of the 'Real Solutions' policy pamphlet that came out before the last election. I have a trusty copy of it in my desk downstairs because I wave it about quite a bit. I wave it about because there seems to have been a bit of collective amnesia from those on the other side. That document talked about the coalition being committed to no new taxes and lower taxes. Indeed, when waving this document around during the 2010 election campaign, the Prime Minister said at one point that his very reason for being in politics was lower taxes and that this was a creed of the conservative side of politics. My point of confusion here is that you look at the budget papers and they tell a very different story to the 'Real Solutions' policy pamphlet. In fact, the budget papers say that the level of tax as a percentage of GDP has not been this high since the time of the Howard government. From 2007 to 2013-14, during which time Labor was in government, tax as a percentage of GDP averaged 22.8 per cent, as the member for Rankin was outlining earlier. Let me go through the figures in the budget. In 2014-15, it will be 23.5 per cent of GDP; in 2015-16, it will be 24 per cent; in 2016-17, it will be 24.2 per cent; in 2017-18, it will be 24.7 per cent; and, in 2018-19, it will be 25.2 per cent. They say on that side of the House that we do not know much about numbers or budgeting, but I am pretty sure that it is going up. In opposition, they talked themselves into a bit of a hole on tax policy. Unfortunately, when they got into government they were not digging themselves out of the hole; they were digging up—they are not getting anywhere. Can the parliamentary secretary confirm that the government's own budget projections show that taxation receipts as a percentage of GDP will be higher than in any year of the previous Labor government and that taxes are projected to rise to levels not seen since the Howard government? Can the parliamentary secretary advise when the government projects to get back to the level of tax that existed when it came to office? The second bucket of questions I have goes to the question of the Asset Recycling Fund. I am pleased the parliamentary secretary is here today, because it goes to a difference of opinion between the Liberal Party and the National Party. I hear they occur sometimes. Usually, they are behind closed doors; they do not usually fight in public. I understand this fund is still being set up and the details are being worked through, so I will not go to the financing of this fund—although there are legitimate questions there. My questions go more to the funding guidelines and what projects will be eligible for funding under the Asset Recycling Fund. I ask this because the member for Wide Bay, the Deputy Prime Minister, Warren Truss, was in my electorate on Sunday. An honourable member: He was lost! Mr WATTS 193430 He was not lost. He was doing what he does quite a bit these days: claiming credit for a Labor infrastructure project. That is how we knew he was not lost. He has plenty of form there. That weekend, when asked whether the federal government would consider funding the Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel Project, the very important project being led by the Victorian state Labor government, he said: 'We will probably receive approaches in relation to that project. If we receive these approaches then we will have them assessed by Infrastructure Australia and make a decision.' This is very confusing to me because, recently, the Prime Minister told 3AW, in Victoria: 'We do not fund urban rail projects. We fund roads of national significance. We fund nationally significant freight-rail projects but we do not fund commuter rail.' We have heard this kind of confusion before. During the last Victorian election, then-Premier Napthine—desperate for some credibility on public transport infrastructure after three years of doing nothing—tried to claim that he had talked Tony Abbott around on funding public transport. He said: 'I've certainly have had some discussions about Tony Abbott's issue with the rail tunnel and he has softened. He has indicated to me that they are prepared to have an ongoing discussion on key infrastructure, like the Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel.' Despite this being an election campaign the PM was not gentle and he corrected this miscommunication, that very day. He said: 'I would dispute that that is the case. What I say in public and what I say in private is the same: we will not be contributing to the Melbourne Metro Rail Scheme. I have made that absolutely clear.' Can the parliamentary secretary clear this up? Will funds from the Asset Recycling Fund be available for the Melbourne Metro Rail Tunnel? 18:07 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina The member has been set up by the member for Grayndler and the shadow minister for infrastructure. He has been set up to come in here and talk about projects in Victoria. The member for Grayndler, being a New South Welshman, has set him up. No Victorian should come in and talk about or ask questions about funding projects when we have just seen Daniel Andrews and his new Labor state government refuse to proceed with the East West Link, a billion-dollar project—hundreds upon hundreds of jobs going by the wayside and Victoria having no shovel-ready projects to commence. This is quite perplexing. He has been set up to come in here and—bald faced—ask a question like that. He talks of lowering taxes. I do not know whether he was listening to the member for North Sydney, the Treasurer, on budget night, 12 May. The Treasurer announced that we will be reducing the company tax rate for small businesses, by 1.5 per cent, to 28.5 per cent. That will be the lowest company tax rate since 1967. That is nearly half a century. That is lowering tax rates. He talked about numbers. He said: 'I don't think the coalition acknowledges the fact that we know numbers.' Those opposite do know numbers—the trouble is all their numbers were in red. We are trying to get the numbers back in black, because that is so important for our nation's future and prosperity. He also asked about the Asset Recycling Fund. The government remains committed to the fund and is continuing to deliver its commitments under the Asset Recycling Initiative and Infrastructure Growth Package. I am glad that the Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Wide Bay, the Nationals leader—and minister for rolling out infrastructure across Australia—visited your electorate on the weekend with the shadow minister in tow. You might be interested to know that I bumped into the member for Grayndler, as I came in here late last night, and we discussed the Deputy Prime Minister's visit to Melbourne. The Deputy Prime Minister is rolling out the largest infrastructure package this nation has ever seen: $50 billion. But get on board—convince your Labor Premier down there to get on board. Going back to the Asset Recycling Fund, as the legislation to establish it remains before the parliament, the government has made provision for its infrastructure commitments through the annual appropriation bills. Our intention remains to establish the funding in legislation, and the budget papers reflect that. We hope to have it established by 1 January next year. As can be seen in the table on page 60 of Finance's portfolio budget statements, the uncommitted balances of the Building Australia Fund and the Education Investment Fund will be transferred to the Asset Recycling Fund from New Year's Day 2016, with the proceeds from the sale of Medibank Private credited on 1 July 2016. Subject to the passage of legislation, the full proceeds of the sale of Medibank Private will be credited to the Asset Recycling Fund on 1 July. These are good initiatives. Our government is getting on with the job of making sure that the books balance. Those opposite left us with books which were a complete mess. It was so unfair, because when they took government in 2007 their books were in the black. They had money in reserve to help cushion the blow of the GFC. They had money in reserve to help roll out the sort of initiatives that Labor wanted to get on with. One of them was Building the Education Revolution, in principle a great idea. In practice, it led to some—let's say many—school halls being built right across this nation which were not fit for purpose or which schools did not want. And then we saw that dreadful pink batts program—again, probably in theory a good idea but in practice completely all at sea from what the nation expected. We saw some very dodgy dealers trying to stuff pink batts, fluffy stuff, into ceilings. Unfortunately, we saw four deaths, and that was just such a sad outcome from that particular program. 18:12 Mrs GRIGGS 220370 Solomon Parliamentary Secretary, just over the harbour from my beautiful electorate of Solomon is the Cox Peninsula. I am sure that you are aware that parts of the Cox Peninsula are subject to a land claim by the Larakia people. The claim, known as the Kenbi land claim, was lodged in 1979 and to this date, some 36 years later, remains unresolved. One of the major sticking points in this claim has been a section of land used by the federal government. Some 4,750 hectares of the Cox Peninsula was used as a maritime defence communications base. One legacy of this facility is contamination of some areas, including with PCBs, pesticides, heavy metals and asbestos. It is a matter of public record that there was a previous effort to remove contamination from this site, but that effort fell well short of what was required. The Commonwealth has obligations, both legal and ethical, to provide remediation of the site. I would therefore like to ask the following questions: can you, Parliamentary Secretary, provide an update on the Cox Peninsula Remediation Project, and could you also explain why the Cox Peninsula Remediation Project is important and what are the particular benefits to the local communities? 18:13 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Solomon for her question and her interest in this very important project. She is interested because she is doing a wonderful job of representing the people of Solomon, and this, as she points out, is a project which has had a long history. It is something that has not been resolved to this date, but we are getting on with the job of doing something about this very important Cox Peninsula Remediation Project. As the member for Solomon is aware, the Commonwealth currently controls and manages land holdings on the Cox Peninsula, subject to the longstanding Kenbi land claim, under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. The Minister for Indigenous Affairs obviously has the lead on the land claim itself, but I know that the Commonwealth, the Northern Territory government and the Northern Land Council are working closely to finalise arrangements. There is no getting around the fact that one of the reasons that the Kenbi land claim remains unresolved is that a portion of the land on the Cox Peninsula to be transferred to the traditional owners includes heavily contaminated areas, as pointed out by the member for Solomon. This requires remediation, which represents a significant Commonwealth liability. She pointed out that this does not come cheap. Remediation of these contaminated sites is a Commonwealth responsibility. The mess was made over many, many years, and we need to clean it up. Setting aside $31.5 million in funding for the remediation works demonstrates the Commonwealth's bona fides in wanting to bring the claim to a satisfactory resolution for all concerned. That kind of commitment has been a long time coming, as the member for Solomon correctly pointed out. I have met with people and I have spoken to them about the project. There is a slight sense of suspicion, I have to say, that the money is not quite secure. There is a suspicion there, but I can assure the member for Solomon and my colleagues opposite, as I have assured others, that we have set aside the funding for this project, for this purpose, and we are committed to seeing it completed. The need for these works and whether or not they represent value for money has recently been the subject of an enquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works. The committee has issued its report, and I am delighted to be able to inform the member for Solomon that it has absolutely endorsed this project—that is good. All that remains is for a motion to be moved in the House that it is expedient for the works to be undertaken—to use the somewhat antiquated language of the Public Works Committee Act 1969—and I am pleased to inform the member for Solomon that I hope to be able to do this later in this sitting week. All remediation works will be completed to a national standard, as you would expect, and this will support the land's useability and future development potential. Whilst specialist expertise will be needed to complete the remediation, there will be opportunities for Indigenous employment—that is tremendous—and participation. We have already had a model for ensuring community participation from some priority remediation works which were undertaken late last year. Deputy Speaker Irons, I know you, being an AFL follower, will be interested to know that they had a wonderful gala day in conjunction with those priority works where they got the local Indigenous players and the local AFL team and got a lot of the kids involved. It was a great day. Work was undertaken on the Cox Peninsula between September and December 2014 to mitigate risks associated with asbestos-containing materials, hazardous materials, dilapidated buildings and various waste stockpiles prior to the onset of the 2014-15 wet season. The project involved moving 867 bags of contaminated waste—most containing ACMs and each one weighing in excess of 1300 kilograms—from these dilapidated buildings to shipping containers brought to the site. The buildings were then decontaminated and demolished. A secure but temporary staging area was constructed on site where contaminated material and other waste that could not be recycled offsite is being held until the commencement of the 2015 dry season. Other tasks involved clean-up of informal waste tips, removal of old transformers, improved fencing and security of the site. As well as mitigating the environmental and human health risks posed by the unsecured contaminants, those early works provided significant employment opportunities for the local Aboriginal community, particularly the Kenbi ranger group, the Kenbi Rangers. The Kenbi Rangers were actively engaged and involved in several facets of the project, including provision, land management, rehabilitation services, cultural monitoring and security services. These are not token gestures or make-work activities; these are real jobs. 18:18 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield I would just ask the parliamentary secretary a few questions about Australian Hearing. To give the chamber some background on Australian Hearing, it was one of the great achievements of the Chifley government. It was formed first as the Australian Research Laboratory to provide hearing services to World War II veterans like my grandfather, who returned home after military service with hearing problems obviously from the effect of munitions, the 25-pounders and all the other loud noises that go on in ancient battlefields—and in new ones. It was expanded after that to take care of those who were victims of the 1939-41 rubella epidemics. It has been around for 67 years. It has traditionally had bipartisan support, including a significant expansion to pensioners in 1968 by the Liberal government, which I suppose would be the Holt or perhaps the Gorton government. It has survived all of these governments, including the Howard government, and has remained in public hands up until today. We know that it is subject to the threat of privatisation, having been mentioned in the government's Commission of Audit and recommended for privatising. We know that the Department of Finance has a scoping study. We know that the health department has been consulted. We know that there has been very little consultation with the deaf community or the parents of deaf children. This is a very important public institution. It has the Australian Hearing Hub at Macquarie University, which includes the National Acoustic Laboratories. I am very interested in the National Acoustic Laboratories' future in any potential privatisation. At the moment it is a model, I think, of how the public sector, the university sector and the private sector can all work together to create not just great hearing services and technology but also great medical exports for this country. This is a very important institution. My questions would be: at what point will a scooping study conclude? If the government intends to privatise this, what would be the time line for consultation? How much consultation with the deaf community industry and service providers will occur before privatising? Will there be universal service obligations that will be put on any hearing providers that might purchase Australian Hearing? Similarly, will there be any universal service obligation or any universal service commitment to the Commonwealth on the National Acoustic Laboratories, if that was to be privatised? Particular, would researchers, universities, industry and the community have access to the National Acoustic Laboratories in the event of privatisation? If the parliamentary secretary could inform the House—and indeed the community about this very important publicly owned organisation that has been around since 1947 and has had up until this point a large degree of bipartisan support to remain in public hands—about this government's intentions regarding this valuable public institution, that would be a good thing. 18:22 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina One thing I can guarantee the member for Wakefield is that when this government makes a decision, we will consult fully. We are not a government which, bang, brings in legislation, policy decisions or knee-jerk reactions as his government did for six years. When we do make a decision, we will fully consult with stakeholders. The government will consult further with hearing impaired Australians, their families and other key stakeholders before making a decision on ownership options for Australian Hearing. I do thank the member for Wakefield for his question. I appreciate the fact that his grandfather did military service—he must be very proud of that—and I take on board his comments about the rubella outbreak which also led to the establishment of this organisation, which he quite correctly has pointed out is a public institution that has done some great things for this nation. The relevant minister put out a media release about this on 8 May this year. I will inform him that the government has deferred making decisions in response to the scoping study to allow sufficient time for consultation with hearing support groups and industry about any impacts of the National Disability Insurance Scheme on the delivery of hearing services and what that could well mean for Australian Hearing. While the government had indicated that we would take decisions in light of the scoping study in the 2015-16 budget, it was clear to us that more work needs to be done to ensure that stakeholders understand what the delivery of hearing services through the NDIS would look like. And that is important—that the implementation details for the NDIS and hearing services have been worked through. Were the government to consider privatisation—I will repeat that: 'were' the government to consider privatisation, and I do stress that the Commonwealth has not made any decision to privatise Australian Hearing—then access to hearing services would be enshrined in a community service obligation. And I do note that some 70 per cent of Australian Hearing's funding already comes from the provision of services for which it has to compete with others in the sector. Regardless of its future ownership structure, Australian Hearing will need to focus on building its capacity to perform and to deliver services in an environment of increasing contestability. The government has announced consultation with the hearing community about the findings of the scoping study, amongst other things. It is appropriate that the sector learns first the key findings of the scoping study, directly from the government, and that is important. As I said, consultation is important. We saw all too often knee-jerk reactions, policy on the run, from the last government. We do not want to be a government that falls into that trap. 18:26 Mr IRONS HYM Swan It is a pleasure to rise and put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance. And it is interesting to come in here and hear others. I applaud the member for Wakefield for asking a question that has some content and some actual genuineness in it, fearing for an organisation that has been around for a long time. It was good to hear the parliamentary secretary answer and also talk about the consultative process that the coalition will take and has been known for taking. The member for Rankin mentioned AFL before, and mentioned that he used to work for the member for Lilley. I have an interesting story. Dr Chalmers interjecting— Mr IRONS HYM I hear the member for Rankin applauding the fact that I am going to mention his previous boss. I wonder why he is not in here tonight to question the parliamentary secretary for finance. Maybe he has no credibility in this area to ask the question. It is good to see that he is still here, though. But the story the parliamentary secretary reminded me of and that you might be interested to hear about is that the member for Lilley, when he went with the economic conservative genius of our time, Kevin Rudd, to New York in 2006, they rocked up to one of the major finance corporations in the US. A mate of mine, who I played football with at East Perth, was one of the head members there. They were called into this room, and they said, 'Come and meet these two politicians who are here from Australia.' Dr Chalmers interjecting— Mr IRONS HYM I hear the member for Rankin say, 'Tell me more'; he wants to hear more of the story. And the member for Wakefield is even smiling as well. So, they were called into this room, where they met these two politicians, and they spoke for about an hour and a half. And as they walked out, the people from this finance corporation in the US said, 'Thank God those two aren't in charge of the Australian economy.' And guess what happened? They got in charge, and look what they did: six years of absolute disaster. Dr Chalmers 37998 They saved the country from recession. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 Order! Member for Rankin! Mr IRONS HYM Did I hear the member for Rankin say it was an absolute disaster? Is that right? We heard the parliamentary secretary mention the pink batts. Dr Chalmers interjecting— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 Order! The member for Swan has the call and will be heard in silence. Mr IRONS HYM I would like to remind those on the other side, when they talk about their economic credibility, of the $900 cheques. We had those going out everywhere. Dr Chalmers 37998 Madam Deputy Speaker, a point of order: I put up with this for three minutes. He has not even gone near the current budget, which is the whole point of consideration in detail. If he wants me to read it to him, if he wants to explain it to him, I am happy to do that. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 The member for Rankin can sit down. The member for Swan has the call. Mr IRONS HYM I would like to remind the member for Rankin that when his people were in government we had similar questions going on. I would also like to remind him about the $900 cheques. Pink batts was brought to the coalition by the previous government and they knocked it back; it was ripped up. But it was grabbed by the Labor government—and look what they did. They made an absolute disaster of it. Going back to that speech the parliamentary secretary made last year, he talked about the divestment of Defence Force assets. He recently did divest the Lady Gowrie childcare centre from the Commonwealth, which was a win-win for the government and the local community. Can the parliamentary secretary provide an update on how this government is working to better align the government's non-Defence property portfolio with current and future needs? Also, how are the interests of local communities being taken into consideration in the government's property divestment program? 18:31 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Swan for this question, and can I say what an absolute delight it was to visit the member for Brisbane's electorate last Thursday. I am delighted to inform the chamber that the government is committed to realising the value of Commonwealth property through its property divestment program, and I know that the member for Swan is very interested in that. One of the things we found on coming to government was that the Commonwealth still owns a range of properties which reflect things we did in the past rather than what our current needs are or what our future needs are likely to be. That does not make any sense. The Lady Gowrie childcare centre is a classic example of that. The Lady Gowrie childcare centre was established by the Commonwealth in the 1940s. In fact, they are just about to celebrate their 75th birthday. They have served disadvantaged communities in inner Brisbane and they have facilitated research in early childhood development. The Commonwealth is no longer in the business of running child care centres—it is not our core business!—but we understand the practical needs of families in inner Brisbane and elsewhere throughout Australia and the importance of child care. Despite that, we continued to own a child care centre in the form of the Lady Gowrie child care centre in Brisbane. The transfer of this property to the current operator, Gowrie Queensland Inc., is a great outcome for both the Commonwealth and the local community. This meets the government's objective of realising the value of an asset we no longer need, and it is good for the Gowrie centre as they now have certainty about their future on the site. Let me tell you that they were absolutely delighted when we did the handover of the title deeds last Thursday—and particularly delighted was the member for Brisbane, Teresa Gambaro. As the minister and I announced in the 2014-15 budget, our property divestment program will better align the Commonwealth's property holdings with current and future needs, reduce the costs to taxpayers associated with ongoing Commonwealth property holdings such as the costs of building maintenance and also contribute to budget repair. As part of the announcement, we indicated that the program would start with around 40 properties, including vacant blocks and facilities no longer in use. With the winding up of the Albury-Wodonga Development Corporation at the end of 2014, we have expanded the program to include the sale of about 120 properties—residential and commercial—formerly owned by the corporation. I have been to Albury and Wodonga, which are just down the road from my electorate, and I have met with local councils to reassure them that, while the Commonwealth is a motivated seller, we are not interested in a fire sale which would disrupt the local market—and that is so important. As far as the Lady Gowrie centre is concerned, it is a win-win situation. It is certainly very pleasing for the childcare centre operators and a great result for the member for Brisbane, who is a passionate advocate for better childcare services. 18:34 Mr CHAMPION HW9 Wakefield My question is to the parliamentary secretary. Obviously one of the other privatisations recommended by the Commission of Audit is that of the ASC Corporation in Port Adelaide. It is a very important institution for South Australia. It built the Collins class submarine, which, despite the Howard government's blackguarding, is an excellent submarine and helps to protect our country and our national interest. The Prime Minister promised before the election to make, construct and manufacture submarines in South Australia. There are subsequent comments by the previous Defence minister, who said he would not trust ASC to build a canoe. It is widely rumoured that the National Security Council has signed off on a Japanese manufacturer—I do not know which one—manufacturing what would be submarines to go into Australian service, in Japan, which would entail the building of an entire new facility in Japan. Today's The Australian Financial Review stated: Japan is favoured to win the contract to build 12 new submarines for the navy, which would mean most of the jobs in the project would be offshore, at least in the construction phase. Some systems work and long-term maintenance would be carried out in Australia. That same story talks about Austal and its chief executive, Mr Bellamy, who said it is a myth that building ships in Australia costs 40 per cent more than elsewhere. He referred to the effect of the dollar and said that with the dollar at 75 to 80 cents it is not more expensive building vessels in Australia. He is quoted as saying, in terms of the destroyers, that the delays and cost overruns were not the fault of the workforce, which are as skilled as any in the world. Given the Prime Minister's promise, given the importance to the national interest of having a submarine that is at least capable of doing what the Collins class submarine is capable of doing, given that we have a very skilled workforce in South Australia, and there has been a significant investment by the South Australian government in facilities in anticipation of these projects, what can he tell us about the potential privatisation of ASC, including what would be an acceptable level of foreign ownership? What protections would be put in place for the existing workforce, including their enterprise-bargaining agreements, and what would be the conditions of the transmission of business in those circumstances? What protections would there be for the Commonwealth, in terms of the technology? Who would own the technology that our Defence Force would be relying upon, with this particular project? What protections would be put in place, in terms of technology transfers and the other? Are we talking about a role for ship building, which would be simply maintenance and not manufacturing, or is the government committed to manufacturing in this country, particularly in regard to the submarines and ship building, generally? 18:38 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I do thank the member for Wakefield for his genuine and ongoing interest in this matter. I know it is important to him and I know it is important to his electorate, but I need to remind him that Labor is all talk on Australia's future submarine capacity. Well may you smile, but Labor had six years to make a decision on this and did absolutely nothing. This government is determined to get the right submarine capability at the right price. No decisions have been made on the design, construction or sustainment of Australia's future submarine capability. Decisions on a design partner and construction of the submarines will be based on a competitive evaluation process, managed by Defence, which takes account of capability requirements, cost, technical risk, schedule and value for money. On 5 June 2015 the Minister for Defence announced an expert advisory panel to oversee that process. I would suggest that questions about those appointments be directed to the minister when Defence takes its turn at consideration in detail. ASC has a range of capabilities, relevant to constructing a new submarine, but it does not have the skills required to develop a new design. ASC has been engaging with potential international partners from Germany, France and Japan on the basis that the government must be free to choose the right capability for Navy and be unconstrained by any exclusive teaming arrangements entered into by Australian industry. However, we do expect that as a matter of course significant work will be undertaken in Australia during the build phase of any future submarine program, and that a majority of those jobs, member for Wakefield, will be based in your state of South Australia. The government recognises the significant value to our nation of a skilled naval shipbuilding workforce, as I know you do, and that is why we are prepared as a government to invest in its skills and knowledge base. 18:40 Mr COULTON HWN Parkes My question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance is around quarantine. I represent a large agricultural area that relies heavily on exports. The advantage that we have as an island nation is that many of the diseases that are across other parts of the world are not present here. We do have the disadvantage of being a long way from some of our markets; but the advantage is that we do have clean green produce and livestock, and it would be a disaster if a disease such as foot-and-mouth disease, bluetongue, or God forbid, rabies, should come into this country. We did see some interest in the media a few weeks ago about some dogs coming into the country through unconventional means and what that could have meant for our biosecurity. I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he could provide an update on the progress that has been made in the construction of the new Post Entry Quarantine facility. He might like to add what some of the features of the new Post Entry Quarantine facility are, and how the new facility will benefit the community. 17:31 Mr McCORMACK 219646 Riverina I thank the member for Parkes for his interest in what is my favourite project in the finance portfolio. I know that biosecurity is paramount in my electorate of Riverina and I certainly know that being a neighbour of one of my favourite members of parliament, the member for Parkes, how important it is in his part of the world. I am delighted to inform the member for Parkes that the Post Entry Quarantine facility remains on budget and on schedule. We do a lot of interesting things in Finance, and a lot of important things in the national interest; but this project, as I say, is a favourite of mine, because when it is completed, the facility will manage risks which are very real for the food and fibre growers, the primary producers, in my electorate, in the electorate of Parkes and indeed all over Australia. The Post Entry Quarantine facility will be a laboratory, it will be a hospital and it will be a jail for equines, canines and felines to name just a few. It is being designed to be functional now and to allow the potential for expansion into the future. It is being constructed with the sharp eye and the safety of several hundred people working on site. It will leverage the possibilities that consolidating quarantine experts on the one site will create. Construction commenced in April 2014; the Minister for Agriculture and I marked the occasion with a ceremonial sod turning on 1 May 2014. The facilities will be delivered, tested and become operational progressively from the end of 2015 to 2018. Progressive completion of phase 1 facilities during 2015 includes the plant facility, administration building, horse compounds and facilities for bees, cats and dogs. Phase 1 will essentially allow the facility to start operation and then phase 2 will focus on expanding capacity at the site. Once completed it will consolidate five existing plant and animal quarantine facilities into a single integrated site on Donnybrook Road, Mickleham, in Victoria—your state, Deputy Speaker Henderson, as member for Corangamite. This new site is a significant investment in Australia's biosecurity system, which is critically important to maintaining our unique animal and plant health status. At a cost of $379.9 million this new modern facility does not come cheap, but I am on record as commending the previous government for committing to the project—one of its rare sensible moments. Something that was not so sensible was the original funding profile, which effectively defunded the project in 2015-16. But in the 2014-15 MYEFO, the government rephased funding for the project to better align with the contractor's ability to progress work on the site. Under the original profile, work would effectively have to stop in 2015-16 and then ramp back up again. By restoring a more sensible funding profile, a number of facilities at the site will be available earlier than previously planned and should enable a smooth transition from existing facilities to the new site for the Department of Agriculture. Keeping the project on budget and on schedule is no easy task, particularly when you consider its sheer scale and sheer complexity. At the end of May 2015, 18 kilometres of electrical services had been installed, bulk earthworks of 220,000 cubic metres had been undertaken and 43,000 square metres of road or asphalt had been constructed. It is a huge project, and unlike a tunnel or a skyscraper, which is a linear build going straight along or straight up, this project has discrete and unique facilities being constructed across a vast plain with numerous different trades working concurrently. I am also delighted to be able to inform the member for Parkes that in July 2015 the project will achieve a significant construction milestone by clocking up one million person hours worked on the project. The current total of 910,000 hours at the end of May was achieved with no lost time due to injuries and a total recordable injury frequency rate of 3.3, which is lower than the managing contractor company target of less than 4.8, which is great. Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd is nominated for a Master Builders excellence in construction award in Victoria in the excellence in the health and safety category for their work on the Post Entry Quarantine Facility project. Every time I visit the site I am impressed by the professionalism of all staff and tradespeople working on-site. The Post Entry Quarantine Facility will provide around 2,000 square metres of greenhouse space, 1,200 square metres of shadehouse and a plant diagnostic laboratory. At its maximum capacity, the facility will hold 240 cats, 400 dogs and 80 horses. It is almost like Noah's Ark. The facilities will also provide for ruminants such as alpacas, birds such as pigeons and fertile eggs, and it is going to play such a great part in Australia's current and future biosecurity needs. As the member for Parkes pointed out, this is so crucial to our nation. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Debate adjourned. CONDOLENCES 174 CONDOLENCES Johnson, Hon. Leslie Royston, AM 174 18:48 Ms BIRD DZP Cunningham It is a great honour to be able to contribute to this parliamentary recognition of the life of Les Johnson, a former member of this place and a very well-loved local in our region. I acknowledge the presence of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who was able to attend the funeral with me, and Les's widow, Marion, who is also with us this evening. In the contributions to date, members have focused on Les's work nationally as a minister and locally in the Sutherland shire, which was the heart of his electorate. Les loved the shire. For that community he contributed much, and his legacy will be forever remembered, there is absolutely no doubt about that. His achievements on the national stage have been well traversed by honourable members in this debate, so I also thank them for their kind words. I thank the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, in particular, for their generous remarks. However, members may not be aware that for much of Les's long time in public office—a total of 25 years, as we have heard—the division of views also extended southward into the Illawarra, into what is now the electorate of Cunningham that I represent. Les formed close working relationships with the people of the Illawarra as well as the shire, and our community is grateful for his service and support over those many long years in office. Les always attended May Day rallies and marches in the Illawarra. He knew the symbolic importance of this and enjoyed a good relationship with the union movement of our region as well. And, as he did in the shire, Les worked at the grassroots level with many local organisations and Labor branch members in the Illawarra, winning their great confidence and support. In the Labor Party this is no mean feat. Back then, in the mid-1950s, the northern Illawarra Labor branches of Bulli, Thirroul, Scarborough and Helensburgh were tough crowds. The membership was tribal, mostly made up miners and railwaymen, and Les was an outsider from the shire; he was not of either tribe. But he was a working man and a practical man. He had been the delegate of his union and he had organised and agitated for workers to protect workers' rights and to promote workers' safety, and so he won them over. Les's son Grant remembers as a boy travelling with his father down the coast a couple of times each week, visiting branches and community meetings one after the other down the coast road. Once elected to office, Les would hold mobile electorate office meetings every second Saturday or so in the Thirroul Railway Institute hall, which still stands today as a monument to local Labor history and has been painstakingly restored by the local community. At Les's state funeral, stories were recalled, as told by Les, of meeting the Scarborough Labor branch for the first time in the mid-1950s, mostly tough old coal miners. As a sort of test of his manhood, he had to drink six beers in a row before giving his speech. He also recalled addressing the Helensburgh branch, where one of his preselection opponents appealed to the audience for their vote because, he said, 'I am the only one that has been to university.' Les was next to speak and to the surprise of preselectors he said: 'Members, unfortunately for my dear friend here, it is just not true. I, too, went to university and probably no-one here knows that. That's right. My brother and I went right through Sydney university as boys, recycling bottles during the Depression to help put food on our family's table.' Through his words, Les had a real way of connecting with people, and through his words and his deeds, as we have heard in this debate, we remember Les Johnson as a remarkable Australian. The essence of it, according to Les, was just to work hard and to communicate well—'Not really all that difficult if you had the knack like I did,' as he said. One of the closest working relationships that Les formed in the Illawarra was with Jim and Lois Hagan. Sadly, we lost Jim about five years ago, but it was good to see Lois at Les's state funeral recently. Lois is a life member of the ALP, as was Les. The Hagans first met Les in the Caringbah branch in 1954 at the time of Les's preselection. As we have heard in the debate, that was a time when Labor was bitterly divided. Jim used to say that you could go to some branch meetings back then and literally draw a line down the middle of the room, so divided were they. One of Les's lasting legacies is that he played no small part in helping to heal those rifts. He brought people together and, although his initial preselection was highly contested—there were 11 candidates—he won the members' confidence and was never challenged. Jim and Lois moved to Austinmer about 10 years later and, along with others like Keith Woodward, Paul and Kaye Tuckerman, Norman and Kathleen Smith, Maurie and Connie Lawless, Bill McKay and Rob and Josie Castle, they became the bedrock of the Thirroul branch for the next 40 years. They were great friends and political partners in Hughes. Jim was president of the Hughes Federal Electorate Council for years and Les's long-term campaign director. In fact, when Jim passed away, Les dedicated each of his election victories to his comrade and friend. Les's reputation as a local campaigner was legendary, and Jim and Lois were right there by his side. Les made so many contributions to the Illawarra community during his time in office—too many to list—and we are grateful for all of them. But in recent years, towards the end of his life, Les also gave generously of his time to help catalogue the history of the Labor Party in the Northern Illawarra. It is recorded in Chris Lacey's book titled Illawarra Agitators about which I have reported to the House previously. Les was often in demand for Labor campaigns in those early years—not least, it must be said, because he was one of the very few members who owned a car, as well. Les often spoke about the early years campaigning with Gough Whitlam and of his time in the Whitlam ministry. Chris has told me that the book could not have been done so comprehensively without Les's help, and that he will be forever grateful to Les for it. He is also very grateful to Marion, who, as I said, is with us today and who, because of Les's failing eyesight, would have to read long emails and early manuscripts to Les to verify the content. Chris had the honour of presiding over Les's state funeral as MC a little over a week ago. I am told that Marion had lined him up for the task about two years ago after the Thirroul branch centenary dinner, and he was only too happy to do it for his friend. In my conclusion to this contribution I want to share with the House Chris's own words. Chris, who is the president of the Thirroul branch now, took up writing the book after Jim Hagan had passed away. Jim had done so much work on it, and then Chris saw it to its completion, spending a lot of time with Les. It left a very lasting mark on him. Chris writes: What a remarkable man was the late the Hon. Leslie Royston Johnson, a man that everyone knew simply and fondly as 'Les'. Here was a man who had impact on his community and for the nation; a man whose time had come, and who used it well. It was a great privilege to have known Les towards the end of his long life, and to have spent many hours talking with him. He was a child of the Depression, a boy who went to work at 14 to support his family, who put himself through night school—in Les's own words, "an angry young radical" who saw injustice in his community and in his workplace, joined his trade union and agitated and organised people to his cause. An aspiring politician who artfully navigated through Labor's most divisive moment to win a contested pre-selection, but who then won the party's confidence and was never challenged. A comrade and confidant who shared the sage of great Labor men: Les Haylen, Doc Evatt, Lionel Murphy and, of course, Gough Whitlam. A witness and, indeed, an actor in some of Labor's historic events who pursued new national initiatives in housing policy and Aboriginal affairs. A Labor life member whose party ticket was first date stamped when Curtin was Prime Minister. And above all, a man with the conviction to fight for his values and what he thought was right and good. But for all the accolades and achievements, anecdotes about Labor's trials and personalities—important though they are—in the end, it was Les the man who made the most impact on me: his enthusiasm and energy that was apparent in everything he did, even at the age of 90; his discipline and commitment to his craft—he was a planner and an organiser; his deep connection to community and to justice, whether here or abroad; his wit and humour, with a mind like a steel trap and the memory of an elephant; and, ultimately, his positive outlook on life. Through his long life Les had the support of a loving family whom he also loved. It was truly an honour to be entrusted by Les, his wife Marion and children Grant and Jenny with the deep and solemn responsibility to preside over his state funeral. I had the good fortune of seeing Les one final time for a weekend about a month before his passing, and we had the opportunity to talk about service and what was important to him. It was very sad to say goodbye to my friend for that last time, but I think Les would have been pleased with how it all went. There were very generous contributions made by the Hon. Tony Whitlam QC, the Hon. Michael Egan on behalf of the Hon. Paul Keating, and the Hon. Bob Hawke. His children, Grant and Jenny, gave loving and heartfelt family tributes for their dad. Although Les was not a religious man, he loved to sing old hymns that he had learned as a boy. He sang them every day, so he would have been pleased that the service included one of his favourites, How Great Thou Art, sung by classical soprano Ms Morgan Balfour. I concluded the service in the following way: although another of the great Labor men of old has passed into history, let us remember him well. Let us honour his memory by dedicating ourselves to a life that is rich and as purposeful and as joyful as the one that he led. Les would expect us to remember him with a smile and, yes, perhaps even with a song. The words of Joyce Grenfell's poem Life Goes On sum up our old friend well: If I should go before the rest of you, Break not a flower nor inscribe a stone. Nor, when I am gone, speak in a Sunday voice, But be the usual selves that I have known. Weep if you must, Parting is hell. But life goes on, So….sing as well Vale Les Johnson. The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 I understand it is the wish of honourable members to signify at this stage their respect and sympathy by rising in their places. Honourable members having stood in their places— The DEPUTY SPEAKER 241590 I thank the Federation Chamber. 19:00 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. STATEMENTS 176 STATEMENTS Kirner, Ms Joan Elizabeth, AC 176 19:01 Ms PLIBERSEK 83M Sydney Joan Kirner was passionate, tireless, generous and warm. And we all know that she loved rock and roll. She was Premier of Victoria for two years—the first female Premier of Victoria. Every time a woman is the first of something, she shows that it can be done. She shows other women that it is possible. She opens the door a little wider for them, encourages them to dream a little larger and aim a little higher. But, in her nearly four decades as a Labor feminist, Joan Kirner did not so much open doors for women as kick them off their hinges. She did not crack the glass ceiling for Labor women; she took a sledgehammer to it. Or perhaps I would say that she handed out sledgehammers, because Joan had a superb appreciation for the benefits of organisation, mentoring and encouragement. She knew that it was not important just for her to break through that glass ceiling but to organise for others to do so also. I am talking, of course, about the tremendous enterprise that she devoted so much of her time and energy to after she left Parliament: building a Labor Party that looks like the community that it represents, which means, for starters, having about half of our parliaments made up of women as well as men. Of course, Joan Kirner was one of the founders and driving forces behind EMILY'S List. Joan understood that, as many studies have shown, people tend to, whether consciously or unconsciously, mentor and support people that remind them of themselves. That meant that institutions that have always been dominated by men would continue to always be dominated by men, if women did not find opportunities to develop, experience, build networks and make allies. EMILY'S List was a conscious effort to rebalance that, to make sure that Labor picked the best candidate. Although many of those on the other side of the chamber have argued in the past that removing the barriers to women's participation in politics and decision making is incompatible with meritocracy, I would argue—and I am sure Joan would have made this case very eloquently—that in fact it is the only thing that is compatible with meritocracy. It is impossible to imagine, or convince ourselves, that half the talent, half the intellect, half the ability for hard work and half the capacity of our community is not held by the women of Australia. We ask ourselves then: what have been the structural barriers that have meant that women have been less represented in higher decision-making positions? When you understand that it is not a lack of talent, a lack of merit, that has been the cause of the underrepresentation of women, you see that it is important not just to accept those structural impediments but to work together to change them. Joan believed that no organisation where there were structural barriers to women's equal participation could truly be a meritocracy. That is why, although it surprised a lot of people at the time, she actually backed a bloke, Steve Bracks, to succeed her in her seat. Plainly, she picked the right person, because he went on to be Premier and was elected three times. She put an enormous effort into EMILY's List because she believed so strongly in the EMILY's List motto: when women support women, women win. She really changed the game for many Labor women. I am not certain that we would be looking at two state Labor governments where their frontbenches are made up of equal numbers of men and women if it were not for the culture change that Joan and many who helped and supported her brought about within the Labor Party. Joan was an incredibly active and supportive friend and mentor to many women—me included—not just in the big ways, the big structural changes like the campaign for affirmative action within the Labor Party or like EMILY's List, but also in a million very small ways. You can talk to many Labor women who will tell you about a well-timed phone call or a well-timed SMS to give you a little bit of encouragement along the way. Joan Kirner came from a background of activism in her local community, as the mother of a child at a local primary school who was not satisfied with the educational offering for her child and as a woman who faced professional barriers herself after her marriage. She took those life experiences and turned them into a career of political activism that included being an education minister and finally a premier, and right through her life was a political activist and a friend and mentor to many of us. 19:06 Ms HALL 83N Shortland I would like to endorse the comments that have been made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. She, along with most women on our side of politics, benefited from having a close relationship with Joan Kirner. She was an incredible woman. She was a woman who lived her life according to her beliefs and she achieved a lot in her political life, being elected to parliament in 1982, to cabinet in 1985, and to Premier. She was only the second female premier in Australia and the first in Victoria, and she was Premier until 1992 even though, when she became Premier, she knew it was a poisoned chalice. What I really want to talk about is the Joan Kirner I knew, the Joan Kirner who provided support to a woman who was looking at entering politics. As the member for Sydney said, there was that phone call at the right moment when you were up to your eyeballs in campaigning and you knew that someone was there supporting you, and an organisation was there supporting you. It was Joan Kirner who was behind EMILY's List becoming the force that it is in Australia, a force that supported progressive women and pro-choice women, and it supported women in winnable seats. That was something that was not a long tradition in the Labor Party, and it was something that Joan Kirner fought for and it was something that she actually achieved. There are now women in winnable seats, not only in the federal parliament but also in the state parliaments. Joan Kirner really is the person who helped that come about. She was a mentor; she was a role model. She was a special person who, as I said, lived her life according to her beliefs. She was a person who worked to remove the barriers that were quite artificial—barriers that were sometimes very subtle and were not noticed by everybody. I feel privileged to have known Joan Kirner. She was such a down-to-earth person—a person who could really feel the need that you had at a particular time. I thank her for the support she gave me. She will be missed by many women on our side of politics. 19:10 Ms BURKE 83S Chisholm On behalf of the many people in the eastern suburbs who knew Joan for many years and who appreciated the work she did in education in our electorate, I offer our condolences to Joan's family, particularly her husband Ron, who is a quiet individual in the background but always there, her children Michael, Kate and David and her many grandchildren and also her friends. Joan and I did not always see eye to eye. I am not a member of EMILY's List. I was often across the room from her at conference, on the other side of the divide. I remember at my first state conference that there was a fierce battle going on about the sale of the State Bank. There were many arguments going on. Joan and I never had the sort of affinity that other people talk about in that bubble. My experience of Joan was of an incredible, remarkable woman, one you could almost hear roar—well, perhaps singing badly. But she always sang with great mirth, generosity, insight and self-deprecation. It was a phone call out of the blue that really shocked my socks off one day. It was one of those moments when you think, 'How did this woman get my phone number?' I had written a piece in the paper about being pregnant during the election and that I had chosen not to divulge this secret because I did not think it was anybody's business. Joan very insightfully rang and said, 'Anna, you've opened up a can of worms.'—I will not repeat quite what she said to me—'I don't think you realise what you've done. Turn off the phone. Go inside and enjoy some time with your new baby.' It was incredible. It really just hit the spot. I then had many, many more of these wonderful little conversations, little vignettes, little emails sent. As I said, I was not part of the EMILY's List cohort. I respect, admire and support it financially, but I am not a member for many reasons. Other people who have spoken about Joan have also spoken about the influence of their mothers. My mother is also a 'Joan'. She comes from the same vintage but she probably had some difficulties with Joan Kirner, particularly around what people will know as 'dogs'—my mother coming from a very Catholic teaching background. Nevertheless, she had huge admiration for what Joan Kirner did. The impact that Joan had on the eastern suburbs of Melbourne in terms of education remains there to this day. Joan also had an amazing working relationship with many people in my electorate, and I spoke to some of them today, particularly with Jan Kennedy, whose husband, Cyril, was in parliament with Joan. Jan said that when Joan joined the Victorian parliamentary Labor caucus, the status of the women's policy committee, the first such Labor policy committee of its kind in Australia, had only just begun talking about quotas for women in parliament. Joan championed affirmative action when she entered parliament. It was wonderful for women to have a such a strong advocate in our parliament. Joan also went on to establish EMILY's List, which is a fantastic force for women in the ALP. I also spoke with Margret Ray, the long-serving member for Box Hill, who was also in parliament with Joan. Margaret, who is a great stalwart of the eastern suburbs, said: … the most important reform of the Kirner government was the closure of the notorious Caloola in Sunbury. Caloola was a very large mental institution housing 800 people who were all successfully relocated and rehoused by Joan Kirner and then Minister Kay Setches. Kay and Denis Setches played a big part in Joan's life and were very influential at this time in the eastern suburbs. Margaret continued: For me this was the big social reform of Joan Kirner. It was an historic moment and was hailed internationally at the time as a remarkable closure. Residents were taken out of a notorious and unsuitable institution and placed into more appropriate community housing and aged care facilities. Margaret also said: You don't sum up governments simply by the economics and in the face of the significant controversies of the time. Joan achieved a remarkable outcome. She knew she had a short time and she invested enormous resources to achieve that goal very quickly. While Bob Hawke usually also talks the credit, it was Joan Kirner who started Landcare in Victoria with the cooperation of the Nationals MP and it would not exist today without her. I think that is it: it is the reach of Joan Kirner. It is not just one thing she is known for. She was active, she was involved but she never finished politics. I think Jenny Beacham summed it up beautifully at the service for Joan when she said that Joan would not want anyone to think she had just become premier because the boys had handed it to her. She wanted that role. She wanted to use it to the advantage of the community, and she did. Joan Kirner famously stated: 'There is no such thing as being non-political. Just by making a decision to stay out of politics you are making a decision to allow others to shape politics and exert power over you. And if you are alienated from the current political system, then just by staying out of it you do nothing to change it; you simply entrench it.' That was Joan's attitude. You had to be there. You had to show up. You had to be involved. When her parliamentary career was over—an extensive time in parliament—we thought about those two years as Premier, but there was her time as education minister, and we thought particularly about her ability for inclusion. In my electorate many schools see children with all disabilities and all abilities integrated into mainstream education. If you go to any school, they will say it is a 'Joan Kirner legacy'. Words from an article on the glass ceiling sum up Joan Kirner beautifully. The article says: "Seize the moment" Joan Kirner, one of Australia's first woman Premiers, urged the crowd of young people in an Adelaide pub during a break in her commitments at the International Conference "Women Power and Politics" in October 1994. "Participate in shaping our nation as we have not done before." Then she launched into a few bars of a rock and roll number, revisiting her television appearance of a few months earlier. "Who knows - if I'd done that gig before the election I might still have been Premier," she quipped. "At least I was seen to be human. Politics has got to be fun or you will go bananas," she told the crowd. But Joan Kirner is serious about the need for more women in powerful positions in business and government. "It's all very well being in the sphere of influence—but I can tell you it is much better being in the sphere of power," she said. At the conference earlier in the day, Joan Kirner said: "If women seize the moment in the 1990s— Sadly, so much has not changed, and has— we can shape a more inclusive society. We need to: •advance the process of reconciliation between indigenous and non-indigenous Australian women. •remake our constitution to include all Australians—our rights and our responsibilities. •shape society's institutions so that they are less alienating and more collaborative. •restore and protect our environment. •and we need to access and control the information technology revolution so that it is used to inform and unite not divide and destroy. So said Joan Kirner. She did all these things. She united. She did not divide. She embraced. She even embraced Jeff Kennett, the man who beat her, and welcomed his legacy and phenomenal work post parliament in the beyondblue space. She was one of those phenomenal people. Most of us, when hearing of her passing, did draw breath and think—'legend' may be a big word but she was someone who we just thought would be there, always. She was one of those people you expected would go on and on. Her many thoughtful little messages, her telling me to 'keep on going', to be the voice in caucus even if I was against everybody else, were greatly appreciated. Vale Joan Kirner. Thank you for all you did for the Labor Party, for the state of Victoria but, all through, for Australia. BUSINESS 179 BUSINESS Rearrangement 179 19:18 Mr MATHESON M2V Macarthur by leave—I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 3, committee and delegation business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 179 COMMITTEES Standing Committee on Economics 179 Report 179 19:19 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley I rise to continue some comments in relation to the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority annual report that covered a number of significant public-policy areas, not the least being the rate of growth in property lending in this country. For members who may be from outside of Sydney, who wonder, in a rather perplexed way, what is happening in the Sydney property market, your confusion is probably joined with the confusion of many in Sydney. The people in Sydney are very concerned—not just perplexed—at the rate of growth in house prices in that market. I might add that prices have been estimated to be growing at a rate of $2,000 a week, a simply astronomical rate of growth for house prices in that market. I note the presence of some Victorian members in the chamber. While Melbourne is growing at a very strong pace, it is Sydney that is causing a great deal of concern, not only from an affordability perspective but also from the perspective of what it does to potentially limit decisions being made by the Reserve Bank of Australia in relation to interest rate movements, which the governor has said he cannot be held hostage to. He did not use those strident words—anyone who knows the governor knows that he is not prone to such dramatic expressions—however, the bank have indicated fairly strongly that they are not in the business of making decisions about future interest rates on the basis of what is happening in the Sydney market. However, while I said a few moments ago that the governor is not inclined to strong or strident speech, in the last week he characterised what was happening in Sydney as 'crazy'. I cannot recall in the times that the governor has appeared before the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics that he has used quite such strong terms, but he is reflecting a growing level of deep interest in what is happening in Sydney. Treasury Secretary Fraser during Senate estimates characterised what was happening in Sydney as a 'housing bubble'. There will be a number of people who will make comment about what needs to be done about housing affordability into the long term. People are suggesting that things need to happen with negative gearing or in relation to reform of capital gains tax, right through to other people suggesting that the easiest way to deal with housing affordability is simply through supply. I certainly recognise that there will be a number of elements of this debate and a number of perspectives brought to bear regarding housing affordability. I am mindful, too, of the Reserve Bank's observations on this. Deputy Governor Philip Lowe has indicated that one of the best ways to deal with housing affordability would be to improve the quality of transport infrastructure. I note the presence in the chamber of the member for Macarthur, a fellow Western Sydney resident—he is a long-time Western Sydney resident. He, like I, knows that the movement of people in Western Sydney is a massive challenge. I have driven through his electorate on the way to Canberra. It might be 5 am and there will be rows of traffic lights making their way from his electorate to Sydney, from the Hume to the M5 or the M7 or the M2. The member for Greenway knows this. She was commenting the other day about her early starts for a number of mobile offices she was conducting last week and how long it takes to travel from some parts of her electorate to others. Western Sydney members know, regardless of politics, that moving people is very difficult and we need to invest more. Regardless of your politics, we need to invest not just in roads but in making public transport work better. That will, in the longer term, have some impact on housing affordability because people are moving to where access is easier and the jobs are close. This is a long-term challenge that will bedevil both Labor and Liberal, regardless of politics and whether or not we are prepared to spend in the short term. Negative gearing, capital gains and housing supply are all long term. Right now, I get a lot of real estate agents in my neck of the woods out at Mount Druitt telling me that investors are crawling over each other. I had one real estate agent tell me that nearly three-quarters of the sales he was doing were for investors. You can talk about negative gearing all you like, but that is not going to change quickly. It will be an issue that will be controversial to deal with. The question now is: are investors getting access to easy capital? I would say that, in some cases, when you look at the stats, you would be hard-pressed not to believe that that is not happening. If you look at owner-occupier growth in lending over the past 12 months and compare it to, for example, investor lending, APRA, the regulator, which is the subject of this discussion, said that it would set a benchmark of 10 per cent. It grew 11 per cent last year and owner-occupier lending grew at a shade over five per cent. The issue is: what is being done to keep a check on easy financing as it is occurring in the sector? I am not just making these claims up. APRA themselves were looking at behaviour of lenders to investment lenders and they indicated that there was room for improvement in credit assessments. How do I know this? I refer to Wayne Byres, the chairman of APRA, in his 13 May speech to the COBA CEO and Director Forum in Sydney where, based on the hypothetical borrower scenarios that were put to a variety of lenders, he said: The first surprising result from our review was the very wide range of loan amounts that, hypothetically, were offered to our borrowers. It was not uncommon to find the most generous ADI was prepared to lend in the order of 50 per cent more than the most conservative ADI. That was 50 per cent more on an investment property alone. He then went on to say: One significant factor behind differences in serviceability assessments, particularly for owner occupiers, was how ADIs measured the borrowers living expenses. As a regulator, it is hard to understand the rationale for large differences in what should be a relatively objective, and extremely critical, metric. And so we are seeing the treatment of other income sources having an impact on lending decisions. Other areas of interest for the regulator were the discount, or haircut, applied to declared rental income; interest rate buffers; and interest-only loans and the growth in those loans. So the question has to be about what we see with the huge variability between lenders in what they are prepared to provide to investors. Those investors are snapping up properties left, right and centre. It is a social issue in my area, because properties are being purchased and the competition between investors is raising the prices. Rent prices are growing very strongly in my part of the world, and I have low- and middle-income people being denied the opportunity either to purchase or to rent and being forced further and further out on the urban fringes. This is a social issue. I am not the only one to observe this—other people are as well: regulators and people like the Treasury secretary are observing that these are social issues. And what is the regulator prepared to do? APRA are making all sorts of excuses as to whether they will actually act. Firstly, they note that the rate of growth is slowing to about 10.4 per cent; they think that the 0.4 per cent will not make much difference and will not compel them to act. The other point they make is that if they do act to try to curb individual lenders then they will impose macroprudential tools in the form of increased capital requirements on those lenders, but they will not be transparent and open about it. They will not report those actions to the market and they will not report those actions to shareholders. If there are lenders that are prepared, in some cases, to lend 50 per cent more than more conservative lenders—if they are feeding what has been described as a 'market frenzy'—and APRA is simply not prepared to report on that publicly then that is an issue of concern. It raised eyebrows at the committee, and I note that regardless of the politics on the committee, a number of us expressed surprise that APRA would do this behind closed doors. APRA's claim is that they do not want to cause particular problems in terms of the market standing of individual lenders. But if these lenders are behaving in a way that is creating unserviceable loans, then if interest rates move upwards—and no-one is suggesting that will happen in the short term—will the serviceability be achievable for people, what will happen to loans and what is the broader economic impact of that? It is simply untenable that those lenders are not dragged out into the public and exposed for their lending practices, and that APRA is prepared to countenance this. I do not think this is realistic. The behaviour of those lenders outside the bounds of what conservative lenders are prepared to do is a potential economic issue, and it needs to be dealt with. I am very concerned about APRA seemingly dragging the chain on this, or seemingly not being prepared to act in a transparent way. I do not think that this is the end of this discussion. Debate adjourned. Infrastructure and Communications Committee 180 Report 180 19:30 Ms ROWLAND 159771 Greenway I am pleased to have the opportunity to make some brief comments in relation to the most recent report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Infrastructure and Communications, Balancing freedom and protection. As a former practitioner in this area, I think this inquiry has thrown light on some key issues that affect all of us as users of communications services. From the start, it is important to note the remit, the terms of reference, of this inquiry: … the Committee will inquire solely into and report on government agency use of section 313— of the Telecommunications Act 1997— for the purpose of disrupting illegal online services. The first point to note in relation to that is that section 313 is contained within part 14 of the Telecommunications Act, which sets out a series of national interest matters which primarily go to the obligations on carriers and carriage service providers to do everything that they can to assist law enforcement agencies in fulfilling their obligations under this act but also in general. It is important to note that part 13 of the act sets out the specific prohibitions against the use and disclosure of certain information that is otherwise protected under the Telecommunications Act. In summary, section 313 puts an obligation on carriers and service providers in connection with the operation of their networks or facilities or their supply of carriage services to do their best to prevent telecommunications networks and facilities from being used in, or in relation to, the commission of offences against the laws of the Commonwealth or of the states and territories. This provision has been in our legislation—obviously in the 1997 act but also in predecessor acts—in some form for as long as I can remember. This inquiry primarily arose from the issue that happened in 2013 where ASIC mistakenly blocked around a quarter of a million websites due to a misunderstanding of how IP addresses work. In August 2014 ABC online reported: The corporate regulator has revealed it accidentally blocked access to 250,000 websites because its staff misunderstood a basic feature of internet technology. …   …   … In a submission to a parliamentary inquiry— this one— looking into which government agencies should have the power to block access to websites, ASIC revealed the staff who ordered the blocks did not realise that suspending access to the site would affect many more hosted on the same internet protocol (IP) address. …   …   … In the process, it blacked out more than 1,000 other sites hosted at the same IP address, including a public education group called Melbourne Free University. That is, essentially, the genesis for this inquiry. The committee has released its report, and I am pleased to go through a couple of elements of that, because it highlights what I think is the most important outcome, and that is that, while these provisions certainly have an important role to play in fulfilling national interest obligations, the need for greater transparency and accountability, including accountability of who, in a very practical sense, is fulfilling the obligation, must be addressed. There were 21 submissions to the committee and 23 witnesses. In the inquiries, I can attest to the broad level of expertise but also interest. We had government agencies, as well as ASIC itself, and experts in law enforcement and people with technical and very specific engineering expertise who assisted in this inquiry. It is no accident that the inquiry report contains large slabs of evidence from those witnesses, experts in their field. I will just highlight a couple of items in the report, one of them being from the Australian Federal Police, looking at the use of these provisions to date. In paragraph 2.15 of the report, the AFP noted that it: … only uses section 313 to disrupt illegal online activity where other mechanisms to prevent the activity have been or are unlikely to be successful. You clearly see from the AFP's evidence that these provisions are not necessarily the first port of call in conducting their business. The AFP indicated that their use of section 313 was actually not extensive. Between June 2011 and August 2014, the AFP had issued 23 section 313 requests for the purposes of blocking websites used for illegal activity. The majority of these requests were made in relation to the blocking of Interpol's worst-of list in relation to online child exportation material, and I am sure no-one in this parliament would disagree that they are very important provisions to block some of the most heinous crimes that we know to exist. In some of the committee's conclusions on the need for section 313 to continue, it noted that the protection of privacy was and remains one of the principal aims of the legislation but that what we need is targeted and proportionate use of section 313 around these issues of transparency and accountability. It was the ASIC incident in 2013 that led to questioning of the way in which these provisions are used. To summarise, transparency and accountability to disrupt illegal online services was broadly acknowledged in the evidence that was given to the committee. The committee considered the use of block pages as being, by and large, essential. Those block pages should identify the agency which made the request, the reason for the request, an agency contact point and review procedures. The committee went on to note in paragraph 4.36: Avoiding the inadvertent disruption of non-target websites is chiefly the outcome of technological competence and robust administration. Mistakes will be avoided through the use of robust or transparent processes. I do note that some of the organisations which gave evidence, including Internet Australia, have said that they look forward to assisting the government in framing whole-of-government guidelines as proposed by the committee. As reported by Rebecca Merrett, Internet Australia CEO Laurie Patton said: We look forward to assisting the government in framing the 'whole of government' guidelines… Internet Australia welcomed the report, saying it would work with the government to fix the 'flaws' in the current legislation. These issues of accountability and transparency really do go to the heart of the recommendations of this committee report. It is on this note that I absolutely feel the need to mention the comments made by Senator Scott Ludlam, who I do not think has comprehended the terms of reference here. In his media release of 1 June, he claims that the committee has 'signed off on a committee report that recommends a basic level of technical literacy be applied within departments' and talks about 'an unregulated site blocking regime just getting the nod from a committee that appears to have slept through much of the evidence put to it'. I do not recall seeing the senator's submission for a start. I am happy to be corrected if he put one in. But I do not recall seeing his evidence from the start. The reality is: yes, this is a complex area, but I believe from the senator's comments that he seems to be conflating issues of another bill and another inquiry of substance that will be coming up very shortly on issues of copyright. But this inquiry was looking purely at the blocking of illegal websites. I know my colleague the member for Chifley will agree with me on this point: too often when these issues are examined we fail to take into account the most important party in this whole matter: consumers. We absolutely need to consider the rights of consumers. Of course, as the very title of this report indicates, it is about balancing. I fear that Senator Ludlam seems to have mistaken this issue of balancing consumer rights with a very legitimate exercise of powers under the Telecommunications Act. Consumers do need to be at the heart of everything from access to content to pricing for IT goods and services. That goes without saying. But to simply go in and say that this has been signed off without any consideration of the evidence is plain wrong. 19:40 Mr HUSIC 91219 Chifley It is a pleasure to follow my colleague and friend the member for Greenway on this motion. This report looks specifically at section 313 of the Telecommunications Act 1997, which gives Australian government agencies, including state government agencies, the power to get assistance from the telecommunications industry when upholding Australian laws. In this day and age, people are very mindful of the ability governments have to impact on the operation of the internet. The common-sense view is that governments should be entitled to act when they believe there are serious issues, particularly from a law enforcement perspective, that need to be dealt with very quickly. For example, with child abuse on the internet, people doing terrible things, I think the community would expect the government to act quickly. Elements of the way section 313 operates are very important and we need to make sure that the way the legislation is used by government is continually enhanced, reviewed and, on occasion, improved. I commend the report because it recommends a better way of trying to deal with the operation of this section. It also contains a variety of different reviews. The Communications Alliance are quoted in the report as saying section 313 specifically allows providers to engage with law enforcement agencies when a matter does not fall under any of the other provisions in the act or in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act and that it is also quite a useful provision when, understandably, the law has not kept up with technological development. That is a positive view expressed by members of the Communications Alliance, whom I would commend as providing a sensible, reasoned voice within the sector. However, contrary views are also picked up in the report. For example, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights argues that no government agency or officer should be permitted to disrupt online services on the basis that they are potentially in breach of Australian law. A diversity of views exists. I think the argument there is that, if there is a blind spot within the law, we should correct the blind spot within individual laws. There is probably some merit in that argument but, until such time as that is achieved, you do need to have section 313 operating in the best way possible. One of the big motivators behind this inquiry is an incident that the member for Chifley referred to in her contribution tonight. Back in March 2013, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission used section 313 on 10 separate occasions to block websites linked exclusively to investment scams, to cold-calling frauds. Good intentions drove ASIC to act in the way that it did. I may be taking a very big leap of faith, but I think that it is a reasonable assumption that ASIC was motivated to act by good reasons. But there were massive unintended consequences. What happened was that nearly 1,000 sites were blocked as a result of ASIC's intervention back in March 2013. It was claimed that there was limited use and careful targeting. But that is simply not based on the evidence. There was inadvertent blocking of over 1,000 legitimate websites, including Melbourne Free University. In 2013, around 26 March, and again 3 April, ASIC became aware that a serial internet fraud offender was operating fraudulent websites and requested that they be blocked. On 4 April, Melbourne Free University became aware that its website had been blocked, but they did not know by whom or why. When questioned, the ISP revealed only—this is to Melbourne Free University—that the block had been requested by a government agency. There was this massive impact on a number of different websites. A subsequent review of section 313 requests alerted ASIC to a blocked IP address hosting in excess of 250,000 websites. The blocks were removed, but obviously this has forced a great deal of focus on the way in which this section operates. The committee report does make a number of recommendations about a whole-of-government approach being utilised to ensure that this type of thing does not happen again. It also specifically, I note, in the recommendations picks up on what happened in ASIC, where there was a belief that particular personnel operating within ASIC did not have the capability or understanding and the breadth of knowledge required to undertake this type of action, and that this inadvertently led to those 1,000 sites being blocked. The recommendations in this report indicate that that needs to be addressed so that in every agency there is a person with the technical proficiency to be able to manage this. Now, why has my interest been activated on this? My colleague the member for Greenway made reference to the fact that other legislation in the copyright realm is coming up that will be debated shortly. That will provide full powers to site block as well. If we have one section of the law that is being activated to block sites and people have experienced massive disruption as result of it, the genuine concern would be that if this other legislation were to come to pass and become reality, enabling blocking to occur for what is believed to be access to sites that are breaching copyright, then there would be a reasonable concern as to whether or not the types of actions that we saw as a result of ASIC's intervention in March 2013 would repeat itself. I think it is a legitimate concern. You only need to look at recent history. Back in August 2013, BBC Radio Times, with hundreds of other websites, was caught up in a massive block as a result of rights holders pursuing their rights through the courts. The rights holder, in particular the Premier League, had a battle with an unrelated copyright infringing site. The accident occurred because the sites shared the internet protocol address with FirstRowSports, which offered unauthorised streaming of football games. The internet providers had been ordered to block the IP address and, because of a simple error, BBC was blocked. When they approached the actual rights holder to get this overturned, the rights holder indicated that a court action had been enforced and that they were reluctant to actually change the position of blocking, preventing BBC from providing its service to users. This has happened overseas; this is one of my concerns about site blocking. The power certainly exists for legitimate reasons involving law enforcement. But when it strays beyond that and the capability of certain government agencies to be able to undertake or, for example, other ISPs being required to give effect to court orders or other legal mechanisms, the question does arise, based on previous international and local experience, whether the capability exists. This is why we do need to be mindful that site blocking, if it becomes a reality, does have the potential to go haywire, and it will be interesting to see who will be left with the can and required to clean up as a result. So coming back to this report, there are some of sensible recommendations here that I think do need to be taken into account by the government. Given Minister Turnbull made reference to the committee, I imagine that he is open to these suggestions being put forward, and it will be interesting to see if actually responds to the report. Other reports that he has had, for example, on IT pricing, he has sat on for nearly two years and done absolutely nothing about it. It will be interesting to see how quickly he actually responds to this, and if he is mindful of some of the recommendations, particularly in the context of outcome upcoming debates we will have on copyright. Debate adjourned. GRIEVANCE DEBATE 183 GRIEVANCE DEBATE International Cleaners Day 184 19:50 Mr BRENDAN O'CONNOR 00AN3 Gorton I rise today to talk about the response by cleaners to the actions of this government. This morning I had the privilege to speak to cleaners, and indeed to others, about the outrageous actions by the government to cut the wages and conditions of those cleaners. It is important, I think, in this grievance debate to outline the history as to how we have come to this point. This indeed has some history. It is important, when we are looking at issues like this, to really understand that in politics the best thing to do if you are trying to judge someone's character is to look at their deeds, not their words. If you want an indication of the character of a government, look at how it treats its own. The case in point that I would like to raise tonight is the reprehensible conduct by the government in relation to cleaners that are employed under Commonwealth contracts. Almost a year ago in the House of Representatives the Prime Minister responded to a question of the opposition by saying that no cleaners wages were cut as a result of the abolition of the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines. The Prime Minister, in response to a question by the opposition, made it clear, and I think impressed upon the listeners, that there was no intention and, indeed, there were no consequences as a result of the abolition of those provisions. So I guess it came as a shock not only to cleaners but also others to see subsequently, once there were tendering processes underway, that cleaners under such contracts were losing large sums of money. In the case of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, I am advised the figure was up to $6,000 per annum. In the case of the department of immigration, I am advised that the cuts amounted to $2 an hour—an enormous amount of money for low paid workers in this country. Therefore, we really do believe that the Prime Minister misled, intentionally or otherwise, the parliament when answering the question almost a year ago. Today, which just so happens to be International Cleaners Day—an event that I think started in the United States under a similar name—is quite an appropriate day for those cleaners to come together and protest about the conduct of the government and the fact that the Prime Minister's words did not hold true and they were left with very serious consequences because of the drastic reductions in their wages. Some of the cleaners that work in this place have worked here for many a year. In some cases, cleaners who have worked and cleaned the offices of members, senators and ministers have been here for many years. Even in those times when things were relatively better, they were working this job and perhaps another job, and in some cases three jobs, just to make ends meet. I spoke to a cleaner this morning. I will not disclose her name. She spoke quite passionately to me about the effects that these types of cuts will have upon her and her colleagues. The fact that you cut wages of this amount from these workers means that decisions like trying to give their kids the chance of a better education, and perhaps a better life than their parents, are going to be very difficult. She talked about doing three jobs just so she could send her children to university, because she wanted her kids to have opportunities in life that were not afforded to her. So this is not just about whether she could afford the bills today; this was about whether her children were going to have the future that she hoped they could have but that she did not have an opportunity to have. I think, therefore, that in essence it really does talk about what sort of country we want. Do we want to have a country where people are aspiring to a better future for their children? Do we want to have a country that allows for people, however difficult it is, to provide opportunities so that their kids can access education, including higher education, and go on to professional careers and not have to decide on very limited opportunities in the labour market? It really did strike home to me today what those cuts by the government meant to these workers. So I think it is very important in this grievance debate that the government really come clean and explain to the Australian people why they would take such an action against cleaners. Let's remember the history of the proposed abolition. It was found in the so-called red tape regulations. Buried among 8,000 regulations was a provision that would abolish these guidelines, which was effectively abolishing the minima or the floor for Commonwealth contracts. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence—I would even suggest that some of those in the government would have such a thing—would know that, by abolishing the floor, future tenders would be based on lower rates and would therefore force down the wages of people who are already on modest incomes, are having difficulty paying the mortgage or the rent and providing for their children, and are making decisions about going on holiday without spending too much money—all of the difficult decisions that families can have, made all the more difficult by a government too callous and cruel to be concerned with the plight of their own workforce, the workforce that cleans the offices of these buildings, including the offices of the Prime Minister, the Minister for Employment and the Treasurer, and indeed my own office and your own office, Deputy Speaker. These are people who should be treated with some decency, dignity and respect at work but have been treated instead like the enemy, as if they have done something wrong and ought to be punished by the government. I think that for that reason it is important that I raise it in this debate this evening. What we really need to see from the government is for them to firstly acknowledge that what they have done is reprehensible and then to say how they are going to rectify the matter. This can be resolved. People can admit to making mistakes. The government can admit that it was too harsh and unfair towards these hardworking Australians and can say, 'What we're going to do instead is restore the floor of minimum conditions and rates under these contracts, and we're going to allow for those tenders to be based on those minima or above so that people do not find themselves working with such a drastic reduction in their wages.' We do not expect that that is likely to happen, but we implore the government to consider that. We think that is the best course of action. You have had cleaners now losing money to take action today, which is something that would be furthest from their minds in normal circumstances. These are not militant workers; these are people who get up every day—very early, I might add, before we get up—and clean our offices before we get there. Then they go about looking after their families or go on to the next job. To treat workers this way really is a testament, I think, to the enmity that the government seems to have towards working people—an unnecessary enmity and a very unusual level of hostility towards working people. There is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to admit that what he said last year was what he meant and therefore he will rectify the situation. If he does not rectify the situation, we have to conclude that the Prime Minister knowingly said in the parliament a year ago today, when asked by the opposition, that he wanted to see the reduction of wages for those cleaners and that is exactly the sort of recipe he would like to see across the labour market in this country. He now has an opportunity to fix that, and so too does the Minister for Employment and indeed this government as a whole if it does care about the concerns and the future of workers and their children. To date, we have heard nothing from this government about restoring dignity and respect and affording those workers a decent rate of pay. But they have an opportunity, and I would impress upon them that they do so. I would make this very clear: Labor will hold the government to account for this decision from now until election day, until this decision is reversed. It is absolutely critical that the government show a level of decency and restore the conditions of employment for the cleaners who do a great job in this building and the many public sector offices around the country. Page Electorate: Infrastructure Funding 185 20:00 Mr HOGAN 218019 Page I want to update the chamber on a number of things. One, the Casino Drill Hall is a very important historical and cultural building in the town of Casino. It was formerly used by the 3rd Platoon A Company of the 41st Battalion of the Royal New South Wales Regiment, which now parades in Lismore, and was used by numerous cadets and other Defence groups during World War II and World War I and at other times in our history. This was an important gathering place and training place. It is on a very prestigious piece of land in Casino. Five or six years ago, the hall became surplus to Defence requirements and the council were approached at the time to see if they wanted to buy it at a favourable amount, which at that time they did not. The Defence department, from that moment, started preparing the site for sale. It had some things that needed to be decontaminated—there were some chemicals, lead and such things in the soil and that was done. It went through a different planning process to take it through the hurdles so that it could be ready for sale. The majority of the population of Casino were actually quite oblivious to all this. A lot of people did not realise the council had been approached and that the Defence department were in fact planning on selling it. That is, until last December, when the majority of the population were very aware that the Casino Drill Hall was up for sale because the auction signs went up. There was a community meeting held only about two or three weeks before the proposed auction, which I attended. There were well over 100 people at the meeting—probably more than 200 people—and the overwhelming will of that meeting was for me to come to Canberra and try to at least defer the auction so that the community could rally together and come up a proposal whereby they could buy the Casino Drill Hall to keep it in community hands. In fact, a proposal was put at that meeting for the drill hall to be turned into a historical museum—war museum or Army museum with artefacts et cetera. I was in Canberra literally the week after that meeting and I went and saw the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence, Darren Chester, and put to him a proposal that the sale be deferred. I thank him for his cooperation. We were able to defer the sale and take the drill hall off the market just a matter of days before it was due to go to auction. Since that time, I have been in contact with a number of community groups in Casino. We are doing everything we can to secure the sale of the hall to the community as the deadline approaches. We were given a six-month extension to come up with a proposal. That actually passed a couple of weeks ago. I was able—again, with the cooperation of the parliamentary secretary—to get a one-month extension of our proposal to take back to the Department of Defence. Again, I am just updating the chamber that we have two or three weeks to go before we need to get a proposal to the Department of Defence and obviously, indeed, to Finance. Things are progressing well and I am very confident that as a community we are going to be able to put a proposal forward to both the defence department and the finance department that they will find satisfactory, and that this hall will stay in community hands and be turned into a military museum to recognise the region's contribution to the nation's defence forces. Another issue I want to raise concerns the Casino saleyards. I am looking to obtain infrastructure funding for a number of things in my community and one of them is the Casino saleyards, otherwise known as the Northern Rivers Livestock Exchange. It is the regional facility for the Northern Rivers and provides business opportunities for the local industry weekly. Council recently conducted a strategic review, which identified a backlog of significant workplace health and safety and maintenance issues, which were placing pressure on the financial viability of the facility. The continual minor upgrade/renewable approach funded by council was inefficient and ineffective in addressing the longstanding issues. The business plan shows the facility will be financially viable once existing improvements and the backlog of workplace health and safety issues are addressed. The financial modelling shows that the facility will be economically viable on the projected cattle sale numbers over the long term following this work, providing the workplace health and safety and animal welfare issues are addressed. The council have put up $3.5 million for this upgrade and are asking for federal funding of $3.5 million as well. The greatest community benefit is the support of the widespread cattle industry of the Northern Rivers region. The Northern Rivers is known as a reliable source of young cattle, with the Casino saleyards acting as the primary exchange centre for this extensive cattle breeding area. This much-needed project will provide jobs in the primary beef production industry, supply chain and logistics. The project will address the capacity increase, the workplace health and safety issues and the animal welfare issues of the saleyards to reinforce the Casino saleyards' position as the pre-eminent exchange in the Northern Rivers region. The works needed include roofing of the facility to permit soft-floor selling pens, which greatly improve the presentation of cattle and thereby returns, reducing the risk of cattle injury currently experienced on the concrete floors. The laneway gate and latch modifications will provide separation of cattle and workers, improving worker safety and processing speed. This project is essential for the modernisation and promotion of the region's strong cattle industry and will provide support to related local industries. I can inform the chamber that I am working to make sure that this much-needed infrastructure spend is provided so that we can improve the infrastructure for that facility in our region. Also, last week I had one of the most enjoyable days at Heartfelt House in my community. Heartfelt House aims to provide an environment where adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse feel heard, nurtured, understood, validated, supported and accepted. Heartfelt House provides an 18-week course to help survivors in their healing process. The Alstonville based Heartfelt House has been providing support to adult survivors of childhood sexual abuse and their family and friends in our community since 2005. I had the absolute honour to have been in contact with Vicki and Heidi and many other people who work there, a lot of them on a volunteer basis, with participants in the program. I heard sobering accounts when talking to participants of the program and from reading some of the accounts of survivors. As we know, most childhood sexual abuse occurs within the family unit. Many of their stories are quite harrowing and traumatic. Heartfelt House provides a wonderful, safe, nurturing facility where, once they have the courage, survivors can start to confront their issues. Heartfelt House takes them through the healing process. The recent government announcement of $300,000 in funding for Heartfelt House will allow them to continue offering a wide range of services to adult survivors, including its 18-week Taking the First Steps program. It was due to run out on 30 June. Again, I was very happy to secure the ongoing funding for this and announce it last week. Under the government's Strengthening Communities program, it will now have funding security which will allow it to develop sustainable plans to ensure the services it provides are always available to those in need. Again, I thank Heidi and Vicki for that. The last thing I would like to mention is that the Kyogle local government area has many wooden bridges. I have been speaking to the mayor, Danielle Mulholland, recently. They urgently need money to replace Minneys Bridge on the Clarence Way, which has been closed to traffic since March last year. I am working and hoping to secure that funding. Marine Conservation 186 20:10 Ms PARKE HWR Fremantle Australia's coastal lifestyle and the connections of Australians with the oceans around our island nation is perhaps unparalleled in the developed world. Whether it be in our experience of summer days at the beach, fresh local seafood on the barbecue or our concern and, importantly, activism in the name of whale conservation both here and internationally, Australians place an extraordinarily high value on our oceans and expect a correspondingly high standard when it comes to the management and protection of our marine environment. The Australian sense of identity is linked to our oceans and we extend that sense of identity into an expectation that future generations will also be able to experience the ocean and live in harmony with marine life to the same and perhaps even greater degree than we do not. Australia's envied international reputation for fisheries and conservation management of our oceans is a direct product of this strong identity and its matching commitment. We have avoided many of the difficulties, the damage and the depletion that has beset other nations. More and more, governments, researchers and educators from around the world look to the example we have set. Our local seafood industry is not shy to market itself to the world on the back of these credentials—and nor should it be. Our tourism industry depends on Australia's hard-won reputation as a place of enormous natural beauty and strongly protected biodiversity. There is one fundamental reason that our credentials and our reputation in these areas are established and intact: it is because the Australian public demands that it be so. It is the Australian people who ensure that a clear responsibility is laid upon and that a clear mandate is provided to governments of all persuasions to continue and enhance our leadership on the management and protection of the marine environment. That is why the coalition government's apparent embarkation on a mission to industrialise our oceans goes directly against the clear will and the best interests of the Australian public—now and in the future. The Abbott government's plans would put us back in the herd; relegating Australia from its leading position to joining the many nations suffering the economic and environmental consequences of taking a different path; of overfishing and depletion; and of pollution and weak regulation of the wide and sometimes irreversible harm that is inevitable when you give carte blanche to high-risk industrial scale extraction. The week before last, Dr Daniel Pauly, an eminent fisheries researcher at the University of British Columbia and a widely recognised expert in the travails of fishery extraction from a global perspective, visited Australia to deliver his latest analysis. I am glad to say that there were a number of members and senators who took the opportunity to hear him speak here in parliament. Dr Pauly made it clear that Australia is a marine conservation leader by international standards and that this position or status has been achieved, in large part, because, unlike many other nations, Australia has not yet rolled out the welcome mat for industrial-scale fishing. It is certainly not for any lack of interest from some operators and some fishery managers; indeed, Australians are only too aware of the attempts made by the supertrawlers Veronica and Margiris to undertake exactly that kind of bloody work. These Godzillas of the industrial fishing world, which appeared in 2004 and 2012 respectively, were regarded with appropriate horror by the Australian community. The idea that they would operate in our oceans and that they would wreak havoc on our marine life was soundly rejected. From the public's perspective, nothing has changed when it comes to assessing the latest proposed assault on our oceans in the form of the Geelong Star. The Stop the Trawler Alliance, which represents recreational fishers and environment groups as well as the general public has delivered, since the Geelong Star's introduction: 75,000 petitioners names delivered to Canberra; over 9,600 emails to federal MPs across the country; almost 8,000 emails to Barnaby Joyce and Greg Hunt calling on them to protect our dolphins and seals; and over 400 phone calls to federal MP's offices. All these efforts have been united in their rejection of the Geelong Star; of its business case; of its complete absence of any social licence; and of the very notion of exploiting our marine resources on an industrial scale. It is critical to note that, when the trawlers Veronica and Margiris were given their marching orders at the behest of sensible marine science and matching public opinion, there was no impact whatsoever on the confidence or certainty surrounding commercial fishing industry investment in this country. If anything, our reputation as a careful steward of our fishery resources was enhanced. That is another reason why rejecting the Geelong Star and protecting our small pelagic fish stocks permanently from all factory freezer trawl fishing is absolutely the right thing to do. Dr Pauly's work demonstrates that Australia is becoming more important as not only a leader but also a teacher in the shared global effort to sustainably manage and protect our oceans, to manage the sea catch harvest so that it corresponds with what our oceans can support, and to adequately conserve the marine biodiversity that is critical to the way of life that everyone on this planet should be able to enjoy. The possibility that future generations will be able to experience that kind of life is dependent upon the adoption of science based networks of marine reserves, and in that regard Australia has been a pioneer. Once upon a time, New Zealand had a similarly enviable reputation, but it has taken a different path and is now embroiled in controversy as foreign owned factory fishing vessels face allegations of unwelcome fishing practices that border on slavery and show a disgraceful lack of resource stewardship. While these operations manage to maximise their cost, albeit at great collateral cost to the marine environment, at the same time local fish-processing plants laid off local workers in their hundreds. Dr Pauly showed us clear evidence that the largest fishing vessels in the world attract the most government funding yet provide the fewest jobs and the least economic return per unit of catch. He also debunked the notion that it is the particular size of the vessel that matters. Rather, he said, it is the capacity of the vessel to stay out at sea while it harvests, processes and freezes huge numbers of fish that is the key issue. Thus, the Geelong Star, while slightly smaller than the Veronica and the Margiris, has a similar capacity to inflict serious damage on our marine environment. Now, after a period of Labor government in which great gains in marine conservation were made, we are at a crossroads. This government seeks to turn its back on a once proud legacy of ocean protection. Ironically, in an earlier incarnation, the coalition established perhaps the world's most scientifically respected marine park on the Great Barrier Reef, and it also protected our sub-Antarctic islands. That coalition government embarked on the process to include all of Australia's Commonwealth waters in a marine reserve network that would be a shining example to the world of how to safeguard the future of marine resources and ecosystems. Of course, it took Labor to see that grand project through to completion. Let's remember that the Howard government committed $220 million to rationalise the Commonwealth fishing fleet more than a decade ago in the very waters that the Geelong Star now seeks to exploit. It is clear that the Australian public has invested time, effort and energy to ensure this country remains as a steward and guardian of our precious oceans. It is therefore no surprise that we are now seeing Australians reject the coalition's push to industrialise the oceans at every turn. Just months ago, the community furiously rejected government proposals to dump dredge spoil in the waters of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Needless to say, the government has attempted to take credit for not doing so. A year ago, Tony Abbott said the supertrawler was banned and it would stay banned, in making a policy announcement that was only likely to be effective in preventing about half a dozen specific fishing vessels from plying their damaging trade in our waters. Nowhere was there consideration about the value of the harvest weighed objectively against the value of this resource as a whole or of the loss involved when damage to the wider ecosystem's function and the wildlife it supports impacts on higher value commercial fisheries, tourism and recreational fishing activities. The truth is that the policy solution in this case is pretty simple. The correct, sensible and responsible policy is straightforward: enact a permanent ban on factory freezer trawling in the small pelagic fishery. Upon its election, the coalition suspended our Commonwealth marine reserve network, the marine parks that everyone in the community thought were finally complete and about to be established. It then announced a hand-picked review panel made up of fishing industry figures, scientific advocates of industrial fishing, and proponents of maximising harvest. It claimed to be refining the extensive consultation that had already been incredibly exhaustive and thorough, but in reality it appeared to be shutting out the voices of the wider community and, indeed, of the entire Australian scientific community that seeks to better understand, monitor and manage our biodiversity assets. Now the government is learning that a few donations from the fishing industry are not worth the electoral pain of turning away from the once proud legacy of marine conservation, and it is finding not only that the vast bulk of Australians are entirely comfortable with the idea of protecting our waters in marine parks and entirely supportive of the already established plans to achieve that protection but that, in fact, they insist upon it. So I hope the coalition government takes this opportunity to listen and to learn, to acknowledge that the coalition is far from united in its support for industrialising our oceans, and to simply enact the policies that are in line with what the Australian public rightly demand when it comes to our oceans, beaches, reefs and marine life. Australians want strong, effective, comprehensive protection of the oceans. They want the national marine network of reserves, and they want a permanent ban on the indiscriminate and wanton damage of industrial-scale trawlers. Productivity 188 20:20 Mr COLEMAN 241067 Banks I appreciate the opportunity to speak in this grievance debate this evening. I want to speak about an issue of great importance to our national economy and indeed to the local economy in my electorate of Banks, and that is productivity. There is no more important economic issue than productivity, and it is something that we frankly cannot talk about enough. I do have some grievances that I want to note in relation to the failure of the previous government in relation to this important policy area. It is important to reflect for a moment on what productivity is and why it is so important. It is a word that gets thrown around quite a lot, but as in all things it can be useful to take a step back and really examine the importance of the concept. Basically, productivity matters because it is in the long run the most important source of economic growth and wealth creation in society. By 'productivity', of course, we mean making things more effectively or producing services more effectively in a given amount of time so that in the same amount of time we produce more valuable goods or services. That is a really important concept, because other sources of national wealth, like changes in the terms of trade and increases in the participation rate in the workforce, come and go and tend to ebb and flow, but productivity gains lead to sustainable wealth creation. It is quite notable that there is a very simple chart in the budget overview papers in the recent federal budget which demonstrates that the substantial majority of all growth in GDP per capita, both historically and projected into the future, is in fact driven by labour productivity. So we can never talk enough about productivity. This government is incredibly focused on productivity-boosting measures. We help productivity growth by encouraging businesses to invest in smart ways in their business. The instant asset write-off, of course, means that businesses can be encouraged to go out there and make those expenditures on capital equipment that can help those businesses to run in a more efficient and more productive way. It also means a range of other things. It means environmental approvals. Some of our most value-added industries under the previous government were sadly tied up in all sorts of complex regulation. But, under the stewardship of the Minister for the Environment, some $1 trillion of high-value projects have been given the green light, with those environmental instances of green tape removed. It means many other things as well, including workforce retraining programs. We have the Restart program, which encourages employers to employ people over the age of 50, to get them back into the workforce. Of course, those employees have great skill and tend to be highly productive workers, and so encouraging them back into the workforce is entirely appropriate. I would spend some time, if I had more, going through the litany of failures of the previous government in this area, but perhaps we should just reflect on one or two of their more appalling current proposals. One is to hit hundreds of thousands of Australians with a new tax on superannuation. That sends precisely the wrong message to people in my electorate of Banks and around the nation, because it basically says, 'If you do the hard work, if you do the hard yards and if you save for retirement, the government is going to move the goalposts and increase the tax on you.' It is completely inappropriate and will have a negative impact on productivity if ever implemented. Of course, we have the notorious example of the carbon tax, which smashed household budgets and caused immense uncertainty in many of the most productive sectors of the economy. But productivity is important not only at a national level but locally, and there is nothing more important in my electorate of Banks, in the sense of building productivity, than the WestConnex project. This is a tremendous project, Mr Deputy Speaker Hawke, and I am sure that you wholeheartedly endorse it as a member for a Sydney electorate. The bottom line is that people will get places sooner. When people get places sooner, in a work context, it means they get more done. That is pretty much the definition of productivity. If you get places sooner, you spend less time doing unproductive things like sitting in the car maybe listening to the radio. You can do more work. If you can do more work in the same amount of time, that can only be a very positive thing for the local economy. The best advice from the traffic engineers is that the time to travel from Beverly Hills in my electorate to the city during peak hour will be as much as 20 minutes less, and that is a very substantial benefit. There are some areas where further work can be done. One that particularly concerns my electorate relates to the intersection of the M5 with Belmore Road in Riverwood. The situation at present is that it is possible to enter the M5 travelling in a westerly direction or to exit it if you are coming from the west, but you cannot enter the M5 if you want to travel towards the city, and you cannot exit there if you are coming from the city. That is the case even though the land is available for those on- and off-ramps to be built. Frankly, they should be built, because the lack of the on-ramps in an easterly direction is causing significant delays to people in suburbs of my electorate like Lugarno, Peakhurst, Riverwood and Narwee. People are forced to drive through lots of back roads in a fashion which frankly is just a waste of time. It does not enable them to get onto the M5 and get to where they are going quickly. I think it is very important that this issue be addressed. I believe that it should be addressed, and I will be working very hard to do so, because I know it will help to boost productivity in our area. I am certainly encouraging the state government to take the lead on that important issue. Another important issue that pertains to productivity in my electorate is the issue of telecommunications connectivity, and specifically mobile connectivity. There are a number of suburbs in my electorate where still, in 2015, we have great difficulty in accessing a decent mobile phone signal. This is not rural Queensland; this is right smack in the middle of Sydney. Suburbs like Connells Point and Kyle Bay have great difficulty in accessing a reliable cellular signal. The solution, of course, is for further infrastructure to be put in place. In recent months, I have spent quite some time meeting with telecommunications companies—Optus, Vodafone and Telstra—seeking to encourage them to address this very important local issue, which of course will have a very positive impact on productivity if addressed. There are many people in these suburbs who run small businesses from home and literally cannot receive a mobile telephone call. As you can imagine, that is a very difficult thing if you are trying to run a small business but nobody can call you on the mobile. I want to applaud the efforts of Vodafone and Optus. In my discussions with them, they have taken a constructive approach to this issue. I think those companies accept that more can be done to serve the residents of the Connells Point and Kyle Bay area. I know they are working on proposals at present to address this problem. Telstra—frankly—I would like to see do substantially more. The situation in Connells Point and Kyle Bay needs to be addressed and Telstra should step up and provide a better service to the residents of those areas. So productivity is extremely important, and no more so than in those important local issues in my electorate. Arts Funding 190 20:30 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON 8T4 Werriwa In this week, in which the screen producers have their annual pilgrimage to the parliament, conducting a number of events, it is perhaps appropriate to make some comments in regard to arts funding. Before turning to the broader national picture, I would note the reality of Sydney. Western Sydney has a population of two million people and is the third largest economy in the country. The New South Wales government's arts section, on its site, says: Western Sydney has an innovative arts and cultural sector, which is attracting new audiences and providing significant … opportunities. Despite that reality, only five-and-a-half per cent of New South Wales arts funding, and a mere one per cent of Commonwealth arts funding, goes to Western Sydney—an area which has produced organisations such as Penrith Performing and Visual Arts, the Riverside Theatres at Parramatta, Campbelltown Arts Centre, and the Casula Powerhouse; the latter two of which are in my electorate. The majority of the funding for these organisations, unfortunately, comes from local government. That funding so predominantly comes from local government is a total contrast to inner city arts institutions. Kiersten Fishburn, the Director of Community and Culture at Casula Powerhouse, said in February this year that there needed to be a substantial increase in arts funding for Western Sydney for artists in the area to get by and that the underfunding means fewer local artists get to participate, leading to a lack of diversity in the Australian arts scene. Her institution holds the largest theatre in south-west Sydney but due to a lack of funding it has been unable to host a significant number of productions. While detractors say there is no audience for them, there are no resources for marketing, making it difficult to get word out. Riverside, of course, has in recent years played a major role in arts culture in the city as a whole—the Sydney Festival itself has events there—and has a significant number of operations that gain large crowds. But I want to turn to the broader national front in which to look at this appalling funding of Western Sydney. While the current minister, the Attorney-General, sees himself as some modern-day Lorenzo de Medici, sponsoring contemporary Botticellis and Michelangelos and people to perhaps paint Sistine chapels, the reality is that he is very much a failure in regards to standing up for the arts sector. I constantly see unfavourable comparisons to the previous arts minister, Rod Kemp, who was beloved by the sector for actually accomplishing outcomes and standing by the sector. The current minister, despite his pretensions in the arts field, has belaboured a major cutback in funding. In the 2014 budget he accomplished arts funding reductions of $100 million over a four-year period. The reshaped Australia Council was given a new directive with its 28 million share of cuts delivered with ministerial override that preserved funding for 28 major performing arts companies such as Opera Australia, the Australian Ballet, the capital city theatre companies and state orchestras. He essentially decided—this minister—that he was particularly favourable towards those institutions, and their funding would be preserved, while significant cutbacks occurred in the broader arts sector. An additional one million was devoted to the Australian Ballet School. The largest single cut was 38 million from Screen Australia's funding. The government's cuts disproportionately hit filmmakers, visual artists, writers and small arts companies, maintaining or increasing funding for the traditional established arts. The minister told The Australian in June 2014, 'I'm more interested in funding arts companies that cater to the great audiences that want to see quality drama, music or dance, than I am in subsidising individual artists responsible only to themselves,' showing an elitist admiration for 'high culture'. The reality is that those people do indeed often require this state/taxpayer funded support to survive. He is essentially accomplishing a narrowing of options in Australian society and a narrowing of output and making political decisions that are in tune with his own preferences. This broad national attack on arts funding is far worse in regions such as Western Sydney that are deprived of their fair share under the current provisions. However, he is not alone on the conservative side of politics in attacking the arts sector. The Queensland Newman government cut funding by 16 per cent from 2011-12 to 2012-13, with small and medium sized arts organisations bearing the brunt again. This takes into account a $300,000 grant to the Queensland Ballet. In New South Wales, despite the fact that their website says that Western Sydney has a vibrant, innovative arts sector and is doing so much, that, for some reason, did not stop them accomplishing a massive 29 per cent cut over the same period. This year's budget saw the diversion of $104.7 million over four years from the Australia Council—approximately 15 per cent of its total budget—to fund his new brainchild, the National Programme for Excellence in the Arts, to be administered totally by the minister himself. This moves decisions about which cultural institutions do or do not receive funding from an independent body to the arts minister, bucking the long-term trend of arts funding being based on independence and peer review, which is where it should be decided. I might be very impressed to read in the social pages that he and Tim Walker were at the Opera in the Domain. I might be very impressed by his attendance at these events. But, quite frankly, the politicisation of this portfolio to basically prescribe which directions he personally would like to see things going is to be deplored when compared to an organisation where the peers in the industry—the people who actually have expertise, the people who go and see a broader range of events and who have got a background in it—were making these decisions. I want to now turn to some of the outcomes of this performance. We saw that the MEAA called for George Brandis to reverse all of last year's cuts to the arts sector. That was signed by artists, writers, publishers, editors, theatre makers, actors, dancers and thinkers in this country. Some 10,000 signatories mobilised themselves, including Thomas Keneally, Peter Carey, Christos Tsiolkas, Robert Manne, JM Coetzee, Di Morrissey, Neil Armfield and Tim Winton—all internationally recognised people in support of Australian culture saying that they thought that these cuts were extremely worrisome. Cate Blanchett referred to the cuts as 'very short-sighted', adding: It's not only a potent industry that feeds Australia at home but culture generally, for any nation, is a piece of soft diplomacy. It's a way that we understand the way the mind of a country works. Geordie Brookman, the artist director of the State Theatre Company of South Australia compared the Australian arts community to an ecology where damaging one section damages everything. He added that the independent and small to medium sectors of the arts were not merely a 'training ground' but essential to the arts community. The previous government, which I heard the member for Banks deriding on other fronts, established funding of $20 million over three years for video game creators—a bit contemporary, a bit too radical, a bit out of the box for the current minister. This was cut by him by 50 per cent to just $10 million in the budget, deeply hurting a fledgling industry, and $25 million was cut from film and $2½ million was cut from online platforms. This is the future. These very sectors that the previous government sought to finance, to support and to nurture were those that he attacked in a very strenuous way. Likewise, Screen Australia had cuts of $2½ million from their online production platforms, together showing the government cutting two art sources that are most likely to attract and draw in young people. Screen Producers Australia has expressed concern that, given the effects of budget cuts to Screen Australia, the ABC and SBS, the government needs to secure and provide certainty of maintaining local content regulation. In conclusion, we are in a country where Western Sydney, with 2 million people, gets only one per cent of the national budget for the arts. It is a reality where these institutions that he is making sure will get the preference are already highly financed. They are historic, they have the advantage of establishment and they have the advantage of professionalism. These are supported at the expense of new and innovative fields of the arts, these are supported at the expense of struggling companies in south-west and western Sydney and these are supported because they are the preference of this minister. The politicisation of arts in regards to funding this year is to be completely deplored. We do not need a person who is a self-styled expert in this field going beyond his training and beyond his real knowledge to basically politicise and control this area. McMillan Electorate: Infrastructure, Early Childhood Education 191 20:40 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan The Liberal-National coalition government has carefully crafted a budget that is putting money back into real communities, as exampled in my own electorate of McMillan. This is a budget that is all about the health and wellbeing of our rural communities, with the incentives for small business operators, immediate relief for farmers, the upgrading of fences, spending increases for council roads and repairs to essential bridges that is so important. Among the most important budget funded projects for my electorate of McMillan are the $5.2 million for Karmai Community Children's Centre at Korumburra and the $5.12 million for the Leongatha heavy vehicle alternative route—among other projects, which we can come to at another time. Both of these projects have been championed by local people who knew things could always be better in the place where they live, work and play. These two essential big-ticket items for local communities will have major financial and social benefits in their respective areas. Importantly, they have the full backing of their communities—councils and the broader community—because both started with a groundswell of support from within. Both projects reflect the heart and soul of what the communities needed. It is gratifying, as a local federal member, to see them delivered. As the two central figures behind the Karmai Community Children's Centre, Rebecca Marriott and Bronwyn Beach will tell you that the greatest gift a child can receive is in education. That is especially true of early education, which is championed across the nation. We are saying increasingly that education starts at what we once called preschool. According to a study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, students who attended preschool for one year or more scored more than 30 points higher in reading than those who did not. Simile, the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research found that attendance at preschool had significant positive effects on later NAPLAN outcomes, equivalent to 10 to 20 NAPLAN points or 50 to 20 weeks of schooling at a year 3 level. Rebecca and Bronwyn dreamed a big dream. They dreamed it on behalf the children, the parents, themselves and the community. They swept others up in their dream, including me, along the way. This visionary project will be much more than a childcare centre. Seven years ago, the waiting lists for childcare places in Korumburra stretched to 50 or more. Something bigger and better was needed. South Gippsland Shire Council, to its credit, has backed this project at every opportunity, providing more than $2 million in capital and providing the land for the centre's site. The project also had the backing of the Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Community Child Care Victoria and the former state government, which gave $1.6 million—thank you, Peter Ryan—and the now federal government, which has pledged $1.6 million to the project. It was never a community to wait for government aid. Korumburra, in its true tradition, has raised $100,000 towards the project. In a town of less than 5,000 people, that is a remarkable amount of money. It is a true reflection of just how much value locals put on this children's centre. Speaking of that, the project ticks all the boxes. Not only will it be a shot in the arm for local businesses in the Korumburra region, employing countless tradespeople and boosting the fortunes of local traders, but it will also provide a lasting and vital service to the community. The centre will provide child care and kindergarten, as well as maternal and child healthcare services. There will be a meeting room in the centre, as well as consulting suites. Plans are well under way to secure the services of speech therapists and occupational therapists. There may even be after-hours services directed towards alleviating, sadly, family violence. Down the road at Leongatha, the safety of pedestrians, the difficulty in parking and the detrimental impact on business have long been an issue, because of the heavy volume of traffic along the main street, Bear Street—a link from the bustling South Gippsland Highway, a vital freight and tourist route between Melbourne and south-eastern Victoria. Shoppers and businesspeople have often said they would like to see improved parking and shopping amenities within the township. Providing an alternate route was seen by South Gippsland Shire Council as an important way to achieve this aim. The Leongatha alternate route will mean a safer town, a more productive town—a town where there are more shoppers than trucks. In fact people will come first rather than B-doubles. You, Deputy Speaker Scott, know the changes in trucking in Victoria as they are affecting small communities. These local budget initiatives deserve to be commended. They are an investment in our present and our future. While I have the time, a group of people came to see me in my office here in Canberra. They were worried about children too. They were people who are living in the remotest parts of Australia—mostly farmers. What we have done as a community is say, 'Look, early childhood education as has been pointed out by this capital project in Korumburra as extremely important to us, so we're putting children up there in early childhood education and right across the board.' From the seat of Werriwa, Macmillan—everybody is getting up and saying, 'Early education is important. Early education. Early education—the sooner you can get to the kids and how important it is.' How come there are 263 kids in rural Australia that are on farms, under five years of age and we make a huge fuss about making sure a child in the city gets the opportunity for early childhood education—and we subsidise it? But there are more than 263 children across remote Australia who do not get the subsidy. Do we say as a community: 'Look. They're farmers' kids. Why would we give them early childhood education?' I am saying to you: we should be giving early childhood education funding for remote children in remote communities, because they are equal. They should not be discriminated against for living either in a regional centre or a city centre. Why is it that we as a government, as a parliament and as a community are not prepared to allow the funds from the Australian government—the cost will be $1 million? The point we are making is that those regional and very, very remote students are equally as important to us. Deputy Speaker, I am acutely talking about residents in your electorate; I am not talking about residents in my electorate. You know who I am talking about and you know who the ladies are who came to see me. You know how determined they are. They said, 'Mr Broadbent, we haven't got a champion in the building.' I said, 'Actually, you've got a lot of champions in the building when it comes to discriminating against anyone who is not getting a fair rap of the parcel that we are prepared to give to a city child.' I am saying to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, you might like to take that up with your party. I am saying to the member for Werriwa: you might like to take that up with your party—who are these 263 kids who are not getting the same funding that city kids get that they should also get? That is the only point that I make. As for Korumburra and Leongatha, both of these projects are important facilities—infrastructure for small communities. We used to be very wealthy in those areas, and the communities' facilities have actually changed. When I say they have changed, I said to you before: the size of the trucks coming through the communities now were unheard of when we built these townships and laid them out. Particularly in Leongatha you come to a T-intersection. You have to do a right-hand turn where you cannot see from the left on the South Gippsland Highway to turn up to a roundabout where people are coming off the roundabout towards you to do a left-hand to go down to Murray Goulburn. Or you go up to the roundabout and down Bear Street to go out to the Prom or any other tourist destination. This is an important change for what we are doing in Leongatha but, more importantly, it will take all of the trucks and all of the busy traffic around Long Street, out of Leongatha and it will be much safer for you and I and everybody else when we visit Leongatha in that main street. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to put these matters before the parliament. Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 193 ADJOURNMENT 20:50 Mr BROADBENT MT4 McMillan I move: That the Federation Chamber do now adjourn. Question agreed to. Federation Chamber adjourned at 20:50   QUESTIONS IN WRITING 194 QUESTIONS IN WRITING Cadbury Factory Upgrade (Question No. 545) 194 545 Mr Albanese R36 asked the Prime Minister in writing on 21 October 2014: Does he stand by his statement on 28 August 2013 to (a) contribute $16 million towards a $66 million upgrade of the Cadbury Visitor Centre in Claremont, Tasmania, to (i) boost innovation, (ii) support growth in local manufacturing jobs, and (iii) expand tourism, (b) help create 200 new jobs and 120 indirect jobs by 2017, and (c) help secure 600 existing direct jobs and 340 existing indirect jobs. Mr Abbott EZ5 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I refer you to the Minister for Trade and Investment's media release of 5 March 2015. I also refer you to 2015-16 Budget Paper No 2 which outlines that the $16 million will be redirected to fund other priorities in Tasmania. Rail Infrastructure Expenditure (Question No. 695) 194 695 Ms McGowan 123674 asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 9 February 2015: (1) What sum has the Government spent on rail infrastructure since 1 July 2009. (2) What is the projected expenditure for all rail programs in 2014-15. Mr Truss GT4 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Since 1 July 2009 the Australian Government has spent $6.8 billion on rail infrastructure. (2) The Australian Government has committed to spend $740 million for rail programs in 2014-15. Infrastructure Australia (Question No. 717) 194 717 Mr Albanese R36 asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development, in writing, on 11 February 2015: (1) What infrastructure proposals were evaluated by Infrastructure Australia in the December 2014 quarter. (2) For each proposal evaluated in the December 2014 quarter, (a) what is its name, (b) is it for a transport, energy, water or communications project, (c) is it classified as 'investment in, or enhancement to, nationally significant infrastructure', (d) to what states and/or territories does it relate, (e) which state or territory government lodged it; if neither, who lodged it, (f) what is its capital value, (g) what sum of Commonwealth funding is sought, and (h) is there an Infrastructure Australia assessed benefit-cost ratio; if so, what is it. (3) Why has a summary of each infrastructure proposal evaluated by Infrastructure Australia in the December 2014 quarter not been published on the Infrastructure Australia website, as required by section 5A(4) of the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008. Mr Truss GT4 The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) CityLink-Tullamarine Widening Project WestConnex; and Tasmanian Irrigation Tranche Two (2) CityLink-Tullamarine Widening Project (a) CityLink-Tullamarine Widening Project (b) Transport (c) Yes (d) Victoria (e) Victorian Government (f) The proponent's capital cost estimate is $1,127m (g) $250 million (h) The proponent's estimated Benefit Cost Ratio for the project is 4.5:1. WestConnex (a) WestConnex (b) Transport (c) Yes (d) NSW (e) NSW Government (f) The proponent's capital cost estimate is approximately $15 billion (P50) (g) $1,500m grant provided for Stage 1; $2,000m loan for Stage 2 (h) The proponent's estimated Benefit Cost Ratio for the project is 1.8:1 (excluding wider economic benefits). Tasmanian Irrigation Tranche Two (a) Just add water…(An Innovation Strategy for Tasmania: Focus on Food Bowl Concept) - Tranche Two Irrigation Scheme (b) Water (c) Yes (d) Tasmania (e) Tasmanian Government (f) The proponent's capital cost estimate is $193m (g) $110m (h) The proponent's estimated Benefit Cost Ratio for the project is 1.5:1 (3) Summaries of Infrastructure Australia's evaluation of the City Link-Tullamarine Widening, WestConnex, and Tasmanian Irrigation Tranche Two projects have been published on the Infrastructure Australia website in accordance with the Infrastructure Australia Act. The summaries can be downloaded from: http://www.infrastructureaustralia.gov.au/projects/ Consent of the Birth Mother (Question No. 757) 195 757 Ms MacTiernan L6P asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 12 May 2015: Does her department take steps to ensure the consent of the birth mother is obtained before a child born overseas and granted Australian citizenship by paternal descent is permitted to be taken into Australia; if so, what are those steps. Ms Julie Bishop 83P The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes. Under the Australian Passports Act 2005, the Minister must not issue a passport to a child unless each person who has parental responsibility for the child has given their consent. Under Australian law, the birth mother is a person who has parental responsibility for the child. As part of the passport application, all persons with parental responsibility for the child must provide their written consent. Yetimo Marketing Pty Ltd (Question No. 793) 195 793 Mr Conroy 249127 asked the Minister for Social Services, in writing, on 12 May 2015: In respect of the $10,507.75 tender to Yetimo Marketing Pty Ltd (CN3007872), (a) what specific merchandise will be supplied, (b) what is the merchandise promoting, and (c) who approved the purchasing of the merchandise. Mr Morrison E3L The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The specific merchandise supplied under this contract were 50 waterproof jackets and 200 polo shirts with "Footprints in Time" (the Longitudinal Study of Indigenous Children) branding. (b) The merchandise is promoting the Longitudinal Study of Indigenous Children for the purpose of providing to participants as incentives to complete the surveys. (c) The merchandise was approved by Mr Brett Galt-Smith, Director, Longitudinal Study of Indigenous Children, Department of Social Services.